Right, the company that had everything very streamlined was a major chemical company, the need for rapid technology shifts (well, Info Tech anyway..) was not needed.

There is no single solution, it's up to each shop as to what's best. However, my general theme has been proper planning, "proper" being very subjective. I guess being in IT for so long, I *constantly* encounter people/departments that simply don't plan as best as they can and just "manage" things, while constantly complaining. I've made progress at getting some to change and reap the rewards, and others just keep doing what they're used to.

Fair enough. However, while it was pushed out way too soon and had plenty of annoyances, in the enterprise setting it still wasn't utter crap after we tweaked it; in fact it had quite a few extras to offer, unfortunately it also added a bunch of issues that shouldn't have been there. But at it's core, it's not that Vista was crap, otherwise Windows 7 wouldn't be Vista SP3 :)

Here, have a billy goat.

I never claimed to be a Windows-only guy, nor am I the poster-child. I will tell you any day that Linux blows the sh*t out of Windows for everything but gaming and end-user UI fluidity (please let's not go down that road..). Am I a Linux pro? Heck no, I started with Windows and that's where my core competency has continued to build, like a chick-egg kind of thing. I've taken many big strides to understand the internals of Linux and embrace the concept completely.

My complaint was based on this statement:

"proper implementation" and "Microsoft Windows" can ever go together in the same paragraph

THAT is a myopic statement.

Does no one read into things anymore? Why the hell does everyone keep assuming I meant that you set things up and walk away? Seriously, read my other replies...and when you do so, keep in mind that I have *only* worked in Microsoft shops.

This whole Windows can't be managed or is just nothing but fail sh*t is getting so old. It has easily been close to a decade since Windows was utter crap. And 90% of the problems that happen nowadays are due to POOR IMPLEMENTATION!

While you can do nothing about problem #1, #2 and #3 both revolve around proper planning.

I've worked in 2 international companies, one of them was a shining beacon of how to implement a global enterprise managed by a very small team (labor resources aside), every-single-detail was carefully planned out and the IT's rules were enforced thoroughly and actually taken seriously by the execs. There were no rushes (except critical security stuff), everything was fully planned out; all applications were compatibility tested against every single other application, etc. When a new system needed to be built, there were a few base images, then a fully automated system of deploying the apps that person needed, from the desk where the PC was installed, kicked off remotely and fully unattended. The core, corp, non-dev IT dept was about 10 people.

However, the other company was a COMPLETE cluster foxtrot. Nothing was planned, everything was rushed, major downtimes, I mean there's no way to explain it. And the core (corp) IT dept had (not counting dev) had about 75-100 people, a MASSIVE waste.

Now, I understand that there are plenty of situations where management doesn't have the foresight to realize the savings of proper IT processes and just see what's in front of them "right now"; there's really not much you can do but campaign until maybe they listen (assuming you actually have the time to do so..).

many != any

My point was that this question really can't be answered as it's entirely dependent on the implementation. A poorly planned setup will result in needing many more people to continually plug the holes.

If a dept feels they're understaffed, they must first evaluate the workload and determine if the implementation is unnecessarily causing extra work . Then correct the root issues (possibly hiring contractors for the interim) and reevaluate. Rinse and repeat until there's nothing left to improve upon, then you'll know if you're truly understaffed; either hire on the good contractors if you actually need more staff, or let them all go when the contracts are up.

If you properly plan your implementations, there shouldn't be a need for many admins..

Be sure to stun them as soon as they start casting it.

This. Exactly.

*sigh* "but noT in Windows" Time for bed I think.

I'm kind of torn here... on the one hand, I agree that I too have found Ubuntu not as friendly as Windows in some regards. However, and I have not tested the 640 changes on both systems, any OS/Program that fails to ensure all functions are visible and available to the user in a dialog, regardless of resolution, fails.

Alt+Drag works in Ubuntu, but now in Windows. If I had no exposure to Windows, but only Ubuntu, I would be equally 'stuck' in trying to change the resolution back, not knowing that Enter would apply the setting (it may be in the manual, didn't look, but it still fails usability).

Familiarity with a system shouldn't be considered in any usability critique; the problem comes down to how much do you code for exceptions? We could have systems/programs that are unsurpassed in usability compared to anything today, but they wouldn't be nearly as robust...not for the current price points, anyway.

Right. The problem can only be solved if the Internet removes all forms of anonymity. Otherwise, it's just jumping through hoops which a bot can emulate.

Psst.. money is made of linen and cotton.

Instead of what does it look like to build a $16,000 PC, how about the final product. $16,000 PC