backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jul 27 at 4:16 PM


Business PC age is at its highest level in over a decade.  (Source: Classic CMP)
Microsoft says this isn't a bad thing, says business will likely upgrade to Windows 7

Even as Windows 7 adoption in the business world heats up, Microsoft's Tammi Reller, Windows team CVP, has dropped some startling numbers that some say show just how poorly Windows Vista did.

At Microsoft's Worldwide Partner Conference, Reller stated that Microsoft's internal data indicates that 74 percent of business worldwide still run on Windows XP -- an operating system that was released almost a decade ago.  Reller spun this as good news for Microsoft, because he says it gives his company the opportunity to convert these business to Windows 7.

Many in the past have dismissed the decisions of companies like Intel to skip Vista (coincidentally Intel recently adopted Windows 7).  They aptly point out that many businesses only upgrade every other major OS release.  While this is likely true, the numbers indicated that Windows Vista clearly appeared to be the OS that everyone decided to skip, in the business world.

One factor that may be playing a role as well, is the economic challenges of recent years.  On average, Microsoft says that business PCs are 4.4 years old -- the highest average age in over a decade.  

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer recently announced that he believes that Windows 7 can sell 350 million licenses this year.  Reller indicates that many of those licenses may come from businesses looking to at last upgrade, replacing their aging hardware and operating systems.

Ballmer also said his company is "hardcore" into making Windows-driven competitors to the iPad.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

4.4 years, eh?
By Chapbass on 7/13/2010 10:14:47 AM , Rating: 2
So you're saying my p4 2.8ghz, 512mb ram, 60gb hdd with a 15" CRT monitor at 1024x768 res at work is lower than the average? How about that.

Good thing I put my two weeks in last week :P




RE: 4.4 years, eh?
By jnolen on 7/13/2010 10:29:18 AM , Rating: 2
My work laptop: Built by Acer in 2004ish, it contains a Pentium M 1.5Ghz, with 2GB RAM (upgraded from 512MB), 80GB HDD (upgraded after its last failure, I believe its third in 4 years), and a Samsung SyncMaster 172n (not a model Samsung claims on its support site) that I use because the actual laptop screen is so dim my office's florescent lights overpower it.

I put in my two weeks yesterday. I'm so ready to leave my college student legal job for something more career oriented.


RE: 4.4 years, eh?
By gamerk2 on 7/13/2010 3:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
Old ass dell here, 2.52Ghz Pentium 4, 1GB RAM, and a ATI Radeon 7500 chipset.


RE: 4.4 years, eh?
By Cypherdude1 on 7/14/2010 12:13:04 AM , Rating: 3
Because games and video content aren't usually played on office computers, there is no need to upgrade either the hardware or the software. You don't need more than a 2.5 GHz computer to browse the 'Net or do basic Excel or WordPerfect tasks. This is why office computer upgrades have not occurred.

A new company today which purchases even a mid-range AMD X3 CPU-based computer with a $100 1TB HDD, 4GB RAM and Windows 7 O/S won't need to upgrade either hardware or software for many years if its employees only use Excel, PowerPoint, Access, or WordPerfect.

Because computers continually get faster and have high capacity HDD's and RAM, office upgrades will occur with less frequency. In the past, hardware and software were behind the curve of what was required. Now they are both fully mature technologies.


RE: 4.4 years, eh?
By GTVic on 7/14/2010 2:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
I gave my 4 yr old Athlon X2 1.8GHz/3GB system running Windows 7-64 to my parents.

Compared to their Compaq HP Duron w/512MB running Windows XP, their "new" computer runs like lightning so old computers can still have life when all you do is surf, read email and play bridge...


