backtop

Print 44 comment(s) - last by JediJeb.. on Jul 14 at 6:23 PM

A new survey shows more IT administrators are planning to adopt Windows 7 sooner. However, the survey also indicates that two thirds of businesses don't plan on deploying it at all, largely over cost and compatibility concerns.  (Source: Jeffrey/TechArena Forums)
Economic fears may be negatively impacting Windows 7's business prospects

In the consumer sector Windows 7 looks set for success.  With fast-paced pre-order sales in the U.S. wrapped up, the OS looks to storm onto desktops and laptops everywhere this fall (October 22, to be precise). 

In the business sector, though, the usual reluctance to adopt a new Windows operating system is still in full effect.  A study earlier this year showed that 83 percent of business administrators planned not to adopt Windows 7 within the first year of release.  Now a new, larger study offers new predictions for Windows 7's fate on the business market.

Conducted by Scriptlogic, the study received responses from approximately 20,000 IT administrators at over 1,000 major companies.  The study shows that the numbers have actually improved for Microsoft -- 34 percent of companies plan on adopting Windows 7 by the end of 2010, up from the 17 percent in the previous study, which looked at adoption through the end of October 2010 (a two month difference).

However, there's also the bad for Microsoft -- only 5.4 percent of companies plan to adopt the OS this year.  Furthermore, 59.4 percent of the administrators stated that their company had no plans to adopt Windows 7. 

The economy is the biggest factor slowing adoption, with 42.7 percent citing time and resources as a reason not to deploy.  The next biggest factors are application compatibility (39.1%), OS deployment (8.4%), hardware support (7.5%) and migrating user settings (2.2%).

AMD and Intel are also reporting declines in sales, a trend echoed in the survey, which found 33.6 percent of the admins reported data centers were adversely affected by cost cutting, and 30.7 percent reported desktop purchases adversely affected.  Of the IT departments, 34.8 said that delaying hardware purchases was their main source of cost savings, 29.2 percent had turned to virtualization to cut costs, 20.6 had cut staff or delayed hiring, and 14.5 percent have said their budgets have been put in stasis.

All of this makes for an interesting atmosphere for Windows 7 -- business interest seems to be piqued and growing, but there seems to be a sharp divide between those who are willing to switch to the new OS and those that currently are making no plans to.  Given sufficient economic recovery, though, this still may be good news for Microsoft as much of the reticent two-thirds might come around with sufficient funding.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Griffinhart on 7/13/2009 9:28:58 AM , Rating: 5
Companies don't schedule OS upgrades around OS release dates. They plan then around hardware refresh cycles. Should we be surprised that in a recession that companies aren't rushing out to prepare for the latest OS update that is still months away?




By mdogs444 on 7/13/2009 9:32:33 AM , Rating: 5
Not totally true. I work in IT for a major hospital system, and we originally had plans to upgrade to Vista - about 6 months following a full hardware refresh. The major problem is not the cost of upgrading - because we have a full enterprise agreement with Microsoft - but rather the amount of vendors who supply us with our thousands of software applications that will not support their software on anything but Microsoft XP.

In fact, we're running into issues right now with the end of life cycle Windows Server 2003, and about 99% of the vendors have no plans to support the new Server OS anytime soon.

So in reality, in major businesses, its not the internal IT staff and cost that prohibit upgrades - its the external vendors who support the software.


By Lord 666 on 7/13/2009 10:44:03 AM , Rating: 2
Even worse is those same vendors refuse to support x64 as well, even on the 2003 product. Luckily our EHR vendor has been adopting the latest OS's fairly quickly along with embracing x64.


By rackley on 7/13/2009 11:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
Wow. Those software vendors need a serious kick in the rear. Time to evaluate their competitors in that application space. Standing still in a time warp is not a viable option for ANY business, whether it be manufacturing (see the "big 3") or software.


By joemoedee on 7/13/2009 12:09:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Wow. Those software vendors need a serious kick in the rear. Time to evaluate their competitors in that application space. Standing still in a time warp is not a viable option for ANY business, whether it be manufacturing (see the "big 3") or software.


The cost of jumping to another program (Install costs, training, data transfer, loss on the initial hardware/software investment, etc), with a new OS and new hardware isn't going to be high on the priority list for many companies even if times are good.

If what's installed currently works, it's not an investment many companies are going to make.


By rackley on 7/13/2009 2:20:59 PM , Rating: 3
True, but I regularly get calls from major corporations who are stuck on 2003 because of legacy apps who are hitting their heads against operating system limits. Mostly it's pushing their legacy app beyond far beyond what it was ever designed for, so it starts sucking up large amounts of RAM and has no scalability (no SQL or other scalable back end, no AWE, no 64-bit, etc). So they run into 32-bit memory addressing limits, which they turn turn on /3GB to fix, then they run into paged and nonpaged pool limits because of McAfee and Norton and HBA and other random crap kernel drivers are using large amounts of paged/nonpaged pool. It's a never-ending chase of the tail (which costs them time, downtime, and money) that a move to 64-bit and Win2k8 would fix very quickly.

Now if only their app was updated by their vendor, they wouldn't have critsits every week.. sigh...


By BladeVenom on 7/13/2009 12:14:04 PM , Rating: 1
Or maybe they should reevaluate what OS they use.


By cserwin on 7/13/2009 9:43:59 AM , Rating: 5
On Third of Companies have Plans to Upgrade to Windows 7 byt the end of 2010!

Now that *is* news.

Seriously, any company with more than 10 employees is not going to rush out and upgrade an OS.

From a productivity standpoint, a bigger monitor has way more impact than an upgraded OS. Companies will spend where they get value.

Microsoft's biggest competition is their own installed base. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


By callmeroy on 7/13/2009 10:35:41 AM , Rating: 2
Too True...

Back in '05 before I left there, I worked for a 100 - 125 employee company and even back then the switch to XP was only a year old. Before that it was '95 on some machines not even '98.

Every single time a new OS comes out, I honestly don't know the point in reporting these stories...its the same thing --- most of the businesses in the country (if not the world) are small businesses, not large mega-corporations. More often than not small business = family run/"friendship" run/or "dictator"-like run by some bean counter type...

All - in - all most of those types of management teams don't appreciate or see the value in upgrading their OS, they look at it as a one and done expense. Heck, I've had 2 hour meetings with small business CEO's talking with them about WHY they have to buy licenses for their software and each person that uses it. The concept is lost on them --- "wait...we paid x dollars for the software and now we have to pay for EACH person to use it too? that's ridiculous...no..." ahh those were the days......lol...not...


By Souka on 7/13/2009 11:28:04 AM , Rating: 1
zactly... a previous company of mine waited until SP1 was out for XP before performng a mass upgrade from Win98 & Win2k.

However, the current (and previous) company I"m at are skipping Vista as it offered no additonal ROI (return on investment) and cost $$ in productivity.

Now that WinXP is approaching 9yrs old...hardware support is going away, especially with laptop, we're looking to deploy Windows7 early next year...

We're already running the Win7 RC without issue on a dozen machines in various deptartments....feedback is much higher than when the users were using Vista.

However...I kinda expect a mixed OS enviornment for about a year. Systems that can make the move to Win7 will (software compatibilty being the main reason not to)...then some legacy machines on WinXP.

:)


By callmeroy on 7/13/2009 1:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
Kinda funny story is my last employer was quite large (10,000 employees plus 133 broker offices that we supported as well, sometimes with another 10-20 folks per office)...they spent gobs of money on the enormous task of upgrading from '98 just in 2003 to XP, including server OS upgrades. Tally was definitely in the $ millions once you including the licensing, man hours, some new hardware... project started in late '03 didn't completely finish until mid '05. Business completely went under late '08.....all that work for nuttin'....lol...oh well it was a great project if you were IT there --- plenty of work which made the days fly by, and you felt relatively secure job wise because of the huge undertaking they need all the IT folks they could get.

Fun while it lasted anyways....


By stubeck on 7/13/2009 11:34:13 AM , Rating: 2
The OS is becoming a hindrance though, at least for some high end uses. We're moving to Vista 64 (and will probably move those to 7 64 soon after release) because of the poor memory management in XP 64.


By Souka on 7/13/2009 11:42:16 AM , Rating: 1
Heh... we rolled back our Vista x64 machines to XP x64 for performance reasons with Solidworks 2008/2009.

