Print 86 comment(s) - last by Master Kenobi.. on Apr 15 at 12:24 PM

Windows 7 features a cleaner interface, a leaner footprint, and better hardware compatibility. However, according to a recent survey 83 percent of IT professionals at major companies are planning to wait more than a year to upgrade. Shrinking budgets and concern over software compatibility are two key issues.  (Source: Microsoft)
Most business will wait until at least 2011 to upgrade to the new Microsoft OS, study says

After an energetic success with Windows XP, poor support from hardware partners and initial bad publicity marred Microsoft's follow-up effort, Windows Vista.  Many businesses, including trusted partners like Intel, turned their back on Windows Vista and adopted a wait-and-see attitude.  While any OS release sees only partial adoption in the business community (companies typically upgrade only once every several years), comments from several large firms cited perceived issues with Vista itself as one reason to delay upgrading.

Now as Microsoft prepares to release Windows 7 -- which is being lauded as a much more cohesive effort than Vista, including with better hardware support -- the company hopes that business partners will warm back up to a Windows upgrade.  That's not the case, though, according to a recent survey by market research firm Dimensional Research, which found that most companies won't upgrade next year.

The firm writes, "Early beta testers are providing many glowing reports about the functionality and performance of Windows 7, especially compared to Windows Vista.  But is corporate IT excited about the new operating system, or do they dread yet another release?"

The firm surveyed 1,100 IT professionals at large firms.  Over 83 percent reported that they planned to skip the OS in the New Year.  As few large companies migrated to Windows Vista, this figure proves surprising, as it means that many companies plan to continue to use Windows XP, which mainstream support for ends this week.  Overall,
42 percent said they planned to deploy within 12 to 24 months, 24 percent said 24 to 36 months, and 17 percent said that they will wait more than 36 months to deploy, if at all.

The delay is not wholly Microsoft's fault, according to the study.  The researchers say that companies, faced with recession-stricken budgets, simply cannot afford the expenditures need to upgrade to a new OS.  Software compatibility is another major concern too, though.  States the report, "
The majority of participants do not plan to upgrade to Windows 7 in the next year. Economic factors are contributing to the delay in Windows 7 adoption for almost half of all participants. Software compatibility is the most frequently cited concern with Windows 7."

While Microsoft has for the most part done much to assuage consumer fears about the latest Windows OS, it apparently still has a ways to go with addressing businesses' concerns.  Of the surveyed, 67 percent reported concerns over software compatibility and 88 percent of those reporting concerns said it was their primary concern with adopting Windows 7.

Trepidation among the business community to adopt Windows 7 could worsen the economic concerns for both Microsoft and PC retailers like HP and Dell.  The adoption hesitance could spill over into the consumer market, ultimately hurting most major PC players, while helping only a few -- like budget Linux OS providers offering cheaper deployments.  The survey did find that 50 percent have considered a switch to a non-Windows OS due to Vista or Windows 7 concerns.

Despite all its hard work and advances in generating what looks to be a rock-solid consumer product, can Microsoft convince the IT community to switch to Windows 7 early?  The answer may lie in how smoothly the transition goes for the 17 percent of those planning to adopt in the first year.  These deployments will be absolutely critical to Microsoft as success could bring gains in reputation, which could bump up its adoption across the entire business community.

Comments     Threshold

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

This is a story why???
By Marlin1975 on 4/13/2009 11:17:33 AM , Rating: 5
Of course most will not install something new that is not even out yet. Heck there are some places that still run Win2000 just fine.

This does not mean Win7 is bad, just that many may not get full use out of it and/or they don;t even know what it will do/not do for them.

RE: This is a story why???
By smackababy on 4/13/2009 11:19:16 AM , Rating: 3
And with every new release of anything, there is the possiblity of problems. Of course most businesses will wait.

RE: This is a story why???
By spread on 4/13/2009 11:34:06 AM , Rating: 2
It's better than the 95% + companies that won't upgrade to Vista.

RE: This is a story why???
By Silver2k7 on 4/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: This is a story why???
By Silver2k7 on 4/13/2009 6:20:42 PM , Rating: 1
I mean think about it, companies want something thats proven.. something thats new but not that new.. something wich have had a little time to mature and get its bugs ironed out.

XP was just like Vista when it was new it had plenty of bugs.. but after SP2 it was a much better product.

RE: This is a story why???
By goku on 4/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: This is a story why???
By brshoemak on 4/13/2009 8:57:11 PM , Rating: 5
So when exactly should we expect your vastly superior OS to be released to the marketplace? Got that couple millions lines of code all shored up and ready to go? I hope it's compatible with 1000's of pieces of existing hardware floating around out there. When it's done send me a .torrent file and I'll check it out.

I'll assume you're complaining because you use those applications from "all major companies" Just go open source or I can lend you my copy of DOS 6.22 if you are concerned with bloat - I'll throw in a copy of Oregon Trail while I'm at it. If you have time to complain about what others are doing wrong you have time to find your own solutions that fit your needs.

RE: This is a story why???
By goku on 4/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: This is a story why???
By TomZ on 4/14/2009 12:13:15 AM , Rating: 3
1. The automakers are not holding out on developing some magic technology that will let you drive large cars and get 40MPG. Despite what the politicians are telling us...

2. The reason we are driving 20MPG cars is that we, Americans at least, like to drive larger cars. They are more convenient, safer, and more enjoyable. And there is no reason to feel any guilt about that. Despite what the politicians are telling us...

RE: This is a story why???
By goku on 4/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: This is a story why???
By Nik00117 on 4/14/2009 4:41:29 AM , Rating: 1
I sell cars, I can tell you most nowadays since prices have dropped poeple are like "I want a F-150!" I want a ExpeditioN! Etc.

The reason why car makers in America don't make the 40-50 MPG non-hybrid cars is because they don't sell.

And about the comment (Bullshit EPA ratings)

My dad bought a 2009 F-150 and avgerages 20 MPG (he does about 60% city 40% highway)

My mom owns a Ford Focus she avg 32 MPG (about the same 60% city, 40% highway)

Spilt 50/50 those MPG figures should be lower according to EPA.

RE: This is a story why???
By goku on 4/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: This is a story why???
By Spivonious on 4/14/2009 12:38:09 PM , Rating: 3
This article is about Windows 7, not automobiles. Go back under your bridge.

RE: This is a story why???
By goku on 4/14/2009 3:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
The point was that Windows 7, XP and basically all of Microsoft's OS' are bloated for their time, they're much like a badly programmed video game, one that is slow on the fastest machines, yet unable to show any benefit to its massive resource usage. This idea of inefficiency can be applied to a vast number of areas from the government bureacracy to electricity distribution, with some areas worse than others relatively speaking.

RE: This is a story why???
By CollegeTechGuy on 4/15/2009 9:49:04 AM , Rating: 2
You can use Windows and have compatibility with hundreds of thousands of pieces of hardware, millions of pieces of software, but it won't have the BEST compatibility with everything and be unstable at times.

You can run Linux and have compatibility with a fraction of what Windows does, and use a fraction of the software Windows can, but you will have more control over your OS and have fewer running resources.

You can run OSX and have great compatibility with everything Apple will allow you to, and you can run any software Apple will allow you too, and you will have great performance with all of those. However, you won't have your choice of hardware, and your software list will be very limited.

Point is every OS out there has its advantages, and its disadvantages. You have to choose what works best for you, and accept its disadvantages. Because as you argue that Windows is bloated and a crappy OS, it is bloated because it is trying to provide support for everything out there. Its in Microsofts best interest to try and make it compatible with everyone who makes PC stuff, and it doing so your "bloated" with all the extras for hardware and software you don't use. If you want less bloat go to another OS...but don't complain about their disadvantages because you chose to use it instead.

RE: This is a story why???
By maverick85wd on 4/15/2009 6:24:02 AM , Rating: 2
Oregon Trail FTW!!!

First computer game I was ever addicted to, back in 3rd grade. I thought it was the end-all until 5th grade when Oregon Trail II came out and you could hunt.

Takes me back...

RE: This is a story why???
By Pudro on 4/14/2009 4:56:33 AM , Rating: 4
You clearly have no idea what the "memory usage" means. When Vista came out I was dual-booting it with XP, and I can tell you for a fact that Vista needs at most 50 MB more memory to do the same stuff. The difference is that Vista makes smarter use of free memory, not just letting it sit there doing nothing. This would only be a problem if it didn't let go of that extra usage when something actually needed that memory, but it does let it go just fine. Even when it came to playing Oblivion with barely above the minimum hardware, there was no noticeable difference in performance between the two operating systems.

RE: This is a story why???
By callmeroy on 4/14/2009 9:44:16 AM , Rating: 3
I disagree, XP has always sucked

If this statement is true to are probably doing something wrong....

XP is easily the most solid and consistently performing OS Windows has released up to this point in time.

There will always be exceptions, but I hear many many more people ditch Vista for XP, and don't know of too many that do the reverse.

Finally i've had xp on my system at home since release, can't honestly remember a total system failure that was completely the fault of the OS....I had to re-do my system twice, but it was hardware related each time.

RE: This is a story why???
By teohhanhui on 4/15/2009 3:21:19 AM , Rating: 3
I believe most who have actually been using Vista cannot love XP over Vista. This is not to say that Vista is perfect but XP is much worse/no better in most respects. Those who should really be hating Vista are those with older computers or have the need to run legacy apps.

RE: This is a story why???
By Master Kenobi on 4/15/2009 12:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
For those people, Microsoft has graced us with a free piece of kit called "Virtual PC 2007".

RE: This is a story why???
By xmichaelx on 4/13/2009 6:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
The truth. Additionally, most companies run (and rely on) a whole crapload of software, much of which won't have versions that work on a new OS for at least a year after launch.

We're running some Novell software that still doesn't work reliably with Vista AFAIK.

RE: This is a story why???
By dgingeri on 4/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: This is a story why???
By AlmostExAMD on 4/13/2009 7:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agree, Windows XP was the same.
I think most companies will wait for service pack 2,Wether it's SP2 on Vista or Win 7.

RE: This is a story why???
By Boze on 4/13/2009 11:40:00 AM , Rating: 5
I really don't know why this is considered newsworthy either.

As a general rule, most businesses never upgrade to the latest and greatest of anything. After the Windows Vista debacle, of course this makes businesses even more wary of the situation.

The general problems in the business world that prevent constant updating are:

1. Cost - It costs money to purchase the upgrade licenses for each computer. Sometimes, its necessary to upgrade the computers themselves in order to ensure high performance and productivity.

2. Ease of Use - How familiar will most employees be with the new software? It took me quite awhile to feel "comfortable" with Windows Vista, and I still find myself searching for things on occasion because I been using XP for 7 years now.

3. Compatibility - Not just with hardware, but with existing software and specialized in-house programs. Will the new OS work with Boze Beetle Basher 1.2.7? No? You mean we have to rewrite our custom apps??

All of these things (and probably more) weigh heavily on the IT department's mind when they hear about new OS releases from Microsoft, and rightly so. Its a huge trickle down effect. The IT department as a whole needs training to learn everything they possibly can about the new OS. The end users are going to have to learn basic operating of the OS if things are radically redesigned. I'm hoping with Windows 7, Microsoft makes things much "easier" to do, like Mac OS X... I'm no Apple fan, by any stretch of the imagination, but its hard to find fault in Apple's operating system when judged on the merit of ease of use... and with Windows 7 it seems like Microsoft is realizing that.

RE: This is a story why???
By StevoLincolnite on 4/13/2009 12:07:29 PM , Rating: 5
After the Windows Vista debacle, of course this makes businesses even more wary of the situation.

Is it me or do people seem to forget the buggy first release of Windows 95, Windows ME (That was always a lost cause...) and even Windows XP?

When XP was first released the Operating System had very minimal driver support, it was demanding on systems where most places were happily running there Celeron 300 machines on Windows 98/2000, and most software was un-reliable at best, things like Alcohol/Nero didn't even work on XP when the OS first shipped, at that stage most software was optimized for the use with a Win9X operating system, and some just refused to agree to go out on a lunch date with an NT based Operating system.

XP did have an up-side however, and that was the fact that a Program crash didn't always crash the entire system, and you saw allot less Blue-Screens of death.

The "Vista" Debacle was just a repeat of history, however this time around people are far more vocal about it.

Regarding Windows 7 vs Vista, Windows 7 is an amazing piece of software, I have been running Windows 7 Beta 24/7 for months now without a single issue, and considering it's only a Beta...

Plus most businesses wait a long time to upgrade anyway, upgrading is potential down-time/costs/potential additional training of staff/additional support/compatibility issues.

RE: This is a story why???
By leexgx on 4/13/2009 1:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
if you have used windows from win95 up to XP the interface for the most part is the same from an user stand point with, and users that use them know how to use them, with vista the interface is changed as 1 thay removed the start name of the button so you say press the start thay play stuped and ask where that is, networking on vista is far more complicated and some times does not work

all admins know in and out of XP on how to set it up

for corp users NT4 2000 and XP are all the same

corps are not going to Start to upgrade to windows 7 or its next ver (most will Never deploy vista due to its messed up networking and High system requrements or HW replacement) untill XP has No more support in 2015

going to be playing with win7 as my prime OS as i have an spare hdd,{testing} considering its been running on an VMware box it has been working very fast so if its running as an installed os should be good (hopefuly thay have Fixed superfetch so it does not Load up the cache at the same time other programs are trying to load up {I/O Priorty to other threads} as it can slow the pc down alot when superfetch is loading up the ram, SSD makes all the vista hdd problems go away)

the comments the post before stevo's post i agree with compleaty

RE: This is a story why???
By StevoLincolnite on 4/14/2009 2:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
if you have used windows from win95 up to XP the interface for the most part is the same from an user stand point with, and users that use them know how to use them, with vista the interface is changed as 1 thay removed the start name of the button so you say press the start thay play stuped and ask where that is, networking on vista is far more complicated and some times does not work

Actually I have used Windows from Windows 3.11 to Windows 7, I don't class DOS as a "Windows Operating System".

Windows 3.11 to Windows 95 was a MASSIVE shift in GUI, and yes people did get lost with the move, but it also came with many benefits, hence it ended up selling extremely well.

From Windows 9x/NT/2K to Windows XP was also another large Shift in Graphical User Interface changes, the basic layout was still the same, but there was allot more to it all, hell Networking even got me confused for awhile, I was used to setting everything manually in Win9x and then XP brought the Network set-up wizard along, I also found I didn't need to use the "Run" Command either to set-up dial-up internet connections by going: Start >>> Run >>> inetwiz

The start "Button" is still there, it's just that the naming has gone, doesn't mean the function isn't the same however.

I do agree with you on the networking aspects, when I shifted from XP to Vista I found it confusing and annoying, then when I started to use Windows 7 it seemed to work my way allot easier, despite the layout being exactly the same as Vista's. - The new layout is something that you get used to, and you will either hate it or love it, and you can still do allot of the same networking stuff as you can in Windows XP by going into adapter settings, then right clicking on the adapter and set the I.P's etc' that way.

Windows has evolved over the years, for the better or for the worst is up to the user, if you find it annoying there are alternatives like: Sticking with your current OS, going the way of the Mac or shifting to Linux.

RE: This is a story why???
By mindless1 on 4/13/2009 2:01:25 PM , Rating: 3
It's not quite a repeat for several reasons.

1. Win9x was far less stable, even after all patches, than XP was after Sp1. That filled a great need in the business community unlike what Vista brings to the table now and Win7 tomorrow.

2. XP brought significant Admin control and a basic level of security.

3. XP provided support for key features like multiple core processors, larger hard drives, and enough memory to do the majority of tasks a business does.

The main thing that'll make businesses switch to Vista is that it comes on new systems and end of support for XP, not their choice to upgrade. Same goes for Win7, whatever need a business had for their computing they have already solved with XP so there simply aren't the same reasons to switch today that there were at the end of the 9x era.

RE: This is a story why???
By stromgald30 on 4/13/2009 3:02:38 PM , Rating: 5
Vista/Win7 is actually much more secure than XP. The move, IMO, will be motivated by security and better native support for SSDs, flash drives, and a host of new technologies since XP was developed. Of course, MSFT could keep XP up to date with patches, but we all know that won't happen forever.

Personally, I think Vista will be like ME. No company will adopt it. They will just hold out with outdated XP systems until Win7 SP1 comes out. Then, there will be a mass migration.

RE: This is a story why???
By TomZ on 4/13/2009 3:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, MSFT could keep XP up to date with patches, but we all know that won't happen forever.
The days of functionality-adding patches for XP are done. Mainstream support has ended now.

As to your comment about Vista, I wonder about that myself. I kind of think that companies would be more likely to upgrade to Vista after Windows 7 comes out, instead of upgrading right to Windows 7. Most companies avoid the latest OS release as a general rule. But on the other hand, considering the perception many people have of Vista, deserved or not, I wonder if that will encourage IT folks to skip Vista and go for Windows 7.

