Print 59 comment(s) - last by bug77.. on Oct 19 at 10:01 AM

Survey of 450K corporate computers finds majority use Windows XP

The launch of Windows 7 is only days away and Microsoft has big hopes for the new OS. Many computer makers are also hoping that the new OS will spur consumers and businesses to buy new machines. Despite the hopes of computer makers and Microsoft, Steve Ballmer is playing down the roll of Windows 7 in improving PC sales.

In the corporate world, the vast majority of firms never upgraded to Vista. One of the reasons few corporations upgraded to Vista was that at the time it launched only 50% of the computers in use were able to run the OS and meet Vista's minimum requirements.

Microsoft will be glad to hear that 65% of current PCs in the corporate world are able to run Windows 7 in its optimal configuration. A mere 6% of computers could run Vista in it optimal configuration when it launched. Those percentages were compiled by IT asset management company Softchoice. The firm goes on to say that 88% of corporate computers can run Windows 7 at minimum specifications.

Softchoice Services Development Manager Dean Williams wrote in a research note, "Since so few organizations made the switch to Vista, over 90 percent of PCs have remained on Windows XP—an operating system about to celebrate its 10th birthday—while close to 5 percent are running operating systems that Microsoft no longer supports. Given the added risks and costs of maintaining aging infrastructure, organizations would be well advised to begin planning their move to more current technology. The fact that so many organizations are already entitled to do so through Microsoft's Software Assurance should remove cost as a potential barrier."

Softchoice found in a survey of 450,000 corporate PCs more than nine out of ten have Windows XP installed. Nearly one in ten have a combination of Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4 -- Vista was only found on 3% of computers.

"We've seen a sea change compared to the landscape in which Vista was introduced," Williams said. "Organizations have some work to do to shore up a small percentage of their fleet, but the natural PC refresh cycle has more or less eliminated system requirements as a potential stumbling block to deploying Windows 7. The migration question is now about understanding the benefits of switching as well as implementing a plan to minimize any potential deployment headaches."

Comments     Threshold

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

Perfect Storm?
By 67STANG on 10/16/2009 12:18:48 PM , Rating: 5
I am beginning to think MS has a lot of things working for it as far as Windows 7 sales are concerned.

- Positive Press
- Good feature updates
- Mature drivers (since Vista has been around for a while)
- High ratio of upgradeable PC's (as the article mentions)
- XP is becoming quite dated
- Mac Sales are up, quite a few will be dual booting Windows 7

RE: Perfect Storm?
By stromgald30 on 10/16/2009 12:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, if this keeps up, Windows 7 will be the next XP as far as market penetration and longevity goes.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By peritusONE on 10/16/2009 12:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, I'm amazed at how much positive press and talk W7 has gotten. There's not really much you can say bad about it. Unfortunately for Vista, it started out slow and never recovered from the loud-mouthed idiots on the internet who never gave it a fair chance after those first few months. But Vista was the necessary stepping stone to an OS like W7. The seemingly great W7 couldn't have happened without Vista.

Barring any big problems like guest accounts deleting data, W7 will be hard to stop over the next 3 or 4 years.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By Omega215D on 10/16/2009 3:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately there are still a lot of loud mouthed idiots on the internet who'll bash Vista in favor of OSX or Linux due to someone they know having problems with Windows 7 RC, have the problems themselves, or just because it is made by MS that it's automatically buggy POS or a instant failure.

They forget that Vista introduced a new driver model and enhanced security that of course there'll be teething issues as with XP. nVidia should really be flogged for that one as well as others.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By Omega215D on 10/16/2009 3:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry meant Windows 7 but to those loud mouthed idiots they're the same thing just an expensive Service Pack.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By jonmcc33 on 10/16/2009 12:34:00 PM , Rating: 4
It just goes to show that a LOT of corporations keep old computers. Even a Pentium M and Pentium 4 can run Windows Vista without a problem, just make sure to have 2GB RAM minimum.

If you can't meet that as a minimum requirement you must be torturing your staff with Pentium III's or something. How do that effect productivity if it takes ages to open documents, etc even in Windows 2000/XP?

Faster computers + Windows 7 = increased productivity and lower TCO. That is what Microsoft should be selling the corporate world.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By kamel5547 on 10/16/2009 12:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder about that 12% of PC's that don't meet the minimum. I can see maybe 3 machiens in our location not meeting the spec, but they run DOS for some equipment they are plugged into, the staff might use them directly for 5 minutes a week.

That being said when I got hired on at this location 5 years ago the majority of people had Pentium I, II, and III's. There simply hadn't been anyone here to make purchasing recommendations/decisions so no one had done any purchasing.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By geddarkstorm on 10/16/2009 2:00:43 PM , Rating: 1
The fact Win7 can run optimally on 60+% of computers verses 6% for vista, also argues for how much more refined and gentle on hardware Win7 is. Especailly since only 3% of computers are running vista now, so there haven't really been many upgrades in the two or so years its been out. Unlike vista, Win7 and jump back and grab the vast majority of current hardware out there; that'll make people happy.

Win7 is just superior all around, and that built in xp virtualization ability should help hook in more businesses.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By bug77 on 10/16/2009 3:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
I beg to disagree.

Win7 is not "more refined and gentle on hardware" than Vista. Win7 is Vista. With DX11, a new interface and a lot of tweaking, nothing else. Of course it's leaner on the hardware, but that's because the hardware has changed, not Windows.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By damianrobertjones on 10/16/2009 3:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
But then people could and did say that Windows XP was only fluffy colours and a new Direct x. Think about it.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By gerf on 10/16/2009 4:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
Over Win2k, it really was. Plus the Picture/Image viewer, camera/scanner image management, and of course wireless control. The start menu was goofed up, the Start button green with a faux roundness to it, and things were blue instead of gray. Then they added SP2 and XP became somewhat more different than Win2k.

I used Win2k up until about 2005, and it was a great, stable, solid OS, and I would still be using it if wireless worked better, the camera connection program was there, and if battery life wasn't compromised.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By 0ldman on 10/17/2009 3:49:13 AM , Rating: 3
Try again. Clean install, Vista on a Dell Latitude D600, 1.5GB of RAM, Vista crawled, 7 is fast. Same for an Inspiron 8200, same RAM. I do this for a living, so my test machines were my laptops, daily use to be familiar with the new OS.

The way Windows uses prefetch has changed and made a big difference, as well as the overall footprint of the OS. 7 is a refinement of Vista, doing what Vista was promised to do in the first place.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By callmeroy on 10/19/2009 9:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
You can disagree until the proverbial cows come home it won't change that you are inaccurate (not that I personally give a crap if you are or not).

BUT to all the folks who dismiss Win7 as merely Vista+DirectX11 = Win 7, you are vastly over simplifying the equation.

The kernel as everyone on these kinds of forums at least should well know is the beating heart of an OS, was merely trimmed lightly for Win 7, it was overhauled.

The Kernel footprint was seriously reduced and in the process its efficiency was substantially improved.

I'm sure if anyone is interested -- you could google it and find the source article about it (I just recall the information but I forget the link) that was published by Microsoft. I believe it was a TechNet article. Note I read Computer World a lot too so there is a slight chance I'm getting confused and read it on their site as well.

In any case, the improvements to Win 7 aren't small...just because the looks didn't change that much from Vista don't be fooled, under the hood is a rebuilt engine.

Furthermore, the mere notion that folks go Win7 is Vista , is kind of stupid to me anyway. First everyone in IT or even just educated end users darn well knows Win7 is an evolution of Vista and Microsoft isn't trying to hide the fact or fool people in saying "Oh no Win 7 has nothing to do with Vista".....I don't know I guess its arguing for arguments sake or something...but its silly to me when someone points out something that everyone already knows. Its like someone pointing a huge pink elephant in a 10 x 10 room.......and everyone is thinking "Gee thanks for pointing that out to us Captain Obvious..."...

RE: Perfect Storm?
By bug77 on 10/19/2009 10:01:47 AM , Rating: 1
Oh yes. The sheer size of the Win7 only techs you listed showed how inaccurate I was...

Evolution, you say? Snow Leopard is an evolution over Leopard, but it is also priced as such.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By BZDTemp on 10/16/2009 2:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
All those PC's may be upgradeable but why would anyone want to?

I do not see 7 offering anything really needed for business. Sure if you build a new company it may be worth starting with 7 (or OS X) but not many companies will upgrade just for the sake of upgrading. A new OS means training, testing that ll software runs and all that - the process of upgrading is just the little part. And then there is the unknown - are there any bugs not yet found.

I think MS is trying their hardest to spin 7 as a success hoping it will make many jump on. But I'd be surprised to see anyone but us geeks and those home user buying new computer really getting on the wagon anytime soon.

XP may be old but it runs great (even on the latest hardware). Unless you need DX11 (or DX10 and currently run XP) then why upgrade when it means spending time & money. At home I'd recommend spending the money on anything but an OS.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By Omega215D on 10/16/2009 3:44:28 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 is more secure than XP and it has better networking capabilities than XP.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By damianrobertjones on 10/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Perfect Storm?
By dgingeri on 10/16/2009 4:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
hey now, I'm not lazy. I like to work smart instead of hard.

I do agree that W7, as well as Vista, are far better, more secure, and easier to troubleshoot than XP. Really, no extra training is required, but it would be good for support personel to get some books on the changes. If they can't figure it out from some minor book info and actually using the OS, then they shouldn't be working as techs. I know that's the way I've always learned the new OSes that come out. I get them and play with them to learn them.

While I don't have any corporate experience with Vista, I have used it at home for a while. I also have the release candidate of W7 on my secondary machine, so I have experience with it. All support people should be doing exactly that. If they don't, they should be fired from support.

Just as I wouldn't trust a chef who wouldn't eat his own food or a mechanic with a broken down car, I wouldn't trust a tech with a crappy Windows XP system at home.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By damianrobertjones on 10/16/2009 3:54:34 PM , Rating: 1
P.s. ANy company that hasn't tested Win 7 and currently knows it's limitations is lazy. The RTM has been out long enough.

You're making it sound harder than it is!

RE: Perfect Storm?
By BZDTemp on 10/16/2009 6:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of how much testing is done it is no match for the years of real use that is invested in XP. Also remember the OS is just the foundation on which the applications run and they will need testing also. Just something as IE8 now being the browser can cause problems.

Sure as admin it might be fun and exciting with a new OS but there is no need to rush out and upgrade. When you run hundreds or maybe thousands of PC's upgrading is not a trivial matter. Of course 7 is being looked at most forward looking responsible IT departments but so is OS X and Linux. With more and more moving into on-line apps (be it intranet or internet) then the OS means less and less and it really gets down to which browser it can run.

RE: Perfect Storm?
By probedb on 10/17/2009 3:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
I agree :) We're on XP at work and still IE6 FFS. Though I've heard rumours flying that we're going to be getting Windows 7 at some point in the next year.

Finally as a web dev I'll be able to test on IE8 at work ;)

RE: Perfect Storm?
By Cront on 10/19/2009 1:30:30 AM , Rating: 2
I'm betting the company I work for will still be using XP and IE6 for a long time.

Nice to know, but...
By Motoman on 10/16/2009 1:31:02 PM , Rating: 4
I don't think the "readiness" of their desktop PCs is foremost on the minds of corporate IT departments.

The question isn't whether or not their PCs will run's whether or not they expect to get any beneift out of the migration...

Like, is it easier to support? Will it make our infrastructure more secure? Will it make us more efficient?

It seems to me those kinds of issues are more important to the big company than whether or not the PCs can run the new OS. Kind of a red herring I think.

RE: Nice to know, but...
By honestIT on 10/16/2009 1:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for articulating what I was thinking and yeah it is a red herring.

RE: Nice to know, but...
By Cerin218 on 10/16/2009 1:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
And there are actually things that XP has drivers for that are not supported either by 7 or the manufacturer. I had to dump an old printer and scanner that worked just fine on XP, but there were no 7 drivers and especially no 7 64 bit drivers.

RE: Nice to know, but...
By DukeN on 10/16/2009 4:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
One thing that might help is Applocker, which seems to be drastically improved when combined with 2008 R2.

RE: Nice to know, but...
By ATC on 10/17/2009 6:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
Completely agree. From talking to a couple of decision makers in our IT department, it's exactly those questions you posted that are being asked and the answers (at least in our company - 5000+ PCs) are leading our company to stick to XP for the foreseeable future.

It's nothing to do with 7 per se, but XP still does everything we want at minimal costs and nothing that windows 7 brings seems to be enough to justify any changes. In a sense, windows XP will be 7 greatest competition still in the business world at least.

By Belard on 10/16/2009 3:17:04 PM , Rating: 1
This can't be right!

All these corporations had to do was just buy computers with faster CPUs and more memory! How hard is that?!

The 6% Vista capable sounds like lies spread by XP-lovers who never used vista before. The excuses is lame. 4GB of RAM is cheap. Almost everyone has quad cores, if not dual.

By walk2k on 10/16/2009 3:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
Uh no, most corporate computers are P4-vintage with 256-512MB ram running XP Pro or 2000. That's the whole point.

"Just buy new ones" wow pure genious lol.. nobody would've ever thought of that brilliant idea.

By Belard on 10/17/2009 5:48:35 AM , Rating: 1
Oh, I was just saying what vista fan boys yabber about. "its just because your computer is weak" "Memory is cheap".

They don't seem to get, the first year of vista's release - 2GB of RAM was about $100~200... and that IS NOT enough. 4 years ago, an AMD x2 3800 was about $500 ($200 when vista was released) - but todays $60 CPUs would blow it away and 4GB of RAM is $30~50 (DDR2).

These fanboys would yell "LIAR!", "You don't know what you talking about!", etc. Sure, they blew $1000+ on their computer, who cares.

Most people and CORP. users don't need/use gaming systems. They just need something powerful enough to ENTER DATA, browse the web and work reliable, constantly and quickly.
Which is something vista failed in every aspect.

So all of the sudden, companies are supposed to upgrade hundreds, if not thousands of PCs for an OS upgrade that doesn't really change/improve productivity? If anything, it slows things down so much, they need whole new computers? As we see by the numbers, they didn't. Upgrading EACH PC with just memory alone in 2007 would have been $200,000 for 1000 PCs, RAM+labor only + $100,000 for the OS itself (not including labor... but lets figure $50 x 5hrs per PC = $250 x 1000 systems = $250,000.

End costs: $550,000 to upgrade 1000 PCs and for what? email, data entry and word processing? When XP was working just fine as is!

In very early 2007, I replaced 10PCs in one small business from old P3/Win98 boxes. To have made them "Vista" usable would have added $3000 in hardware alone and NOT compatible with some of their software.

Techs on a various sites (including such like Anandtech /Daily ) have talked about the memory/performance issues. Each additional running program would drag the system down more and more. Win7 performance would remain a line on the graph.

Just tonight, here is what I did:
I had my Thinkpad with Win7 over to a friends place. He's never seen Win7. He has Vista a IdeaPad notebook. He is *used* to vista but his comments "I try not to use it as much as possible"... he doesn't want to fool with it.

Ideapad: Core2Duo (2.x Ghz) / 2GB RAM / 250GB HD / GF8600m / 15" display / Vista SP1
ThinkPad: Pentium Dual Core (1.6Ghz) / 1GB RAM / 80GB HD / Intel 3100graphics / 15" display / XP-PRO(org) - Win7rc.

I booted up for him, and let him play with it... in which he said "looks mostly and feels like vista". I showed him the improvement in usage, and he LIKE those features (quick launch, preview functions, etc). Then I ran a lot of apps.
Word, Excel, 2 videos (moving), 3 browser windows with 1-2 tabs, Adobe Reader, MP3 music playing, photo view, 1-2 other programs and TaskManager... which reported I still had about 110mb free.

My "slow" notebook was still faster than his newer Vista notebook.

That is truth.

For corporate companies, they have been buying new PCs over the year or so with 2+GB RAM and dual core CPUs. But have installed XP on them (meanwhile, MS counted them as Vista sales, ugh). I know, I have done them myself. I've NEVER setup a corp. client with Vista.

But Windows7 is on peoples plans. I'm actually getting Win7 business already... just waiting.

By Soodey on 10/16/2009 5:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
Serious post?

By Belard on 10/17/2009 5:14:33 AM , Rating: 2
er... no.

Check my history. ;)
I've always blasted vista... hate touching it.
But odd thou... I know have Win7rc on 4 of my 4 computers.

MS likes me (more) now... its about money. But I'm sure for the past 2 years, they've (MS employees) been rating me down.

I still miss my Amiga :)

Ready for Windows 7 My ASS
By honestIT on 10/16/2009 1:10:01 PM , Rating: 1
Of our 45k+ on our network, we can't even get them to run XP efficiently with Office 2007, SEP and all thier local applications. Most of our boxes have 1GB memory or less!

We have upgraded to Exchange 2007 and will migrate to 2010 when released and all our boxes are now Server 2008 64bit, but there is now way our hardware can run Windows 7....

RE: Ready for Windows 7 My ASS
By GoodBytes on 10/16/2009 1:47:10 PM , Rating: 3
DOS is always an option for your business computer, but I say it's a sign that your computers requires to be changed or upgraded.

RE: Ready for Windows 7 My ASS
By jonmcc33 on 10/19/2009 8:41:00 AM , Rating: 2
Does the company you work for have any sort of modern software to run the business? I can't imagine the productivity impact that is being drastically effected by such low end workstations.

By Kosh401 on 10/16/2009 2:10:11 PM , Rating: 3
I would go as far as to say that driver support was the #1 reason why Vista had a botched launch. Yes, there were other major problems. But, I think when you look at sheer amount of software AND hardware that was incompatible and buggy with Vista at launch and all the cranky, pissed off people and reviewers complaining about it (and rightfully so), I think that was the #1 factor in Vista being a "failure."

That said, I'm very happy with Vista at this point and unless you're using really ancient software/hardware, you should be able to find drivers for whatever you need. This is fantastic news for Windows 7, since it's essentially an upgraded and beefed up (or more trim and lean?) version of Vista with much, much better driver support even right now before launch day.

So now we're already seeing the benefits of this; nobody has been pissed off and complaining that their programs aren't working properly under W7, everyone's (mostly) printers, scanners, networks etc are working fine. They can just focus on the O/S itself and the features it brings, rather than trying to get the mo#&er f*#king printer to work AND then being all pissed off while trying to learn and review the O/S itself :)

I Know We're Ready...
By Jackattak on 10/16/2009 3:22:06 PM , Rating: 3
I've tested the beta on several of our P4 HT's here at work and with a simple RAM upgrade to 2GB's they run Win 7 with no issues at all (Aero disabled on most).

We're ready!

No need for upgrade of users?
By Cookoy on 10/16/2009 5:18:59 PM , Rating: 3
Hardware and software both ready. What do you mean the users have to be trained? We're not loading Mac OSX or Linux. It's the same ol' Windows. So we're ready!

8th birdthday.
By ioannis on 10/16/2009 8:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
"Windows XP—an operating system about to celebrate its 10th birthday"

Windows XP was released in October 2001. It is its 8th birthday...just so you know.

Windows 7 adoption
By KoolAidMan1 on 10/16/2009 11:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
I certainly hope this is the version of Windows that replaces XP in terms of widespread adoption. Vista was a much better operating system from a security and stability standpoint, too bad its first year was such a mess and unfairly tarnished its reputation. Either way, Windows 7 is an improvement on that same base and really needs to succeed if Microsoft operating systems are going to join the 21st century along with OS X and the best Linux desktop distros. People clearly weren't interested in doing this with Vista even though it was perfectly fine after SP1.

XP really needs to be dragged out to the back of the field and shot, damn thing gets OS rot after several years and has the swiss cheese equivalent of a security model. Killing XP kills the primary vector for self-executing malware. It was way outdated back in 2005 when Mac OS 10.4 launched. Anyway, crossing fingers that the majority of PCs get a real modern operating system by replacing XP with Windows 7 over the next few years, we'll see.

In the year 2013
By crystal clear on 10/17/2009 1:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
When companies will start upgrading ?

A question that everyone will ask ...

# Just remember that Microsoft is not planning to retire Extended Support until April 8, 2014. If microsoft ends up releasing a fourth service pack for XP, it will retire support for SP3 (released April 2008) two years after SP4 is released, or in April 2014, whichever comes first.

# The typical organization requires 12 to 18 months for waiting, testing, and planning before it can start deploying a new client OS.

# New releases of critical business software from independent software vendors (ISVs) that require Windows 7 should be ready for release & deployment by 2012.

# Service pack 1 is no more a determining factor like in the past.
Win 7 however much claimed to be a new OS is for all practical purposes is considered as a Service Pack.

# Purely from an economic point of view 2012/2013 would be recession free, rather in a rapid growth mode ,so NO budgetry problems.

# Intel's offerings the 2012/2013 time frame in their tick tock stratergy will make a huge/critical & a major contrubution in upgrade process.

I target the year 2013 when we see full deployment of Win7 & finally discard the XP & ofcourse Microsoft ending its support by April 8 2014.

One more POS O/S from Microsucks that no one needs
By Beenthere on 10/16/09, Rating: -1
By themaster08 on 10/17/2009 10:19:03 AM , Rating: 1
Hi, Reader1

By inighthawki on 10/17/2009 12:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
No if it were reader1 you would see something in there about how it should be a closed system and until it is we are all worse off.

9 out of 10 use XP.....
By rdhood on 10/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: 9 out of 10 use XP.....
By jonmcc33 on 10/16/2009 12:37:18 PM , Rating: 5
I somehow don't think that normal users are going to be upgrading their computers to Windows 7. It will be their IT departments/support.

We're talking about the corporate world here, not home based users.

RE: 9 out of 10 use XP.....
By Gunbuster on 10/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: 9 out of 10 use XP.....
By The0ne on 10/16/2009 1:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm trying to understand your reasoning but can't. Windows7 has pretty good driver support already, even for old hardware. I've only had to deal with drivers like 2% out of my entire RC upgrades (fresh installs). And not more than 2 PCs are the same configuration so that counts for a bit. I've upgrade plenty of laptops, tablets, desktops and netbooks...replacing XP and especially the slow-*ss btch Vista.

So in that respect a company wouldn't need to spend money on new hardware to support Windows 7, granted the hardware isn't like a Pentium2 or something around there. However, that can be done although it'll take hours to get anything going.

The snappy UI of Windows 7 is reason enough for me to replace Vista. Before a flame ware begins on windows OSes try it before you comment. Put Vista on your older PC and then Win7 RC or RTM and see the difference in just the UI. That alone increases productivity by not having one wait for menu's to show, cursor to move and so forth. That's not to say it'll actually be any faster benchmark wise, just snappier to really be able to move around in.

By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/16/2009 1:57:21 PM , Rating: 3
Most companies tend to roll out a new OS in lock step with new systems being deployed to refresh older ones. It is very rare to see companies actually wipe and load existing systems with a newer OS. Generally it's done as hard disks or systems are replaced. Taking on average 1-2 years to move over the majority of the user base.

RE: 9 out of 10 use XP.....
By Spivonious on 10/16/2009 12:43:41 PM , Rating: 3

I'd be willing to bet that 95% of corporations upgrading to 7 will simply re-image their machines. User data is not stored locally, and performing a manual install on each machine would take forever.

RE: 9 out of 10 use XP.....
By Souka on 10/16/2009 1:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
IMHO, upgrading always comes back to bite ya in the ass.

True mid to large corporations will likely deploy an image by Symantec Ghost, Altiris, RIS, or other means.

Upgrading is still a manual process.

At my company we've avoided Vista except on a few laptops models that XP couldn't support properly. We're in full testing of Windows 7 and are preparing to build all new machines with it, and replace/reimage existing machines starting next year.

With the exception of a few hardware prepherials (personal printers, scanners, handheld data colectors (data transfered via serial interface and ancient Win95 software)) we haven't had any major issues with Win7.

I'm typing this on my work Sony Vaio laptop with Windows 7. On Vista I could barely make it through 2 hours of meetings. With Windows 7 I still have almost 50min of battery left.
(during meetings I'm in either taking notes or perfoming the presentation using my laptop).

My $.02

RE: 9 out of 10 use XP.....
By kamel5547 on 10/16/2009 1:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
User data is not stored locally

LOL. You mean user data is not SUPPOSED to be stored locally. It would be easier to do manual upgrades, and far easier to just wait for the asset to be retired.

I can't tell you how much user data is stored locally, in random folders across the C: drive (think c:\my documents instead of using the actual my documents folder).

I'm sure some businesses are probably different but my experience with users is that what they do and what they should do are very differnt things.

RE: 9 out of 10 use XP.....
By jonmcc33 on 10/16/2009 2:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
That that is on the IT department to change that. Use Group Policy to force My Documents folder redirect. Remove local admin rights so that users can't create folders in the root of C: and train people to save only on network shares. Heck, migrate everyone to Sharepoint or something.

If you have people still saving stuff to their hard drives then it's a big sign that IT is NOT doing their job. Our job is to ensure that people have 100% 24/7 availability of resources to do their jobs and continue productivity. If people save data to their local drives and that hard drive dies then it is LOSS of productivity and that is on IT to prevent.

RE: 9 out of 10 use XP.....
By Cerin218 on 10/16/2009 1:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
Completely!! Images are a life saver here. I spend four or five hours creating an image and ten to fifteen minutes imaging the machine. When I am done, everything I need is on every computer I just imaged. They are all the same and we move forward.

RE: 9 out of 10 use XP.....
By inighthawki on 10/16/2009 12:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you think they should have provided an XP-to-Win7 migration path without reformatting/reinstalling OS/reinstalling Apps?

Well to be fair, while it is probably something that most consumers would want, i really think it would be best for them NOT to upgrade. Every version of windows has always ran best from a fresh install, and this prevents people who have tons of bloatware on their computer from complaining about performance issues early on.

RE: 9 out of 10 use XP.....
By omnicronx on 10/16/2009 1:03:26 PM , Rating: 3
Don't you think they should have provided an XP-to-Win7 migration path without reformatting/reinstalling OS/reinstalling Apps?
*shakes head*, you make this out to be an easy task. Show me any OS that has ever been released that has an upgrade path for an OS two releases prior and you may have a case. OS9 for example HAD no upgrade path to OSX at all. Desiging an upgrade path for a completely new kernel in which you expect the installed apps to work would be a nightmare. Furthermore in a work environment, there is a little thing called images, nobody reinstall the entire OS/apps manually these days.

Essentially unless you have a clean install, upgrades are worthless anyways. You are going to hit trouble down the road if you take a system that has been used for 2 years and try to upgrade it.

RE: 9 out of 10 use XP.....
By SavagePotato on 10/16/2009 2:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with the whacko mac crowd is they are thinking in terms of OSX.

Sure... It's easy to upgrade because it has been the same OS for the last x number of years.

Apple has just been releasing payed service packs and calling them a new OS.

Even then you have things like flippantly removing backward compatibility for powerpc hardware with snow leopard which is still yet another glorified payed service pack.

RE: 9 out of 10 use XP.....
By Cerin218 on 10/16/2009 1:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
Tough to create an upgrade path when you so fundamentally change the kernel and technologies from Windows XP. Besides I have never in my life trusted upgrading. I have witnessed far too much go wrong to no want to take the opportunity to start over with a clean load. It's just good computing.

RE: 9 out of 10 use XP.....
By jonmcc33 on 10/16/2009 2:55:37 PM , Rating: 1
The kernel has NOT been changed, just updated. Contrary to confusion, Microsoft cannot just completely change the kernel in risk of completely breaking all backwards compatibility.

"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation
Related Articles

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki