83% of Businesses Won't Bother With Windows 7 545
Olipro writes "Most enterprises stated they won't bother with Windows 7 for at least a year as they simply continue to distrust that compatibility issues won't occur with their mission-critical software ... The Million Dollar question will be whether the fact that XP upgrades to Windows 7 requires a clean install will prove to be Microsoft's undoing." I suspect that will change before they actually release the OS.
Huh. (Score:1, Interesting)
they will if they don't want to pay for support (Score:5, Interesting)
Mainstream support for XP ended last week. It's dead, Jim.
2003 to 2009 is longer than any version of Ubuntu is supported. It's had a nice life. Shoot it in the head, and move on :-)
Re:they will if they don't want to pay for support (Score:4, Interesting)
When I upgrade Ubuntu, its painless, just about everything works the same, same data, same everything just newer versions of some software which generally work the same as the prior versions. Everything is still reasonably fast (though it might be a tad slower), on the other hand, performance is almost non existent on Vista and you will notice a drop in speed and a loss of money in your wallet.
Death by self-competition (Score:5, Interesting)
It's almost funny. Linux can't beat microsoft. But why bother ?
In the department of "clobbering microsoft" the one organisation that's really doing some damage is microsoft.
Perhaps we just need to wait a few years.
Re:xp does the job well (Score:5, Interesting)
So basically, yeah, why would they upgrade, especially when their profits aren't that good. What's bizarre here is what happens now? We have a huge entrenched monopoly operating system that nobody really wants to give up, do we just keep buying new computers and put old software on it? Do businesses end up like the aircraft traffic controllers with software 20 years and more out of date just because that's what works?
For myself, since I'm a dual rabid apple and linux fanboy, I certainly don't mind reading about how MS can't get people to buy their new product, but I don't see how this situation really helps apple or linux either. (I'm actually not an apple fanboy, I just think they make good hardware and software that isn't too annoying to use.) If they're worried about software compatibility migrating to vista, what makes anyone think they'll pick a non-windows OS? More likely they'll just keep putting band-aids on old systems.
Maybe what Microsoft really needs is an XP emulator, like the classic mode in OS X or rosetta for running PPC software on Intel, or an independent implementation of the XP API, like what's in wine. I haven't haven't heard anything about Microsoft designing such a thing though, has anyone else?
Duh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not news. Either they just upgraded to Vista, and see no need to move again, or they're still on XP, and have seen no need to move so far.
No business that's not Windows-centric (producing products for Windows) runs out and upgrades to the new Windows first thing. You wait, you see what the stupid early adopters have to say. You install a couple of desktops, see how the new os behaves in your environment.
Then, if you like it, you begin a phased roll out. That's the right way to do it. You minimize your problems, and you make fewer bad technology decisions.
Myself, I'll probably buy 7 for home use, and I think 7 is a much more serious effort than Vista (yea, it's just Vista with some of the annoyances pulled out, and a lot of driver issues fixed, so what?). Eventually I'll need to know it, so might as well get some experience on it.
Well, we actually are... (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, actually, they were planning to go ahead with Vista, but the IT guys (me and 2 other persons for the national division of the corporation (that is 5 companies)) advised against.
Going for another OS is alas not an option, a lot of official software (i mean software we need to be complaint with regulations in my country) only come in MS flavour.
The problem isn't dying support for XP, but just licensing issues, MS won't continue our licenses for XP forever, we already had it changed automatically to Vista, and had to ask to downgrade that back to XP.
Re:xp does the job well (Score:5, Interesting)
why upgrade when the current software provides everything you need
1. What you said.
2. Nobody has the money to upgrade anyway.
3. Nobody's coming up with anything new to justify throwing everything out.
4. Netbook phenomenon is finally putting emphasis back on getting more for your dollar rather than writing bloaty code and throwing horsepower at it.
5. Repeat point 2, nobody has the money to throw out perfectly good hardware just to get a new OS that does pretty much what the previous one did.
I know predicting the death of Microsoft is good fun and we've been doing it for years. I won't say this is the death knell but this is certainly a bit of a pickle. The plural of anecdote ain't data but a lot of people I know are going Mac out of frustration. Those who haven't are still adamant about keeping XP.
Re:xp does the job well (Score:3, Interesting)
Updates for Win2000 went away ages ago, but there are still a *lot* of companies still using it for infrastructure. Most are on 2003.. even Win2008 is not seeing any significant rollout yet, and we don't expect it to do so for at least another 2-3 years.
Windows 7? That won't even *start* to enter the test cycles of most companies until next year.
Hardware manufacturers will make drivers as long as there is demand. They will continue to support XP until there's no significant use of it - so you're good for another 5 years at least.
Re:Dubious (Score:5, Interesting)
First it's 84% of IT pros [zdnet.com] and now it's 83% of businesses? Might have something to do with these surveys being carried out on a submission basis, where the only people who respond are a minority that are either passionate "must-have-the-latest-version" fanatics or passionate "anything-other-than-XP-sucks" fanatics. The apathetic majority isn't taken into account.
Yup, this is why I prefer to base myself on real market statistics. People often don't know what they'll do until its time to buy.
My reasons for not wanting to move to Windows 7 is pretty much the same reason for not moving to Vista:
- Windows 7 feels like a Vista 2
- Windows XP works well enough
- I get the feeling that real people weren't taken into account with some of the UI changes
- I don't see the "must have" features (maybe someone can convince me otherwise?)
- I don't want to reward a company that needs 6 versions of the same release
I am probably expecting too much from the OS and maybe I'll have a change of heart in six months. I can't say I'm someone who doesn't want the latest and greatest since I tend to keep up to date with whatever the latest version of my Linux Distro or MacOS X, when then there hardware is covered. These latter two probably have their own issues, but apparently I am capable of overlooking them for whatever reason.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh by the way, here's a single page link [informationweek.com]
Subscription Model (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe this is why Microsoft wanted to move to a subscription model (and probably still does). If Microsoft can convince a company with 10,000 newish XP machines to upgrade -- that's 10,000 times the cost of an upgrade license. And any machines not upgradeable will be replaced with new machines and OEM licenses. And home users aren't a small market either as most will need to upgrade or buy new systems to support the software....
With a subscription model, like the one we use at the university, we pay X amount of dollars per year for OS and Office upgrades/installs, whether we buy new systems or not. Mostly it's to upgrade from XP Home to XP Pro. Anyway, if MS could have everyone move to a $30/computer/year model, they'd have a steady stream of cash and wouldn't need to create a new OS.
Though honestly, XP is ready for a refresh -- I'm not sure Windows 7 has enough useful features (the imaging is one though and UAC is not as annoying in 7) to warrant an upgrade. Perhaps as a platform to enable new features such as touch screens or Minority Report holographic interfaces (I swore that was in Windows 7 RC 4.52).
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Interesting)
What I'm saying is: MS or not: the time where people used to literally stay in line to upgrade an OS are over.
Never underestimate the power of new, innovative, hyped and well marketed products. Just look at iPhone for example. Have you ever seen people standing in line to buy a (mobile) phone? Have any of us seen a line in front of a Nokia store?
I know that OS-es are much more complex, but it may not happen in 2 years, 5 or even 10. But as the time goes by as computer geek I sincerely hope that day will eventually come. Hey, I like for my computer to just work most of the time, but at the same time I do like new way of doing things, something new to learn and master and new challenges (even if those are the same things done simpler).
Re:they will if they don't want to pay for support (Score:4, Interesting)
And the other side of the coin. In some very specific applications, there are Linux systems based on the 2.0.x kernel still running and doing their job well. In those rare instances where upgrades are out of the question, nobody has to sweat bullets wondering if the vendor will declare them dead. Affordable support will exist for as long as they want because they have the source code.
The source for kernel version 1.0 is still on kernel.org for anyone interested. With a bit of net archeology, install media from the '90s can be dug up and used to install a new legacy system and nobody will scream about license violations or anything.
It's really amusing for several reasons and on many levels watching corporations begging MS (like the lapdogs they are) to not EOL XP.
Re:Leopard is pretty good (Score:3, Interesting)
Well then what's the point of using MacOS at all then?
There should be enough of that almighty consistency over time such that this kind of nonsense doesn't happen.
Yes in a proper "we live and die by UI guidelines" sort of OS, you should
not have to worry about which version of the OS a particular bit of software
was designed for. This is just lame.
Big differences (Score:5, Interesting)
The last I checked, the "start menu" is rather different. Even the shutdown menu option is different. XP shutdown is Click the button on the bottom left called "Start", select "Turn Off Computer...", click on "Turn Off/Restart" etc, vista is "click the four coloured button on bottom left, click on the "triangle pointing right" select "Shut Down" (or Restart). Apparently the "power icon" by default does not cause Vista to shutdown, instead it causes it to Sleep.
There are also extremely big differences in lots of things that the normal users don't normally use but often need "tech support" for e.g. network configuration (maybe someone messed with their config over the weekend, so they call you and you have to fix it over the phone).
BTW WiFi network configuration is a mess too - Intel, Dell, Random Vendor, Windows, all have different ways of doing WiFi config... Very annoying.
Going to 98 to 2000 was a change, but you did get significant benefits from it (no longer have that "GDI resources" problem and other stupid flakiness - try pressing winkey on boot just as the windows 98 GUI is starting up ).
Re:As to the last line of the post... (Score:5, Interesting)
Some businesses moved to Vista and found that MSs plans to drop backwards compatibility (in favour of new .NET everything) meant lots of applications stopped working. I think this is a big reason why they're very cautious this time, and also why XP is the 'top of the pile' as generally it tried to keep that backward compatibility going as much as possible.
Allow me to play pundit here for a minute: This is going to turn out to be Microsoft's downfall. People expect their antiquated, crap software to run on Windows no matter how much newer it is. For the most part this has worked out for people because they have been forced into buying new hardware every so often and encouraged to make a break from the old -- on the rare occasion that something won't work (at least mostly work, heh heh) there's usually something new and cheap to free.
However, Microsoft has finally reached a point where they're stuck making major breaks in compatibility or being left very, very far behind. And since Microsoft has always been the compatible operating system, that's expectation number one. Everyone out there pretty much expects their old Windows software to run on new versions; Try running some old 16 bit stuff on Windows XP sometime, odds are it will work fine. Now try running some ~Windows 95 software on Vista. Fun times! While Microsoft has improved compatibility significantly with Vista SP1 it's hard to believe that they aren't taking a fundamentally wrong approach somehow.
If Microsoft has to break compatibility then it opens the door for competitors. I don't think too many businesses are seriously considering moving to an all-Macintosh environment any time soon, but there certainly has been some of that in the SMB space. More seriously, it opens the door for Linux on the corporate desktop, which is definitely the first step towards dominance of the home desktop. It worked for DOS, and it worked for Windows...
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Interesting)
From a user perspective, going from 98 to 2000 wasn't much of a difference. From an administrative or support perspective, they were almost completely different.
The difference between XP and Vista are not nearly as vast, but still different enough to require different approaches. I was Windows 2000 certified, and I couldn't find half the configuration panels I looked for the first time I tried to troubleshoot a Vista install.
Re:Death by self-competition (Score:4, Interesting)
I've said this for years. Microsoft's biggest competition is themselves. Why upgrade from XP to Vista (or Windows 7)? The new flashy features aren't going to really win that many people over. In the Office arena, why upgrade from Office 97/2000/XP to the latest versions? Chances are, if you're running Office 97/2000/XP, the new versions aren't really going to offer you anything new you can use. The old versions are "good enough."
This used to be Microsoft's strength over Linux/Mac. Yes, Linux/Mac may have been better in many (perhaps even most) areas, but Microsoft Windows was "good enough." This "good enough" status kept people from switching operating systems (and office suites). Now, the "good enough" that kept people on Windows/Office is keeping people on OLD versions of Windows/Office. Microsoft now finds itself fighting against the very strength that helped maintain their monopoly for many years. And if they can't overcome their own old versions of Windows/Office (the major profit centers of Microsoft), the entire company could be in danger!
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Interesting)
It looks like people in charge of the office 2007 look all loved lotus 123. Excel 2007 looks a lot like lotus 123. Many old 123 fans love excel now. Since word, excel, and power point are supposed to be used together (I personally do not use them together but some may), the look of those apps are similar.
And office 2007 (word, excel, power point, and the rest of the apps) look the same on vista and XP. The argument of vista sucks since word looks different is wrong. Office is not vista. And switching the start menu to the classic start menu makes the start look like the win 2000 start menu. The one that most people liked. However, it will keep the programs in alphabetical order on vista. Some people may not like that.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Interesting)
It really makes you wonder what the future of OS's will bring. We are starting to see signs that what we have is good enough and there will need to be very innovative features implemented in order to make people jump on the latest and greatest.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Leopard is pretty good (Score:3, Interesting)
Because like win 2k, win Xp and Vista all have slightly different API's.
Of course as a developer you knew that. With 10.6 apple is cutting out old Api's finally removing the last parts of OS9 compatibilty 9 years after the release of OSX.
If win 7 would only remove the win 32 Api entirely. And kill off that horehdous chapter in computing. If they did I just might start using windows again.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Interesting)
I also have to set the start menu to show ALL my programs...I hate the 'personalized' menus. I like to see everything I have on there.
I've heard it is difficult to get this 'look' in Vista and I'm guessing on Win7....how about those items?
I like to see the tree view of my file system, I work from that to find my files, etc. I try to organize my files on that tree, so if I have that view, I can easily find what I'm needing at any given time.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Interesting)
As mentioned in the gp, I am in the process of limiting rights on the desktop. When I can into this environment, everyone was admin to the box, and half the company had some flavor of network admin rights. Over time, I have removed those rights and found saner ways to give folks the rights they need.
When users are not administrators to their box, that solves most of the problems right there. No workstation has direct access to the internet. Frankly, if it weren't for the COO and his laptop, our anti-virus software wouldn't be doing a damn thing.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux required them to rush Vista out the door so Windows 7 gives them the two more years they needed to really get the upgrade for XP right.
It should make people wonder if Microsoft really is the right company to based their IT on. Before Microsoft, businesses relied on UNIX and only moved to Microsoft because of cost. So, how cost effective is Microsoft really? Considering Linux is really the cheap UNIX, isn't there something there worth jumping too considering how many attempts Microsoft has had producing an OS which was as secure and reliable as UNIX was before the 1990s?
If money moved companies in the past, money should do it again but this time, the jump is to something more reliable and it seems to have a much more consistent development cycle. And you move when you have to, not when one company signs secret NDA's requiring companies to ship one OS to customers when those customers want another OS or version.
LoB
Re:xp does the job well (Score:4, Interesting)
"Software doesn't spontaneously develop vulnerabilities [...] there's only newly discovered vulnerabilities."
The practical difference being?
Welcome, Captain Obvious!
Re:xp does the job well (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, Windows XP will stop being supported TOMORROW!!!!
No windows XP will move from mainstream support to extended support tomorrow. That means that your free "support incidents" from your retail copies will no longer be valid and if you want non-security hotfixes released after XP goes into extended support (which I bet most people won't need) you will have to pay through the nose for them.
Keep that in mind, when you wonder why Dell won't give you AHCI or network drivers for your system to run XP with in a few months..
If dell stops providing XP drivers in the near future they will lose all the buisness from corps/institutions who are still on XP. That seems like a suicidal move to me.
I suspect eventually we will be forced to migrate but I don't see it happening in the near future.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed.
At my company we used to switch between computers once a month to confirm if there was an emergency we could do so quickly. It always went so smoothly that they finally decided it was a waste of time and they would do it annually.
So about after about a 11 month break, they tried it again and the experience went so badly that they said they would not switch again unless it was a real emergency.