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.
xp does the job well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:xp does the job well (Score:5, Insightful)
Security? Although software doesn't wear out, one must keep updated against the newest vulnerabilities.
Perhaps Microsoft should consider adopting a six months interval between updates, like Ubuntu does. That would make for less marketing glitter, since updates would become trivial happenings, but would also make for less traumatic failures.
KDE 4 was a terrible mistake, but it's no big deal, we don't need Ubuntu 8.10, just keep 8.04 and wait for 9.04, or 9.10, or whatever update will have a usable KDE.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Security is only an issue of there is exposure.
Sufficiently locked down and inaccessible to the outside world, even an XP machine can be made safe.
Re: (Score:3)
Mod, +1, "has a clue".
Nothing, however, is going to save you from stupid users.
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, Funny)
Re:xp does the job well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:xp does the job well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously you didn't go through the migration from Windows 98/ME to 2k/XP. I lost multiple printers and a scanner in the process. Once the sale is made, the hardware maker has no reason to revisit and update drivers for old devices, they'd rather you upgrade to their current model--which probably will include drivers for the older OS's.
Re:xp does the job well (Score:4, Insightful)
Your comment actually reinforces the parent post. Manufacturers are more likely to support new hardware on older windows versions than old hardware on newer windows versions so it pays to stick on an old version of windows for a while.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've been doing a lot of testing on Win2k8, listening in dark corners, etc.
I've heard buzz that they are going to release a Corporate level only workstation version of windows 2008; since Win2k8 actually doesn't suck (how it manages that with the Vista kernel at it's heart is beyond me), it could prove interesting, if true.
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?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's called compatibility mode.
Yes, but it's not compatible.
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:5, Insightful)
Because XP will stop being supported with the release of Windows 7.
Maybe it depends on your definition of being supported, but Microsoft is going to provide security updates for Windows XP until 2014.
Then Microsoft will stop pushing all new copies of XP and accidentally invalidate all "genuine" XP keys.
Can you provide a citation for that? Or is it just mindless BS spouted out by the "M$" haters?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because XP will stop being supported with the release of Windows 7
I don't throw something out only because it is out of production or its warranty is expired. I at least wait until it is broken beyond repair.
Then all the internal unfixed bug sheets of XP will be reported and published in China, Russia, and wherever Conficker came from.
This is more scary, but unless those bugs include something that would allow remote code execution even if I have a firewall, then I don't really care. Also, someone may release a patch (like it happened with the WMF vulnerability).
Then Microsoft will stop pushing all new copies of XP and accidentally invalidate all "genuine" XP keys.
Without updates there is no point in having "genuine" Windows, and the notifications are easy to crack (for now the whole validation can b
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pfft. Dilettante.
What you really want is Microsoft Bob for Workgroups 3.1.
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.
As to the last line of the post... (Score:5, Insightful)
...MS hasn't often demonstrated an ability to make major functioning software improvements at the last minute. I suppose we'll see, though.
Re:As to the last line of the post... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not improvements businesses want, its stuff that works with the stuff they've got. Who cares about running a new OS if the old one still works, and the new one would cost you for the new OS but also new hardware, new versions of your existing software (if its available).
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.
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...
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:5, Funny)
I just did exactly that. Now, does anyone know of a good deal on a new monitor?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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:they will if they don't want to pay for support (Score:5, Funny)
Shoot it in the head, and move on :-)
That's how I've always dealt with XP machines in zombie networks. [what-is-what.com]
Dubious (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Distrust? What about testing? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
First off, whoever edited that sentence needs to get a clue-by-four -- "distrust that issues won't occur" is just terrible English.
About the content, why would any IT person ever have to resort to "trust" anyone for their software compatibility? You'd almost think they can't grab a VM image of Windows7 and test their software to see if there are compatibility issues.
If I were a CIT and someone came up to me with this dribble, I would tell them to build a testbed and actually report on compatibility issues, possible savings, and so forth. Windows 7 probably won't be worth the money but deciding that before you actual evaluate it is madness.
This is normal (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been working in software development for 35 years. No company I've ever worked at jumps on new versions of Windows, they all have a policy of waiting at least until SP1 regardless of whether its an improvement or not.
The only news here is that the figure is that 17% might move straight away. From my own experiences I would have thought nearly all, if not all companies would wait at least a year.
I've worked out the answer to MS's problem! (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft has announced the infrastructure for its cloud computing service Azure, formerly (and presently) Windows Vapor [today.com].
"We want to be more responsive to your needs," said Sam Ramji of Microsoft during a Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit panel this week as he wiped rotten tomatoes off his suit.
"We want all open source innovation to happen on Windows 7. In practice, Windows is too slow, and just putting Linux underneath the same software stack triples performance. So we're running the Windows versions of the software on Linux using Wine. We'll also be funding the Wine on Windows initiative."
The new Microsoft Amazingly Open And Genuine Public License allows you complete freedom to use, modify and redistribute the software provided that every copy comes with a DVD of Windows Vista Ultimate, you acknowledge that Microsoft's FAT patent protects a remarkable and valuable innovation in computer science and all accompanying documentation is in OOXML. Also, all your data belongs to Microsoft.
The overwhelming dominance of Microsoft was assured, he said, pointing to their success in paying netbook manufacturers to use Windows XP and paying US retailers not to stock the Linux versions of the computers. "We're also enforcing our patent on right-clicking. And on the number seven."
Get daily email alerts [slashdot.org] of new News of the News — home delivery via Feedburner [slashdot.org]!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The new Microsoft Amazingly Open And Genuine Public License allows you complete freedom to use, modify and redistribute the software provided that every copy comes with a DVD of Windows Vista Ultimate, you acknowledge that Microsoft's FAT patent protects a remarkable and valuable innovation in computer science and all accompanying documentation is in OOXML. Also, all your data belongs to Microsoft.
The overwhelming dominance of Microsoft was assured, he said, pointing to their success in paying netbook manufacturers to use Windows XP and paying US retailers not to stock the Linux versions of the computers. "We're also enforcing our patent on right-clicking. And on the number seven."
I'm having difficulty telling the difference between satire and the news these days. Doesn't seem too far off here.
Businesses are cautious: News at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this basically the exact same story Slashdot ran before Windows Vista was released? Guess what guys: Businesses tend to be conservative by nature, and aren't going to do a massive upgrade without a good plan. For any reasonably large business, it will take several months to certify all of their internal software with any new OS release, not to mention the actual time it takes to execute the switch. They would be saying the same thing if you asked them when they would be switching from RHEL 5 to RHEL 6.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't this basically the exact same story Slashdot ran before Windows Vista was released?
IIRC, the previous story only contained lies and damn lies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't this basically the exact same story Slashdot ran before Windows Vista was released?
Your point being that Vista was a rousing success?
The norm? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most enterprises stated they won't bother with Windows 7 for at least a year
Well, seriously, how often do business environments run a brand new version of Windows? I don't work in IT, but I'm going to go with almost never. This doesn't sound very special.
Re:The norm? (Score:5, Funny)
The answer is 'no' (Score:5, Informative)
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.
The Million Dollar answer is "no". Because when you upgrade a corporate desktop, you don't upgrade in place. You create an image and you reimage your desktops en masse. Anyway, Microsoft will find a way to spur Windows 7 adoption, probably by making Windows XP slower with a required security update again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>> 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.
> The Million Dollar answer is "no". Because when you upgrade a corporate desktop, you don't upgrade in place. You create an image and you reimage your desktops en masse.
Whereupon: 1. You discover all the hidden defects in your backup system. Users start to line up outside your office asking where their data is/went. Extra anguish is demonstrated by [...]
Wow, does your organization really operate this way? Over here, we purchase standardized desktops and laptops. "Developers" get one type of laptop, "managers" and "Project managers" get a different tier of laptop .. some older users whose systems haven't come up for replacement may still run the "powerhouse" desktop we used to issue. When our desktop support folks upgraded the OS on my laptop, they simply (arranged a time, then) took away my old laptop, and immediately replaced it with a "new" laptop (of th
Doesn't require clean install (Score:5, Informative)
Also, don't most people want to do a clean install of a major OS version?
No kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
Most companies don't like spending money just for the sake of spending money, they have XP in the enterprise right now, and it works, and it doesnt require machine upgrades either. there is no compelling reason to make the switch.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A Clean Install Is Very Crafty (Score:5, Insightful)
Often, that clean install makes for a much faster system after years of cruft building up on a system.
Although there may be compatibility issues, MS making a clean install mandatory might be one of the most clever marketing tools they've had in a while. Then again, it could backfire.
Word of mouth from those who migrate and see how fast a clean build of Win7 is vs XP might breathe new life into the Windows brand.
They're probably waiting for Mojave! (Score:5, Funny)
I know I am, I hear it's quite popular with test groups.
Buzz words removed, non-story (Score:4, Insightful)
Most PEOPLE stated they won't TRY A NEW OPERATING SYSTEM for A year BECAUSE THEY THINK IT won't WORK with their software...
Re:Buzz words removed, non-story (Score:5, Funny)
Ooo...you must work for Microsoft. I see your sneaky subliminal messaging.
PEOPLE! TRY A NEW OPERATING SYSTEM! A. BECAUSE THEY THINK IT WORK.
I'm onto you and your nefarious schemes...
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.
Enterprises don't do the upgrade install (Score:4, Insightful)
Only idiots and consumers do actual upgrades. Any self-respecting enterprise makes their own images and deploys them, complete with apps.
In who's interest is this ? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a difference between what is good for the IT market and what is good for business in general. Us IT crowd want to push the latest new thing, for some this means mark up on s/ware, others it is more consultancy. What a business wants is a stable IT system that does what the business needs in a stable way -- boring, not sexy. Once applications are written they stay written; the will be changed when the business requirements change, not because the computer systems change.
MS is also caught up in the sales/upgrades treadmill - to not do so would badly damage its bottom line. What is in the best interests of MS is not in the best interests of its customers.
Linux is based on 35+ years old Unix, I regularly use programs that are essentially unchanged since I wrote them for System V Unix 25 years ago. How old a system is is not an issue unless you need to make money by flogging your customers new versions. In this regard Unix/Linux is a better platform for companies than MS Windows systems.
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).
This is why Linux can't beat Windows XP (Score:3, Funny)
If not even Microsoft can stop the Windows XP monster, what hope does Linux have?
There's no case for spending the money (Score:3, Insightful)
The real issue is money. There's no real business case for upgrading business PCs. Really, any machine built in the last ten years has enough CPU power to run most business applications. Even big spreadsheets. At most, a RAM upgrade might be useful. Face it, Windows 7 is a minor improvement over Windows XP. The last major upgrade was from Windows 9x to Windows 2000, a decade ago. Most business apps run just fine on Windows 2000, which still has significant usage in the business community. (You run Windows 2000; it's not a slave to Redmond's remote updates like XP and later. Some businesses like that.)
We're in a major recession. Business activity is down. Nobody is expanding, adding employees or customers at a high rate. So where's the need for more compute power?
A real upgrade would be a transition to an all 64-bit world, or IPv6 by default, or an OS with security good enough that "zombies" never happened. But Microsoft isn't delivering anything like that. Windows 7 is a yawner. It doesn't even have many of the features originally promised for Vista, like the relational file system. So why upgrade?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
The name change backfired? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a lot of threads about corporate users not upgrading until SP1 is out - an agreed good thing.
However - and please correct me if I'm wrong - I believe that Windows 7 is the name of the great big fix to Vista and that furthermore, the name was changed from Vista to Windows 7 to avoid the bad taste, as "proven" by Mojave.
Now, if I have my history and nomenclature correct, Win7 is really some flavor of VistaX and if so named would have by-passed the SP1 adoption rule. The catch is that the Vista name was sullied by bad performance (or defects, whatever).
So, the real problem in my opinion isn't that Win7 is new - it's that it's the waited-for corrected Vista, but because of their own shenanigans, they can't win: the Vista name is poison, a "brand new" Win7.
FWIW, they could just take a page from Apple's playbook when their time comes: scrap their OS, use some *nix variant as a core - say.... Linux? - and then layer their own GUI on top of it. This was a highly successful strategy resulting in a market-acceptable product for Apple, and I am being NEITHER a fanboy nor catcalling when I suggest surprise that MS is NOT copying this approach yet.
(Just to save us all some time - I'm well-documented hereabouts as being a supporter and critic of both MS and Apple, so props in advance for not putting me in some narrow category when reading this post or replying to it. A few days ago, I praised MS, today I'm dising them.)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh.... and the same can be said for,,, (Score:5, Insightful)
One could also say, " don't know how most businesses are run, but around these parts, XP works, and works well." followed by, "we don't need the features of Linux [or Mac OS X or insert your favorite OS here])". This is part of the problem with getting alternative OS adoption.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I guess the real problem is that Microsoft keeps trying to make one-size-fits-all
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't go as far as to say it's undeserved. I understand that a lot of the more flagrant bugs have now been squished, but when it first came out it was a godawful piece of shit, and everybody knew it. That kind of dirt tends to stick, and no-one should be surprised if people are reluctant to get bitten again.
Windows 7 may well be a great product (I don't care one way or another, I'm not in their market) but most people will view it with suspicion for a whil
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Funny)
ya, give Microsoft a chance since they haven't been at this OS release business for very long.
If you really want to go with someone who's had lots of OS release experience, go with Linux and specifically Ubuntu. They have had 10 OS releases already under their belt and their first release was just 5 years ago. Not only that, when they release, they release not only the OS and desktop but also include thousands of applications and drivers with each release. Microsoft only releases their OS and a much smaller set of drivers and applications with their releases so they're no so experienced at it. In about 5 or 10 years they might have the process down but until then, go with someone with more experience. ;-)
LoB
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I feel like I'm downshifting into 2nd from 3rd gear.
so you're getting more acceleration? sweet!
(car analogies don't really work with computers)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if this questionnaire took into account businsses that got Vista. Most likely these companies will not upgrade at all since they just spent a ton of money on Vista. This article is flawed and fails to be news. Wait, it's anti-MS bashing so it is news here.
If software/hardware companies want more early adopters they need to offer substantial discounts. For example "Be the first 25,000 to order our stuff within the first three months and get 50% off software, and 15% off hardware". That will get you more early adopters.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
In comparison Windows XP is more similar to Windows 2000 (and Windows XP in "classic mode" is vey similar).
Actually now would be a great time for a Windows XP compatible operating system.
If someone could come up with a decent Windows XP compatible O/S, Microsoft could lose significant market share. Might get even more interesting if it supports DirectX 10
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
Just don't expect it to be 'finished' for some time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As you say, it's not finished. ReactOS is a very decent attempt and a very interesting project from a hobbyist/programmer standpoint, but it's not really to the point where any company would consider it usable yet. If ReactOS could bring itself up to par as a production ready Windows-compatible OS (sort of like Linux compared to a "real" Unix), then I think it would start to pick up in popularity quite a bit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually now would be a great time for a Windows XP compatible operating system.
Indeed. There's loads of projects that try and make linux look like XP, for example:
http://www.instantfundas.com/2008/03/make-linux-look-like-windows-xp.html [instantfundas.com]
Still waiting for an 'official' (K)Ubuntu remix, tho...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
I dunno about how different the GUI in general for Vista is over XP, but, I gotta say if it is at all like the major changes they did to the menu system on the MS office products (word and excel for instance), then there IS a big difference and I could see where retraining would be
Re: (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 st
Re: (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
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Another reason is training and support. Vista and Windows 7 are so much more different from Windows XP. If someone calls "Tech Support", tech support will have to have a completely different script/list for Windows 7.
No, they are not. Even my wife was able to sit down and continue working as usual.. she required no new training to use Vista after we left XP. It's not identical, but it's no different than going from 95 to 98, or 98 to 2000.
Sure, an intelligent user such as your wife can get around just fine. That's very different from what the original poster was saying, which is that tech support staff will need new training and materials.
If tech support people are telling users to open the "Add/Remove Programs" or "Display" control panels, or open the "Documents & Settings" folder, or right-click the "My Computer" icon, go to Properties, click the Hardware tab, then click the Device Manager button, there will be confusion. In Vista, t
It also just takes time to test things (Score:5, Informative)
I do Windows support for work so one of the things I do when a new version is coming out is test various apps and services and find out what works, what doesn't and so on. Sometimes things don't work and you have to find a workaround, or wait for the vendor to update things. There is NO reason to jump right in and cause problems. You wait and test instead, and then when it is ready, start deployment.
Also many systems you don't really want to upgrade. They are too old to run a new OS well. So you leave them with what they have for their lifetime. The OS upgrade happens when new hardware is purchased, though that isn't seen as an 'upgrade' by normal metrics.
So I'm not surprised that businesses aren't jumping on board. Why would they? In our case (a university department, not a business) my desktop will start running Windows 7 when the RC comes out. Maybe one or two other tech people will do likewise. When the release comes out, only new systems will be purchased with it, and depending on what they are doing they might get XP or Vista put on them if there are 7 issues. We won't start offering it as an upgrade for probably 6 months after release, since I'm guessing it'll take that long to make sure everything is thoroughly tested and there's been time for vendors to issue updates. At that point we'll likely move anyone who wants to over, and try and have all new systems running it, but won't make a big deal if people want to stick with XP. We probably won't start pushing it hard for another year or two. It will have to be gone by 2014, of course, because that's when security patches stop.
There's just no sense in rushing in to a new upgrade. That doesn't mean you are opposed to it, just that you want to do it right.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh by the way, here's a single page link [informationweek.com]
Re: (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.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Hardware costs (servers/pcs)
2) Migration Costs
3) Down time for upgrades
4) Application Testing costs (did Adobe make sure they are 100% compliant with Win7? This includes older versions)
5) Software costs (Will they have to buy Office 2007, or a new version or cant they stick with Office 2003. Will they have to buy a new version of Adobe, Norton AntiVirus, MS
6) Tech Support availability - Does MS have lots of staff well-versed in handling potential issues. Does your vendor offer tech support? Does your own staff offer it?
So far I just named you six potential, and major, issues right off the top of my head. None of these are "trust" related (as far as MS products are concerned).
Other issue, that is more MS concerned, patches. 300,000 testers in limited environments is not as good as 3MM investors in enterprise environments. Now you have malicious hackers you need to concern yourself with who are looking for vulnerabilities and implementing them.
Just because companies held off on Vista does not mean they will not upgrade to 7. It isn't a lack of trust with MS it is a lack of trust in a new product and most companies avoid getting the latest and greatest of ANY product until it has the equivelant of an SP1
Re: (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 producin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And people said Vista added nothing significantly new to XP, and people said XP added nothing significantly new to Win2k.
So why the hell is Windows 7 so different from Win2k? By Slashdot logic, they should be practically indistinguishable.
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: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:4, Insightful)
Re: (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 wa
Leopard is pretty good (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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.
Re: (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:5, Informative)
As an IT Manager for a small company, I have no reason to move off of XP. Until I am forced, I will not migrate to Vista or 7. There just is no compelling reason to do so. More and more I seek to take functionality AWAY from the desktop. There are applications we use that require us to use Windows on the workstation, but more and more we look to web apps to meet our core business needs.
The fact is there is nothing in Vista that makes me want to move to it. There are no problems with XP that are making me look for solutions. We are in the process of locking down workstations to the point that even the security concerns become irrelevant. If you asked me what killer feature would make me switch... I couldn't think of it. Certainly not in what I have seen so far.
The only thing that will make me switch is the unavailability of the OS. And even that would take a while. We order standard model PCs, and do disk imaging. If I found out about Dell not being able to offer XP to us any longer, I'd make one last order for 20 PCs of that model, image and be set for two years.
Bottom line is that XP (heck even 2000) meets the needs of most businesses. Microsoft would (and likely will) have to force us to switch. Why screw with what works?
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
As an IT Manager for a small company, I have no reason to move off of XP. Until I am forced, I will not migrate to Vista or 7. There just is no compelling reason to do so. More and more I seek to take functionality AWAY from the desktop.
I suspect that I am going to get karmically beaten up for this, but here goes...
People keep trying to move applications from the desktop to the web. In many cases, the web is the right medium for those apps. In most though, its not. My general rule of thumb is this: When trying to develop something as a web app, if you find that you are trying to reproduce desktop app behavior, you are doing the wrong thing.
Eventually, we are going to have to pay the piper (in terms of maintenance cost) for web apps with all the convoluted hacks necessary to make them look and feel like desktop apps. Let's start collectively applying some common sense - the web when its the right thing, and the desktop where it fits best.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you're talking about data intensive apps like video editing, DTP and the like, most business software is incredibly mundane. The vast majority of cubicle dwellers do not need anything more than a well designed web app. Data entry hardly requires a fat client.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
True enough, but you also need to look at how it's deployed. If you have an internal-only web app, then maintenance is simply keeping your servers running. In the long run it can be cheaper because it becomes possible to replace fat clients with thin ones, or simply not having to upgrade existing hardware. But the main advantage isn't really cost, it's really about easier management (backups, archiving, updates, etc ...)
Re: (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 s
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Gene Ray [timecube.com]?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
GP is educated stupid. GP does not recognize Universal Truth of 4-bullet point simultaneous APK posting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to respectfully disagree. Once you install SP1 and disable UAC, the OS is quite usable. It actually performs better than XP in some areas.
Thats the thing though, its not usable by default. Anyone who buys a new computer at Best Buy and gets Vista ends up with UAC and a nearly unusable computer. Being mostly computer illiterate save for surfing the web and checking e-mail, they don't really know how to fix it. So they know its Vista, know that its a new computer so it should be faster then their aging Pentium 4 with XP, but when its not they know who to blame: MS and Vista. Sure, Vista can be made usable, but the fact that it isn't by defaul
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Once you install SP1 and disable UAC
Surely, once you disable UAC, much of the reason for upgrading from XP has vanished.
Re:They don't have a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
This is, of course, precisely the reason so many big companies still use COBOL [slashdot.org], right?
Legacy is a powerful force in industry. It is often perceived that the cost of maintaining the old systems is less than the cost of replacing it, especially when you consider compatibility, debugging, reliability, down time, retraining, infrastructure upgrades, policy changes, etc. etc.
Here's your choice: Stick with what you have. Although it can be a real pain in the ass, at least you're used to it after all these years and can handle the quirks to keep things running. OR you can spend a whole lot of money to scrap everything and start over with a totally new setup that's one big question mark all around, especially when the vendor's reputation is losing ground.
Questionable surveying methods aside, it is not difficult to imagine companies aren't too keen to jump on board.
XP is old. And MS would love to retire it, but the industry is getting fed up with their shenanigans. The individual homeowner might not have the purchasing power to hurt them, but big companies with thousands of licenses do - MS will either give them what they want (which is, apparently, XP) or they will lose the customers.
=Smidge=
Re:They don't have a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the comparison is rather apt. You have a system that they are reluctant to replace. A good deal of those COBOL systems still run on 70's era hardware, although advances in virtualization are helping there a lot.
The industry has no choice since they cannot force MS to supply XP. What if MS doesn't?
How many times has MS buckled under industry pressure to keep offering XP already? At least twice, but I haven't really been counting. They might do it in an indirect manner ("downgrades") but they only do that to obscure how many people are actually buying their latest product.
If they don't? There might be a lawsuit in there somewhere. Moving to *nix is one possible alternative: If a company will be FORCED to change their *anything*, why would they so readily go with the vendor that just screwed them over? The hurdle is getting them to change at all - once you're past that there is no guarantee they'll change to what you want.
Especially if their applications aren't compatible. If Win7 isn't backwards compatible with applications and drivers written for XP, they'll have to rewrite everything... and at that point they could pretty easily rewrite it for any other platform.
The industry can't force MS to supply XP, but MS can't force the industry to use Win7 either. MS can give their biggest customers what they want or lose them as customers, just like they have been doing. MS will offer XP until there are so few XP users left they can afford to flip them off entirely. NT 4 was supported until three years ago. 2000 is going to be supported until at least the end of 2010. Windows 3.1 was supported up until last November - lasted over 16 years.
Also, one key problem here is the phrase "better tech" - is Vista really better than XP? In ways that businesses really care about? "Newer" is not a synonym for "better."
=Smidge=