Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Windows Operating Systems Software Microsoft IT

Most Companies Won't Deploy Windows 7 — Survey 429

angry tapir writes "Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year, according to a new survey. Of 1,100 IT administrators who responded to the survey, 59.3 percent said they didn't have a plan to deploy Windows 7. (Full results, PDF.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Most Companies Won't Deploy Windows 7 — Survey

Comments Filter:
  • I'll deploy Win7 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) <(gterich) (at) (> on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:22AM (#28689077) Journal

    When XP support ends in 2014. By then, Win7 will have been shaken out.

    • Re:I'll deploy Win7 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by numbski ( 515011 ) <> on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @10:06AM (#28690523) Homepage Journal

      If you say so. I'm at a military manufacturing facility, and there are no plans to move away from XP ever. In fact we're more likely to move onto Linux than go to Windows Vista or Windows 7.

  • by wjh31 ( 1372867 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:22AM (#28689079) Homepage
    but that dosnt mean 6/10 wont deploy it. I imagine plenty of those are just waiting to see how well or not it plays out for other companies. If 7 Manages everything it promises, im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the end
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      If 7 Manages everything it promises, im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the end

      You must be new here :) When was the last time that MS delivered everything it promised?

      • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:47AM (#28689431)

        You must be new here. When did MS delivering what it promises have anything to do whether management decides it's time for an "upgrade"?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Opportunist ( 166417 )

          Thinking 'bout it... (and sorry for the selfreply), when did anything MS say, promise, do or deliver have anything to do with the upgrade cycles your management decides for? It's more like "the computers are exactly 3 years, 2 months and 1 day old, time for change. BING! Now!"

          No real rhyme or reason, other than that the beancounters said it would be a good idea to blow a few quid on new IT crap because the stars are aligned and the write off oracle agrees...

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            Yeah, I suppose that's true. In the past though companies have used Microsoft's promises as an excuse to stay on the MS upgrade path when they do upgrade, at least in part. This may just be an excuse to not bother with having to look for an alternative though. However, maybe the sword cuts both ways in that now that the economy is down the tubes as it were (and in all likelihood, we're in for at least another year or two of hard times), some companies won't upgrade and it doesn't matter how good Win7 is.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by rhsanborn ( 773855 )
              And what's the problem with that? If it isn't a security risk, and there aren't any functional or productivity benefits, then why replace anything? I think buying new hardware because it's met some arbitrary time metric is silly. There needs to be a middle ground where smart people sit down and determine whether the current hardware/software is completing the necessary jobs successfully, and whether new products would or wouldn't help in some way.
      • by PinkyDead ( 862370 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:41AM (#28690171) Journal

        Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer promised me something a long time ago.

        And this is one delivery they won't miss.

        Affectionately yours,

    • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:28AM (#28689171)

      I am still waiting for what Microsoft Promised me for Windows 95.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by John Hasler ( 414242 )

      > If 7 Manages everything it promises, im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the end

      What does it promise that businesses need and don't have?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sunking2 ( 521698 )
      A large business/corp usually has some sort of refresh schedule for machines. This is somewhere between 3-5 years. That means at most 33% of corps would even fall within the realm of having to make the decision. Realistically unless you are doing refreshes sometime after mid 2010 its not really an option. And anyone much later than that really has no need to make a decision yet. Here, we just started our refreshes, which means XP until the next round in 4 or so years. That's a long way of to commit to anyth
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jank1887 ( 815982 )

        many companies are starting to realize that the 3-5 year cycle was based on the last 20 years of significant hardware advances even among common low-end desktop hardware, which has significantly tailed off over the last few years. We were tied into a 3-year lease plan for a while. Now, we're looking at machines from 3 years ago and realizing they run all we need just fine. Some people need new workstations for more capability, but that's by far the exception, not the rule.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jimicus ( 737525 )

        Depends very much on the company.

        Most places I've worked (large and small), 3-5 years "refresh" doesn't mean "everyone automatically gets a new machine after 3-5 years whether they need it or not". It means "If someone's PC packs up after 3-5 years for whatever reason, we won't dedicate any time to fixing it".

    • by Endo13 ( 1000782 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:59AM (#28690437)

      Exactly. This article and summary should both be tagged troll. The only actual news here is that 34% of the companies surveyed already have plans to have it deployed by the end of next year and it's not even released yet!

      Now I'm no huge fan of Microsoft, but I'd guess this is about their best pre-release effort ever. They have definitely done some things right this time around.

  • So in 3 months (Score:5, Informative)

    by Norsefire ( 1494323 ) * on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:23AM (#28689083) Journal
    It's gone from 83% that won't [] to 59.3%.

    Based on that, if MS wait nine months there will be people buying two copies.
    • by falckon ( 1015637 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:34AM (#28689247)
      By extrapolating [], in two years people will be buying five copies. I guess Windows 7 will finally be the prize winning cash cow Microsoft has been dying to create!
    • Re:So in 3 months (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:49AM (#28689449)

      t's gone from 83% that won't to 59.3%.

      Based on that, if MS wait nine months there will be people buying two copies.

      We get stories like this every time MS releases a new OS. There are the occasional flops like Windows ME and Vista that don't see widespread enterprise deployment but despite the universal predictions of doom you get each time most of them actually do end up being widely used in businesses. Examples include: Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000 and Windows XP, I remember all sorts of columnists, bloggers and other speculators crawling out of the woodwork and predicting businesses wouldn't use them. Particularly Windows 2000 and Windows XP who turned out to be widely used regardless.

      • Re:So in 3 months (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Kythe ( 4779 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:40AM (#28690155)

        We get stories like this every time MS releases a new OS.

        And every time we get these stories, we also hear "we get these stories every time MS releases a new OS," along with predictions that the new OS will see just as high an adoption rate as the most successful of MS's OS releases. I recall the exact same predictions for Vista (which you yourself note was a flop). Honestly, I think success is a little less than certain at this point.

    • History lesson (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sockatume ( 732728 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:26AM (#28689979)

      They've gone through the same thing with each version of Windows that's been released. In 2003, less than 10% of corporate PCs were carrying XP. In 2005, it had only gone up to 38%. [] That's an OS that'd been out for more than three years, and was up against the incumbent Win2000. If Win7 can hit about 40% within a year against an incumbent XP, then that's actually incredible progress.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by elashish14 ( 1302231 )

      Let's be fair - it's not even out yet, and who knows what kind of reception that it will get. Why would they already start planning to deploy something that they haven't even seen yet? Would they base their decision-making off the RC? Sure....

      It's too early for them to look at. While XP still has a long time to receive support, most IT dept's are just going to wait and see. Besides, no one wants to be the first to try it in a corporate environment. They'll want to see how it goes with other companies too, f

  • by millia ( 35740 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:24AM (#28689113) Homepage

    It's got to be tough. You can't kill off XP like you want to, because people really really might leave. But it looks foolish to support that morass of code in spite of the NEW morass you've spent all that money on.

    In the long run, they'll switch. Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it. Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.

    • In the long run, they'll switch. Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it. Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.

      It's interesting, in that, so many people of the current generation see webapps and centralized computing as the new best thing.

      See, some of us old people got into the PC revolution when we were kids because we were rebelling against centralized computing. We hated the account quotas and slowness of shared system resources in college, the straightjackets around information, and we wanted to smash all of that. We saw that giving people power tools like spreadsheets and desktop databases empowered them over the static mainframe systems of old, that a computer was something that you owned, was, well, a personal thing.

      Quite frankly, if it wasn't for ISPs being such a PITA about bandwidth for uploads and hosting, and if, honestly, there was more adoption of IPv6 so that everyone could have their own address, we would see a lot more desktop to the internet hosting. A quadcore PC could easily host a blog or a facebook account. Indeed, I would be the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does, except that you own your data, and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications.

      • by millia ( 35740 )

        First paying computer gig was in 1981, so I'm with you on the whole centralized-vs-decentralized thing. (I'm probably of the generation before you.) Really. I was a little bit concise in my post; sorry. I was just excited because for the first time in YEARS I might actually be that dreaded person, the primary poster, I think. (Didn't happen.)

        I should clarify: I see a lot of businesses that switched over from dumb terminals to winxp running frontend apps. The business obviously has some process where they wa

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by squoozer ( 730327 )

      Slow down cowboy. I make a good living writing webapps so if anyone should want everything to be delivered as a webapp it should be me but I just don't see it happening in the near future. On paper there is nothing stopping it from happening, we've been down the thin client road before and some of the new webapps are very feature rich. In reality though I think we will hit many of the same problems thin clients did. In fact in many respects I think we are starting from a worse position because network laten

  • by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:25AM (#28689117) Homepage Journal
    You don't need a plan - it'll install itself automatically via windows update. And then automatically rat on you for piracy.
  • 6 in 10? (Score:5, Funny)

    by lisabeeren ( 657508 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:25AM (#28689121)
    6 in 10? not a very big sample!
  • IT grunts know not to deploy a Microsoft by-product until at least Service Pack 2 comes out -- somehow I don't see Windows 7 SP2 being out by the end of next year. Not to mention the real world concerns of budgets, hardware upgrade cycles, training, etc. In other words, no real surprise here.

    • Re:SP2 Syndrome (Score:4, Informative)

      by Octorian ( 14086 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:46AM (#28689407) Homepage

      Except "Windows 7" is really just Vista SP3 :-)
      (okay, Vista is NT 6.0, Win7 is NT 6.1)

  • This is the MO of most companies when a new version of Windows comes along. Not only because businesses don't use a new version of Windows, nor do they upgrade their existing installations. Did anybody actually think it would be different this time?

  • Still using IE6 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rik Sweeney ( 471717 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:27AM (#28689157) Homepage

    We still have IE6 installed by default at work. The reason we haven't upgraded is because it'd break some of the applications and they don't want the headache of having to retest the application (that's the excuse anyway), so we're stuck with it.

    I expect we won't be moving to Windows 7 any time soon either, XP works fine and not only would they have to spend money on the upgrade, but they'd have to re-train everyone.

    • Plus, if companies didn't want to move to Vista, wouldn't many of the same arguments apply to staying on XP indefinitely, regardless of what new versions come out? If the version you have is working for what you need, why switch?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Our company is the same way. There are one or two legacy applications (nothing I wrote, mind you, third party stuff) that require IE6. They won't work with IE7, IE8, or FireFox. So we're waiting on the vendors before we can upgrade IE. I'm thinking of recommending that we upgrade to IE7 or IE8, however, and set up those people that need IE6 with Xenocode's IE6 sandbox ( [] ).

  • by gambit3 ( 463693 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:29AM (#28689183) Homepage Journal

    "Have No current Plans" != "Won't Deploy"

    Two years ago, my company had "No Current Plans" to move our MS Applications to their 2007 versions, but here we are, with Office/Exchange/Sharepoint all 2007.

    "No Current Plans" may just mean just that... they don't have any plans. That's a far stretch from "we won't".

    • by Iftekhar25 ( 802052 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:00AM (#28689591) Homepage

      Mod parent up.

      This survey means absolutely nothing. It was taken before Microsoft announced a release date, and that means it's no longer relevant.

      Considering that, the number is quite strong.

      Windows 7 has a lot of mindshare as "Microsoft [finally] gets it right."

      I don't mind burning some karma here, but you gotta call it like you see it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by code65536 ( 302481 )

      The other big problem is that whoever wrote the article obvious did not bother reading the source, because he's missing the historical context (XP's was 12-14%, the source states). Seeing as how the "article" is just something on some blog (and was submitted to /. by the owner of that blog... hmm), I guess sensationalizing is better than actually reporting what the source says.

  • I'm all for bashing ms but this sounds like a pretty big number to me.

  • (I had to say that.)

    Seriously, my department (1500 employees) has not made a move to either Vista (we now have about 30 Vista machines) or Win 7. I run it in VirtualBox under Ubuntu and so do about two others. However, the rest of the 1400 or so machines are running XP or even Win2K still. As it is, we've yet to find a compelling reason to "upgrade" from XP/2K. Most of the users have one or two apps running, some even run mainframe terminals still. The rest use office apps, which work just fine in XP.

    For h
  • Every time a new version of Windoze comes out, we see a survey saying most places won't install the new version. So either most places are still using Windows 3.11 or they switched to Linux right?

    Ok ok I know most places dont' upgrade every year, so it takes 2-5 years before the newest version takes over. So really this survey is nothing new and I wonder if it is even newsworthy.

    • Right on point (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bogaboga ( 793279 )

      Yes, this is routine stuff but still think it's news worthy. What Microsoft could pull is to warn of a "critical exploit" in all versions of Windows prior to Windows 7 and make money.

      When combined with Software Assurance, [] this can work to move most businesses to Windows 7.

      Trust me, Microsoft knows how businesses think and I am sure personnel have been hired to handle "stubborn" business accounts.

  • We're in tight economic times. Companies are not going to upgrade unless they have a real need for a new feature. I have several clients who are still running on Windows XP and have absolutely no need to change that. Same goes for Vista. If their current systems are running smoothly and meeting requirements, there is no reason to change things.

    The only reason I'm upgrading at least one of my machines is because my clients expect me to be informed about the latest versions, whether they themselves are ac

    • by tjstork ( 137384 )

      We're in tight economic times. Companies are not going to upgrade unless they have a real need for a new feature. I have several clients who are still running on Windows XP and have absolutely no need to change that. Same goes for Vista. If their current systems are running smoothly and meeting requirements, there is no reason to change things.

      What this says is that Microsoft isn't doing a good job of marketing Windows 7.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 )

        Actually, they're doing a pretty GOOD job. If you can convince 4 out of 10 of your customers to pay for an unnecessary update that nets them no benefit, I'd say that yes, your marketing department certainly did something right.

  • Everywhere I've ever worked has taken the approach "let's give the new version time for the bugs to be shaken out. Then we'll see how they get on and make a decision". This was the case in the days of Win2K, Windows XP and Vista.

    Vista broke a lot of things while bringing nothing particularly beneficial (at least for a business) to the table. Anyone who hadn't already paid for it through something like Software Assurance was therefore very likely to say "No thanks".

    18 months from now, however, USB3 will s

  • by Centurix ( 249778 ) <> on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:44AM (#28689377) Homepage

    Dear lovely Corporation,

    Here's a new operating system for you. Awfully sorry about the whole Vista thing, won't happen again.


    Bill and Steve.

    Wait... just Steve now.

    PS. The Windows 7 Corporate Mega Edition will come with a free chair.

  • It's mid-July, and Windows 7 isn't even released yet. Even if companies started testing Windows 7 in their environments today, planning to deploy it before the end of the year would be pretty fast for any mid-to-large company.

    Combine that with the general wisdom that you should wait for Microsoft's first (at least) service pack before purchasing any of their products, and there's an even stronger reason for companies to take their time.

    So I really can't see why this article's statistics are considered news

  • They're still working on deploying Vista ; )
  • Not having a plan to do something doesn't mean you're not going to do it; I don't have a plan to go on holiday next year, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to, it just means I'm not yet working on it.

  • no surprise (Score:4, Interesting)

    by owlnation ( 858981 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:47AM (#28689433)
    The interesting figure here isn't the 6/10. It's the 4/10. I'd have to question the sanity of that 40%.

    This is not a bash at MS. It is just prudent IT policy, and good business not to use untested software in mission critical environments. No new OS, from anyone, is guaranteed to be mission critical in its first year of release.

    Most business do not upgrade entire systems often. There's plenty that have only switched to XP from 200 in the past 5 years.

    There's plenty of bespoke programs and macros that run on every enterprise system. It takes at least a year to figure out how a new OS will work with those. That's not even counting driver issues, hardware issues, and bugs.

    Plus there's a productivity issue with switching OS. Do you really want to slow down your staff during a recession?

    But specifically for Windows 7, why switch? What is the competitive advantage of doing so? There's no real performance gain. There's no real new features that aren't just bling. Sure, it's a bit more secure, but any IT dept has cobbled something together and locked down XP enough for it to work reasonably well.

    No, sorry, I'd have to question the business decision of any company that is going to introduce a new OS that will cost them money, productivity, and still have kinks and bugs in it at this early stage in its release.

    In 3-5 years, after much internal testing, sure it would make sense. But right now -- corporate suicide.
    • Re:no surprise (Score:4, Insightful)

      by asylumx ( 881307 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:41AM (#28690169)
      "Plans to upgrade" does not mean "Going to upgrade as soon as it's released." I'd say it's actually rather smart to have *PLANS* of how to handle this upgrade very early on, that way when you have users asking for it, you can tell them very easily what will have to happen before you'll upgrade them.

      If you say "I'm waiting until SP2" like a lot of people have already said... guess what, you have plans.

      Really, this article is incredibly anti-newsworthy but let's face it, it's spun in a way that makes MS look bad and that's really all it takes to make it on Slashdot, right?
  • It is pretty common in corporate IT departments policy to not even consider upgrading Windows until at least the first service pack has been released. No good IT manager will riskt the potential fallout of installing an untested OS on a large scale. Early adopters are generally the adventurous or the ignorant.
  • A more interesting headline would be: Nearly 4 in 10 companies plan to upgrade to software that doesn't exist yet. Really, how can you plan to roll something out that you haven't evaluated yet? Oh wait, it makes work weather it's good/bad or needed/not. And if it sucks, you can't be blamed for using Microsoft. Now it's all clear to me.
  • Hell, I wouldn't be working on plans to deploy something that hasn't even been released yet either.
  • Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year, according to a new survey. Of 1,100 IT administrators who responded to the survey, 59.3 percent said they didn't have a plan to deploy Windows 7.

    Is anyone surprised?

    IT Administrators are typically fairly conservative and cautious. Most folks will wait until SP1 is released. At the very least they'll wait until a few months after release so they can get real-world usage reports.

  • The tabloid title says "Most Companies Won't Deploy Windows 7". Whereas the article says they have [b]currently[/b] no such plans. That's quite a significant difference.

  • We're in the middle of a recession. Budgets are being cut everywhere. Companies are dropping like flies.

    Windows 7 is a great OS, but it's expensive to migrate your systems to a new OS, and if Windows XP is doing the trick right now, it's irresponsible to frivolously spend the time, money, and hardship switching just to be at the front of the pack. Every dollar you spend is another dollar you don't have in the bank just in case sales aren't where they should be.

    To be honest, I think we're going to see the op

  • First, "no plans" does not mean "won't". It just means that they're not ready yet, or haven't thought about it, or haven't started making preparations for it, etc.

    Second, 40% who are planning to deploy it is HUGE. As the survey points out, the first-year adoption rate for XP was 12-14%. The survey itself said "This is actually a strong adoption rate" and "a high acceptance of Windows 7".

    This is a case where the TFA (Good Gear Guide, WTF is this?) clearly did not even bother to read the source that they a

  • by furby076 ( 1461805 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:59AM (#28689583) Homepage
    Most companies refuse to upgrade their systems to a new product (at least major product) unless there is 1) pressure from the top, 2) The hardware vendor only sells with that software, 3) a service patch has been released, or 4) they receive such an unbelievable discount it borders on payola.

    This is nothing new. This happened with windows NT, XP, 2003, Vista and it will continue to happen. Though most people who have tried windows 7 have stated they loved it. I've had it installed for months now and I have not experienced a single crash and my laptop is running faster with windows 7 then it did vista.

    Wait until windows 7 is out for 6 months, has it's first patch and then come out with an verifiable/reliable article saying this information.
  • by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:17AM (#28689869)
    How will Windows 7 or Office 2010 increase revenue or reduce expenses.,1&source=IFWNLE_nlt_blogs_2009-07-13 []

    From the article ...
    "I recently spoke with an IT manager who was budgeting for an Office 2010 upgrade from Office 2003. I casually asked him what features he had deemed important enough to justify a $100,000 budget item. He thought for a minute and admitted that he couldn't think of a single one. So I asked the logical follow-up: Why are you buying it? He had no answer for that either. The $100,000 line item disappeared. He's also sticking with XP."

  • by heffrey ( 229704 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:25AM (#28689951)

    In other news, 99.9% of businesses have no plans to install Linux clients.

  • And why upgrade? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Big Smirk ( 692056 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:34AM (#28690077)

    Microsoft has more or less contributed to the ultimate demise of the PC in the work place. Because of all the features, and the lack of reliability stemming from the complexity of all these features, MS has created a maintenance nightmare. Business critical applications are now all web based (at least at my company, everything from HR to shipping to version control etc.). Can't remember the last time I fired up MS Word (I have used Excel).

    So why upgrade? What is the one feature that Windows 7 has that I _NEED_?

    More secure? What is 'more'? How about rock solid secure to the point I can deploy without special virus protection? Right now XP seems good enough.

    Better manageability? Management at this time seems to be locking out users from doing things that are stupid/dangerous and forcing upgrades to cover vulnerabilities. Please see 1st question.

  • by Keith Russell ( 4440 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @10:33AM (#28690869) Journal

    By linking directly to the PDF, the submitter bypassed a summary from ScriptLogic's web page that directly contradicts the summary provided by angry tapir and kdawson:

    The primary goal of this survey was to assess the impact of the weak economy on IT infrastructure projects and we found that, despite its impact on short-term plans, 41% of organizations plan a wholesale migration to Windows 7 by the end of 2010. This is actually a strong adoption rate when compared to the historical adoption rate of Windows XP in its first year which was cited as 12-14%.

    Furthermore, in ScriptLogic's primary market segment it is usual for businesses to upgrade operating systems piecemeal as they purchase new desktop hardware, so the fact that nearly half of organizations surveyed are planning major rollouts during 2009-2010 indicates a high acceptance of Windows 7 among small and medium businesses.

    Hat tip: Ed Bott []

  • It's the economy! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @10:40AM (#28690983) Journal

    Seriously, the economic conditions are the #1 reason our company won't be deploying Windows 7 within the next year.

    Our business is heavily tied to the housing market and new business construction (shopping centers, gas stations, dept. stores, etc.) We're still on Windows XP on our workstations and laptops (about 50 machines total). A migration to Windows 7 would basically involve buying all new hardware too, because other than maybe 3 or 4 of the desktops we bought most recently, the rest are SLOW with XP, much less Windows 7.

    Right now, we have no interest in changing anything unless the economy improves (which is doubtful it will lead to a big increase in sales for us before the next year is out).

    And honestly, like another person said who posted here - there's a very real possibility to moving to Macs if we had to do a wholesale purchase of new hardware.... A few years ago, that would have been unthinkable around here. But since then, several employees have purchased new iMacs for use at home, and all have very positive things to say about them. We have a few applications we use which are only available for the Windows platform, but honestly, we could serve these just fine over our Terminal Server. The Microsoft remote desktop client for OS X works pretty well. As the systems administrator, I'd like a Mac workstation environment here, because it would practically eliminate spyware/virus hassles and save thousands per year on anti-virus software subscriptions. From what I've seen with Windows 7 so far, it has a HUGE number of configurable options buried in it, for everything imaginable. It embodies the typical MS idea that "more is more!", and it's going to be a huge undertaking building a comprehensive group policy to enforce across a LAN/WAN to lock down all the settings the way you want them for your corporate deployment. OS X tends to present the OS to the user the way Apple intended it to be, and many things aren't even configurable without 3rd. party "hacks". That's not always something a home "power user" finds as a positive, but I think it's beneficial for a business setting.

  • REAL VIRTUALITY, Seattle, Thursday 2099 -- Microsoft Corporation has announced a limited one-off extension of availability of its Windows XP operating system to April 2101 [] after criticism from large customers and analysts. This is the fifty-sixth extension of XP's availability since 2008.

    Through successive releases of Microsoft's flagship Windows operating system, demand for XP has remained an important factor for businesses relying on stable XP-specific software and installations, who have pushed back strongly against the software company's attempts to move them to later versions. Windows administration skills have become rare in recent years and consultants have demanded high fees. Reviving Windows administrators from cryogenic freezing has proven insufficient to fill the market gap, as almost all begged to work on COBOL instead.

    "Windows XP is currently in the extremely very prolonged super-extended support phase and Microsoft encourages customers to migrate to Windows for Neurons 2097 as soon as feasible," said William Gates V, CEO and great-grandson of the company founder. "Spare change?"

    Microsoft Corporation, along with Monsanto Corporation and the RIAA, exists as a protected species in the Seattle Memorial Glass Crater Bad Ideas And Warnings To The Future National Park in north-west Washington on the radioactive remains of what was once the planet Earth, under the protection of our Linux-based superintelligent robot artificial intelligence overlords. Company revenues for 2098 were over $15.

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.