can linux handle windows vista ???
 

hi:)

right now iam handling at least 80 pc running windows XP PRO and 10 linux file server (slackware 10.0 and 10.2)
using SAMBA i have no problem connecting all my 80 pc to my file server....Now that Microsoft finally anouncing that it will release it new version of windows "Vista" iam worry that i will facing a big problem and my boss told me that were plannig to upgrade our client pc XP to Vista:( can any one give me a brief and quick explanation about windows new version "Vista" and how will be dificult to conect to a Linux files server running Samba"

thanks:)

samba and wine projects are crazy no other projects have been as crazy or changing.

samba will do its best to adapt but microsoft never makes it easy.

depends on what the new ms vista/mac+tpm computer is like. could be a new monopoly coming. way they are wired and licensed its no longer the personal computer with microsoft,intel and mac.

samba 4 (still in development) is designed to support Vista

@slack66:

I should think that samba 4 probably will get released quickly since the Novell (R)- Microsoft (R) deal. Tho, one of the highly visible members of the samba team has "left the building" as a result of the Novell (R)- Microsoft (R) deal.

I think a bigger question is to your employer, why upgrade pc's to vista at this time? I truly understand the desire of your employer, XP is really at a point that you can't throw any money at it to be secure. Why do you think I switched to linux :D But, seeing how these antivirus guys just got code not too long ago how smart of a move is this? The AV vendors have only had so long to do testing. MS is calling for developer's to help service pack 1 for vista to get it out this summer! You see they know that nobody with half a brain will buy any version of Windows until SP1... you only let a dog bite you so many times. I'd say hold off a little while longer. The holidays are over, and the hard core programmer's are really sifting thru the final shipped version of vista, and haste is not waste here.

Keep XP Pro until the service is cut off.

Imho. Much better than to waste time with Vista now. You can slack off, and still get security updates.

I will second the opinion that is better to wait. However, I would setup a seperate test network so you can make sure it all works together. My company probably took 6 months to a year to plan, test and implement migrating from W2k to XP.

Really there shouldn't be a problem. I mean, Vi$ta will have to be at least compatible with XP, and if so, chances are it will also be compatible with samba and maybe wine too.

(I know that M$ has tried for a while now to sabotage samba and/or make Window$ incompatible with samba ... so far, luckily, they have not succeeded)

Really, you might just have to wait and find out.

Thanks guys for your oppinion:) i will try to convince my boss to wait until sp2 has been realse:) i wish and i pray that linux someday will be as popular as M$soft:) I DONT WANT TO GO BACK TO MICROSOFT SERVER:(

LONG LIVE SLACKWARE FOREVER!!!

From what I have seen from Vista, I wasn't too impressed anyways. And I am not one of those who is full-on anti Microsoft.

It is not fully compatible with XP, in particular CD burning software, antivirus and anything that wants to get down deep in the hardware like dongle drivers is in trouble.
Vista goes to some trouble to prevent vitualisation, presumably to stop debuggers and virtual audio drivers from grabbing potentially DRMed content.

Which, by the by, has nothing at all to do with file-sharing capabilities. They already have enough trouble with home, and other, networking... I really can't see them breaking Samba compatibility just to be facetious. They've been burned on that before.

Do you have a NEED to move the 80+ machines running
windows to vista? From the perspective of big organisations
I can assure you that vista is still in a distant future.
Many are still running win2k desktops, contemplating to
move to XP now that it has overcome many of its
flaws. In a production environment migrating to a newly
released product is next to a suicide-attempt.



Cheers,
Tink

And why does your boss want to migrate to vista? Is there any special and required feature which isn't in xp? Or is it just like we should have latest and greatest and there is aero. Nah. Your 80+ machines will be slower because vista is bloated.

EDIT: And trying to protect drm is a waste of time, because it will be cracked like hd-dvd was.

I'm planning to eventually buy a Vista box for my daughter (she's not that interested in Linux), but, I'm going to wait 6-12 months and let things get sorted out:-)
I would wait, and run a test machine on Vista with samba. If your job is on the line I would be cautious about moving too quickly.

Moving old machines to a new Windows OS is not a good idea - too many missing device drivers and inadequate performance.

When MS came out with Windows 95 it was a big quantum leap in the right direction. GUI was poor in the windows 3.1 days. Something that Windows has going for it is plug and play. It works nicely for the average Joe using Office and doing a little internet browsing.

I am a Windows user experimenting with Linux and having a good time. Linux is certainly not for the average Joe yet. There is still too much text file configuration and programming-like things to make things work well.

With that said, the difference between XP and Vista is not like the difference between 3.1 and 95. As I sit and look at upgrades necessary for Vista I am thinking...Why? My XP box does everything I want it to do, now MS wants me to upgrade to a new operating system for getter graphics and animations, all window dressing IMHO.

Linux will conmtinue to keep it's committed core because that core likes linux for what it does - solid tailor made configuration of the OS the way YOU need it, not the way the average Joe needs it. Don't get me wrong, I am having tons of fun setting up this linux box to be my backup server and proxy server/internet access filter. It has breathed new life in this old 800Mhz box that was running crappy Windows ME slowly. Slackware is so much faster!

Bottom line...Migration will be much slower to Vista because of the cost/benefit balance. It is just not what it was in 1995. Unlike 1995 when the migration happened because it was a better product, Microsoft will force the migration by phasing out XP, not because it represents a big, worthwhile step in the right direction. Also, mark my words, there will be lots of security holes that pop up!

Convince your boss of the wisdom of holding off the upgrade. Microsoft has a long history of releasing defective product and it would be in the company's best interest to wait until the inevitable service pack is in place before upgrading.