FWIW So do I.
Roll on SP2.
Joel recommends sticking with XP
FWIW So do I.
Roll on SP2.
I think it's common sense to stick to an older version till the teething troubles in a newer version are fixed. It holds good for any product.
He probably right about the features not justifying the headaches. I'm still not running into headaches, but I'm using it for gaming and visual studio and that's about it.
> I think it's common sense to stick to an older version
Even when that new version was like a century in the making? Isn't it strange for something so long in the oven to be undercooked?
>It holds good for any product.
The day XP came out, it was an very recommended upgrade over Windows Me.
There wasn't much crying for Windows Me.
Of course for business users there's usually a static, slow moving IT department, and you naturally need to hold off upgrading until their process catches up.
> Even when that new version was like a century in the making?
No. Not at all. That's why I mentioned 'till the teething troubles in a newer version are fixed.' Naturally, I wouldn't use Windows 3.1 now. Or even Windows 95. But I wouldn't use Vista either.
We can either wait for a certain period or certain number of hotfixes or service packs. Or base the waiting period on any parameter, instead of jumping in and buying a new version.
Is there not a certain benefit, specifically as an IT professional, in early adoption?
I feel like that is being somewhat neglected since this is here and not on joeusersforum.com.
The IT people I know have adopted a "wait until the first service pack" policy.
April 26th, 2007 12:14pm
And I can understand that in environments where it justified with critical need for uptime. But for IT professional's home machines?
I didn't mean it as a rhetorical question though. The learning curve for an OS isn't something I find particularly steep. I just have found that by sucking up some of the minor hassles involved with early adoption that it helps because you know more about it than everyone else once the kinks are ironed out.
There was a time when everyone involved in technology rushed to install pre-alpha versions of every Microsoft product.
Now? Meh. It just doesn't matter that much, and despite some noise and bluster from the few cheerleaders, it just doesn't matter that much anymore.
Hmm, maybe a little self-delusion in my thinking that was a good reason for me to do it then.
Personally, I avoid new OS releases until at LEAST SP2.
My wife used to think I was silly to do this. Then she bought that PC with Windows ME on it.
We don't argue about THIS issue any more...
"Personally, I avoid new OS releases until at LEAST SP2."
A silly consistency... [grin]
XP was fine after SP1. NT4 really wasn't any good until SP3. I would suggest a policy of waiting until you're hearing generally good reviews about it, possibly coupled with trying it out on one machine (if you have multiple boxes).
But the "I'll wait until SPx" thing is stupid.
April 26th, 2007 2:58pm
Hey! Don't call me stupid.
But you're right, "I always wait until I hear positive reviews" sounds much less luddite. Thanks.
Heh I think with Vista you'd be waiting quite awhile.
I am thinking I read there will be no 'service packs' for it.
>>It holds good for any product.
>The day XP came out, it was an very recommended upgrade over Windows Me.
>There wasn't much crying for Windows Me.
That's cause Windows 2000 Pro was pretty good...?
I went straight from 2000Pro to XPPro. I guess I'll be doing the same with vista ultimate (despite the dumb name).