I guess in the end, some percentage will go down each path, instead of in the past where you could be almost certain that corporate IT would stay one major release behind.

RE: This is a story why???
By MrBungle123 on 4/13/2009 4:58:01 PM , Rating: 3
I think most IT departments are taking the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosophy on this issue.

You can make a case for a Vista over XP if you're using your computer for games and entertainment type stuff like a regular home user, but what does it offer a business?

Sure there is increased secutrity but the whole network is likely behind some sort of firewall(s) and each workstation likely has internet filters on them as it is.

DX10 is great if you want the latest graphics but when your primary use is document creation and other productivity type applications it is of little value. Not to mention how many word processors need more than the 4GB limit on system memory of a 32bit OS like XP?

It sounds like a hassle that doesn't net you any real gains. You get a pretty new interface that requires re-teaching any of your technically illiterate users how to navigate windows, then you have to work out any compatibility issues that may [will] arise, and you can have it all at a cost of $200+ per machine. Whats the point?

RE: This is a story why???
By dgingeri on 4/13/2009 7:01:38 PM , Rating: 3
The business advantages to Vista are this:

User security - with UAC (and the ability of being able to make sure a user can't turn it off) should keep most viruses, trojans, and spyware off your computers

network security - the much more effective firewall will keep out many more security nightmares

Driver stability - the 64-bit version forces drivers to be tested and supported properly, you would have far fewer driver related crashes and other issues than with XP

better performance - I can say, as a Vista user at home, the Office type apps start and run far faster in Vista than XP thanks to Superfetch

Now, there are significant downsides, such as app compatibility and configuration issues. Personally, I'd stick with XP for a business, but to say there are no advantages would be a total lie.

Oh, and BTW, the 4GB advantage is not for word processors, but I have about 30% of our users begging for extra memory due to running virtuals. Most of our developers use virtuals for all their work, with 64-bit XP as just a base OS with no apps other than Virtual PC. Our QA department run 6-10 virtuals (only 1 or 2 at a time) in order to test new code and apps. Out project management team runs 2 virtuals so they can have multiple instances of their project management software open. (Many web based project management apps are notorious for only being able to have one open at a time.) Memory is a hot commodity, and having a 64-bit OS available is vital to our company.

RE: This is a story why???
By dgingeri on 4/13/2009 4:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree, Boze.

The company I have worked for in IT for the last 4 years got bought out about 2 years ago, just before we started planning to roll out Vista and Office 2007. our new corporate overlords have put a severe kibosh on that because of their own stupid IT decisions.

In order for our parent company to upgrade, they would have to pay for nearly all of their licenses because they didn't buy them with Software Assurance. In the mean time, we have had to buy under their corporate licensing, meaning none of our new licenses ave it either. All our previous licenses were purchased with SA, so we would be able to upgrade at nearly no cost. They refuse to allow us to upgrade because they can't.

Anyway, we're stuck because the European fat cat executives had to go an buy their licenses without any foresight. (What is it with European management and their hatred for IT in general. 3 IT people is not enough to support 400+ users! We need to replace those who left!) Maybe the eventual cost of the upgrade when XP becomes dangerously insecure from a lack of patches will make them remember. Probably not, though.

RE: This is a story why???
By omnicronx on 4/13/2009 12:53:55 PM , Rating: 3
I agree, furthermore 17% business adoption within one year is absolutely amazing if they can pull it off. I don't think any OS has come even close in the past 20 years.

RE: This is a story why???
By stromgald30 on 4/13/2009 3:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. This says nothing about how bad Vista is or how bad Windows 7 might be. All it tells us is that if those 17% do jump on Windows 7, it will be a huge windfall for Microsoft.

RE: This is a story why???
By iFX on 4/13/2009 2:37:53 PM , Rating: 5
It isn't news, it's just Jason continuing his Windows smear campaign.

RE: This is a story why???
By SavagePotato on 4/13/2009 6:48:44 PM , Rating: 5
This just in...

Studies show Jason Mick is a sensationalist, trying half heartedly to conceal the fact that he is an extreme Apple shill, by throwing in an impartial decoy article here and there between ridiculous Microsoft bashing disguised as "articles"

In other news Pirks approves and was quoted as saying "Jason Mick articles are like a lexus lolzzz"

RE: This is a story why???
By walk2k on 4/13/2009 9:43:01 PM , Rating: 2
Are they still on track for July release?

RE: This is a story why???
By gudodayn on 4/13/2009 9:48:48 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, why is this a story???
Who pays to have this survey / questionnaire / study done anyway??
It would've made much more sense once Win7 has been released for two years and conduct a survey to see how many companies have adopted it, list the advantages and disadvantages they've encountered.....
Wouldn't that have made much more sense??

RE: This is a story why???
By callmeroy on 4/14/2009 9:40:03 AM , Rating: 1
lol I was going to say the same thing, I'm glad you beat me to it.

Why on earth is this cited as news? Its articles like this that sometimes make me pause and question if DT isn't by folks who are/have JUST gotten into the IT field in the last year.

This is normal SOP folks (and by folks I mean DT staff responsible for posting the article...)......

Before my previous employer, a 10,000 employee bank folded, were had JUST completed upgrading everyone to XP in late '07 - early '08.

the stuff this site calls newsworthy is funny sometimes....

RE: This is a story why???
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/14/2009 2:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
Would rate you up if you hadn't 5 already.

What kind of business is that which jumps on every "new os" bandwagon?

Granted, if a company decides to buy new notebooks and they come with a new OS, they won't mind.
But to expect them to perform a large scale upgrade, without knowing if their legacy applications will work or not, is plain silly.

Not practical, not cheap, and time consuming. Why go for the latest and greatest if the old one does the job, still gets corporate support, AND in an economic situation like this keeping costs down is a prudent decision?

I guess the survey would have had the same results when XP, windows 2000, NT 4, nt 3.51, etc were launched.

Home users crave for the greatest and latest, corporate decisions are more about having just the essentials to get the job done at the lowest possible cost.

No surprise
By Elementalism on 4/13/2009 11:27:22 AM , Rating: 5
I am honestly surprised only 83% said they wont.
Business often moves slow as snot in the winter. Too many applications that need testing an validation for a new OS to penetrate. We are still trying to work in Vista here but some old ass applications simply wont play nice.

RE: No surprise
By Lonyo on 4/13/2009 11:30:46 AM , Rating: 2
Adopting a new OS is also not a very good idea. Why switch on release when you don't know what problems there could be?
A sensible choice would be to wait for the problems to surface (there will be problems, you can't make a perfect OS) and then wait for SP1 to resolve any potential issues, and then businesses might be more likely to upgrade.

RE: No surprise
By ATC on 4/13/2009 11:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
That's what I was thinking; 83% is pretty good considering the state of the economy, putting pressures on corporations to make do with what they have.

Also, for many companies the question always comes up, "What can we do using Vista or 7 that we must be able to do, that we absolutely cannot do using XP" and the answer is usually nothing.

RE: No surprise
By Spuke on 4/13/2009 1:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's not just that. There's security and support considerations that play a HUGE role in whether or not a new OS gets adopted.

RE: No surprise
By MonkeyPaw on 4/13/2009 5:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and I think most major companies skip an OS generation anyway. Part of it is validation, but another part is because many companies run their hardware out a long time, and new OS's mean new hardware. If a company waits long enough, they can phase out old crappy machines instead of mass-purchasing them. My company went from NT4 to XP, and I highly doubt Vista is on their radar, especially since most of our systems are P4 512mb. Win7 might be a good investment, but it could be 2 years before that happens.

The other thing to consider is that as soon as any big company makes a single software change on the PCs, their Help Desk will get flooded with calls from people who wonder "why their start button changed," or why their fun little paperclip assistant disappeared. This stuff is huge, and many Vista/MS-haters never realized this when companies passed on Vista in the beginning, too. When you add up labor costs, hardware costs, and software licensing, it often makes the most economic sense to do absolutely nothing.

most businesses...
By cubby1223 on 4/13/2009 11:18:39 AM , Rating: 2
haven't switched to Windows Vista yet.

Most businesses know what a major PITA it was when Vista came out, and drivers were not available with many of their accessories or their accounting software was not fully compatible, etc.

And bottom line, most businesses no longer need to periodically upgrade their systems for speed upgrades, they only replace them now as things break.

RE: most businesses...
By Doormat on 4/13/2009 11:35:36 AM , Rating: 2
And some software STILL isn't compliant with Vista!

I'm waiting for Checkpoint to release a version of their SecureRemote VPN client so I could remote into work using Vista 64. For now I'm stuck with XP waiting for Checkpoint to get in gear. They've had a OSX Leopard client for out for a while now, but still no Vista 64 client.

RE: most businesses...
By KentState on 4/13/2009 1:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
That's not a problem with Vista, but rather 64-bit. I had no problem running SecureRemote in 32-bit Vista.

RE: most businesses...
By Doormat on 4/13/2009 2:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, which is why I said "Vista 64" in the post.

The issue is that with Core i7, its weak to only be able to see 3GB of RAM. I'd like to see all 6GB I have installed, thus the need for 64. With RAM prices the way they are (DDR3 prices falling) I could see moving to 12GB by the end of the year - using VMs with only 3GB of RAM is painful.

RE: most businesses...
By TomZ on 4/13/2009 2:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
No, in your original post, you said, "And some software STILL isn't compliant with Vista!" and then rattled off an example of something that is in fact compatible with 32-bit Vista, but is not compatible with 64-bit Vista and probably not compatible with 64-bit XP either.

In other words, it's not a "Vista" issue, as you alluded; it's a 64-bit issue.

RE: most businesses...
By croc on 4/13/2009 7:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
The 32 bit SecureRemote client works just fine in Vista 64, and in win7 64 as well. The IP stack has no difference between 32 and 64 bit, and win7 made no changes to the IP stack.

XP and 3rd party programs
By Regs on 4/13/2009 11:20:22 AM , Rating: 1
There really is no need to upgrade to Vista or 7 yet. 3rd party developers continue to slack and sell programs that either:

A. Don't take advantage of hardware
B. Don't take advantage of OS functionality
C. Don't take advantage of newer technology or programming.

Most progress I've seen has been on the server side.

Remember when Excel and MS word was actually a reputable skill set? Now it's common place. Maybe it's time to raise the bar again?

RE: XP and 3rd party programs
By omnicronx on 4/13/2009 12:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
7 is faster, has more functionality and is more aesthetically pleasing than XP, it is very much so worth the upgrade. Third party developers are irrelevant when even previous software designed for XP runs better.

The only people that should not be updating are those that use some kind of legacy software that is not supported by the Vista/7 kernel.

RE: XP and 3rd party programs
By mondo1234 on 4/13/2009 2:12:55 PM , Rating: 5
7 is faster, has more functionality and is more aesthetically pleasing than XP, it is very much so worth the upgrade

For the Business User? If they cant make more money with it, why upgrade? Aesthetics is the last thing on the list for your secretary or the accounting division. If I am the boss, I'm not spending more money for my secretary to look at a nicer OS, I will spend the money on a nicer looking secretary :P

RE: XP and 3rd party programs
By mindless1 on 4/13/2009 2:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
It's the users, not the systems that are the bottleneck so speed is irrelevant, and also quite arguable. Merely showing some benefits in certain uses on new hardware is not the same thing as being significantly faster, per dollar, at what a business actually uses it for.

"More aesthetically pleasing" is another reason not to switch, the users already know the XP GUI and switching will only cause more retraining time.

Every previous software doesn't run better, it runs the same at whatever level of maturation (patches and version current at the time) it exists in. Either software works acceptibly or a business moves on to something else, already, an OS is not a solution to bad software!

The only people that should be updating when it's first released are reckless morons. Everyone else should not at all "update", rather migrate when a majority of systems have been replaced. It'd be silly to throw away properly running XP systems so they can run the os you like, and not effective to go around upgrading every CPU, amount of memory, to meet your suggestion.

Businesses are eventually captive to whatever MS releases, THAT is why they eventually move on to newer versions of Windows today, because eventually newer software, hardware, and support issues will require it.

By simply waiting, businesses gain three things:

1. Larger % of employees already familiar with the new OS because they bought a PC with it preinstalled. New recruits also familiar, training cost and support issues are reduced.

2. Release of a service pack or two, nobody likes show-stopping bugs. Most bugs won't effect everyone, but any new OS will have several so odds of issues rise.

3. Computer tech gets faster year after year. The later a switch to a new OS is made, the better the hardware can accomodate it. Only looking at certain benchmarks is obviously invalid, anyone with a budget class system like most business computers are, can easily see the sluggishness in Win7 or Vista compared to XP, when comparing both as fresh installations, fully configured for performance.

Things like time to boot or prefetching changes do not matter, these systems get turned on in the morning and run the same thing all day long in most cases.

RE: XP and 3rd party programs
By Jargo on 4/14/2009 7:41:27 AM , Rating: 2
Very true.

Just want to add that by now our support (1st +2nd level) is well trained enough to handle most XP proplems on their own.
Really dont want to think about the amount of re-training it will take to get them to the same level of efficiency on a new OS.

The other advantages mentioned is absolutely not worth the fuzz on a corporation level, nice enough for home-pcs but thats it from my pov.
I certainly just want a stable OS for the clients, the rest is handled by our servers fine enough.

I hate these bogus news items.
By imaheadcase on 4/13/2009 11:44:07 AM , Rating: 4
Stats from small % of people =%98. lol

Anyways, i got another rocket science stat:
Within 10 years, someone in North American will die from a car accident. I can put it down to Chicago area.

Wow, I'm good, i should write these stuff to.

RE: I hate these bogus news items.
By diego10arg on 4/13/2009 11:49:00 AM , Rating: 3
That is almost a fact. Which could also be reduced to "Someone in the US will die in the next 2 hours from a car accident", and it would still be true.

I still wish we could rate articles aswell.

By therealnickdanger on 4/13/2009 1:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
+1 to that. Rating articles would be awesome.

W7 SP1
By diego10arg on 4/13/2009 11:28:59 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe they are waiting for SP1 for W7 to be released


RE: W7 SP1
By suryad on 4/13/2009 3:05:28 PM , Rating: 3
Nothing wrong with that. IN fact that is what I am going to be doing.

RE: W7 SP1
By TomZ on 4/13/2009 3:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
That kind of brain-dead approach is what gives corporate IT a bad name these days...

I mean, why even bother to evaluate the Windows 7 RTM, when you've already decided it is not going to be better than the 7-year old OS you're running today...?

Sorry, I think that's stupid. I think it makes a lot more sense to evaluate, gather facts, and make an informed decision. That's the purpose of having "managed" corporate IT.

RE: W7 SP1
By diego10arg on 4/13/2009 5:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
I have been using W7 for the last 3 weeks and I feel really comfortable with it. Much more than I did with Vista SP1. I won't wait until W7SP1, I haven't found many/important issues that I cannot live with.

I was just kidding with the SP1 comment, but I was pretty sure that most IT Managers would do that, as they always do.

Bad Statistics?
By ZachDontScare on 4/13/2009 2:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
Half the articles I read say 83% of businesses wont upgrade over the next year, the other half say 83% of surveyed IT 'pros' in large companies dont have plans to upgrade. Thats a huge difference in meaning. If indeed its the individuals who dont plan to upgrade their departments, if its even their decision, if the survey hit 10 people in a single company there's a pretty good chance the company will indeed have some areas upgrading to Windows 7.

Basically, this survey - like all surveys - is meaningless unless the original report is made available. None of the articles I can find actually link to the original report. That sets my BS-statistics radar off.

RE: Bad Statistics?
By TomZ on 4/13/2009 3:01:58 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with you, but the actual statistics are irrelevant. This article is a statement of the obvious fact that most corporations are not going to jump on the latest OS release when it first comes out. Like, when did that EVER happen in the history of computing?!?

As others have already stated, this article is just sensationalist drivel trying to generate page-views.

RE: Bad Statistics?
By The0ne on 4/13/2009 11:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
So which side are you arguing for/against?

That kind of brain-dead approach is what gives corporate IT a bad name these days... I mean, why even bother to evaluate the Windows 7 RTM, when you've already decided it is not going to be better than the 7-year old OS you're running today...? Sorry, I think that's stupid. I think it makes a lot more sense to evaluate, gather facts, and make an informed decision. That's the purpose of having "managed" corporate IT.

You must be the ONLY person to be doing your homework to not make stupid decision like...well, like what you just said now.

RE: Bad Statistics?
By mondo1234 on 4/14/2009 12:42:53 AM , Rating: 2
<voice on the bullhorn from outside the Post Office>

We are all friends here...
Its gonna be OK...
Just take a deep breath...
Put the gun down!

There are some nice men out here to talk with you.....

Time for a change?
By Zingam on 4/13/2009 3:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
After reading such news... don't you think that the time is coming for all of us to move to an open system that does not force us to constantly upgrade a system that just works. After all the Operating System should be transparent/invisible to the user and not some hindrance. How much time have you spent wasting your time with a bad application compared to how much time have you wasted to make your OS work?
It is time to end that one company, one system domination... The PC world needs a change badly.

BTW I'm not some Linux freak. I don't like Linux very much actually. I'm just a disappointed user.

RE: Time for a change?
By TomZ on 4/13/2009 4:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
I think that the odds of having a single perpetual OS is about the same as buying one car and using it your whole life.

And quite frankly, it would be about as boring, too...

And I'm not convinced that an "open system" is going to solve anything. Quite frankly, Windows is already pretty darn open. After all, I can write a device driver for any kind of device I can imagine, or write an application that does anything I can imagine, today without any hinderances.

RE: Time for a change?
By stmok on 4/14/2009 5:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
And I'm not convinced that an "open system" is going to solve anything.

No one said it was the be-all to everything. You assumed that.

Quite frankly, Windows is already pretty darn open.

That's really pushing it...Tell me, how do I get access to XP's source code if I wish to modify and customize Windows XP for my own needs? Can the enthusiast crowd (like those who use nLite or similar), rip out the Windows Genuine Advantage or Activation components? Say if FAT or NTFS does not meet my needs, can I replace the entire filesystem with an alternative?

After all, I can write a device driver for any kind of device I can imagine, or write an application that does anything I can imagine, today without any hinderances.

Eh, that's a pretty trivial reason to justify your point. You can do the same with other operating systems. As long as you have the necessary hardware information required to develop the driver, this isn't an OS specific reason.

Windows 7
By jinx101 on 4/13/2009 1:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
So businesses aren't going to deploy something next year that they haven't even seen the production version of yet? That makes sense. Most real businesses wait until SP1 of an OS is out. I suspect that many will move to Windows 7 after that occurs. It's far better than Vista and to compare the two does a disservice to the resolutions Microsoft has made to Vista problems.

1.) I'm not surprised they're not moving ASAP
2.) That doesn't mean they won't move or don't want to move, they just want to proceed with caution which makes sense.

RE: Windows 7
By The0ne on 4/13/2009 11:08:44 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently what you just said seems like an idiotic idea *shrug* I would figure being cautious so you don't have too much work during deployment and management stages would be a great idea but go figure with some people here.

I believe that person thinks that there will be enough testing with Win7 RTM that anyone could make a decision on it prior or during the actual release. Just simply WOW imo not to mention ironic for the "idiotic" statements being made.

Why Upgrade on initial release?
By 9nails on 4/13/2009 11:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
I can't think of any conversation about a new OS that started with; "I can't wait until Wonder OS 7.0 releases so that I can upgrade all of our business computers!" We typically find out about the killer application of the new OS after it's released. Sometimes this is right about the time the first service pack comes out. But this is not a rule.

At this point it's far easier to create a list of con's for upgrading to Seven than it is for pro's. Unfortunately for Microsoft, it's well known what Seven will be like, and where it's weaknesses lie.

Windows reasons to upgrade went like this:
3.1 -> 95 = 32-bit support
95 -> 98 = Plug-n-pray finally working, USB, some stability
98 -> 2000 = major stability improvements
2000 -> XP = improved boot times, performance, and drivers
XP -> Vista = Hold due to lack of 3rd party driver support
XP -> Windows 7 = Hold due to lack of justifiable features

RE: Why Upgrade on initial release?
By MScrip on 4/14/2009 2:52:42 AM , Rating: 2
You've outlined why it made sense to upgrade from other versions of Windows... but it seems like we've hit a plateau of functionality. XP works... why switch to something else?

It's kinda like cars... they've all got 4 wheels, seats and a steering wheel, and you can drive it from place to place... there's not much else a car needs to do.

It just makes me wonder why any business will ever stop using XP. It works, right? You can use Microsoft Office and Outlook on XP. Why should there ever be another OS?

We should be praising Microsoft for creating XP because people seem ready to be using XP for 10-15 years.

Told you so
By gamerk2 on 4/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: Told you so
By TomZ on 4/13/2009 2:48:33 PM , Rating: 3
As I mentioned in another post, Vista and Windows 7 have improvements in terms of deployment, security, and administration that are exactly targeted towards corporate usage. You may not be aware of them since you are not in IT.

Agree - FUD - Not Newsworthy
By GTVic on 4/13/2009 1:55:33 PM , Rating: 3
There are two main reasons not to upgrade that are not mentioned in the statics and this makes the report meaningless.

1. Large enterprise typically doesn't replace an OS on a computer. When a mass hardware replacement is in the works, that is when an OS upgrade is considered. So you have to factor in the percentage of companies whose lease or equipment are expiring next year (< 30% easily). So that automatically eliminates close to 80% of businesses.

2. Economics, many companies are delaying upgrades for non-critical machines. What is the need to update a typical office PC that does email and word processing?

Re this story
By dickhertz on 4/13/2009 2:52:14 PM , Rating: 3
Logically most businesses will not deploy new operating systems (OS) immedidately for reasons already covered in prior comments.

There is a time lag many businesses need to factor in to their upgrade programs to ensure that all legacy Software that is used within their organisation will continue to work with the new OS and depending on size of the organisation this can involve considerable cost, time and resource. My experience is that many business will already be incorporating plans and budgets for upgrades into their forecasts and planning cycles and even now commencing preliminary compatibility testing for legacy SW, even then businesses would not be ready for deploying the new W7 OS from day 1 and 2011 expectations would be my guess for some to commence deploying W7.

I am running three seperate pieces of HW XP, Vista, and the Beta for W7 while I enjoy the reliability of XP as my primary HW device I have been impressed with the overall performance of W7 so far it has met all expectations with the exception of a couple of minor bugs which have all been resolvable thus far.

I did really struggled with Vista when I first used it I think that overall familarisation has helped me with W7 which is definately a superior product. The challenge for businesses will be training and development of their staff if they migrate XP to W7 (would be same for Vista), with the only brightside being that be the time 2011/2012 they deploy W7 a considerable number of the workforce will have upgraded their home computers.

Windows 7 aka Vista 2
By catalysts17az on 4/14/2009 11:45:45 AM , Rating: 1
i know what i am about to say will probably be recieved negatively but here i go. i have been running Windows 7 beta for a month on a daily basis. Compatibility problems are nearly non existance but there are a lot of applications i dont run on my computer that you may run on your computer.

that being said, it picked up my dual screen 22" viewsonic monitors with a hitch. i have dual partition 1TB hdd and Window 7 is given only 100Gb the rest of the 900Gb is for XP. For those like me that are holding on to XP, There is no real reason to move to Windows 7 or Vista for that matter. XP is still faster....(i like Fast) however, i have a quadcore X3360 chip with 8 gigs of memory.

i know that XP will read only up to 4Gb of memory but i still got eight so i could run Window 7 ultimate 64 on he 100Gb partition. even with 8 gigs of memory Windows 7 64 still seems slower than XP EULA prevents any benchmarking. It is however with some sorrow that i now give my recommendation to friends and family that Windows 7 64 (64 bit only too) be the successor to our XP machines. XP is still faster but XP will also be hard to find very soon online for sale.

with that being said our M$ choices are now Vista and Windows 7, hands down go with 7 and if not make sure you get the 64 bit version or either OS for the ability to add insane amount of ram! i topped out on my mobo with 8 gigs.

hope 4 Gb sticks start to be sold at decent prices.

RE: Windows 7 aka Vista 2
By luceri on 4/14/2009 12:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
Just a thought, is the first 900GB of the hard drive XP and the last 100GB Win7? If so, perhaps the reason XP seems zippier for you is because of the location of the OS on the hard drive's platters. The information near the core of the spindles can be read and accessed more easily and quicker than that of the information on the outside due to it all being closer together.

I'm just mentioning because I have a similar PC but Win7 is just as, if not faster than XP, both x64. Currently Build 7068 on Win7.

Of course there could be other factors, such as drivers and whatnot, which would also cause discrepencies in the speed differences we perceive. Running mine on a core i7 920 here, 6 gigs ram w/ ATI 4850. I'm sure a Xeon Core 2 with nvidia graphics would give a vastly different experience just due to drivers alone in this beta stage.

Just a thought and note that my experience is a bit different. I do have some program compatibility probs though, but not many anymore.

Problem solved......
By kilkennycat on 4/13/2009 8:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
Suggestion to Microsoft:-

For every retail copy of Windows 7 Home Premium or higher, include a full copy of Windows XP-32 Pro SP3 using exactly the same Key. Also ensure that the Genuine Windows authentication doesn't care whether it sees XP or Windows 7 against that key, as long as the hardware-check is the same. This gives the customer the free choice of booting either Windows 7 or WinXP on his/her PC or dual-boot authentication if so desired. Now the decision WHEN to switch is entirely at the CUSTOMER'S discretion..... For Microsoft, the profit-loss is near-zero ( since they have already officially phased-out retail sales of WinXP Pro), just the cost of pressing the extra disk, plus they are perfectly entitled to keep the support phase-out date and support level of WinXP exactly the same as they have currently proposed. As for OEM installs of Windows7 (or XP Pro), leave the initial decision to the customer, but charge an extra fee -- say $50 for a disc with the alternate OS under the same key - should the customer freely want dual-boot access to both OS.

The problem with either Windows7 or Vista adoption in the business communities is compatibility with XP Applications. During the 6-year "nominal lifetime" of Windows XP, thousands of applications were developed, both commercial and custom. For many of those, there is either no upgrade path to Vista/Windows7 - the developer long since gone, but the application still performing flawlessly - or the upgrade is prohibitively expensive and brings zero user-benefit, not exactly what businesses want to hear at any time and certainly not in the middle of a painful recession.

There is no indication from Microsoft that they are going to improve the core compatibility of Windows 7 over that of Vista when running legacy applications. So unless Microsoft takes my suggestion to heart, they are going to have a very painful time indeed gaining traction with Windows 7 in business marketplaces both large and small. Enthusiasts may drool over Windows7 and its snappy improvements and extra features over Vista and Windows XP, but hard-headed business people pained by a recession are more likely to expectorate on Microsoft than to drool if implementation of Windows 7 gives them no tangible improvement (or worse still a loss) in productivity.

By Jeff7181 on 4/13/09, Rating: -1
You cannot blame them for wanting to wait
By A Stoner on 4/13/09, Rating: -1
By TomZ on 4/13/2009 2:47:19 PM , Rating: 3
You don't know what you're talking about - it is false to say that XP is better than its successors for large corporations. For example, Vista and Windows 7 offer far better security and management compared to XP. These are important aspects for all large companies because it lowers the cost of IT administration.

By rcc on 4/13/2009 3:21:08 PM , Rating: 3
Windows 7 is not easily learned by old hand XP users, it is not easy to find old tools, if they even exist.

Oh please. Ok, maybe not by someone with an IQ under 65.

There are many reasons to upgrade, or not. But if your IT staff can't figure out something like this in a day or a week, you have other issues.

Most IT staffs are somewhat ossified when it comes to software changes. The bigger the department, the more true it is. Stick with the tried and true, we know how to support it, we're too busy...... etc.

Not that any of those are invalid reasons, but to say it's not easily learned? Wake up and join the 2000s.

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki