The Olympics Chose Windows XP Over Vista, 7
Read on to hear about the Acer laptop vs. Soup incident!
As a Canadian, the winter Olympic games are a big deal to me. Not only are the games being held on home soil in Vancouver, but Canadian athletes are winning gold and the both hockey squads are performing at exceptionally high levels.
Also performing well at the Olympics is Microsoft, as all of the computers used at the event run Windows. It's not Windows 7, but rather the ever-lasting Windows XP.
Acer won the contract to provide the computers for the 2010 games and confirmed that it shipped more than 6,000 notebooks and desktops for organizers of the event – all of which pack Windows XP rather than the Windows 7 OS found on all of Acer's retail offerings today.
"It was the operating system requested by VANOC (the Olympic organizing committee) and Atos Origin" (the technology integrator managing the Olympics tech operations), said Todd Olson, who manages Acer's tech work in Vancouver, as quoted by CNet.
Olympic organizers opted to go with Windows XP because Windows 7 was "a bit too new to be used."
So far, Windows XP has been doing exactly what is asked of it, with the only notable computer trouble coming at the hands of a bowl of soup rather than software. The incident came when an Olympics worker went into an excited cheer and spilled soup all over a laptop. The worker then shut off the laptop and later found that it still worked.
Acer offered to replace the machine, but the worker declined a new one as she didn't want to part with a notebook hearty enough to survive a bowl of soup.
- Star Wars Lightsabers in USB Flash Drive Form
- Microsoft's "Spy Guide" Handbook Leaked Online
- ATI Radeon HD 5830 Fills Price/Performance Gap
- Activision's Blur Allows You to Tweet and Drive
- SanDisk Shipping New G3 SSD With ExtremeFFS
- Just Cause for Upgrading to Vista, 7 for DirectX 10
- LG 1st To Get Official Win 7 Touch Certification
- Windows 7 Anti-Piracy Update Now Live
- Valve's Steam Ditches Internet Explorer for WebKit
- Inserting Blu-ray Disks May Freeze Windows 7
- Pyramid PC Will Make Stargate Fans Drool
- Samsung's Active 3D Glasses Gets Priced
- Upcoming Asus Eee PC's Have 14-Hour Battery
- Caption Contest: Gates and Jobs Do Dinner
- School Shows Off Webcam Controlling Ability
- Just Cause 2 Demo Released Next Week
- QOTD: Should Schools Use Laptops to Watch Kids?
- StarCraft II Beta Impressions and Screens
I still prefer XP to any of the more recent MS offerings. It's good to see I am not the only one with common sense. Vista and Win 7 are unnecessarily complex in an attempt to be user friendly - it's fine until you want to go beyond the pretty front end, but I don't think all the prettiness helps in any way.
Patch the security on XP, add DX 10 or 11 (MS are just being stubborn to try to force people to upgrade), and there is no need for a trendy and "helpful" (read irritating) front end.
If it aint broke, dont fix it!
(And it aint broke....)
Look to the future. Or at least the present. Or even the recent past!
shuld have gone for linux.
I was of the same mindset as you iinweed until I actually used Windows 7, now I can never go back to XP. Windows 7 is a VAST improvement over XP in terms of speed, stability and ease of use. I refused to believe it at first, just like you but its time to move on now my friend.
Look to the future. Or at least the present. Or even the recent past!
No - actually you look for stability in the corporate environment. Test, test, test again and then forget about the O/S and concentrate on what you actually need it to do. 7 is great and is undoubtedly the future, but early adoption in the corporate space, especially after being burned so badly by Vista? You'd have to be nuts.
No - actually you look for stability in the corporate environment. Test, test, test again and then forget about the O/S and concentrate on what you actually need it to do. 7 is great and is undoubtedly the future, but early adoption in the corporate space, especially after being burned so badly by Vista? You'd have to be nuts.
All the XP machines I've dealt with have been horrendous. If you want reliability go linux and get the software built specifically.
All the XP machines I've dealt with have been horrendous. If you want reliability go linux and get the software built specifically.
You've never had an XP experience other than 'horrendous'? Come on...
To get back to the point, I can totally see how in a time-critical environment like the Olympics where deadlines just cannot change you go with what is proven rather then something that is full of great promises and a medium amount of proven reliability so far - key word there is proven.
Obviously the home environment is totally different, but where deadlines and reliability matter - fundamentals such as an O/S need to just work, so you only upgrade when you are sure and have been through an evaluation process of your own. Anything less is irrisponsible to the company and it's bottom line.
I love linux, I've introduced several linux servers here (Debian mostly) and they are rock-solid. We run Alfresco instead of Sharepoint, Apache2 and a million and one other applications - our TCO for these business processes have plummeted and we are very pleased with the results. I use linux-based firewalls for home and the offices (IP-Cop). Would I complicate a time-critical implementation by giving users something other than what they are used to filled with a bespoke set of apps that may or may not be written well? That's just asking for problems.
The balance between 'latest and greatest' and 'supreme caution' is a delicate one for all IT Managers. Sometimes it's fine to go down the less well-known route (Alfresco in my case has been a spectacular success), but often it is much safer - especially when money or deadlines are critical - to go with what is 100% (as opposed to even 95%) proven to work for the job you need it to do. Your resources are then dedicated to making the job work, rather than making the O/S work so the job can be made to work.
I kan't schpell irresponsible - dammit...
I came in on the tail end of the IBM preparations for the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games (and IT Helpdesk during games). Management and developers start work much earlier than you think. Work for the databases and front-end apps would probably have started before the Vista release far less Windows 7. They won’t change server OS and development environment once they have started. When they scale it up for final testing and deployment, they purchase same/similar IT as the test bed. This starts 6-12months prior to games. Manufactured over several months as to reduce sudden manufacturing spikes and possibly shipped by land/sea in batches. Interfacing with old timing systems, old tech scoreboards etc. will tend to favour older OS. They may use old IT HW/SW but it usually works.
Wow.
Authoritative answer there.
I concur with kyzar completely. Having been in the industry as a developer for over 25 years I would always go with what's proven, mature and works. I NEVERE upgrade an O/S unless there are tangible benefits to doing so or the new O/S has been in the field for at least 2 years.
Too many users go for what's "new" or the "latest" just because they want to rather than a real need. I remember once being told by a sales man back in the early 90's that I should throw all my UNIX based servers away because they're "obsolete technology" and that I should go for Windows NT. I told him that I don't "need" to "upgrade" for the sake of having something "new" and he told me I was making a silly mistake and would be left behind. Well, almost 20 years later and we're still running UNIX systems and NT has come and gone.