RE: 4.4 years, eh?
By piroroadkill on 7/13/2010 10:44:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'm using a Phenom II X3 705e with 4GB RAM, 19" widescreen TFT. 2x 80GB HDDs in RAID1. More cores than my home rig


RE: 4.4 years, eh?
By dsraa on 7/13/2010 11:08:25 AM , Rating: 2
oh u sooooo just described my main computer from my last job which I just left in March. And yes the aging computers we used was one of the primary reasons I left. P4 3.0ghz, 512mb ram, 60gb hdd, and 2004ish crt monitor that had a line running down the right side. Funniest part was that I worked for IBM, and we were 'required' to update to lotus notes 8.5, and we couldn't, because we didn't even meet the minimum requirements!!! The 2 I did get it to run on....took over three minutes for lotus notes 8.5 to load....and it ran in basic mode...lol! I hated that job....


RE: 4.4 years, eh?
By JediJeb on 7/13/2010 4:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
LOL I still have one box at work that is a PII 333 Dell running Win95, because the equipment it is attached to doesn't have software that will run on anything else, plus the interface card is ISA.

We have multiple W2K boxes running for the same reason. Only they people in the front office have a few Vista or Win7 boxes, the lab is still stuck with XP and W2K mostly with a few still on WinNT4. The IT guy hates us but unless we spend a fortune we can't get rid of them.(to replace a WinNT box we have to replace a piece of equipment that cost $75K)


RE: 4.4 years, eh?
By Lazarus Dark on 7/13/2010 9:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
lucky. I've got a 1ghz Athlon with two Matrox video cards for my three monitors. I WISH I had a P4 at work. I actually asked if I could buy my own new pc and they said no. >:/ I mean... my phone is more powerful than my work computer aside from actual i/o connections. I could build something for 200 bucks that would speed up my effeciency 50% or more.

It doesn't help that I come home to a quad core Core 2, I'm constantly reminded how slow the work pc is.


RE: 4.4 years, eh?
By phxfreddy on 7/14/2010 3:13:04 AM , Rating: 2
XP is great. I wish next step was Ubuntu and not Windows 7!


No duh.
By Motoman on 7/13/2010 11:47:02 AM , Rating: 2
There's no reason to abandon XP for the *vast* majority of computer users in the world - business or otherwise.

If all you do is use Word, Excel, Outlook, and a web browser - which is what the VAST majority of computer users do - there is positively no reason to upgrade.




RE: No duh.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/13/2010 6:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
One Word. Security.


RE: No duh.
By mindless1 on 7/13/2010 7:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
False, those "good" at security made their systems secure *enough* long, long ago and had no need to upgrade the OS for pretend-security.


RE: No duh.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/14/2010 4:51:11 AM , Rating: 2
Incorrect. With recent laws regarding data theft and who is responsible in the event customer data is lost, the security of XP and the laughably insecure systems on most corporate networks is simply not good enough in the 21st century.


RE: No duh.
By mindless1 on 7/27/2010 4:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
If you can't secure windows then yes you are responsible, NOT the operating system.


RE: No duh.
By Motoman on 7/13/2010 10:35:34 PM , Rating: 2
Don't buy it.

The biggest problem with PC security is between the keyboard and the chair. Nothing you do to the OS is going to make a fundamental difference there.


RE: No duh.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/14/2010 4:53:51 AM , Rating: 2
There is no doubt that users and social engineering provide a huge attack vector, but current flaws in browser plugins (I'm looking at you ADOBE) and the XP system provide easy attack vectors as well. Security products from the major vendors are also pretty weak when it comes to security from such attacks as well.


RE: No duh.
By XZerg on 7/13/2010 9:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
Windows XP has shown its age and especially since most of these businesses are using 32bit version, not even the 64bit. As a programmer that deals with many resource heavy applications that need to be run concurrently, it is a bitch to work with XP 32bit and have actually sent a formal email to the CEO, company 30000+ employees, to do something about it immediately. Luckily for me, he agreed and asked the CTO to look into this ASAP!


Goes to show
By room200 on 7/13/2010 9:13:25 AM , Rating: 5
what happens when you release a good operating system with continuous updates/support. It sticks around.




RE: Goes to show
By mcnabney on 7/13/2010 3:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
XP sticks around because it does what is needed.

