4 ms·

Interesting. What's the specific pain point there? I would have assumed that running 2 installers on 35 machines was pretty much all there is to it, but clearly

Interesting. What's the specific pain point there? I would have assumed that running 2 installers on 35 machines was pretty much all there is to it, but clearly that's not the case. (Note: definitely not saying you're wrong! More saying "hmm, my assumptions are obviously wrong. More info would be very interesting".)

superuser2 11y ago
- Machines get verifiably "slow" for no apparent reason. This is sometimes fixed by a reinstall, sometimes isn't. - Even on supposedly "locked down" machines, you'll come around for a support call and find 15 IE toolbars sometimes. It apparently requires a genuine domain expert (which some $100/hour enterprise network consulting firms in the Midwest don't have) to accomplish a seemingly common goal on a Windows domain with Group Policy: only run the software we preinstall for you. - The infrastructure to automate installation of your Windows image via netboot technically exists, but is expensive (requiring salespeople and resellers) and difficult. Large corporations tend to have it, small-medium ones tend not to. I spent most summers of my adolescence clicking through Windows installers. - People install (and are exploited by) malware pretty regularly. - Windows Server and particularly Exchange are dominated by quirky, undocumented behavior on the sysadmin side. You cannot do what seems natural or what it says in the manual - you need a subject matter expert who is experienced in all the ways common admin tasks will break things and how to fix them. Not 1/1000th of the time, more like 1/5th of the time. It also generally requires a business partnership with Microsoft so you have access to real support people. Even they aren't always helpful. Managing a healthy Windows domain is certainly possible, and lots of big companies do it more or less, but it requires a whole lot of effort, highly experienced people who can "eat" the quirkiness and complexity, and a special relationship with Microsoft. This might be reasonable for a very large, complex deployment, but it's also required for the simple case of "deliver an office suite and web browser to ~35 computer-illiterate people." I think any modern SaaS company would be appalled to deliver something with UX as poor as Windows for small-medium companies.

superuser2 11y ago

- Machines get verifiably "slow" for no apparent reason. This is sometimes fixed by a reinstall, sometimes isn't. - Even on supposedly "locked down" machines, you'll come around for a support call and find 15 IE toolbars sometimes. It apparently requires a genuine domain expert (which some $100/hour enterprise network consulting firms in the Midwest don't have) to accomplish a seemingly common goal on a Windows domain with Group Policy: only run the software we preinstall for you. - The infrastructure to automate installation of your Windows image via netboot technically exists, but is expensive (requiring salespeople and resellers) and difficult. Large corporations tend to have it, small-medium ones tend not to. I spent most summers of my adolescence clicking through Windows installers. - People install (and are exploited by) malware pretty regularly. - Windows Server and particularly Exchange are dominated by quirky, undocumented behavior on the sysadmin side. You cannot do what seems natural or what it says in the manual - you need a subject matter expert who is experienced in all the ways common admin tasks will break things and how to fix them. Not 1/1000th of the time, more like 1/5th of the time. It also generally requires a business partnership with Microsoft so you have access to real support people. Even they aren't always helpful. Managing a healthy Windows domain is certainly possible, and lots of big companies do it more or less, but it requires a whole lot of effort, highly experienced people who can "eat" the quirkiness and complexity, and a special relationship with Microsoft. This might be reasonable for a very large, complex deployment, but it's also required for the simple case of "deliver an office suite and web browser to ~35 computer-illiterate people." I think any modern SaaS company would be appalled to deliver something with UX as poor as Windows for small-medium companies.