Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Microsoft Operating Systems Software Windows IT

A Majority of Businesses Will Not Move To Vista 378

Posted by Zonk
from the happy-where-they-are dept.
oDDmON oUT writes "An article on the Computerworld site quotes polling results from a potentially-divisive PatchLink survey. The poll shows that the majority of enterprise customers feel there are no compelling security enhancements in Windows Vista, that they have no plans to migrate to it in the near term and that many will 'either stick with the Windows they have, or turn to Linux or Mac OS X'. A majority, 87%, said they would stay with their existing version of Windows. This comes on the heels of a dissenting view of Vista's track record in the area of security at the six month mark, which sparked a heated discussion on numerous forums."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Majority of Businesses Will Not Move To Vista

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:38AM (#20058209)
    Perhaps this could be because they are already satisfied with the versions of Windows that they have? At least satisfied enough that they will put off upgrading and spending all that money until a few years from now.
    • by LBArrettAnderson (655246) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:41AM (#20058275)
      Exactly. Everyone I have communicated with who has actually used Vista say that it's great and that they haven't had any problems (including myself. I've been using Vista business for several weeks and haven't had a single problem with drivers, compatibility, or anything else). I doubt businesses are putting this off because they think Vista sucks, but rather because XP works just fine, and it wouldn't make sense to spend money on something that isn't broken.
      • by rwven (663186) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:49AM (#20058393)
        On the contrary, I've spoken to many people who have used and hated Vista and a few who have sworn if off entirely. I started using Vista at the end of February. I dropped it and switched back to XP in the middle of July. The few benefits of using Vista don't come anywhere near the downsides. I liked the new look & some explorer elements, but there were some core elements that just wouldnt work the way I wanted, as well as many large issues with stability. (The computer was built in february with over the top specs.) XP runs very fast and solid as a rock on it.

        I could go into details, but I don't want to become a troll. Suffice to say, I'm happy on XP, wasn't on Vista.
        • by jafac (1449) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @12:07PM (#20059589) Homepage
          I'm working with a project that's trying to port some software from XP to Vista - Microsoft's driver model changed drastically as most folks are well aware; one of the downsides; devices now report themselves using localized strings, where they did not previously.

          I predict a lot of very expensive work ahead for vendors trying to port any hardware-intensive software from XP to Vista, particularly if it's going to have to support multiple languages. (because you'll now need a bi-lingual developer to re-code the device-tree scanning and parsing code - for each language. Microsoft developer support's still scratching their heads here. . . )
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by icepick72 (834363)
            because you'll now need a bi-lingual developer to re-code the device-tree scanning and parsing code


            You won't need a bilingual developer. You'll need a developer with access to a translator.

        • I've spoken to many people who have used and hated Vista and a few who have sworn if off entirely.

          What's really relevant is that Vista came out at a time Microsoft desperately needed to hit a home run. Instead Vista turns out to be a one-hopper to the short stop. An unexpected bonus for Linux and especially Apple.

          The culture that produced Vista didn't arise overnight, it's been building for ten years. Vista is the product that comes out of a broken corporate environment.

          Ballmer needs to go. He's

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by FudRucker (866063)
        don't you worry, microsoft will probably build a software update that will screw things up to compel users to switch to vista...
      • by Fozzyuw (950608) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:55AM (#20058511)

        I doubt businesses are putting this off because they think Vista sucks, but rather because XP works just fine, and it wouldn't make sense to spend money on something that isn't broken.

        It's a little bit of both actually. My own company sent out a memo stating that no PC is allowed to be purchased with Vista and not to upgrade to IE7. They also cited a government response to this [informationweek.com]. (which I submitted posted here on /. back in March, but never got picked up that I noticed)

        You see, the thing is NOT that Vista is broken but that other software breaks on Vista. You see the difference? We're not talking about some Video games or Office Suite programs but 3rd party business applications such as accounting software, medical software, etc. Along with IE7, my own companies IT department has been testing IE7 and Vista and have concluded that a lot of our 3rd party software that runs a lot of our day-to-days would not work or crash often on Vista or IE7 (for internet based apps.).

        Given expectation of most people that a computer will 'just work' no matter what setup it is, it's much easier to just ban it altogether until there's a need for it. Also, there's the obvious reasoning for cost, which I due agree that it's the most important reason. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

        Safe to say, they're waiting for for the cost to come down or until MS forces everyone to buy it by a) stopping XP support b) requiring Vista to run programs (such as Halo 2, Shadowrun, etc that they're trying to do with the gaming market... and I absolutely refuse to take part in and I hope Linux and open source can get something to compete with DX10 and supported by companies before that happens so I can happily switch to Linux for gaming.)

        Cheers,
        Fozzy

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DaveWick79 (939388)

          You see, the thing is NOT that Vista is broken but that other software breaks on Vista.

          How much of this is due to lazy software development by 3rd party vendors in the past 12 years since Windows 95 came on the scene? Many of the incompatibilities are due to hard coded file and data paths, poorly implemented file and registry permissions that require administrative user access to run the software, or non-standard GUI implementations. How does one create a secure OS when the applications that run on it are so poorly written? Vista breaking 3rd party apps was unfortunately a step MS had to

          • How much of this is due to lazy software development by 3rd party vendors in the past 12 years since Windows 95 came on the scene? Many of the incompatibilities are due to hard coded file and data paths, poorly implemented file and registry permissions that require administrative user access to run the software, or non-standard GUI implementations. How does one create a secure OS when the applications that run on it are so poorly written? Vista breaking 3rd party apps was unfortunately a step MS had to make or they would run into more unfair criticism because they didn't do anything to fix security issues. Funny thing is I haven't seen MS apps break yet. Developers for years have been creating "Windows" software but they have been taking shortcuts to avoid the Windows interface. To me, that is the problem and there is no way MS could have made Windows more secure without alienating those broken apps.
            What you say is true, but it doesn't change the situation. Basicly, you're saying that people don't switch to Vista for the same reason they don't switch to OS X -- their apps won't run on it.

            MS was able to gain such a huge marketshare because they found the sweet spot for upgrading... there has been a continual backwards compatability between OS releases, with only a few API calls being broken with each release. The result is that people still have batch scripts and DOS software that will run under XP -- but all this ends with Vista.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Verteiron (224042)
            That's not the point, though. People -need- to use these apps in order to run their business. Should the application providers upgrade their crummy software? Sure they should. Are they? Maybe. But if that software doesn't run on Vista, that company is not going to upgrade to Vista. That creates problems for Microsoft, not the business, and not (so much) the application provider.
          • by karmatic (776420) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @11:47AM (#20059309)
            This may be true. Ultimately, it doesn't matter.

            My business has good, tested, proven software. Even if I felt absolutely compelled to upgrade to Vista, it breaks some of my software. Some of it can be updated to a new version of the software from the vendor, but why the heck would I do so?

            It's been my experience that "upgrades" are rarely so. In addition to the cost in money and time, they add features I don't need, and senselessly change the interface. It works fine now, but if they don't radically change things, and add new "features", nobody would pay money to "upgrade".

            I would still be using Quicken 8 for DOS if it supported online banking. I'm tired of Intuit changing the online banking format every few years, and deliberately breaking old versions of the software. The new interface is horrid, and adds a lot of useless crap.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by JMZero (449047)

            Funny thing is I haven't seen MS apps break yet.

            From Microsoft:

            While we have made tremendous investments in Windows Vista to ensure backwards compatibility, some of the system enhancements, such as User Account Control, changes to the networking stack, and the new graphics model, make Windows Vista behave differently from previous versions of Windows.

            The changes impact Visual Studio and thus we're unable to support Visual Studio .NET 2002 or Visual Studio .NET 2003 on Windows Vista.

            Vista breaks a lot of stu

      • by Kjella (173770)
        Well, I don't exactly claim to have a big sample among those I know, but neither are linux fans:
        1) Got a new laptop (no XP option). Complained about compatibility, but tried to stick with it last I heard.
        2) Got two bluescreens in one day using Vista, installed XP and all is well. Left the Vista HDD in just in case he changes his mind, but I doubt it.

        So everyone.... well, since I'm 2 for 2 who don't like it, I guess there's quite a few not happy with it.
      • by Tridus (79566)
        I've seen both. I'm using it, and its working great for me.

        A friend is using it, and its working great on his desktop. On his laptop, he's had major frame rate drops, but it works.

        Another friend had to revert to XP due to Vista blue screening so often that he couldn't do anything in WoW.

        I think you're right though, the problem is simply that people have XP figured out, and it does the job. There's no reason to go through the expense and hassle of a migration.
      • YMMV (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Lonewolf666 (259450)
        Well... my sample is a bit smaller, as only two people I know have used Vista in the first place. But both of them were not so happy.

        One is the owner of a small electronics company, and his experience (relayed to me through a colleague) was that he encountered several problems. OK, it's hearsay and not very accurate...

        The other one is a software tester from a consulting company we work with. He told me in person that they "set up one laptop for evaluation, and ended up deciding not to switch to Vista". I kn
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @11:13AM (#20058795)
        A verizon cell phone takes pictures, but I can't transfer them to my hard drive, so it is a broken digital camera. Therefore, that "feature" is not a selling point for me.

        The iPhone doesn't support Flash or Java (and won't ever support them, from what I hear, because Apple wants to be the only company that can write software for it). Thus, it is broken both as a handheld computer and as a web browser. Again, those features, as cool as they are, are not selling points for me.

        Windows Vista comes with spyware, DRM, and other such malware built-in as part of the core OS. Thus, it will not do what I want it to do, and it will do things I don't want it to do. It's new features are not selling points for me.

        What I am getting at is this trend, both in software land and gadget land, of trying to make consumers buy products that limit them, rather than empower them. It is as if they are saying, "of course you want it to be an open and compatible system, but if you have that then you might be able to do things of which I disapprove (whether they are legal or not) or for which I would prefer to charge you. So, I will not give you what you want, but you will buy it anyway."

        No, I won't.
      • by MobyDisk (75490)
        That does not reflect the experience my company has seen. They purchased laptops for several people (developers, managers) and more than one of those laptops has been in for constant service due to the pre-loaded software completely not functioning. The worst one was laptop where the manufacturer reloaded the software from the install DVD multiple times, and each time the same problem happened because the anti-virus software was not compatible with Vista.

        Probably, in a year or so, these problems will go a
      • About a month after MS announce the date they will shelve support for XP. Remember when XP was shiny and new, or at least shiny and a year old and businesses had a low (though not quite as low) adoption rate? As soon as they announced the date of EoL for 2000, businesses started adopting. It'll happen again this time. MS collects from business about 2 years after each OS release by coercing them by pulling support.
      • by GIL_Dude (850471) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @12:49PM (#20060297) Homepage
        It would be an oversimplification to say everything works fine. I'm a tech lead on a team that is creating the Vista / Office 2007 image for 80,000 machines and have been running Vista since the earliest available versions. I have to admit that at this point in time it is not as stable as XP. This should come as no surprise to anyone. It probably is about as stable as XP was before it's first service pack though (and yes, I was in the TAP program for XP too; although it was called JDP back then).

        However, the security gains are there and they are real. Things like ASLR, file and registry virtualization, BitLocker being much better integrated and a whole lot better recovery scenario that standalone encryption products, etc. Agreed that so far this year there have been only two patches that I needed for XP that I did not for Vista. That's not great - they need to do better there.

        We are at 5 years on our existing hardware, so it is time to replace it. The replacement will be with Vista Enterprise. With the better security - it just makes sense to use Vista instead of shipping XP again.
    • by MysteriousPreacher (702266) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:42AM (#20058279) Journal
      Shh, stop spoiling the fun.

      It's clear that large corporations are normally the early adopters and it's highly unusual that we didn't see CTOs standing outside Circuit City at midnight waiting for Vista to be released so they could immediately install it on their mission-critical machines.
    • by CmdrGravy (645153)
      I'm working at a fairly small company at the moment ( around 900 employees ) and they have no plans to move to Vista at the moment. Those who've used it do like it but any new kit is being bought with XP simply because from a support point of view it's easier if everyone is on the same standardised platform and there's nothing Vista can do which we can't also do on XP ( from the point of view of our business apps ).

      I imagine at some stage they may switch but in the meantime it's simply an uncessary expense
    • by uncoveror (570620)
      "Upgrading" to something that is so different that everyone has to learn how to use it all over again will cause incalculable losses in productivity. It could bankrupt a company that is already having trouble making ends meet. Even worse than Vista is Office 2007. It is so unlike Office 2003 and previous versions that simple functions like print and save are a chore to find. Every time you fix something that ain't broke, you get something that is.
    • by Asphalt (529464) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @02:13PM (#20061519)
      I got Vista Home Premium for the first time 2 weeks ago. It came pre-installed on a machine I purchased.

      2 weeks and some 100+ hours later, I still don't get it. What it is, why it was created, what it does that XP didn't do, etc.

      I can confirm that it is quite a bit more resource intensive, and appears to be somewhat slower than XP. The interface is odd and counter-intuitive. I had to turn off UAC because it asked me to confirm every time I wanted to fart. When I turned off UAC, all of my application settings were reset, which means I had to re-configure pretty much everything. The mouse settings won't stick between reboot. I have to reconfigure the pointer evertime I boot the machine.

      I have 4 gigs of memory (only 2.5 gigs are visible), and the disk thrashes every moment that the machine is on. Even when sitting idle at the desktop doing nothing. Some programs don't work, or work in an odd manner. Adobe Premiere dumps on my with a cryptic error message, and I have had one BSOD. Something about could not get driver_power_state. Unplugging the external firewire drive seems to have stopped that.

      I thought FSX would really fly on Vista compared to XP, but the framerates are the same, even with the significant bump in hardware (From an AMD FX-55 to a Intel QX6800 and 6800 to 8800 video cards).

      I am trying to love the thing. I really am. Does it have some positives? I suppose. The little "Aero View" thing is marginally cool. Visually, the window manager theme is nicer. It runs MOST of my applications fine and allow me to get things done similar to XP. The drivers for the X-Fi card sound just incredible, and this is the best audio I have ever had. The drivers for the 8800 cards produce very nice and sharp images and go back and forth between quad monitors and SLI with a simple reboot.

      But does it do one thing that XP didn't do? For me ... no. At least nothing that I have come across. It does the same stuff as XP, sligthly slower than XP ... and seems to pound the living shit out of my hard drive. I am looking at the drive light right now and the thing is flashing constantly. It never stops.

      I still have my Ubuntu machine beside this one, and would love to install Ubuntu on this QX6800. But until Creative releases a driver from the X-FI card (which I am not willing to give up), I'm pretty much screwed on front.

      Once Ubuntu 7.10 is released, which will probably have native 8800GTX drivers on the live disk, and hopefully will have some kind of driver for the X-Fi card, this is going to become a Ubuntu machine very quickly, with a 50gb Vista partition for FSX. I am a heavy multi-tasker and have used every manner of OS release since DOS. I was a Unix admin for several years. So I am not exactly Joe and Jane Soccermom when it comes to screwing around with new OS's

      Until I can get some better Linux drivers for my current hardware, I will be spending more hours with my new buddy Vista, and I will be trying my best to figure out what Redmond was doing for the last 5 years.

      I keep telling myself that it just has to be something more than a window manager update ... but as of this typing, that is about all I have been able to find. XP with a new, slower, but prettier Window Manager.

      I am not sure what that point of upgrading from anything to Vista would be. Maybe I will figure it out in time, but don't know why anyone would bother right now.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LarsG (31008)
      Exactly. There's nothing really new or newsworthy here. Most businesses prefer to stay on the trailing edge of Windows unless there's some really compelling reason to upgrade. win3.x/9x/ME to 2K/XP was the last big cycle, and even with the hugely improved stability and security of the NT family many businesses waited until 2002 to give things like app compatibility and device driver support time to shake out.

      Business is really all about risk vs reward. Migrating to Vista has associated risk and cost (licens
  • by Sciros (986030) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:40AM (#20058229) Journal
    It didn't suck enough. Stuff works with it, it's secure enough, it's no longer costly, it uses a fraction of the firepower recommended for Vista.

    I don't think Vista is a bad OS at all. But if XP is working fine, and the next step up is only a mild improvement (and from my experience, something that the home user will notice more than a work user), it's not worth switching. XP just isn't bad enough to move on from.

    (Now, if only OS's could get crappier over time, like cars...) Maybe MS should release a "critical update" that turns it into Windows ME or 98.
    • by Shadow Wrought (586631) * <shadow,wrought&gmail,com> on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:54AM (#20058495) Homepage Journal
      Exactly. Vista would probably slow most people down anyway because of the resource issue. Maybe in another couple of years when more companies are upgrading their systems company-wide.

      Personally, I think Windows peaked with 2000.

      • Personally, I think Windows peaked with 2000.

        Fixing a hosed 2000 system can be a nightmare because the installer sucks. And setting up a home network was really unreliable. Also wireless network support sucks, and USB was more cumbersome. I can't stand dealing with 2000 anymore. Why would you like 2000 more than XP (other than the fact that you don't have to activate it?)
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by derrida (918536)

      Maybe MS should release a "critical update" that turns it into Windows ME or 98.
      Already did [microsoft.com].
    • by fm6 (162816) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @11:00AM (#20058599) Homepage Journal
      Not a bad OS? Have you been following the news? Spontaneous reboots, driver problems, VPN compatibility issues, application compatibility issues, USB device corruption...

      If XP's only advantage over Vista was that "it doesn't suck enough", then you'd be seeing a repeat of the XP rollout. In that case, a few people upgraded their 2000 and 98 machines to XP. But mostly, people got XP when they got new computers.

      This time, it's not just the old systems that are not getting upgraded. Brand new systems are still mostly shipping with XP. People don't trust the beast, and with good reason.
      • by Sciros (986030)
        There's issues of that sort with any OS rollout. When XP was released, a bunch of folks bashed it and praised 2000 as a far superior offering. It's the same thing this time around in that regard. I've had few issues with Vista at home (although it has been unable to network with our HP printer, which is a bother and most certainly Vista's fault, though something I *can* fix if I put in the effort), and find much of what it does to be an improvement over XP. It *has* made my user experience better, overall.
      • by Bert64 (520050)
        Say what you like about XP, but it was still a huge step up from 98/ME...
        If you were running 2000 there was little reason to update it, but 98/ME were total crap. There are very few instances where someone would want to roll back, plenty of people went back to 2000 however.
    • Operation PUMPKIN (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mfh (56)
      (Now, if only OS's could get crappier over time, like cars...) Maybe MS should release a "critical update" that turns it into Windows ME or 98.

      Couldn't help think of Cinderella when you said that. But is that what people really want? Do they really want software decay? No.

      That's part of what older generations can't grasp... is how software is infinite and does not degrade like every other product. That means the best business model with software will always be SERVICE not product or captive audience. Just o
    • Or maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hotsauce (514237) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @11:05AM (#20058687)
      ...they could make a compelling upgrade, so users want to upgrade.

      It wouldn't be the first time they copied a certain fruit company.

      But they will probably just stop supporting XP, and then that 87% will buy Vista, for fear of the next virus.
    • by krelian (525362)

      \ (Now, if only OS's could get crappier over time, like cars...)

      I haven't used Vista yet but every Windows version I used up until now did get crappy over time. It's called Windows Rot [google.com]. As someone who installs lots of software on his machine this is single handedly the most annoying Windows "feature" ever.

      Of course this can be fixed by reinstalling but it's really not a viable solution.

  • Not a Big Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rycross (836649) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:40AM (#20058233)
    Notwithstanding the issues some users are having, Vista seems to me to be more of a consumer oriented operating system. It doesn't really have much to add to businesses beyond UAC, which I'm guessing most system administrators will turn off (in exchange for one of their internal security policies). Thats not even considering the fact that large businesses are extremely slow to upgrade to anything new. We only got XP Service Pack 2 where I work in the past year.
  • by dreamchaser (49529) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:40AM (#20058239) Homepage Journal
    Businesses were *very* slow to adopt XP for many of the same reasons. Until the platform is patched up some and compelling business reasons come out in favor of migrating, they won't. It's been like that with every Windows release actually. This isn't news; it is normal.
    • by winkydink (650484) *
      Yup. And businesses were slow to upgrade from NT4 for Win2k as well. It's expensive to upgrade an enterprise's underlying OS. You need to test all of your in-house & 3rd party apps to ensure they work, you need to plan to actually upgrade the machines, train users, etc... Until there's a compelling financial reason to do so, most companies choose to stay with what they already have installed.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by div_2n (525075)
      Except that you didn't have to forklift upgrade the vast majority of your systems in order to implement XP. You also didn't have to buy beefy computers to run it acceptably either. As long as existing computers work and are under warranty, Vista won't make a lot of traction.

      This gives businesses time to consider alternatives and also time for alternatives to mature even more than they already have.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Vancorps (746090)
        In my short career thus far I've seen hundreds of businesses move to XP but only one that actually upgraded the OS on existing machines. Most businesses will get Vista just like this did with XP. During their 3 year hardware refresh. Most businesses these days are leasing their hardware and will be more than happy to get laptops which have no trouble handling Vista.

        Given that everyone knew Vista was on the horizon and how MS deals with roll-outs a lot of businesses did their refresh last year since the de

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Vellmont (569020)

      It's been like that with every Windows release actually. This isn't news; it is normal.

      I tend to agree, and this was my first thought on reading this article.

      I remember way back after Windows 95 came out there were many businesses that just refused to switch, despite 95 being a million times more stable, better UI, etc than the (IMO embarrassingly bad) Windows 3.1. Microsoft was still selling Windows 3.1 licenses as late as perhaps 1998 due to corporate pressure.

      Now this isn't quite like that transition.
    • by twitter (104583) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @11:50AM (#20059351) Homepage Journal

      XP did not do well but Vista is doing much worse. The rejection seems to be universal. [slashdot.org] The same low percentage (12%) of business and home users say they want an "upgrade". M$'s power to push upgrades is over and with that goes the whole vendor manipulation monopoly.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nine-times (778537)

      Really, I think the last must-upgrade version of Windows was 2000. Windows 2000 offered much better hardware support than NT, but much better stability and security than Windows 98. For many business, there still isn't any compelling reason to upgrade beyond Win2k.

      Now, honestly part of that is because Windows 2000 was a pretty good OS for its time. On the other hand, I don't know what it says about Microsoft's future that they haven't developed anything compelling in the last 7 years.

  • by techiemikey (1126169) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:41AM (#20058267)
    Whether businesses will have a choice when they order new computer's through their provider.
    • Even small businesses can request a custom image be loaded on most of the major PC manufacturer's product lines. It's home consumers who get stuck with whatever the OS du jour is.
  • Linux / OSX plans (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kripkenstein (913150) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:44AM (#20058305) Homepage

    Last year, Linux and Max OS X had only meager appeal to the CIOs, CSOs, IT and network administrators surveyed: 2% said they planned to deploy the open-source Linux, while none owned up to Mac OS X plans. July's survey, however, noted a six-fold increase in the total willing to do without Windows on at least some systems: 8% of those polled acknowledged Linux plans and 4% said they would deploy Mac OS X.
    Hmm, assuming the data indeed reflects reality, this is a significant development, isn't it?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by geeknado (1117395)
      Maybe. Polls like this are hard enough to interpret when they clearly state the question that's been asked by the pollster. These swings, while dramatic, could easily be influenced by the way in which a question was phrased if it changed from year to year...Note that different companies conducted each poll in question, so it's very likely that the questions themselves, while similar, in fact varied quite substantially. Heck, we don't even know what the stated margin of error associated with these statistics
    • by Thyamine (531612)
      From my personal experience, I have one client that set me up with a Vista workstation and it works just fine. The only problem I notice is its inability to wake up after I let it hibernate or go to sleep over night. So I upgraded my home PC which ran Vista at a slightly below tolerable rate. It was sluggish, and of course drug all the other apps running down with it. I basically needed to upgrade my system, but having to upgrade my whole system just to run Vista was unappealing enough that I finally bo
  • We're one of them... (Score:3, Informative)

    by NIN1385 (760712) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:44AM (#20058307)
    I have instructed my boss to not purchase any new computer with Vista on it for at least a year or two. Just some of the horror stories I have read about all the incompatibility and the problems with just using the interface was enough. I did however have an coworker who received a new laptop with Vista on it and we have had nothing but problems with it. Our printers wouldn't install and I cannot believe how overly complicated they made it to find anything in the operating system.

    It's unbelievable what they have compromised just so they can have flashy graphics and smooth looking buttons. It all boils down to one thing in the end however, I just don't see any benefit to upgrading any time soon so therefore there's no reason to. We will continue to buy our new PCs from Dell with Windows XP on them until they either quit offering it or we have a piece of equipment that requires it.

    • by plague3106 (71849) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:59AM (#20058585)
      Just some of the horror stories I have read about all the incompatibility and the problems with just using the interface was enough.

      Hmm.. I didn't think reading stories counted as research anymore, but I guess it does nowadays. Of course the majority of Vista users without problems are not out on the messages boards singing its praises, they (like me) are simply using their computer and find it more pleasent than XP.

      I did however have an coworker who received a new laptop with Vista on it and we have had nothing but problems with it. Our printers wouldn't install and I cannot believe how overly complicated they made it to find anything in the operating system.

      Ahh, one test machine and you've written off Vista. I had print drivers that don't install, but that's because the manufactor hasn't released any Vista drivers for the printer. Personally, I've found things are better orgainized in Vista than with XP, once I figured out how they set it up.

      It's unbelievable what they have compromised just so they can have flashy graphics and smooth looking buttons. It all boils down to one thing in the end however, I just don't see any benefit to upgrading any time soon so therefore there's no reason to.

      OS makers have a tough time selling their product. It IS more secure and more locked down (I've hit this when doing my everyday development on Vista). I've also read some technical artciles about what is more restricted in Vista. So I'm included to say they are there.

      Unfortunately all most people see is the new UI. Its the only part of the OS you interact with, even though there are quite a few new features in there. Building applications on the new UI IS going to be much easier for me.. no longer do I have to fork out money just to get a context menu that can have a textbox in it.. I can put one together myself easily.

      At any rate, I'm not posting to say you should upgrade or that I think you need Vista right now.. my main objective was to point out flaws in your reasoning used to tell your boss not to buy Vista; nothing you've posted about indicates that you did any kind of real evaluation at all, and I think that you need to be called out on that.
      • by Rycross (836649) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @11:03AM (#20058655)
        To be fair, incidents of problems are just evidence of risk. Vista is a new OS, which means that certain kinks and driver support are still being worked out. Theres no reason to subject critical business machines to any sort of risk when XP and/or 2003 works fine for them right now.

        If my boss asked me if we should upgrade to Vista, then I would tell him "No" without a second thought. And I actually like Vista.
        • by plague3106 (71849)
          You don't need incidents of problems to know there's risk. There's always risk. Lets say that for every one Vista problem poster you had 250,000 users without a problem. Should that lead you to say "absolutely not?" Especially without evaluating the OS on your own hardware, with the software you actually use, in your own environment?

          You also ignore any security risks; Vista does seem to be much more secure than XP. Even running as an admin, you're not really an admin. That in itself is a pretty big ch
  • For some reason, our software licensing folk installed Vista on all public access terminals this last weekend, contrary to the position taken by our IT people and our College of Business who decided to stay with XP until Vista was a little more office friendly. Won't somebody think of the students!?
    • Oh God... I go back to school in a few weeks... and now you have me worried about my poor computer science lab. This is exactly the kind of thing our new head of department would do because she's stupid. Now you have me worried. :S Time to beg a cool professor for another server for us students who don't want to use Vista yet.
    • by TheSHAD0W (258774)
      Students are going to have to learn how to use Vista, so might as well dump 'em in at the deep end...
  • by Mike1024 (184871) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:45AM (#20058329)

    many will 'either stick with the Windows they have, or turn to Linux or Mac OS X'
    Well, lets see what the actual numbers are (quoting the article):

    2% said they are already running Vista
    9% said they planned to roll out Vista in the next three months.
    87%, said they would stay with their existing version(s) of Windows.
    8% of those polled acknowledged Linux plans and
    4% said they would deploy Mac OS X.

    I would say "many will stick with the Windows they have", certainly, but I'm not sure I would call 8% or 4% 'many'. And somehow I suspect 'linux plans' might not mean complete replacement of Windows on the desktop.

    Just my $0.02
    • Anyone else find that they're counting 110% in that list? sure 2% is probabally part of 87%, but where's the other 8? could they be the "linux plans?" aka not a full company wide rollout of linux, but stay with existing versions of windows, and roll out linux to a select few? and hmm, didn't this come out when XP was released 5 years ago? similar stats? looks similar. and btw, I loev how so many people complain about the steep hw requirements of vista. when just 5 years ago, people were complaining
    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @11:11AM (#20058757)
      I've met more than a couple sysadmins who were being very indignant about Vista at first with the whole "It sucks, nothing works, DRM is t3h evil, I'm switching to Linux!" line. However as time has gone on none of them have made even a budge in that direction and are indeed toying with Vista. The "Well I'll just switch to Linux then," almost seems to be the sysadmin equivalent of a tantrum in some cases. They threaten with a switch that they not only have no real intention of making, but indeed no idea what would be involved.

      Also, given those choices, I'm not surprised there are a small number that are switching. Had you asked me before recently if we were rolling Vista out in the next three months the answer would have been no. We are going to roll it out (somewhere around three months is the timetable for the first lab I'm planning on converting) but it isn't like we are just going to rush in to it. Things need to be tested, license needs to be hashed out and purchased, etc, etc. So while our long term answer is "Yes we are going to slowly convert all systems to Vista in the coming years," we aren't going to be converting them tomorrow or anything.

      Really, all the doom and gloom about Vista seems silly as it has been doing just like past Windows OSes, and even a bit better if you use sales number as the benchmark. Adoption isn't going to be in a big rush, but rather a slow trickle. Right now Vista systems are pretty rare, I'm guessing only slightly more common than Windows 2000 systems. Next time this year I bet they are common, but under 50%. Year after that I bet they are the majority, year after that I bet XP is downright rare.

      It is how is has generally gone in the past, no reason to assume it'll be different this time as their are no different indicators. No, the increased hardware demands are nothing new. I remember the bitching with XP over 2000 and particularly NT (which some were running when XP came out). Now, the issues seem like squabbling given the progress in computer power. Similar deal with Vista. It may sound like a lot when someone says "Really, you should ahve a gig of RAM for it," until you realise that a gig of RAM is $50 or less. It really isn't a big deal these days and will only become less so in the future.
    • And somehow I suspect 'linux plans' might not mean complete replacement of Windows on the desktop.

      A good point, considering if even if none of those 8% "acknowledging Linux plans" are talking about on the desktop, there is still a 102% pie being split up between Windows (Any) and Mac OSX.

      Also, note this is in the next three months. Yeah, most businesses tend to be slow in adopting something that could put them out of business. Now, if it covered the next 3 years, then we could talk.

  • from the happy-where-they-are dept.
    Shouldn't that be "from the less-miserable-than-where-they'd-be-with-Vista dept."?
    :)
    I hear a lot of people bitching about XP every day, but they'd all be loathe to switch to Vista. In fact, they'd have a good chuckle at the very notion. I'm actually impressed that relatively many are considering an alternate OS....
  • by pzs (857406) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:46AM (#20058355)
    I suppose this is probably a hoary old chestnut, but I always wonder how long we can be kept on the upgrade band-wagon. Up until quite recently, I ran a Windows 98 machine because it did most of the things I needed it to do. I could connect to the web, make SSH connections, write Word documents and play (older) games. It also had a really small install and ran on a crappy old machine.

    For people who don't need the latest and greatest hardware support, where is the motivation to upgrade at all? I suppose there are probably security issues with the older Windows versions, but I think you can avoid a lot of this by being careful; something which will probably still be necessary with Windows 2060.

    This argument applies even further with application software like Word. I'm not sure I've noticed any of Word's new features since they started underlining my spelling errors, and yet there have been quite a few major (expensive) version since then. Other than version incompatibility and the fact that everybody else is upgrading, why do we need a new version?

    Peter
  • Microsoft has simply discovered that bloat != functionality (and that marketing correctly is important). XP works great, handles all current software that businesses need, and the improvements in the OS are things that are available as freeware add-ons today (and probably work better, at least in the public opinion). The other "under the hood" changes don't mean much to the average Joe User or PHB, and anyone who values "cool desktop graphics" over functionality has already bought a Mac. Try selling a
  • Most small or medium sized companies can stay with XP for awhile if it is working for them. But when you get into larger companies you have to keep in mind 'how long does MS plan on supporting XP'. Most larger companies will not run on unsupported software or hardware. It might seem trivial, considering that's how most good sysadmins see xp. But, from a business stand point it's an unnecessary risk.
  • Give it a few years. 98 took 95's place, xp took 98's place, and vista is coming to xp computers. Even if the foss/linux zeal^H^H^H advocates don't like it and enjoy stories like that. I find it stupid to think that everyone should move to an OS which has been released 6 months ago and most likely needs an upgraded computer. And if they don't, it's something that has never happened before and is going to bring linux to the front.
  • Letting MS know that the only way they will get you to make a shift to VISTA is if they poke you in the eye with a freshly charged TASER simply means they won't waste time with other methods.

    Why even let MS (or any other entity for that matter) know anything about your future business plans? At least make them work for it, sheeshhh.

    Question to MS: "What are your business product pricing plans for the future in regards to VISTA?"
    MS: "No comment."

    Question to business owner: "What are your software
  • Duh! (Score:4, Funny)

    by filesiteguy (695431) <kai@perfectreign.com> on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:57AM (#20058529) Homepage
    I can't imagine ANYONE using Vista. I tried - honestly - to like it for at least a week. However, when you get screens like the one below, you just have to upgrade to Linux..

    http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2007/20070519_vi sta_register2.jpg.jpg

  • by eebra82 (907996) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @10:58AM (#20058571) Homepage
    The problem with Vista is not with Vista itself. The migration of Windows XP was reasonable because any pre-existing operating system from Microsoft just didn't cut it. Several years later, XP is so mature and secure that the advantages between XP and Vista are less significant. Had Vista been released in its current state two years ago, I guess Vista would have been an obvious choice.

    I have no doubt Vista will become significantly better in a couple of years and narrow the competition with the next-gen Windows, but that's how it should be too. After all, XP and 2K were very similar at first, until service packs and such made XP much better. In the meantime, development of 2K halted, which presented a bigger gap between the two systems. The same will happen with XP and Vista.
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @11:00AM (#20058601)
    Unfortunately. XP is horribly insecure in the default configuration, and few companies have administrators that know enough to make it secure AND useable. Hence the widespread threat of trojans that companies are not even aware of.

    A recent survey by websense [websense.com] (unfortunately in German, so rather useless for most people reading here) came up with 98% of companies considering their security "adequate" or better, 53% thinking their security is "very good". 66% of middle management thought that nothing could penetrate their security, their IT guys are rather suspicious, only 25% share the view of their management. Still a lot, if you ask me...

    Unfortunately, admins rarely make the decisions when it comes to purchases. They only have to suffer from them.

    And the rest of Vista, the eye candy and the fluff, aren't a selling point either for companies. A company doesn't care whether their workers get to "enjoy" their "computing experience" more. Their question is: Does it increase productivity? And the answer is probably no.
  • Well (Score:2, Informative)

    by Eisenstein (643326)
    we started last year replacing Windows 2000 with XP in our company. Vista is far away still. Why should any company adapt to a OS before it is tried and tested?
  • Cant wait forever (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @11:15AM (#20058831) Homepage Journal
    Large business cant wait forever for main 3 reasons:

    1 - MOLP will require it after a grace period
    2 - soon, you wont be able to buy a pc with XP. And then later you wont be able to get one with XP support ( drivers )
            2a - supporting mixed environments suck, so they will end up upgrading the rest.
    3 - new software will eventually require vista.
  • by s31523 (926314) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @11:24AM (#20058961)
    Businesses are real slow to adopt new upgrades, especially when the development environment needs to be very stable. In fact, I literally just got a notice that testing is complete and IT will be installing XP Service Pack 2. That is right, service pack 2.

    We develop a lot of aerospace software and are required to maintain development environments that can reliably and consistently reproduce software loads over long periods of time (think life of an aircraft). Using a new OS can throw a monkey wrench into older tools, so we are careful to jump on any new OS or whatever. Not that every company has the same issues, but I bet many have similar concerns. After all, if it ain't broke, why fix it?
  • This is not really news, is it? I work for an international company of 38,000 employees, i.e. not just a Mom & Pop shop, and we have only recently started moving from W2K to XP.
  • by Safiire Arrowny (596720) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @11:39AM (#20059205) Homepage
    I guess Microsoft will have to leak one of their security flaws to the public/script kids, and not fix it for a few months, but say it doesn't effect Vista in the meantime.

    I'm mostly joking.
  • 2% said they are already running Vista
    9% said they planned to roll out Vista in the next three months.
    87%, said they would stay with their existing version(s) of Windows.
    --
    98% continue to run Windows, with at least 88% exclusively.

    Heck, we're a Microsoft gold partner, and we haven't moved to Vista yet. Personally I've been doing a lot of work for large and conservative institutions, several of which have been doing the 2k -> XP migration in the last year or two. Do you think Microsoft really cares if the
  • by davidwr (791652) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @12:16PM (#20059759) Homepage Journal
    Many businesses kept Windows 2000 well after XP came out.

    Why? One, it was the "unknown" as in "we don't know what bugs are lurking around the corner."

    Two, it isn't trivial to convert an enterprise. Training costs alone are substantial, not to mention the other costs of rolling out a new OS.

    In order to defeat XP in the business marketplace, Vista has to be not "just as good as" but actually "better than" XP.

    In some ways, Vista has clear advantages over XP:
    * It has a longer shelf life. XP support will end sooner.
    * It has certain security features not found in XP
    * It has certain non-security features not found in XP

    On the other hand, it has some distinct disadvantages:
    * It presumably has more unknown security bugs than XP, although over time this will approach zero

    And of course those things that are "different" which make it more costly than XP for established businesses:
    * It has some different bugs than XP
    * It has some different features than XP
    * The look and feel is somewhat different than XP

    I'm sure there are many other advantages, disadvantages, and differences of XP vs. Vista.

    It is up to each customer to decide which version of Windows, if any, suits him best.

    My personal opinion?
    Defer ditching XP as long as possible, but plan on being XP-free well before support ends. "As long as possible" may be "we had to buy Vista the day it shipped" or "we'll stick with XP until the day before support expires" depending on your business needs.
  • by Danathar (267989) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @12:23PM (#20059887) Journal
    if Microsoft wants to improve sales of Vista all they need to do is move up the date that they will no longer provide patches for WinXP (security patches). That's the way it happened at my gov agency. They were running Win98 and HAD to upgrade because MS said they would no longer provide security patches.

  • Yes they will (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PPH (736903) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @12:34PM (#20060059)
    Two scenarios:


    1) The CEO trades in his/her old laptop for a new one with Vista preloaded. Now (s)he can't do X anymore over the VPN to the company intranet. X being some function for which the Vista API has been redesigned for maximum incompatibility. CEO becomes entraged, pounds his/her fist on the big mahogany table and demands that everyone upgrade immediately. IT department capitulates and orders Vista and the several hundred million dollars of new hardware needed to support it for everyone.


    2) Someone points out that the CEO will no longer be welcome at the Bill Gates annual CEO dinner if his/her company isn't up to spec. CEO demands that IT department upgrade everyone to Vista. See above for details.

  • by Jugalator (259273) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @12:36PM (#20060083) Journal
    Vista has plenty of security improvements and may well be Microsoft's mote secure Windows version yet.

    BUT... Due to the problems with Windows XP's security, I bet most companies already have good third party firewalls, spam filtering, and antivirus tools in place. We already subscribe to the enterprise edition of NOD32 antivirus that has an excellent track record, and use a Linux server with Smoothwall for our firewalling and VPN purposes. (and I'm eager to upgrade to the new Smoothwall 3)

    Microsoft has to assume people already have security infrastructures in place, and then the question is no longer "is Vista secure", but "what more does Vista offer than this". And I believe that is the problem for Microsoft. Vista offers no earth shattering security improvements, it merely brings it on par with most existing Unix-based operating systems. But if companies have already taken care of that in other ways by using complete security suites with reasonable subscription fees, why should they discard all that, that already works, to spend a lot of money in retraining staff and reinstalling Vista operating systems en masse? It's a huge risk for no clear benefits.

    Vista is clearly better than XP security-wise from my experiences, but the thing is that XP + third party security tools (often free and even open source) is usually good enough.
  • My perspective (Score:3, Insightful)

    by skinfitz (564041) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @12:45PM (#20060215) Journal
    We have 2000+ desktops. Out of those maybe 500 could run Vista right now; we still run Win2k on a number of the older ones but are trying to standardise on XPSP2.

    So far the only (and I mean -ONLY-) compelling feature I have seen in Vista is the ability to easily control 802.1X (P)EAP settings for the wired network interface from Active Directory GPO policies.

    Seriously - that's it. If I deployed Vista we would have never ending complaints about nothing working, and even slower machines.

    Maybe we will look a moving when drivers stop being available for XP for newer machines that we buy in 5 years or so, but I will be looking to migrate to thin clients or maybe a desktop Linux by then.

    XPSP2 as it stands works ok for us for now.

A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequilla. -- Mitch Ratcliffe

Working...