Acer’s CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Greg House, Jul 24, 2007.

  1. Greg House

    Greg House Guest

    "The entire industry is disappointed by Windows Vista," the head of the world's fourth-biggest PC
    maker told the Financial Times Deutschland in its online edition on Monday. Never before had a new
    version of Windows done so little to boost PC sales. "And that's not going to change in the second
    half of this year," Lanci said.





    http://www.physorg.com/news104405791.html
    Greg House, Jul 24, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Greg House

    Guest

    Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    On Jul 25, 10:01 am, Greg House
    < wrote:
    > "The entire industry is disappointed by Windows Vista," the head of the world's fourth-biggest PC
    > maker told the Financial Times Deutschland in its online edition on Monday. Never before had a new
    > version of Windows done so little to boost PC sales. "And that's not going to change in the second
    > half of this year," Lanci said.
    >
    > http://www.physorg.com/news104405791.html


    XP was crap when it first came out wasn't it?
    , Jul 25, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Greg House

    Gordon Guest

    Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:20:00 -0700, paul.anthony.ward wrote:

    > On Jul 25, 10:01 am, Greg House
    > < wrote:
    >> "The entire industry is disappointed by Windows Vista," the head of the
    >> world's fourth-biggest PC maker told the Financial Times Deutschland in
    >> its online edition on Monday. Never before had a new version of Windows
    >> done so little to boost PC sales. "And that's not going to change in
    >> the second half of this year," Lanci said.
    >>
    >> http://www.physorg.com/news104405791.html

    >
    > XP was crap when it first came out wasn't it?


    No. While there were a few glitches, people generally agreed it was one
    of hell better than 98.
    Gordon, Jul 25, 2007
    #3
  4. Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    In message <>,
    wrote:

    > XP was crap when it first came out wasn't it?


    I remember Steve Ballmer saying his kids were able to crash Windows 2000 all
    the time, but they couldn't crash XP, so that proved how much better it
    was.

    When Windows 2000 came out, Microsoft quoted a study that the previous
    version of Windows NT, namely NT 4.0, had an average uptime of about 3 days
    between reboots, while 2000 was able to stay up for a month at a time.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 25, 2007
    #4
  5. Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    On Jul 24, 11:47 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    <snip>
    > When Windows 2000 came out, Microsoft quoted a study that the previous
    > version of Windows NT, namely NT 4.0, had an average uptime of about 3 days
    > between reboots, while 2000 was able to stay up for a month at a time.


    Well that sounds like complete BS to me

    Can we please see the study to read more about it?

    I recall seeing heaps of NT4 systems with far higher up time than
    that, for it to be an average of 3 days I suspect the sample size is
    extremely small and skewed or systems were continually rebooting or
    the study and its methodolody is FUD

    Thanks
    Nathan
    Nathan Mercer, Jul 25, 2007
    #5
  6. Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    In message <>, Nathan
    Mercer wrote:

    > On Jul 24, 11:47 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > <snip>
    >> When Windows 2000 came out, Microsoft quoted a study that the previous
    >> version of Windows NT, namely NT 4.0, had an average uptime of about 3
    >> days between reboots, while 2000 was able to stay up for a month at a
    >> time.

    >
    > Well that sounds like complete BS to me


    Certainly does to me too, yet here's a report quoting somebody called Bill
    Gates
    <http://news.com.com/Gates+unveils+Windows+2000+amid+fanfare/2100-1001_3-237048.html?tag=item>.
    It's even more extreme than the figures I stated above:

    [Gates] cited a recent study that showed that a Windows 95 system needed
    to be rebooted every two days and a Windows NT system every five days,
    while the new Windows 2000 kept running without crashing after 90 days.

    > I recall seeing heaps of NT4 systems with far higher up time than
    > that, for it to be an average of 3 days I suspect the sample size is
    > extremely small and skewed or systems were continually rebooting or
    > the study and its methodolody is FUD


    No disagreement there.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 25, 2007
    #6
  7. Greg House

    Jerry Guest

    Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <>,
    > wrote:
    >
    >> XP was crap when it first came out wasn't it?

    >
    > I remember Steve Ballmer saying his kids were able to crash Windows 2000 all
    > the time, but they couldn't crash XP, so that proved how much better it
    > was.
    >
    > When Windows 2000 came out, Microsoft quoted a study that the previous
    > version of Windows NT, namely NT 4.0, had an average uptime of about 3 days
    > between reboots, while 2000 was able to stay up for a month at a time.


    I don't believe that. I've worked on a lot of NT4 systems and there was
    seldom a need to re-boot. Some systems were up for years.
    Jerry, Jul 25, 2007
    #7
  8. Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:f86rhc$1om$...
    > In message <>,
    > wrote:
    >
    >> XP was crap when it first came out wasn't it?

    >
    > I remember Steve Ballmer saying his kids were able to crash Windows 2000
    > all
    > the time, but they couldn't crash XP, so that proved how much better it
    > was.
    >
    > When Windows 2000 came out, Microsoft quoted a study that the previous
    > version of Windows NT, namely NT 4.0, had an average uptime of about 3
    > days
    > between reboots, while 2000 was able to stay up for a month at a time.


    Complete crap. I serviced numerous schools and businesses using NT4 and
    2000.
    They'd often had up to 2 years of uptime when I visited, and the usual cause
    of a reboot was hardware and software upgrades.
    In fact in the 15 odd years I've been servicing said machines the only ones
    that were as unreliable as claimed had faulty hardware.

    J&H.
    Jekyll and Hyde, Jul 25, 2007
    #8
  9. Greg House

    EMB Guest

    Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    Jekyll and Hyde wrote:

    >
    > Complete crap. I serviced numerous schools and businesses using NT4 and
    > 2000.
    > They'd often had up to 2 years of uptime when I visited, and the usual cause
    > of a reboot was hardware and software upgrades.
    > In fact in the 15 odd years I've been servicing said machines the only ones
    > that were as unreliable as claimed had faulty hardware.


    Agreed. The average uptime of the Windows 2000 servers I look after is
    around 6 months and even that reflects reboots for upgrades (my Windows
    2000 mailserver had been running for 304 days before I rebooted it last
    week). A couple of legacy NT4 data acquisition systems I (supposedly)
    support have current uptimes of well over 12 months.
    EMB, Jul 25, 2007
    #9
  10. Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:54:36 +1200, EMB wrote:

    >> Complete crap. I serviced numerous schools and businesses using NT4 and
    >> 2000.
    >> They'd often had up to 2 years of uptime when I visited, and the usual
    >> cause of a reboot was hardware and software upgrades. In fact in the 15
    >> odd years I've been servicing said machines the only ones that were as
    >> unreliable as claimed had faulty hardware.


    'Doze boxes with uptimes of 2 years??

    That strongly suggests that they were not being patched and updated -
    because the majority of patches and updates to 'doze boxes requires the
    whole system to be re-booted.


    > Agreed. The average uptime of the Windows 2000 servers I look after is
    > around 6 months and even that reflects reboots for upgrades (my Windows
    > 2000 mailserver had been running for 304 days before I rebooted it last
    > week). A couple of legacy NT4 data acquisition systems I (supposedly)
    > support have current uptimes of well over 12 months.


    Large uptimes on NT4 boxes are possible because M$ no longer supports
    them, and there are no longer any updates being made available without
    having first forked over hideously large amounts of cash for a special
    support contract.

    The *only* times I need to restart my server is for safety reasons when
    there is a thunder storm - I physically disconnect all electrical
    appliances except the fridge - or if I need to patch the kernel.

    Nothing else requires a restart of the OS.

    However, M$ thinks differently on that, and patching a web browser
    requires a complete restart of the OS.

    What a joke!


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "You'll have to excuse me — I have a long
    bath and a short dress to get into."
    Jonathan Walker, Jul 25, 2007
    #10
  11. Greg House

    E. Scrooge Guest

    Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Jul 25, 10:01 am, Greg House
    > < wrote:
    >> "The entire industry is disappointed by Windows Vista," the head of the
    >> world's fourth-biggest PC
    >> maker told the Financial Times Deutschland in its online edition on
    >> Monday. Never before had a new
    >> version of Windows done so little to boost PC sales. "And that's not
    >> going to change in the second
    >> half of this year," Lanci said.
    >>
    >> http://www.physorg.com/news104405791.html

    >
    > XP was crap when it first came out wasn't it?


    According to the W98 expert at the time.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, Jul 26, 2007
    #11
  12. Greg House

    Dave Taylor Guest

    Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    Jonathan Walker <> wrote in news:46a7a0d1
    @clear.net.nz:

    >
    > That strongly suggests that they were not being patched and updated -
    > because the majority of patches and updates to 'doze boxes requires the
    > whole system to be re-booted.


    Maybe they are protected from the risks that the patches address and
    therefore do not need patching?

    --
    Ciao, Dave
    Dave Taylor, Jul 26, 2007
    #12
  13. Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    In message <Xns9979D4720843Adaveytaynospamplshot@203.97.37.6>, Dave Taylor
    wrote:

    > Jonathan Walker <> wrote in news:46a7a0d1
    > @clear.net.nz:
    >
    >> That strongly suggests that they were not being patched and updated -
    >> because the majority of patches and updates to 'doze boxes requires the
    >> whole system to be re-booted.

    >
    > Maybe they are protected from the risks that the patches address and
    > therefore do not need patching?


    How would they be protected, if not with the patches?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 26, 2007
    #13
  14. Greg House

    Dave Taylor Guest

    Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote in news:f89og3
    $94s$:

    > How would they be protected, if not with the patches?


    Lots of methods, as you already know, (why am I responding to troll bait?),
    anyways, there is tripwire, eeye.com, and exploits against ports, for
    instance, just off the top of my head ungoogled. Maybe the servers have
    sanitized inputs and don't expose vulnerable ports or services. Maybe the
    servers have some kind of checking system that validate the binaries? I
    don't know and I don't care, I am just saying that there are many ways to
    secure systems, and they don't always involve patches for the sake of
    bloody patches.

    --
    Ciao, Dave
    Dave Taylor, Jul 26, 2007
    #14
  15. Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:53:01 +1200, Dave Taylor wrote:

    >> That strongly suggests that they were not being patched and updated -
    >> because the majority of patches and updates to 'doze boxes requires the
    >> whole system to be re-booted.

    >
    > Maybe they are protected from the risks that the patches address and
    > therefore do not need patching?


    That's one way of looking at it. :eek:)


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "You'll have to excuse me — I have a long
    bath and a short dress to get into."
    Jonathan Walker, Jul 26, 2007
    #15
  16. Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    In message <Xns9979DD67F65DAdaveytaynospamplshot@203.97.37.6>, Dave Taylor
    wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote in
    > news:f89og3 $94s$:
    >
    >> In message <Xns9979D4720843Adaveytaynospamplshot@203.97.37.6>, Dave
    >> Taylor wrote:
    >>
    >>> Jonathan Walker <> wrote in news:46a7a0d1
    >>> @clear.net.nz:
    >>>
    >>>> That strongly suggests that they were not being patched and updated -
    >>>> because the majority of patches and updates to 'doze boxes requires the
    >>>> whole system to be re-booted.
    >>>
    >>> Maybe they are protected from the risks that the patches address and
    >>> therefore do not need patching?

    >>
    >> How would they be protected, if not with the patches?

    >
    > Lots of methods, as you already know, (why am I responding to troll
    > bait?), anyways, there is tripwire, eeye.com, and exploits against ports,
    > for instance, just off the top of my head ungoogled. Maybe the servers
    > have sanitized inputs and don't expose vulnerable ports or services.
    > Maybe the servers have some kind of checking system that validate the
    > binaries?


    You would rely on those _instead of_ patching, rather than _in addition to_
    patching? I mean, seriously?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 27, 2007
    #16
  17. Greg House

    Dave Taylor Guest

    Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote in
    news:f8cenf$2ht$:

    > You would rely on those _instead of_ patching, rather than _in
    > addition to_ patching? I mean, seriously?


    I have had a patch break a production system, so yes, in some cases.

    --
    Ciao, Dave
    Dave Taylor, Jul 27, 2007
    #17
  18. Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    Gordon wrote:

    > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:20:00 -0700, paul.anthony.ward wrote:
    >
    > > On Jul 25, 10:01 am, Greg House
    > > < wrote:
    > >> "The entire industry is disappointed by Windows Vista," the head of the
    > >> world's fourth-biggest PC maker told the Financial Times Deutschland in
    > >> its online edition on Monday. Never before had a new version of Windows
    > >> done so little to boost PC sales. "And that's not going to change in
    > >> the second half of this year," Lanci said.
    > >>
    > >> http://www.physorg.com/news104405791.html

    > >
    > > XP was crap when it first came out wasn't it?

    >
    > No. While there were a few glitches, people generally agreed it was one
    > of hell better than 98.



    The point is what Greg House = Roger was saying at the time.
    No matter what people generally agreed, Roger was saying this:

    -----BEGIN QUOTE-----

    WIN 98se is still the best..

    So say sorry as you are all wrong again..

    This is not a Old Article so no excuses that it was a Beta version of XP.

    Mind you I have always thought that the XP was still Alpha, as why the need
    for 1/2 a CD full of fixes..

    -----END QUOTE-----


    --
    Kerrie ;-)
    Kerrie Felderton, Jul 27, 2007
    #18
  19. Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:35:09 +1200, Dave Taylor wrote:

    > I have had a patch break a production system, so yes, in some cases.


    That is why you have a UAT environment - roll out the patch into UAT prior
    to putting it into production.


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "You'll have to excuse me — I have a long
    bath and a short dress to get into."
    Jonathan Walker, Jul 29, 2007
    #19
  20. Greg House

    Dave Taylor Guest

    Re: Acer's CEO Says Industry Disappointed With Vista

    Jonathan Walker <> wrote in
    news:46ac3104$:

    > That is why you have a UAT environment - roll out the patch into UAT
    > prior to putting it into production.
    >


    In a perfect world... I agree it is a high priority to have a test
    environment, and products like VMWare help, but many times your test
    environment is backups to roll back to.
    --
    Ciao, Dave
    Dave Taylor, Jul 29, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Unknown User
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,213
    Kevin Wu Won
    Apr 26, 2005
  2. Bobby Fischler
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,874
    Bobby Fischler
    Jul 24, 2004
  3. J
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    457
    secret squiddle
    Apr 22, 2005
  4. RiceHigh

    A letter to the CEO of Pentax Corporation

    RiceHigh, Jan 19, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    476
    Craig M. Bobchin
    Jan 23, 2006
  5. RichA

    new RIM ceo sounds as useless as the UK Kodak CEO

    RichA, Jan 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    300
    Bruce
    Jan 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page