Why should a business spend more money just to have something that is newer. If the expense of upgrading is not paid for in cost savings of the newer OS it really is no different than flushing money down the toilet.

The OS is just a tool. Buying more tool than you need is just stupid. I am actually happy to see this happen. Software should be able to last a lot longer than it does. I would guess that 95% of Office users don't use a single new feature introduced after 2003.


RE: Goes to show
By JediJeb on 7/13/2010 4:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
I agree totally, and actually I haven't used anything new in Office since Office95 or 97 or whatever that one was.

Just imagine though if you still ran Win3.11 you probably wouldn't need to worry about virus and malware since most take advantage of things not even included in that release.


RE: Goes to show
By The0ne on 7/13/2010 6:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
I love windows 7 64-bit but I would not advocate companies to move from XP unless there is a NEED to. It works and works good for years, why bother with more headaches with a new OS even if it does seem great :)


RE: Goes to show
By rudy on 7/14/2010 12:11:13 AM , Rating: 2
There are a couple reasons, 1 productivity. Your workers time is worth something and you are paying for it. For me I can do most things faster in windows 7. Believe it or not aero snap is really a very useful addition. Plus the start menu and organization of things was better from vista on. But it was different when I moved from xp to vista and vista to 7 and I needed to learn a couple things.

Also if you hold back the longer you do the worse the move will be when you finally need to move. I actually think that everyone knew vista was a precursor to 7 nearly everything that worked on vista works on 7 and people knew that would be the case. So not moving to vista just meant you were behind the game when 7 came out. Alot of companies did not reprogram applications for vista either and alot of people I knew stupidly bought xp machines at the end of vistas life. Had these short sighted people just got on with it and programmed for vista it would have worked in 7 and their customers would not have been shafted with xp boxes which were often lower end.

Each company makes its decisions but I think many forget those 2 factors.


RE: Goes to show
By WalksTheWalk on 7/14/2010 10:55:45 AM , Rating: 2
Productivity is something most companies lose sight of when it comes to replacing desktop/laptop hardware, but it also depends on the user's role.

At our company, developers and salespeople get a laptop w/ a C2D 2.2Ghz w/ 2GB RAM and running XP w/ a 19in TFT monitor. Administrative office staff get a desktop with about a P4 3Ghz with 1GB RAM with a 17in or 19in TFT monitor (some CRTs yet too). Devs and sales run VMs which require more computing power. Up to a point, it's easy to sell the ROI for a faster PC with this usage vs administrative staff which run Office, IE, and some other administrative applications.

As hardware become more powerful, it becomes harder to sell the ROI on new PC hardware unless the user requires it to be X more productive.

Personally, I've seen much higher productivity gains moving from one monitor to two monitors rather than changing PC horsepower, but again it all depends on how it's used.


P4 2Ghz
By Shadowmaster625 on 7/13/2010 11:07:17 AM , Rating: 1
I cant wait till all the P4 2.0 GHz machines vanish from the planet. I HATE those things, and I hate Intel for pushing that crap well beyond when they should have. They are useless. At least I know any old athlon64 machine can still function in today's world.




RE: P4 2Ghz
By funkyd99 on 7/13/2010 12:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
Useless? With 1GB+ of RAM they work fine for internet, office apps, and casual photo editing. This is why businesses have been keeping them in place... a 5 year old machine still works just fine for data entry.


RE: P4 2Ghz
By JediJeb on 7/13/2010 4:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
I still run an Athlon XP2400 at home, with 1.5Gb ram. Works great for everything I do, even a few games I still play after upgrading it a few years ago to an X700 video card.


RE: P4 2Ghz
By Nutzo on 7/14/2010 11:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
When I started my curent job, we have alot of 2.4Ghz to 2.8Ghz P4's in the office with only 256MB or ram. Peopel where complaining about slowness, crashing, etc.

I added a 1GB memory module to bring them up to 1.25GB, an there are still using them 3 years later.

They mainly run XP & Office 2003 fine.
For the staff that run VM's and Office 2007 with the CRM integration, 2GB and a 2.0Ghz dual core is minimum.

Any new system we buy are now Windows 7 64 bit. The i5 2.5Ghz laptops are a big improvement over the older 2.0-2.4GGhz core 2 CPU's. I'll rotate the existing XP system down to the office users, so we'll be on XP for quite a while.

FYI: I like the picture of the old IBM Model 30 & 50. I don;t think there are many of those 8088 & 268 systems still in use.


Not surprising
By nafhan on 7/13/2010 11:01:28 AM , Rating: 2
For a lot of businesses, a new OS is a reason to update, and a lot businesses were scared to move to Vista. We skipped Vista, but we are evaluating Win 7, right now. It'll be a little while before the move is made, though, as new procedures need to developed and critical in-house desktop apps need to be verified or updated.
Of course the economy thing also played a part.




old comps
By frozentundra123456 on 7/14/2010 9:11:29 AM , Rating: 2
I have an old dell, 833 mhz at work. It is a little slow for opening programs, but otherwise, it works fine for data handling (Excel) and scientific graphing (Sigma Plot).

That comp runs XP, my desktop runs Vista, and my grandson has a win7 laptop. I dont really see why so many people hate vista. I have no problems with it and dont really see that much different with Win7.




By chromal on 7/14/2010 1:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
If a single-core netburst-era XP box does what you need, more power to you, I guess. We found that because most of our office PCs had multiple monitors, our users tend to multitask more than heavily enough to justify the increased memory capacities of multicore x86_64 PC hardware, and the best MS OS to take advantage of such hardware today is naturally Win7.

Critical points: new windows software uses new MS libraries, which tend to be a bit more demanding (bloated). Then there's the prevalence of websites that lean heavily on client browsers and plug-ins like Adobe Flash in ways that bring circa-2005 PCs to their knees. Finally, ASLR and DEP features of new Windows x86_64 kernels mean that if you are a business and stay on XP, you're neglecting due diligence on security and protection against PDF et al malware.




Why waste money
By HostileEffect on 7/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Why waste money
By danobrega on 7/13/2010 9:55:41 AM , Rating: 1
New system != more performance. New system == new services and functionality. DX10 is an example of that.


RE: Why waste money
By Taft12 on 7/13/2010 10:33:11 AM , Rating: 1
This is just flat-out false. Anandtech has shown you for a decade now how you get more performance out of new PCs (or new parts added to your PC) whether it's higher FPS in gaming, faster rendering or video transcoding.

Your post is bloatware apologism. My expectations are higher.


RE: Why waste money
By Wellsoul2 on 7/13/2010 1:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

This is just flat-out false. Anandtech has shown you for a decade now how you get more performance out of new PCs (or new parts added to your PC) whether it's higher FPS in gaming, faster rendering or video transcoding.
quote:


I'd agree that new parts give more performance but updating
from XP gives you LESS performance by at least 10%.

Get your facts right..XP is probably faster in most everything. DX 10 and 11 are no big deal yet in games.

The sound is better with XP and sound editing hardware actually works, unlike Vista and 7 that uses CPU cycles
to process sound (and comply with DRM)

Nothing Vista or Windows 7 does is drop-dead knock your socks off greater than XP...if it was you'd have people
clamoring for an upgrade..they aren't.


RE: Why waste money
By darkblade33 on 7/13/2010 3:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think when the internet was "new" to most people in its early days people would plunk down money whether they had it or not to be a part of it.

Now people are struggling more in an economy that they will deal with not having the newest or best things as long as they can still function reasonable well. My wife an dI put off buying a new system with a new O/S for over a year. We used a laptop which was very slow and just dealt with it.

To say people aren't buying Windows 7 in droves because it has nothing alot better then XP is an opinion because I can say Windows 7 definately offers more security, usability, functionality and is worth it. Yes its worth it. But for many that is not the question - The question is can I afford it when I have kids to feed, a car payment to make, a house I might lose.