These are just CADD stations....all they're used for is SolidWorks. Under Vista performance was about %10-20 slower despite our IT dept. trying to optimize them.

WinXP x64 runs great... only gets rebooted every month or so due to Windows patches...no memmory issues.

My $.02


By Jimbo1234 on 7/13/2009 1:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on the software. CAD that uses OpenGL will most likely work better in XP.

Autodesk Inventor on the other hand supports OpenGL only in XP 32 bit as of version 2008. So, you may as well go with Vista 64 and take advantage of DirectX 10 in that case, which is what we did. Not only that, but superfetch makes opening assemblies and the application itself, much faster. With full Direct3D support, we also went with a "gaming" card instead of a workstation graphics card and put the money into some fast harddrives and RAM.

Check the impact of your antivirus software too. We had ours slowing things down by as much as 50%. Harddrive write-back caching made another 3X performance change. We tweaked our systems and assebmlies that initially took 8 minutes to open, dropped to under 1 minute.


By Kornfeld on 7/13/2009 7:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
How could it be bad news that only 5.4% of companies will migrate this year? Microsoft isn't expected to release their own deployment tools (MDT 2010) until around 60 days after the release of Windows 7.

In the end, I think a lot of the burden will be moved from IT Admins who own the desktop to other areas of IT. For a lot of companies the core content on the desktop probably receives a lot more attention and maintenance than the variety of orphaned or just plain old P.O.S. applications that are in use. I think there will be a lot of companies that will be making a leap to deploying 64 bit versions of windows and the app testing will be the real delay with some of the older products. Even if you go through an effort to make those applications available via your app virtualization technology de jour, the sheer number of applications at a lot of companies will create a lot of work. Likewise, this may be the avenue by which a lot of companies move to IE8, and that offers plenty of opportunity to get mired down if people aren't pushed to do testing and maintenance.


If it works do not update it
By Zingam on 7/13/2009 10:52:41 AM , Rating: 1
I just don't see the point why should one update it it works?

Microsoft has to learn that and also those who write the news reports - OSes have to be free and of good quality so that nobody needs to upgrade constantly!

Microsoft should find another way to make money.




By Insomniator on 7/13/2009 11:01:18 AM , Rating: 2
This is our issue. I work IT for an online college and we really have no real reason to move from XP except for it just being old.

We are going to have to train our entire staff on how to use it and spend thousands of hours replacing our machines (current plan is to just do it in waves of new machines).

We are going to do all this eventually, and its basically assumed that nothing will really be improved, we just have to do it to get with the times.


RE: If it works do not update it
By Taft12 on 7/13/2009 11:02:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft should find another way to make money.


They can't and that's their problem. Live, Zune, XBox, ... None of these have made much of anything and the prospects are not promising. If the gravy train of Windows and Office starts drying up they are in deep trouble.


RE: If it works do not update it
By troysavary on 7/13/2009 12:20:47 PM , Rating: 3
Why do OS need to be free? What sense of entitlement tells you that an OS vendor should not be compensated for the millions of man hours it takes to make one? That attitude is the kind of socialist bullshit that has the world's economy in the shape it is now.


RE: If it works do not update it
By Insomniator on 7/13/2009 12:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
Its not about the OS being free or not, its about there being a good enough reason to put in the time, effort and money into upgrading to a new OS.

Look, I understand it has to be done eventually, or we'd all still be on windows 3.11. But to many businesses and people, XP is still fine and Vista/7 offer no worthwhile improvements.

Its not like we just run around with a Windows 7 upgrade disc and be like ok your done! Many users barely just learned how to use XP, now we have to train them for 7. We have to make sure every one of our 50 vital programs/systems are fully compatible and can be migrated to 7. Older machines w/1 gig that run XP fine now would need to be replaced.

The cost of the OS and new computers is not the issue for us, its just the fact that the entire thing would be a TOTAL PITA, while the current system works fine.


RE: If it works do not update it
By troysavary on 7/13/2009 12:46:08 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with what you said. For many people there is no compelling reason to leave XP. But that is not what i was responding to. The poster before you said OS NEED to be free. Then he also said that they have to be so good that no one upgrades. Well, force them to be free, and chances are, you won't get the upgrades anyway, except from the open source crowd, so i guess his wish would come true. But for most of us, I am sure we want the assurance that our product is backed by someone with the financial incentive, and resources, to keep the product updated.


RE: If it works do not update it
By rackley on 7/13/2009 2:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
That's like saying you shouldn't upgrade from Windows 95 to XP because you'd have to replace your 128 meg systems with 1GB systems and the whole thing would just be a big PITA and Windows 95 is working just fine.

If you did some research you would see there are many compelling reasons to upgrade from XP to 7, *especially* for administrators.


RE: If it works do not update it
By JediJeb on 7/14/2009 6:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
Well I finally got to upgrade one of our machines from Win95 to WinXP and it only costs us $125k. Sounds crazy yes, but when you consider that one computer is attached to a piece of equipment that did not have operating software that was compatable with XP we waited until it finally died before upgrading anything.

For an office environment it is not such a big deal to upgrade OSs often. For those in Laboratories like me and probably manufacturing where the computer costs maybe 1% or less of the total cost of a piece of equipment it is a killer. We can't even update to XP sp3 on our newer machines since it will kill the control software. I even tried installing the software on a new computer just to see and it gives and error because it detected sp3 and halted the install. Some of the equipment is very complicated and it takes the vendor years to create new control software so that means you don't see new software until a couple years after a new OS arrives. By then Microsoft is talking about a new OS and we just shake our heads because it starts all over again.

When the IT guy says we need the newest OS on the server but that means it will stop talking nice to our equipment it slows us down because like on one piece we now have to enter the data generated from it by hand instead of uploading it across the network because the LIMS vendor designed their software so it wont talk to Win95 or even WinNT of which we still have a few running. ( just got rid of my last Win3.1 machine last year).

Like with us, there are probably many businesses out there that even the thought of OS upgrades will make them cringe. We are at the point now that if one old computer dies, we are out a bunch of money because the propriatary interface card is ISA based and no one makes them in PCI or any other type. But we are going to bite the bullet and upgrade those machines just because we could lose a computer, seem a waste to throw out good working equipment because of a computer that cost a fraction of what the equipment cost but that is the problem with computers advancing so fast and not compatable with the legacy equipment that just keeps on working.


RE: If it works do not update it
By AwesomeSauce on 7/13/2009 2:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah i dual booted with win7 RC, but i don't really use it. I can't seem to find a reaon to need to use it. Everything works fine in XP, i don't need to mess with anything. It' jsut works for me. There isn't anything that would make me want to upgrade other than to upgrade.


RE: If it works do not update it
By rackley on 7/13/2009 3:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
The speed difference is huge if you have 2GB or more of ram (so it can actually cache stuff). If you're running an older PC with limited ram, well, no OS changes are going to make things better for you.


RE: If it works do not update it
By tmouse on 7/14/2009 8:06:59 AM , Rating: 2
I think that's the point, there is rarely a reason to switch an OS on a given machine. The exception is many current generation machines which can handle 64 bit systems but shipped with 32 bit. Most companies, phase in a new OS with new equipment purchases, and these purchases are in the dumpster due to the economy. If (for some strange reason) one is doing fine with 95 on a 128 meg system, more power to them. Productivity is king for business that's why many did not switch to Office 2007; the loss in productivity would be plain stupid. Now as you do new hires let them learn the new software and you combine the learning curves. For many applications there are very few reasons to upgrade and even in those cases it you just upgrade the users who would really benefit. In the past a lot of employees had to get the "latest" but with money tight and expenditures meaning possible staffing cutbacks software upgrades are being delayed. I have never understood these types of sensational stories, the majority of companies did not switch to Vista, not because it was bad or they were waiting to see how good it was, they were waiting for 64 bit upgrades to the apps they use and were planning the phasing in of a 64 bit OS with new equipment purchases. The same thing happened from Dos to windows, windows 3.1 to 95 ect ect. There is really no "news" here


By ThePooBurner on 7/14/2009 1:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
How much faster can i surf the web, really? Watch a DVD? That's all i use the thing for anymore since i quit WoW. I've got horsepower to spare, since this is a gaming rig. but i don't do anything that requires DX10, so there is no point in changing.


RE: If it works do not update it
By callmeroy on 7/14/2009 8:48:45 AM , Rating: 2
First no one is forcing you to upgrade your computer if you don't want to. However, if you choose that route and there are newer versions of the OS available --- I don't want to read articles on tech sites one day talking about how folks are disgruntled that their old OS doesn't have the features or offer the full support of current hardware.

In other words, if you don't upgrade your OS you lose the right to complain of it not supporting the hardware or any features that a current OS does.

There are a few reasons why I see a need for a new OS every once in a while (btw - as a home user I do not upgrade to every version -- example at home I'm still on XP , I'm skipping Vista to go right to Win 7):

1) The single biggest reason for me is hardware. Over the years with developments in CPU, memory and storage technologies (SSD anyone?) --- you can't expect very old OSes to support the current state of hardware to its full potential. At best its impractical at worse its a horrendous business decision by the part of the developer. Why throw R&D dollars to work support of a state-of-the-art technology in to the version of your OS you released 10 (or more) years ago?

2) Newer better ideas making the OS more efficient with the goal to be making my computing time more productive no matter the task I'm trying to accomplish. The perception and hope is that as time goes on the developer (in the case of Windows its obviously Microsoft) has experimented, tested, and tried out new ways of doing things to help make make computing more effecient.

Personally do I think they over-emphasize most of the fluff in their OSes, yes -- of course but then I don't really blame them -- they are trying to sell their product just like any of us are to put food on the table.

But every major release there is generally one or two things feature wise in the GUI that I really like and I'm glad they incorporated it.

My main reason for getting Win 7 for my home system:

1) I've been wanting a 64-bit OS on my gaming system for a while now, and XP 64 --- after I read reviews of it, didn't seem like it was such a solid platform and memory leaks were widely reported on it.

2) I haven't upgraded the OS on my system since XP came out and since I like taking advantage of the latest hardware, I will need the latest OS to support said hardware. I'll be nice to use SSD as a boot drive for instance and to finally take advantage of Direct X 10 with my graphics card.

3) I've been testing Win 7 on a work laptop for over a month now and I really like the GUI over XP after I got used to it (remember I never used Vista much) I think its pretty slick.

4) Price. I got in on the 50% off upgrade pricing promotion. For one familiar with Microsoft's history of retail pricing...you simply can't beat it.

Oh and lastly.....to answer your other point --- Microsoft is a software company....why do you think they keep making software...its what they do.

Would you ask a chef to find another way to make money since you get bored of eating the same food he keeps making all the time? You don't have to keep eating there, just like you don't have to upgrade your Microsoft software.


Bullocks
By DrLudvig on 7/13/2009 9:34:43 AM , Rating: 5
Read this http://www.tweaktown.com/news/12768/misleading_scr...
This survey is misleading as hell, i mean, if the companies didn't have plans to migrate before the end of 2010, then they would be in the catagory of never wanting to migrate to windows 7? That's bullshit..
This survey is useless.




RE: Bullocks
By DrLudvig on 7/13/2009 9:37:08 AM , Rating: 4
Also, they didn't receive responses from 20.000, they sent out 20.000. but received only a little over 1.000 back.


RE: Bullocks
By Targon on 7/13/2009 9:49:54 AM , Rating: 2
If a computer is running well and running the necessary applications properly, there is little reason to upgrade the OS. Honestly, the OS is generally not going to improve individual application performance, so a phased upgrade approach makes sense, once the new OS is proven to run the applications required for the task.

This really is a huge reason why Vista did not get the adoption rate, with few other reasons. Vista had a major change to the network layer, and UAC broke the installers for many applications. As a result, many businesses were FORCED to stick with XP since their mission critical applications did not work. Support costs for a mixed environment where there are multiple operating systems also tend to be higher, so, if one department can not run Vista due to compatibility problems, the rest of the company will generally not be able to upgrade either.

Windows 7 Professional is providing the solution for this with the Windows XP in a VM solution, but most companies want to see for themselves if it works for their particular application(s), and so, will not even think about doing an OS upgrade until things are fully tested with a release version, not a beta.


RE: Bullocks
By DrLudvig on 7/13/2009 10:01:23 AM , Rating: 3
I wasn't saying anything about whether the companies should upgrade or not, just saying that this survey is pretty useless..


RE: Bullocks
By crystal clear on 7/14/2009 8:22:44 AM , Rating: 2
Companies dont believe in surveys nor do they waste their time & money - buying/reading them.

The CEOs turn to their balance sheet & their CFO/accountant before deciding to buy or not & when.


7 Seems good so far, but...
By Yawgm0th on 7/13/2009 9:36:02 AM , Rating: 3
Waiting for SP1 is the best plan. It is almost a rule with Microsoft products that you wait for SP1. I can't think of a major MS product this hasn't been true with. Vista, Exchange 2007, Server 2003, Exchange 2003, XP, 2000, so on. Server 2008 was "technically" released with SP1, and it was actually pretty usable out of the box.

On that note, it is hardly bad news that 5.4% of responders said they would migrate this year. For a product that is coming out at the end of Q3, to see even that adoption rate is incredible.

We'll probably be waiting until 2010, and it will be a mixed XP/7 environment for years to come. There's no compelling reason to use Vista at all. I'm glad Microsoft made 7 and it's coming out so soon, but they've pretty much destroyed Vista.




RE: 7 Seems good so far, but...
By honestIT on 7/13/2009 8:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
In XP and Vista sP2 was the mark.


RE: 7 Seems good so far, but...
By Yawgm0th on 7/13/2009 8:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
I thought both were pretty solid at SP1. Yeah, I don't remember any serious problems pre-SP2 in XP. Pre-SP1, on the other hand, was bad news.

Either way, release version software in general, but in particular Microsoft software, is to be avoided.


Business as Usual
By boobot on 7/13/2009 9:23:21 AM , Rating: 3
As expected under most IT plans. Nothing new here.




RE: Business as Usual
By FITCamaro on 7/13/2009 10:12:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I really don't think anyone cares. Companies will upgrade when they feel like it. I'd be happy if my company did but really doesn't affect me.


...more of the same...
By Motoman on 7/13/2009 3:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, this study is perhaps a bit superfluous.

But I think there's a couple important points that play into this anyway.

1. Vast numbers of people/companies didn't upgrade to Vista, and guess what? Nothing happened. The world didn't end. Nobody who didn't upgrade to Vista is regretting it.

2. Said peeps still on XP are perfectly aware that, well, there's nothing wrong with XP. Rule #1 of just about anything is don't fix something when it isn't broken...and while XP was not exactly perfct (neither was Vista, nor will Win7 be), it's completely fit for duty and everything is running just fine.

There's still no compelling reason to go to Win7, same as there was no compelling reason to go to Vista. Personally, I have a couple machines with Vista x64 for the simple reason that they have 4Gb + of RAM. If it weren't for that fact, they'd be XP - and it wouldn't make any difference.

Win7 will almost certainly be less-maligned than Vista...and MS will trumpet it's huge "sales" and such. But the fact of the matter remains that there simply is no "need" to leave XP. Win7 will gain actual usage-share as old PCs get retired, and that's probably pretty much it.




RE: ...more of the same...
By grandpope on 7/13/2009 7:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Replace "Windows 7" with "DTV Converter" and I wouldn't know the difference.

Boo hoo, people aren't buying what they need before their crap breaks!


Do this really matter with SA?
By KentState on 7/13/2009 9:26:41 AM , Rating: 3
I would wager that a large number of these companies use a Select Agreement which entitles them to upgrade to Windows 7 without cost. Basically, MS makes the money on the software agreements and not on the actual upgrade.




By honestIT on 7/13/2009 1:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
We may roll it out on some of our premium laptops to take advantage of the power management, but most of our systems still have 512mb of memory and we simply cannot afford to upgrade all 40,000 workstations.




Adoption plans
By ZachDontScare on 7/13/2009 1:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
My company doesnt have 'plans' to upgrade to 7. That doesnt mean we wont, just that we havent 'planned' for it yet.

Heck, I dont even know what I'm going to have for lunch today. And they want to know what OS I'll be running in a year?




By Varun on 7/13/2009 9:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
That is really the headline. I think it is pretty amazing that 1/3 of companies in your survey are planning on moving to Windows 7 when it is not even released yet

I work for one of the largest employers in my country and we have a roll ot plan already. You can't count on XP support forever, plus XP just feels so hard to use compared to Vista and Windows 7. There will be some teething pains, but things like XP mode should help with any antiquated home brew apps.




"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki