Federal agencies ban Windows Vista - Linux

This is a discussion on Federal agencies ban Windows Vista - Linux ; "As Microsoft is out touting the "wow" of Windows Vista, two federal agencies are among those saying "whoa." The Department of Transportation (DOT) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) cite fear of compatibility problems as one of ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Federal agencies ban Windows Vista

  1. Federal agencies ban Windows Vista



    "As Microsoft is out touting the "wow" of Windows Vista, two federal
    agencies are among those saying "whoa."

    The Department of Transportation (DOT) and the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology (NIST) cite fear of compatibility problems as
    one of the reasons not to allow their tens of thousands of employees
    to upgrade to Microsoft's latest operating system."

    http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6...ml?tag=nl.e550
    http://tinyurl.com/2elups


    -Ramon




  2. Re: Federal agencies ban Windows Vista

    Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    >
    > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6...ml?tag=nl.e550




    ""We are temporarily not permitting computers with the Vista operating
    system to be connected to our networks," Michael Baum, a NIST spokesman,
    said Tuesday. The organization's technology staff is testing NIST
    applications and evaluating the security in Windows Vista. The same
    holds true for Internet Explorer 7 and Office 2007, he said."



    Shazzlewitz has taught you well.

  3. Re: One in a Hundred Uses Windows (Was: Federal agencies ban Windows Vista)

    ____/ Ramon F Herrera on Thursday 03 January 2008 13:25 : \____

    > "As Microsoft is out touting the "wow" of Windows Vista, two federal
    > agencies are among those saying "whoa."
    >
    > The Department of Transportation (DOT) and the National Institute of
    > Standards and Technology (NIST) cite fear of compatibility problems as
    > one of the reasons not to allow their tens of thousands of employees
    > to upgrade to Microsoft's latest operating system."
    >
    > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6...ml?tag=nl.e550
    > http://tinyurl.com/2elups


    Only 1% in businesses, buddy. 1% in one whole year, after $500,000,000+ of
    spendings on marketing and despite forced preinstallations of Vista, which
    nobody wants (people pay extra just to dump it).

    Published yesterday:

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | A year after it began shipping, less than one percent of corporate desktops
    | are running Vista. * *
    `----

    http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...indows_vi.html

    In supercomputing, by the way, looking at top500, Windows _as a whole_ has a
    market share of just 1% after _years_ in the area.


    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the
    public good."
    --Adam Smith

  4. Re: Federal agencies ban Windows Vista


    "Ramon F Herrera" wrote in message
    news:8478a1ae-1dbb-4d0d-8384-48ee5392d964@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >
    > "As Microsoft is out touting the "wow" of Windows Vista, two federal
    > agencies are among those saying "whoa."


    Wow. Out of the thousands of federal agencies a whole two of them are taking
    a wait and see attitude with Vista.

    You losers are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  5. Re: Federal agencies ban Windows Vista

    On Jan 3, 2:02 pm, "Dusty Hendrix" wrote:
    > "RamonFHerrera" wrote in messagenews:8478a1ae-1dbb-4d0d-8384-48ee5392d964@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >
    >
    > > "As Microsoft is out touting the "wow" of Windows Vista, two federal
    > > agencies are among those saying "whoa."

    >
    > Wow. Out of the thousands of federal agencies a whole two of them are taking
    > a wait and see attitude with Vista.
    >



    Ok, Let's use your same kind of twisted logic.

    The sample is 2 federal agencies. Out of 2, there are 2 which are
    saying NO to Vista.

    Conclusion: 100% of Federal Agencies are saying NO to Vista.

    Corollary: Dusty Hendrix is a Windope whose reasoning is as broken as
    the OS s/he spouses.

    -Ramon



  6. Re: Federal agencies ban Windows Vista

    On Jan 5, 12:21*pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > On Jan 3, 2:02 pm, "Dusty Hendrix" wrote:
    >
    > > "RamonFHerrera" wrote in messagenews:8478a1ae-1dbb-4d0d-8384-48ee5392d964@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

    >
    > > > "As Microsoft is out touting the "wow" of Windows Vista, two federal
    > > > agencies are among those saying "whoa."

    >
    > > Wow. Out of the thousands of federal agencies a whole two of them are taking
    > > a wait and see attitude with Vista.

    >
    > Ok, Let's use your same kind of twisted logic.
    >
    > The sample is 2 federal agencies. Out of 2, there are 2 which are
    > saying NO to Vista.
    >


    How is the sample only two federal agencies? The sample is all of
    them, of which two are saying wait and see, not no.

  7. Re: Federal agencies ban Windows Vista

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 09:33:17 -0800 (PST),
    cc wrote:
    > On Jan 5, 12:21*pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >> On Jan 3, 2:02 pm, "Dusty Hendrix" wrote:
    >>
    >> > "RamonFHerrera" wrote in messagenews:8478a1ae-1dbb-4d0d-8384-48ee5392d964@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

    >>
    >> > > "As Microsoft is out touting the "wow" of Windows Vista, two federal
    >> > > agencies are among those saying "whoa."

    >>
    >> > Wow. Out of the thousands of federal agencies a whole two of them are taking
    >> > a wait and see attitude with Vista.

    >>
    >> Ok, Let's use your same kind of twisted logic.
    >>
    >> The sample is 2 federal agencies. Out of 2, there are 2 which are
    >> saying NO to Vista.
    >>

    >
    > How is the sample only two federal agencies? The sample is all of
    > them, of which two are saying wait and see, not no.



    No, the sample is not "all of them" and there are more that two saying
    "whoa"

    do you read the messages you reply to?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHf8vfd90bcYOAWPYRAmImAKCfZf9/wDzeyhkgkArkJbIZOk88OwCgrdDe
    LyiW0+ZyjWm4VX1QK9/L5PQ=
    =mZve
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    The race isn't always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong,
    But it's the safest way to bet.

  8. Re: Federal agencies ban Windows Vista

    On Jan 5, 1:26*pm, Jim Richardson wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 09:33:17 -0800 (PST),
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > *cc wrote:
    > > On Jan 5, 12:21*pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > >> On Jan 3, 2:02 pm, "Dusty Hendrix" wrote:

    >
    > >> > "RamonFHerrera" wrote in messagenews:8478a1ae-1dbb-4d0d-8384-48ee5392d964@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

    >
    > >> > > "As Microsoft is out touting the "wow" of Windows Vista, two federal
    > >> > > agencies are among those saying "whoa."

    >
    > >> > Wow. Out of the thousands of federal agencies a whole two of them aretaking
    > >> > a wait and see attitude with Vista.

    >
    > >> Ok, Let's use your same kind of twisted logic.

    >
    > >> The sample is 2 federal agencies. Out of 2, there are 2 which are
    > >> saying NO to Vista.

    >
    > > How is the sample only two federal agencies? The sample is all of
    > > them, of which two are saying wait and see, not no.

    >
    > No, the sample is not "all of them" and there are more that two saying
    > "whoa"
    >
    > do you read the messages you reply to?


    Do you? Now please back up your claims that A: only two agencies were
    asked about this, and B: more than two are saying "whoa"

  9. Re: Federal agencies ban Windows Vista

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 08:47:37 -0800 (PST),
    cc wrote:
    > On Jan 5, 1:26*pm, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 09:33:17 -0800 (PST),
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> *cc wrote:
    >> > On Jan 5, 12:21*pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >> >> On Jan 3, 2:02 pm, "Dusty Hendrix" wrote:

    >>
    >> >> > "RamonFHerrera" wrote in messagenews:8478a1ae-1dbb-4d0d-8384-48ee5392d964@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

    >>
    >> >> > > "As Microsoft is out touting the "wow" of Windows Vista, two federal
    >> >> > > agencies are among those saying "whoa."

    >>
    >> >> > Wow. Out of the thousands of federal agencies a whole two of
    >> >> > them are taking a wait and see attitude with Vista.

    >>
    >> >> Ok, Let's use your same kind of twisted logic.

    >>
    >> >> The sample is 2 federal agencies. Out of 2, there are 2 which are
    >> >> saying NO to Vista.

    >>
    >> > How is the sample only two federal agencies? The sample is all of
    >> > them, of which two are saying wait and see, not no.

    >>
    >> No, the sample is not "all of them" and there are more that two
    >> saying "whoa"
    >>
    >> do you read the messages you reply to?

    >
    > Do you? Now please back up your claims that A: only two agencies were
    > asked about this, and B: more than two are saying "whoa"



    I didn't claim that only two agencies were asked. That's a strawman you
    created, feed it yourself.

    as for the more than two part ... there have been numerous agencies that
    have put the kibosh on vista 'upgrades' including the FAA, DOT and
    and NHTSA, NIST, etc.

    I believe you have even commented on these in past threads here, which
    if I am correct, makes your current intransigence, interesting.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHgWY5d90bcYOAWPYRAkP8AKDBqdtcdCx2JRGXZrlpYN XMEPzDpwCfV0px
    kU+jYWBfLQUct6VYeJlua3I=
    =wTix
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    If you think guns are dangerous, try being defenseless.

+ Reply to Thread