RE: Why waste money
By mindless1 on 7/13/2010 7:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
For many the question why be a puppet when XP does everything a typical person needs to do. These people will change when the PC they buy next comes with the newer OS installed, until then it'd be dumb to waste time redoing the whole OS/drivers/apps for an existing system just because a geek somewhere thinks they /ought/ to.


RE: Why waste money
By Pirks on 7/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Why waste money
By Urbanmech on 7/13/2010 10:23:08 AM , Rating: 4
Somebody didn't read the article headline.

"Business" - they don't need to run games.

For you average office worker, using Word, Excel, Outlook. A P4, with Win XP is fine. They have much more important things to spend the cash on.


RE: Why waste money
By Pirks on 7/13/2010 11:14:56 AM , Rating: 4
"If I knew DX10 was going to suck and not going to increase my gaming then I would still be using XP. If only I didn't get duped into using Vista" (C) original HostileEffect's post above. See word "gaming" there? How about you learn to read before posting?


RE: Why waste money
By StevoLincolnite on 7/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Why waste money
By Da W on 7/13/2010 11:39:51 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
For you average office worker, using Word, Excel, Outlook. A P4, with Win XP is fine. They have much more important things to spend the cash on.


Here's precisely the problem. Some boss don't understand the benefit of a stronger PC with the newest software. I do a lot of data work and got sick of the office's old pentium 4 (can you believe it?), so i bought my own touchscreen laptop with office 2007. I drag and drop with my finger in excel to do table or charts with both my feets on my desk. I do analysis in half the time and do fuckinly nice looking powerpoints. Here's what technology do. You wouldn't ask a consutruction worker to build a house without a nailgun would you?


RE: Why waste money
By bhieb on 7/13/2010 1:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here's what technology do. You wouldn't ask a consutruction worker to build a house without a nailgun would you?

Awe but your analogy is flawed. No nailgun would be akin to no PC at all (pen and paper). What your saying is that the new nailgun is better than the old nailgun. May be it nails x% faster. For an office worker so blazingly fast like your self, you may be out runing the computer. If so then sure an upgrade is probably justified. But in my experience it is not the 30% faster CPU that is the problem, it is the 10 or 20 smoke/coffee breaks that kills productivity.

There certainly is a time/place for a new PC, but regardless of how fast your new PC is, for basic office use IMO you're wrong. Once loaded Excel 2000 does not run any slower than 2007 on general data loads.


RE: Why waste money
By BZDTemp on 7/13/2010 11:26:18 AM , Rating: 2
How exactly can the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games give you trouble because you had to little memory?

I have played all three games a lot both in native form and with loads of the many great mods and I'm yet to see a memory problem (or many others for that matter). This is with XP, 4 GB ram and a 4890(2 GB) running 2560x1440 and looking from here I'm yet to see my physical memory maxed out.


RE: Why waste money
By Pirks on 7/13/2010 12:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
Try to set Call of Pripyat texture quality to "Maxium" or "Ultimate" (i.e. to the highest possible setting) on a 32-bit OS. See what I'm talking about now?


RE: Why waste money
By funkyd99 on 7/13/2010 12:15:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This is with XP, 4 GB ram and a 4890(2 GB)


I sure hope you're not doing this on 32bit XP... that's just a waste of modern hardware.


RE: Why waste money
By dgingeri on 7/13/2010 10:03:18 AM , Rating: 4
the older a computer gets, the lower the productivity. As a long time support tech, I know that even though the performance may not go down if you keep using the same OS and apps, the reliability of the PC does go down. Crashes happen more often, parts go bad more often, and patched software creates performance problems. Many times, a wipe and rebuild will help, but not most of the time.

The biggest reason to upgrade computer hardware, and the biggest reason management likes to dismiss, is to get rid of troublesome PCs. Many managers like to say it is the user and not the hardware, so they don't have to spend money, but with the cost of PCs where they are, it would actually cost far, far more to make a user spend another year on a bad PC than it would spending another $2000 on a new laptop.


