Westminster politicos told to grasp Vista nettle

MPs hoping to have their House of Commons' computers upgraded to Microsoft's Windows 7 OS were hit with a nasty Vista setback last week. Westminster's IT support team, AKA the Parliamentary Information and Communication Technology (PICT) service, has decided to go completely against the trend of businesses and organisations …

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong question

Strike out

and for what reason Windows Vista is being installed on such computers?

Insert

and for what reason Windows is being installed on such computers?

There, fixed it for you.

[David Arno]

There is no viable alternative

That's an easy question to answer: it's because there is no viable alternative to Windows. OS X is tied to Apple machines and thus too expensive and Linux is only of use to die-hard command-line using geeks, not technically clueless MPs.

[Graham Dawson]

@David Arno

1996 called, they want their opinions back.

[Rob]

Tell 1996...

... we need to hang onto them a little while longer.

[Gulfie]

Since when was expense...

... a reason for not taking a particular route for our lords and masters?

Actually it sounds like an artificial deadline of the next election has been set. Wouldn't it be cheaper to pay Microsoft to extend support for another six months while a Windows 7 build is finalised?

Of course that would stop Microsoft double-dipping into the Government coffers - maybe herein lies the answer: the (soon to be ex) minster that approves the Vista-then-7 upgrade path gets a directorship at Microsoft for Christmas...

[nematoad]

Not that old chestnut, again

@ David Arno

When was the last time you looked at Linux, if ever?

I gave a Mandriva box to my computer illiterate sister a couple of months ago, apart from saying "Where's the start button?" she took to it like a duck to water. Another thing, I don't suppose that MPs will be installing Linux themselves, although that is now much easier than it was and even easier than MS Windows. Also why should we be wasting OUR money propping up a convicted monopolist?

[David Arno]

@nematoad

I have both solaris and ubuntu VMs on my WIndows 7 machine that I regularly use. Command line use is essential for both solaris and ubuntu. It is very rarely required for WIndows 7. Whilst VMWare Workstation does an excellent job of configuring the initial install of ubuntu, I got as far as needing to install the Java SDK before I had to resort to the command line for example.

As a developer with experience of both unix and windows, I have no beef with the former. My OS of choice is governed primarily by the investment in tools that I've made, rather than any silly claims of one being better than the other. However Linux remains years off of being a suitable OS for non-technical folk that don't have a pet geek at their support beck and call. To claim that Linux is a viable alternative to Windows for the average user is ridiculous.

[jake]

@David Arno

"However Linux remains years off of being a suitable OS for non-technical folk that don't have a pet geek at their support beck and call. To claim that Linux is a viable alternative to Windows for the average user is ridiculous."

Your opinion is based on outdated data. Or a false sense of superiority.

After setting up Mom & the Great Aunt with their versions of Slackware, support calls from them dropped from 4 or 6 a month to none[1]. Likewise, my Wife never asks me for help when she boots into the Slackware partition on her PC. In fact, the Wife can't remember the last time she booted into XP. The kids in the observation/break room in the barn happily use one of the Slackware machines to update their Facetube junk. I didn't even have to teach them how, beyond let 'em know what the guest login account name+password were. Seems Firefox is Firefox ...

How about this ... Instead of continuing your ridiculously ignorant screed, why not use your ever-so superior technical ability and ask yourself "How would I go about setting up a Linux box for me DearOldMum, so she never had to call for help?". Would make her life easier. Yours, too.

Here's a hint, to get you started: Don't just throw a shovelware *buntu distro on a machine and hand it to her. Instead, pick any more modular distribution. Then actually take the time to see what she does on her existing system. Then duplicate that functionality with Linux. It's really not all that hard, once you get started. And you might actually learn something along the way.

Four (and a bit) more things:

1) No, she does NOT run any software that is Windows specific.

1a) Office doesn't count ... she can use any old WP to send a letter to Auntie Flo.

2) Make her a one page cheat-sheet for keyboard shortcut translation Win-Lin.

3) Put icons for all the software she uses on her desktop. That's how she uses Windows.

4) Make her a user account and don't tell her the root password.

4a) Don't even tell her there IS a root password. It'll just confuse her.

[1] Actually, Mom has called me in once in the last year, to install a new printer. But I would have had to do that for her under any OS (she is afraid of plugging in hardware).

[Dave Bell]

User Skill

So install Linux. I'm all for keeping politicians struggling to do anything.

Seriously, the command line stuff, in a centrally-managed environment, is irrelevant to the users. It's all the other stuff that they'd have to re-learn. No MS Office for one.

[BobChip]

There is a viable alternative...

And the alternative is Linux. As a late 60s-something Ubuntu user, for about three years now, (I choked on Vista too) I am not a "die hard command line geek". I don't need to be, and neither should any user with decent IT support (I don't have any at all). Many forward looking, not to say financially strapped, organisations and Government departments have already "gone Linux", because TCO is lower and security is better. That said, you could well be right about "clueless", though.....

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe back in 1990's

the posters comments were maybe more correct back in the 1990's and when the hairy bearded computer admin used lynx or gopher when they werent busy in a telnet session on another vty but times have changed. Take any recent Linux distro - Ubuntu or Fedora Core , for example, and you have a GUI thats as feature rich - or even more so - then a standard Windows (and thats not just XP but also 7) or OSX install. multiple desktops, OpenGL and accelerated 3D interfaces, transparency effects etc etc. granted...features may vary based on gfx card ability but a scarily LARGE number of Linux users have no idea of the command line these days - just like OSX users really.

[Big-nosed Pengie]

Ignorance or shill?

You decide.

[Andrew Williams]

Since when was expense a deterrent to politicians?

And here I was thinking that Windows was the system of "professionals" so what's up with the Linux is only for geeks mantra? It would seem that either Linux or OS X would have been far more obvious choices for the wizards of Westminster...

[jake]

@David Arno

"Linux is only of use to die-hard command-line using geeks, not technically clueless MPs."

Tell that to my technically illiterate Great Aunt (mid 90's) or my techno-phobe Mom (early '70s), both of whom use a variation of Slackware that I put together specifically for them, and they will spit in your eye. Linux works just fine for the average user-base ... IF it is set up by a competent tech, for that user-base.

The only reason Linux isn't more mainstream is fear of the unknown.

[Test Man]

YAWN

How boringly unoriginal.

[Fluffykins]

Still the wrong question

Surely the question should be "Why install computers?"

Baaaaah. Interweb? that's porn isn't it? young ladies, I mean baaaaaah"

=====

I'd put a wobbly jowels icon here but there isn't one.

[David Webb]

Windows

It's not "forced" on anyone at all, my local MP used *our* money (taxes) to purchase a Mac, £1,500 on an underpowered laptop of our money being spent when £500 could have been spent instead.

MP's have their own expenses (as we're all aware) and spend them as they deem fit (as long as they don't get caught). This would most likely be for computers which are in Westminster and already run Windows so switching them to Mac's would cost an inordinate amount of money (and cause a major issue with the Taxpayer Alliance) and switching to Linux would also not go down well, most MP's are not in their 20's/30's so getting the old folks to learn a brand new operating system would knock up the TCO to unacceptable levels.

So the question should be "why not install Windows?"

[Grumpy Developer]

Learning new Operating Systems

As someone who has 'upgraded' from XP to Windows 7 on the little ladies laptop and XP to Ubuntu on our desktop I can tell you that it was much easier moving to Ubuntu than to W7. I can't find a damned thing in W7 whereas I found things pretty easy to get to in XP.

After a couple of weeks of W7 frustration, I was asked to put Ubuntu on the laptop too - and she is much happier now. I think that getting the old fogies to learn Linux would be cheaper than trying to teach them W7. Just my personal opinion...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wintard Relief for the Reps of the Britards

"most MP's are not in their 20's/30's so getting the old folks to learn a brand new operating system would knock up the TCO to unacceptable levels"

Yet more myths about alternative operating systems being too different, too difficult, that they require everyone to go through "extensive retraining", and this would be too costly and time-consuming. And of course as soon as Microsoft Office 2013 comes out with a shiny new interface, it's all "yes please for that training course (at the public's expense)", which is somehow a different matter.

Really, the stuff I've heard about with people using Microsoft's "productivity tools", if you switched them out with something else tomorrow, it would only bother people doing the usual locked-in tinkering with Visual Basic and the like. Those people could easily stump up for a VMware licence or something and get with it.

As far as the public are concerned the MPs need just the tools to do their jobs, not to have every whim pandered to. If that meant everyone in parliament getting kiosk-style access to the Internet, then so be it. Given the current reputation of the average MP drinking milk from the teats of unicorns while reclining on their golden divan and being rubbed down by specially bred silk-covered puppies, it's a surprise that they haven't been handed VT100s or Amstrad E-m@ilers and had their other toys taken away completely.

[Anonymous Coward]

good grief

Why not the IT folk do their jobs, and support computing equipment in a vendor-agnostic way?

[gerryg]

While we all know Parliament isn't Government

It's good to see they are reading the Cabinet Office's strategy on considering Open Source Software, then using it to scribble Microsoft's phone number doewn somewhere.

I would have thought, despite the potential technical difficulties, that Parliament IT should be a hetrogenous environment rather than being a flagship advertisement for a single company's products.

Moreover, in the light of the desire of some to exclude convicted criminals from e.g., the House of Lords, I would have thought there would be a simialr enthusiasm to exclude convicts from other areas of Parliamentary life too.

[David Arno]

Oh dear

Luckily these folk only run the country.

[Stoneshop]

And now they have an ironclad excuse

for their next series of cockups, even if what is being cocked up has nothing whatsoever to do with this:

- We're in the middle of a major IT project.

- People haven't yet been properly trained to use this new software

- It's turned out that not all systems are fully compatible

- It's turned out that some pieces of vital application software are not fully compatible

(for the previous two) - We're now trying to rectify the problems caused by the incompatibilities, but for this we need to appropriate extra funds.

Etcetera, and in proper politico-speak of course.

With only a little effort they should be able to get three years worth of cockup coverage out of this. Then they'll concede that switching to Vista wasn't the best idea after all, and with a new switch to W7 the whole circus will start anew.

(you can probably tell I've worked for government departments)

[Fatman]

RE: Oh dear

You said:

Luckily these folk only run the country.

You made a slight mistake, it should read:

Luckily these folk only RUIN the country.

[David Arno]

@Fatman

You are of course correct. Thanks for the typo fix :)

[Anonymous Coward]

caught out, but no "lessons learnt"

So they have fallen into the crack between windows 2000 and windows 7 in support, which is why they went with a commercial product; support. So, as with @TooMuchCoffee, why is windows the choice here when they have already been burned with support that is not as supporting as they might have expected for their money!!!!

Also why does it take IT depts somewhere close to a year to 'test' a new version of an OS, most of them have MSDN versions which they are mostly running.

[A B 3]

Just upgrade the browser

Just upgrade the browser. Problem solved, pay me my 30,000 in consultancy fees.

[Anonymous Coward]

One major reason

I reckon the major reasoning behind not migrating to 7 just yet is that it's not been approved by the common criteria group, so thus unsuitable for handling sensitive data.

[hplasm]

Win 7 and the users both :-

unsuitable for handling sensitive data

[codemonkey]

Save my tax money!

Put Linux on them. Get it sorted. Gravy train chumps. Who's getting the back hander?

[Julian 1]

@ One majore reason

I'm trying to detect the irony.

If I understood correctly, Vista is proposed for existing computers running Win 2000 and Win XP. So the hardware and memory will be inadequate for running Vista/Office 2003/2007/2008. Judging from my own experience of Win7 Ultimate on a netbook, Win7 might be feasible on the older hardware with enough extra memory.

However, Ubuntu Linux for example, can import most Windows data during installation and can run well on older computers, with a wealth of available software included.

So what are the future choices, assuming a Microsoft only choice, Win7 or Win8 and new machines, and more expenditure and more profit to Microsoft.

I must remember to write to Parliament from Office 2007/2008!

Of course, there's no email client in Win7, perhaps that's an issue, I know so many who prefer to use Windows inbuilt email client for it's simplicity and ease of use.

As David Arno said 'Luckily these folk only run the country.'

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't beat up Linux vendors

One of the reasons companies and especially government agencies steer clear of Linux is the *perceived* notion that there is no actual product ownership behind it and therefore you cannot beat up the supplier when things go wrong. They can currently go to Microsoft and say "Look, we pay you good money and give you massive kudos for supplying the UK government and you sold us a pile of shite. Please fix it." But the procurement and policy making people forget that IBM and Novell are behind their respective distros, not forgetting Sun/Oracle, who are probably more inclined to listen to and fix your problems. Either that or back-handers somewhere.

[Jolyon]

Probably something in that

But once you are in a position where you have someone to beat up you find the price advantage of OSS is lost and price is seen as the key driver for OSS.

It is possible to make secure Windows systems and difficult to move to a Linux desktop without having to abandon at least some applications at least some of which will be critical.

I've been through this sort of exercise and ditching Microsoft is neither easy nor cheap however desirable it may be for all the reasons people seem to think are too obvious to state here.

[Anonymous Coward]

As if...

When did the gov't ever EVER go to any supplier/vendor/consultant and tell them "Look, it's crap and we want you to fix it."?

[SynnerCal]

Beating up Linux vendors

Good point about the 'fear' of non-ownership. Got to say that if they're genuinely welcoming change etc then what about Ubuntu? Last time I looked it was UK based (London I think) so surely would score highly on the UKIP flag waving "we're supporting British industry" stakes?

Interesting that the PICT rep seems to be saying that Windows 7 is only for new kit, so you can't get your sluggy old desktop upgraded if you wanted to. Presumably (cynic mode on) this'll result in a flood of 'broken' PC's so shiny replacements (with Windows 7 of course) will have to be purchased asap (cynic mode off)

I personally can't see a big deal with slapping in one of the major Linux distros in there as an alternative, (Ubuntu or Suse would be the one's I'd pick myself). The footprints of these are way less than Vista (pauses to spit) so would save on hardware upgrade costs, and they're much better at integrating into a Windows environment than they used to be.

Just as long as some cretinous brain-donor doesn't try and standardise on Office2007 and/or docx/xlsx etc...

[Anonymous Coward]

gubment

Incompetence on the part of the IT folks leads to this cock up every time.

[Alvar]

Just goes to show...

that the Westminster techies hate MPs as much as the rest of us!

[Ocular Sinister]

What a waste of money

Seriously, we are allegedly bankrupt and we're wasting money on nonsense like this? *sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux isnt free

Consider for a moment why they are still using Windows 2000 - it is highly unlikely that this is because the Windows XP / Vista / 7 licence was too expensive when they came out - its all about support.

Most people seem to be under the impression that because Linux can be downloaded free it would be substantially cheaper if not free to use it in an environment like this. This however is sadly not the case as the majority of the money spend on a move like this is not on the actual OS but on the support etc. and a move to another OS architecture would also require quite a bit of retraining of staff.

I think it would be a great idea to hold a reasoned cost benefit review of Linux vs Wndows especially with the move to consider open source software in government but to simply say Linux is cheaper than Windows is as closed minded as those who consider Windows to be the only option.

[Gulfie]

I smell a shill...

There is plenty of evidence that the end user cross-training costs are minimal for the majority of users. The government runs plenty of Unix systems already so admin training is not a big issue either.

If we accept that in the long run the local support costs remain more or less unchanged then the difference between running an OSS operating system and a Windows operating system is licencing cost.

Take that a step further. There are multiple versions of Linux that run the same or very similar GUIs. There are multiple large companies offering support. So you've gone from a single supplier scenario to a multiple supplier scenario and you can actually request competing bids for the maintenance contract. You can't do that with a single supplier - nobody can bid against Microsoft to provide source code level support and, critically, bug fixes.

And once switched away from Windows of course you can switch between Linux variants with minimal to no training at all.

Open source is a realistic alternative - even if you have to provide some MS-only software through Citrix or VMWare - FUD like yours is standard Microsoft propaganda trotted out on a regular basis to those who are not in a position to judge the honesty of what they are being told.

[Jolyon]

FUD?

I promise you I am not evangelising Microsoft products when I say that I do not accept that support costs remain more or less unchanged.

I have managed to get 1500 or so desktop machines running Linux into a area of UK govt. and it is not easy to justify costs. It is just not true to say "the difference between running an OSS operating system and a Windows operating system is licencing cost" - in a TCO model the OS licence cost is negligible and having a supported Linux desktop (or indeed server) OS is more or less the same in this respect as a Windows licence anyway.

As you say there will be MS only software in any non-tech organisation and so some form of windows will be running somewhere - with the attendant increased support costs from the loss of homogeny.

It is just about possible to make the numbers work if you place a stateless Linux OS into a setup that already has heavy investment in some form of application virtualisation - that gives you a reasonable reduction in the desktop system TCO which more than offsets the low extra support cost but anything more than what is effectively an embedded Linux in a thin client and it stops being something you can fit into a typical IT budget.

The reason this sort of thing doesn't happen is not some great conspiracy nor is it due to complete incompetence - good people who know their jobs and who often would enthusiastically welcome OSS cannot justify the switch in financial terms because there just isn't any great reduction in overall costs from dropping the OS licence fee.

[Steve Evans]

I assume...

I assume this short sited knee jerk has occurred because they notice Win2k support will stop in a couple of weeks... My question is why are they concerned about support being dropped by M$?

They insist on continuing to use IE6, which is a far bigger security risk than anything Win2k could reveal in the next few years.

Of course the next issue is going to be the hardware demands of Vista compared to XP... Stand by for loads of memory purchases to go winging their way to the original PC suppliers, and not to anywhere sensible (and far cheaper) like Crucial.

Actually, what am I thinking, they won't upgrade the memory, they'll just order a 1000 Vista update licences, find the machines don't have the guts, so order 1000 new machine (which come with Vista already), then hide the initial wasted Vista purchase under the bed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I assume

> My question is why are they concerned about support being dropped by M$?

The extent of your understanding of this term is quite odd.

[Joseph Haig]

And these people run the country?

So, the guys who told us a few weeks ago that Internet Explorer is perfectly safe are now going against the opinion of almost everyone (including Bill Gates - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6qIETRCxbw) and installing Vista in favour of Windows 7, which is actually quite good?

I will start listening to the government on matters of technology when they stop losing people's personal data on trains, in the post, on stolen laptops, etc.

[Dave Harris]

Gah!!!

Fail yourself. RTFA. This. Is. Not. Government.

[ToddRundgren]

Idiot LibDem

Only a f****n tree hugging, Euro lovin LibDumb idiot would say that he had consulted Microsoft as to what was best.

LibDem=Shit Thick

[jason 7]

@Julian 1 It's all in the hardware upgrades

As you say Windows 7 would be a better fit for older hardware. But if you were the contracting company to sort out the IT I guess you'd push for a more hardware hungry OS so you could then get the extra cash and time to then have to rollout all new hardware to run the Vista OS on.

It's not about whats best or cheapest, it's about what makes the most revenue longterm for the IT company with the contract.

After all as they say "it's only taxpayers money..not real money!"

Sigh....

[Pink Duck]

Aren't they missing something?

So... Windows 2000 support is nearly over and there's this debate over Vista and Windows 7. Excuse me while I look confused why they aren't choosing XP SP3...

[Anonymous Coward]

VISTA

...is actually pretty solid and the only argument against it is the memory requirement of 1 Gig. Windows 7 certainly is more buggy than VISTA at the moment, so maybe this is a boring, proper decision after all.

Whenever some people hear "Windows" they resort to trolling like Pavlov's dog drooling when he heard the bell.

There are strong arguments for Linux and OS X, maybe the users should make the decision themselves ?

British parliamentarians would certainly be pleased by an ARM-powered Linux Laptop, right ? If they standardized on the office97 document format, they could certainly cooperate seamlessly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Games

There's only one area that Windows is superior to Linux - action games.

Unless out MPs & Peers are using Photoshop & Dreamweaver on a semi-professional basis.

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly sausages

Shoodah gone for Mac's

Can you see MPs looking for co-ordinated links in browser, calendars easily accessible on web, PC, iPhone, with allowable updates by personal assistants or secretaries or home constituency offices.

One despairs at the lack of nounce at governmental levels

[Anonymous Coward]

Something about sausages

Macs? That's right: run towards the dragon, not away from it!

It's really an issue of control and actually having that control yourself, not delegating it to some vendor. And on control issues Apple are even worse than Microsoft.

[Borgcubed]

Oh Dear

I agree with above, the big issue with all this is the hardware. Vista is the biggest memory hugging OS ever created so trying to use this is suicide.

The only upgrade patch is to go straight to Windows 7, buy an extra 1GB of memory minimum for each PC and keep their fingers crossed. It's not just the government, it's the NHS too they are all running on Windows 2000.

This is a massive timebomb waiting to happen, they need to start purchasing new hardware now with W7 and upgrade as many suitable PCs as they can whilst they are doing this.

There's no quick fix. I like Linux, Ubuntu is the most user friendly. However it's hard enough getting these people to open their e-mail in Windows. They just couldn't handle training on a completely different OS. At least with W7 you can turn off the fancy GUI and go back to old mode with looks exactly like Windows 2000 they wouldn't notice :)

There is one final option..... Get into bed with Google and be the first to run their OS. Just have 3 icons on screen.... 'Web', 'Mail', 'Docs'. Maybe they could handle that and shouldn't take up too many resources either.

Grenade because 'Tick tick tick tick.........'

[Tom 7]

presumably the house of commons has to have windows

so their masters in the US can keep a close eye on them

[frank ly]

A Question

If this 'IT Support Team' (who I'm sure are all experienced IT professionals) need Microsoft support for Windows 2000 and/or Windows XP, does this mean that:

a) Microsoft haven't managed to get Win 2000 or Win XP working properly yet.......or

b) The IT Support Team are a bunch of useless idiots?

[NRT]

To be honest

I'm perfectly happy to watch them suffer.

Nick.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why Vista?

Surely Tomy, Mattel or VTech make something more suitable for the target market?

[Peter Kay]

It all depends on the timescale

This is actually a sensible decision. Vista is a solid, if memory hungry system after SP1.

It's entirely possible Windows 7 may be a better option, but for immediate implementation it may not have had time to go through the evaluation and staff training period.

Assuming that Vista has been tested to be a viable option and immediate installs are required, it makes sense to roll out some Vista and do a parallel evaluation of Windows 7. The alternatives are an untested release of Windows 7 or creaking XP.

Most hardware that runs Vista fine will also be ok with Windows 7.

[Magnus_Pym]

Yes. but

They are only talking about upgrading existing hardware. Unless they have done something weird like upgrading the hardware to Vista levels and installing win2000 it just ain't gonna work.

I would humbly suggests that as an interim measure XP would be the one to choose as it cheaper, requires less hardware and is more similar to 2000.

[Peter Kay]

It still doesn't make sense unless XP has been validated

Yes, I'll grant that XP is highly compatible with 2000, and that they should probably have validated it years ago. If they haven't, it still makes sense to go to Vista - any new validation has to be on Windows 7, not XP.

I have run Vista in 1GB and it wasn't actually too bad. For serious use I would want either 2GB (32 bit) or 4GB (64 bit) though. We don't know enough about the situation.

If they're running <1GB or any P3 era machines, Vista would certainly be madness.

[Bullitt]

Tragedy

Having worked in IT for 15 years, I'm always amazed at how little is learned from from the experience of others. Vista is perhaps the worst OS ever deployed and how anyone could approve it I do not know. I would rather deploy XP or Windows 2000 in a heartbeat rather than spend 2 minutes doing the design spec for Vista. Windows 7 is very good and would be the natural choice and it pretty much works on anything.

For the Linux community amongst us, I used to think they were always guilty of over egging how good Linux was on the desktop. Linux servers are hard as nails of course, but desktops? Ubuntu 9.10 changes all that. Check out Sun VirtualBox as well - outrageously good layerware.

It's the first time I'd feel comfortable deploying Linux for servers and workstations for secure use - Linux has really come of age and I won't bang on about how stable it is etc. but I would feel much more comfy with Linux as a tool to build blastproof systems than Windows. I should add that I'm not anti-WIndows as such, I've used it forever, it's just that if it's secure computing you want, Linux has more to offer and better tools to do it with.

Oh yeah, support? Why not do it old-school and have it in house and hire a few bright smart people above market rate to run the show and then you would get the systems you wanted at a price the taxpayer could afford.

[Magnus_Pym]

In House

I agree. A better way to look at the 'Linux isn't free because support still costs' argument is to say that not paying a licence frees up a lot of money to put into better support and training. Better in-house support that is under house control, not tied to one supplier/infrastructure, Who can't tell you that it is a 'feature not a bug', whose objective is to help the business not to sell you more services and whose knowledge gained on-the-job is an asset to the business not a weapon to use against you.

You can forever pay the upgrade fee whenever your supplier feels like a cash injection or you can re-train the staff once in some new techniques and as a bonus finish up with better trained staff.

The bottom line is: You can give the money away if you want OR you can spend it on improving the business. the choice is yours.

[Anonymous Coward]

@NRT 04:47

Yes, me too but do they really need to waste public resource so readily?

[John Smith 19]

MP upgrade time.

How ever will they archive *all* that po()n

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a good idea.

There's one brilliant reason to choose Vista - it can't run IE6!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fitting

The collective punishment we have all been craving. Better yet the new intake to arrive shortly will be punished immediately for what they haven't yet done, which is very much the approach parliament has taken to the public for years.

Vista - a hair shirt for the 21st century.

[JohnG]

Linux fanbois: Office?

Aside from the cost of any migration from Windows to Linux, the fundamental reason why Linux is unsuitable is because it does not support required applications, the first of which will be MS Office. Open Office is nice (I use it myself) but it is not a plug in replacement for MS Office.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wintards: Office?

If you're using the special sauces in Microsoft Office ("I need my special rat's nest of macros!") then you've handed over your destiny to Microsoft (and turned your back on sensible systems development, but that's another matter) - that's nothing to boast about or to use as justification for Microsoft dragging you over the hot coals.

If the name "Microsoft Office" itself is the special badge that everyone and everything has to wear to meet some arbitrary criteria, on the other hand, then what we see is a parade of ignorance indulged by corporate interests. In which case, feel free to come out of the fanboy closet yourself.

[Firestarter]

Try harder

The cost of migration is the cost of migration. Any migration from any OS to any other OS costs money to evaluate the current environment, identify applications and systems and how they work, plan the migration/cosolidation/retirement of each one, audit server & workstation hardware, packaging, networking and VPN access, security and encryption, hardware upgrades and replacements, training and information, employee/company policy adherance checking, fire-fighting, licensing and help and assistance. That would be my general list for a windows to windows upgrade.

Regardless of the migration path, all these items are required; you can't get away with that (unless you want the project to waste money or fail.)

If the migration path was to Linux, all the same items apply. Except licensing costs for the Office suite, email/webmail, databases, antivirus, firewalling, caching/proxy, web servers, the OS, upgrades and applications. I don't even think you would pay any more for the technical people to do the work ether. Linux people in my experience, tend to be very understanding of the fundamentals of computing and how the systems work.

MS Office is not the be all and end-all. Open Office does a good job of office productivity and is only hamstrung by add ins/dlls/toolpaks which vendors may not supply for Linux/open Office. In these cases, either Citrix or MSTS or VirtualBox/VMWare is available, so I agree with you that it's not a like for like immediate swapout, but workarounds and compromises are available.

In parliamentary setting, Linux would be a reasonable choice but would be a tougher gig on a dealing floor where apps are often badly written, arcane and the bank hinges its entire P&L on ropey old apps.

Todays herecy always becomes tomorrows orthodoxy. It is only ever a marketing campaign away. All I'm suggesting is that it is worth keeping an open mind on the possibilities. Linux will probably be around in 50 years time. Windows probably not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloated & Buggy

"PICT has instead plumped for a bloated, ugly operating system"

Sorry, I thought they were going to go to Windows 7. Less bloated and buggy than Vista maybe but still bloated and buggy...

[Anonymous Coward]

WHY ON EARTH

Would anyone do something so patently obviously stupid?

As someone else said - why on EARTH would youu not just use XPSP3 (or SP2 come to that).

Even the apologists for it, can only usually muster " I run vista on a 4GB machine and to be honest it's _not too terrible_" Oh wow, if it's not terrible then I definitely want it. And look it runs fairly smoothly with ONLY 4GB of RAM. Marvellous.

Madness.

[YumDogfood]

Visa == Good news for us

So the MPs are getting Vista, thereby throwing a spanner into their already suspect productivity and therefore preventing further damage to the UK by handwaving laws through and various other despicable actions. Hmm, I am seeing the hand of BuSab in this.

[Anonymous Coward]

WOOOTTTT?????

Are you f***ing kidding me??? Can the UK get any more f**ked up? Why the hell are morons like this working for the government??

Oh yeah.... cos they fit right in..... sorry....