RE: Why waste money
By Taft12 on 7/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Why waste money
By Nutzo on 7/14/2010 11:38:42 AM , Rating: 2
There are way to minimize hardware problems on older hardware.

Since most my older systems are used by general office users, I've moved most of them to roaming profiles, moved thier user files to the server, and standardized the config/software on the systems. If they have a hardware problem (or a virus that will take too long to remove), I just swap out the system with one of my spares. I then fix/reimage the old system as I have time.

As I replace higher end users systems, the old systems go into my "spare" pool.


RE: Why waste money
By walk2k on 7/13/2010 11:17:44 AM , Rating: 2
It's true, we're still using P4s with XP from 2004. We did upgrade to 1GB ram though, that helped quite a lot. They work fine for office/web/email etc. Only thing that drags is large PDF files (arch. drawings) I will probably upgrade at least one of them later this summer for working with PDFs.


By corduroygt on 7/13/2010 9:58:55 AM , Rating: 5
Nope, you need Microsoft Office for the best compatibility, none of the free Office suites are good enough yet.


By amanojaku on 7/13/2010 10:22:07 AM , Rating: 5
That, and I would NEVER give Linux to the general community. The idiots I work with can barely use the Mac OS and Windows. Imagine a basic OS patch process:

Windows:
"So I just go to Start->Windows Update?"
"Yeah, but sometimes IT moves the icons around, so load up IE and choose Tools->Windows Update or Safety->Windows Update" and you're done."
"Cool, thanks!"

Linux:
"So I gotta do what?"
"What version if Linux are you running?"
"I dunno."
"Type up2date"
"Command not found."
"Type yum."
"It gives me a help message."
"Type yum upgrade."
"It says I'm missing a dependency?"
"@#$!. Here's a Windows box."

I like Linux, but I spend enough time helping people with the simplest of tasks in Windows. I'm not doing it for Linux.


By MarcLeFou on 7/13/2010 10:36:25 AM , Rating: 2
Read my post below to know how I feel about Linux.

But the update procedure of most major linux distros nowadays is actually just as simple as in Windows.

For example in Centos 5 :
- Pop up at startup that says new updates are available and icon goes to the tray
- User either click "instal updates" in the popup or right-click on the tray icon and choose install updates/double click on the tray icon.
- User input admin password (that's how I set it up, I didn't want any updates to fork up working setups). I haven't played with it but I'm sure this step can be skipped if you wish it since you can fine-tune security very well.
- Users click instal (or process starts automatically depending on how you started the update) and it starts.
- Dependencies are automatically added
- Does its thing
- Asks for a reboot if necessary.

It's also probably doable to schedule autoupdates.

And that just updates every single app on your system you installed from the repos.

It's definitely not any more complicated than MS's way of doing it. Same popup principle.

The only question it asks that Windows doesn't is about dependencies if any are missing and user just need to click accept for it to do its thing.

Anybody that can handle the Windows Update process can do that.


By JediJeb on 7/13/2010 5:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
I have been using LinuxMint at home and the update is a little lock icon next to the clock, if it is open you have updates if closed you don't. Just click on it and it does the work for you. Also what I like better about Linux versus Windows you don't have to restart, unlike you do with Windows sometimes where multiple reboots are required.


By Taft12 on 7/13/2010 10:37:01 AM , Rating: 3
Are you insane? In a business environment, it has been many years since user intervention has been required for OS or application patching on Windows OR Linux!


By Spivonious on 7/13/2010 11:05:37 AM , Rating: 3
First, users are NEVER involved with updating their PCs at work. If they are, the company is tiny or the IT guys are idiots.

Second, have you tried Ubuntu lately? Software updates are all handled in a very similar way to Vista/Win 7. One click to check updates, one click to install.


By greylica on 7/13/2010 10:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
Try the same when your business uses Windows 2000/XP and Vista/7 and Mac OS-X. You will do probably the same confusion trying to fix a simple TCP/IP conflict.
You aren't exempt from confusion in the proprietary word, then, PLZ don't make F.U.D.


By MarcLeFou on 7/13/2010 10:28:27 AM , Rating: 5
We've tried the move on a few of our workstations in the last year. A nightmare. Especially on the Office side as Linux runs fairly well once set up but there are little usability quirks left which cost us productivity. OpenOffice document compatibility is horrendous for any serious work though. As soon as the document is just a little bit advanced, it craps out. And don't get me started on tables under Writer. And the fix for this hasn't even moved since version 3.1 which is over a year old!

We're throwing everything Linux out apart from our mailserver (which is working great).

Linux has its uses but not as workstation replacements. Not yet.

Windows 7 and Office 2010 is what its going to be for us for the foreseeable future.


By The Raven on 7/13/2010 4:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm curious why Office 2010 is necessary. Was 2007 or 2003 not good enough for you? What features is the company paying for to upgrade? We use 2003 here and there is no way to be more productive with new office software. We sit at our workstations all day but we don't complain about anything. I suspect that most offices are this way. (I hear good things about the ribbon but it isn't anything that I would spend money on)

But I don't know what your situation is and that's why I ask the questions. I am curious how much bang your company got for their buck. Thanks.


By corduroygt on 7/14/2010 9:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
I use 2003 and 2007 at work and 2010 at home, and 2007 is sufficient for my needs. I do work with Excel tables more than 65k rows and the new xml format is nice for more secure and smaller documents that you dont have to zip. Outlook in general sucks though, I have to use outlook 2007 at work, but at home i didn't even bother with it and set up thunderbird.


By walk2k on 7/13/2010 11:10:53 AM , Rating: 2
Shhh, just let the lunix dweebs have their little dream. Fact is nothing you can say will un-convince them that the BIG LINUX TAKEOVER IS COMING!

Seriously, I gave up long ago.


By The Raven on 7/13/2010 5:33:12 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry if the fact that there are people freely sharing the fruits of their efforts offends you to the extent that you are reduced to name calling. What is your problem? You appearantly don't know one thing about how free software and a free market economy improves EVERYONE'S lives. You don't have to praise the community but don't be a douche.

There will never be a "Big Linux Takeover". It is an option that people will choose to take themselves. It is an oxymoron to say that any FOSS will take over anything. The point of FOSS is to have freedom.


By Ammohunt on 7/13/2010 2:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
I use linux(Ubuntu 10.04) on my primary workstation only because i am shelled to a Linux or Unix server or RDPed into a windows server. I always have a rdp session to my laptop running windows 7 just can't get away from it Linux is just not their yet it alot of ways its not even close. Great for what i use it for to manage other Unix like OSes poor for any kind of office tasks mediocre for email tasks Evolution/Echange.


By The Raven on 7/13/2010 2:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Great for what i use it for to manage other Unix like OSes poor for any kind of office tasks mediocre for email tasks Evolution/Echange.


How can you say that you can't handle exchange with Evolution, or "office tasks" in Linux? What problem is there? Please elaborate. I am using exchange and IMAP on Evolution with zero problems. I also can perform office tasks equally well on my XP work LT (Dell D630) as I can on my Ubuntu personal LT (Dell D600). Are they the same, no? But when push comes to shove, they are equal in ability and even simplicity. I will conceed that Linux might not quite be "there" yet but you are exaggerating a lot IMO when you say that in A LOT of ways it is not even close. Especially given the examples that you cite.


By darkblade33 on 7/13/2010 3:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
Linux has often been 'close', depending on what year it was and what version of windows you're comparing to its equivalent version of linux. often close, but always just a step behind.

The problem arises when a O/S that is downloadable for free - and has free programs is expected to have the same level of quality and development in a world in which money ( in every aspect ) drives daily life.

Anything free will never have the same support as something not free- as the development dollars are not there. Matches will always be matches - many people use them and they are free, but lighters are better and make tons of revenue. money.

The countless corporation that develop video games will never take 2 yrs & nor spend millions to hand out something for free - the same can be said for any other software, or any product.


By The Raven on 7/13/2010 3:45:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The countless corporation that develop video games will never take 2 yrs & nor spend millions to hand out something for free - the same can be said for any other software, or any product.

The people who play the damn games will develop and "give away" the games for free.

Who asked these corporations to make these games/OSs? I didn't. They see it as an opportunity to make money because their product was in demand. With many viable Linux distros out there as options the demand for Windows (or any non-free OS) is diminishing. And those corporations will make programs/games for whatever OS that the masses are using. Because there is a demand that people are willing to pay for.

quote:
Anything free will never have the same support as something not free

Try getting support for Windows...after a long call to India, they will tell you that you are not eligible for free support and that you will have to give them a day's wages to get support. Contrast that with Ubuntu. Not only can you find a gazillion solutions already on their forums, but the community members will help you quickly if you have a new problem. Or if you need an immediate response, you can get 24/7 support for a fraction of what it costs to pay MS.

quote:
The problem arises when a O/S that is downloadable for free - and has free programs is expected to have the same level of quality and development

Well why do we (as a society) expect the same quality? Do I buy a Chevy expecting the performance of a Ferrari? No. Nobody does. Do I pay extra for Windows when I buy a PC? No. So why install an opensource alternative on top of it? The market is so skewed in favor of MS at this point that you're partially correct here, but in a free market your points really wouldn't hold water. Unfortunately it is up to the "keeping up with the Joneses" dopes out there who continue to donate to MS and Apple, to decide whether the market is free or not.


By Ammohunt on 7/14/2010 2:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately it is up to the "keeping up with the Joneses" dopes out there who continue to donate to MS and Apple, to decide whether the market is free or not.


To be succesful in a free market you need to provide something to the consumer that is better than the competetion. The argument that "its free!" so that makes it superior to everything not free is total bunk. Lake water is free so does that make it better than bottled water? The truth is to this date no one has come up with anything "better" than Windows/Office. if replacement of windows/office with linux/open office is the goal then it need to be better than MS Office and be fully compatible with it. How do you think MS Office got to be so popular? it handled nearly every type of document format at the time and in most cases it was advantageous to convert your documents from word perfect to word format.


By Ammohunt on 7/14/2010 2:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
In the context of 1 to 1 replacement; Evolution does fine for email despite formating issues email both sent and received; Sent items? Calendaring doesn't work the same compaired to Outlook like i said its mediocre. I use Open Office which works great for the most very basic documents but again i am sending documents to users running windows and 9 times out of 10 the formating is off enough to force me to recreate or adjust the document in MS Office. If i have to re-format the document everytime then i will just use MS Office.


By greylica on 7/13/2010 10:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
I agree in part, not because of the arguments, but because is a matter of time. When ERPs and most of the production softwares, financial systems and others go to the Browsers, Operating Systems won't be very important, only the Browser and Standards. All of the business (At least here in Brazil ) are going trhough this direction to preserve their liberty, choice, and to stop felting the pressure imposed by litigation with proprietary software vendor. It's better to leave this ship sinking alone.
They are educating themselves that proprietary and non standardized softwares hurt business much more than switching to Linux Flavors. As long as the Browser works with their software and vice-versa, OS doesn't matter anymore.
It's a matter of time and consequences, cloud computing and SaS is a reality, and the switching to free software IS a reality, most of us don't need to argue anymore (or stay -1 in DT :).. ), or face proprietary problems/lawyers, they will loose anyway as their pool is emptying...


By Nutzo on 7/14/2010 11:26:33 AM , Rating: 1
I have non-technical end users that I keep on Ofice 2003 because it would take years to train them on Office 2007. The loss in productivity would be huge.

The switch from Office 2000-2003 wasn't too bad, since they look almost the same. The new UI on 2007/2010 would result in constant "how do I..." calls.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki