Companies 'Blah' About Vista

PreacherTom writes "Those who expected the initial Vista release to generate a wave of hype will be sorely disappointed. While Vista is now available for companies, they do not really appear to care. The situation is the same with Office 2007. Why? Several reasons, not the least of which is expected difficulty in adaptation to the new features." From the article: "Office has an entirely new look and new formats for saving files in Word and Excel. Slick as it is, the new look will take some training to master. And the new file formats, which will be easier to use with high-end corporate programs such as those that run servers, mean users on older versions of Office will have to download a program to open documents and spreadsheets sent with the new technology. 'This thing is not going to be all that easy to roll out,' says Michael Silver, research vice-president at Gartner."

Comments

a new car!

[yagu]

Wait, software doesn't wear out, at least not like cars do. This is where Microsoft has to re-figure the business model. Their products (OS, Office suite, etc.) are so mature people and companies actually have to rationalize moving to the new plan. In the old days migration paths often followed needs -- today most needs are fulfilled. How many thousands of fonts could one possibly want in their documents?

It's time to think about service. It's time to think about customers. It's time to think about humility. Microsoft, other than their monopoly, no longer has a hammer to coerce the public into the new products -- though that's probably enough.

Meanwhile, with all of this talk of a long adoption window, wouldn't this be one of the most opportune times for things Linux to gain purchase (how ironic for a free product)? As companies look at budgets and costs, couldn't Linux now get it's foot in the door? I hope so...

(Note: from the mysterious slashdot future, how ironic -- an article about Microsoft dissing Open Source as insecure because people can look at the code! Looks like Microsoft is hard at work ensuring a glance at Linux and other Open Source software is at least uncomfortable.)

Re:a new car!

[LWATCDR]

Microsoft is going to "force" the software to wear out.
New file formats are a good way to start.
Not selling the old software.
OEM bundles where the OS and applications are only to be used on that one machine. Get a new computer and pay for a new OS.
I hope that OO.org instead focuses on making the software easier, smaller, faster, and more reliable.

Re:a new car!

[traabil]

Meanwhile, with all of this talk of a long adoption window, wouldn't this be one of the most opportune times for things Linux to gain purchase (how ironic for a free product)? As companies look at budgets and costs, couldn't Linux now get it's foot in the door? I hope so...

If there's no compelling event to swap a perfectly working (sic) XP for Vista, why would one consider moving to Linux? Surely, the migration cost in terms of training need would be even higher for such a move.

Re:a new car!

[diersing]

True. I also wonder if training is really that big a hurdle anymore. As the general public (and especially long term business users) get more tech savvy can't we expect the average user to just need a couple hours of play time to re-learn where the core functionality is? Everything the average user needs is in the ribbons of Office07, its just a matter of learning their arrangement.

Even greater reason to push home users towards Google's Docs & Spreadsheets, but the business users everyone is concerned about aren't mindless cattle anymore. Lets give them credit. Office 2003 & 2007 can be installed in parallel, let them play with it and call it pilot testing.

Re:a new car!

[Danga]

Clearly you yet to meet my boss.

This is your boss and you are fired. :-)

Re:a new car!

[xmundt]

Greetings and Salutations.
          WHile the temptation to get the flamethrower out is pretty large, I am only going to say that, for a huge percentage of the American workforce, training IS a big hurdle. I spend a lot of my time getting folks introduced to new programs, and, I continually run up against the wall of "too hard to learn". I had a fellow the other day tell me that he did not want to switch from Internet Explorer to Opera because it is "too hard to learn a new browser". Right off the bat, I can't think of many other software tools with a LOWER learning curve than a browser. That, alas, is not all that unusual though. As another example, I know a company that still does all its invoicing on an antique pentium system running XENIX because it is too hard to move to more modern software. This ignores the fact that the newer software is actually EASIER to use than the ancient stuff on the XENIX box, and, is much more powerful.

dave mundt

Re:a new car!

[COMON$]

For our office we are still mainly a Win 2000 server domain. Just now moving to 2003 through attrition. Ya there are perks to moving to the next server/office level but are they worth the cost? Will our office use them? Heck most of our users cant distinguish between word and wordpad. Most users just want to be able to type a report on letterhead, use italics and bold here and there and that is it.

Unless security is an issue, I really see no need to over complicate something with more features when what we have does just fine. You have to show me a product that is major like jumping from NTSP6 to win2K/XP. Where my current OS can handle all the devices I have just fine, my current office product (2003) works above and beyond our needs, I dont need to upgrade until I see an end of life on the product.

With few exceptions I think most seasoned Windows administrators would agree.

Re:a new car!

[steelfood]

I disagree. While back then, with no viable competitor, new file formats would justify an upgrade. If clients were sending you office 2003 file but you're running office 97, you're definitely going to want to move to office 2003. However, in this day and age, office is no longer the monopoly it once was. There are three factors hindering the office 2003 to office 2007 transition, and they've largely been covered by other posters here.

To reiterate, first is the completely redesigned interface, and the need for retraining. This will make companies, large and small, reluctant to upgrade. They'll hold off as long as possible. Remember, people in managerial positions and their assistants use office. And for most of these people, who have trouble with technology as it is and who'd spent the better part of the past 10-15 years getting used to office since the days of 5.0, retraining is going to be a very painful process. Add to the fact that they're the decision makers, and you've got even less chance of companies moving to office 2007.

The second is the presence of a half-decent competitor: open office. So what if microsoft stops selling office 2003? Suddenly, open office, with its familiar interface and remarkably similar feature set is going to look very lucrative. And add to the fact that it's free, and there's even greater incentive to move to it if microsoft is foolish enough to stop selling office 2003 outright. Sure, it's not as polished as office 2003. But as long as it can read and write those files, it'll do. New file formats force upgrades only when there's nothing decent available to read and process the old one. Open office isn't stunning, but it'll do for the most part.

The final, and most important factor is the same one that plagued Intel and AMD a few years back. Office 2003 is good enough. Sure, it might be lacking in a few areas compared to office 2007. But people have found ways around those shortcomings already, and having spent many years improving those workarounds, they're pretty efficient by now. Why upgrade to 2007 when the feature set of 2003 is sufficient?

And these are the same reasons people won't upgrade to vista. Sure, vista might be more secure. And at home, it'll find wide adoption because of its OEM bundling. But in the corporate world, people know that an upgrade will cost money. How much depends on the company, but if it's on par or more than the existing security budget for the current windows xp setup, there's no reason to upgrade. And by the time xp goes into extended support, well, there's still a couple of years, and like office, there's an alternative that's gaining popularity. So by the time businesses get around to deploying office 2007 and vista, they might just go, screw it, and start deploying linux instead.

More likely, anything that isn't backwards compatible will hinder the transition rather than help it. The reason why people moved to XP? Because it worked well with 2k. And it had a set of features 2k didn't have that was actually useful. Vista actually was supposed to have some of those nifty features that would encourage people to upgrade. But over the course of its development, they all were eventually canned--put off indefinitely or until a later upgrade pack.

Why should businesses care anyways?

[Weaselmancer]

I mean, honestly - what does Vista do that XP doesn't? From a business standpoint, of course.

I could see end users getting much happier about Vista. New eye candy, DX10, and all that, but generally businesses don't care about such things.

What is Vista's business argument in the first place? Not trolling, just genuinely curious.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[stokessd]

The business arguement is that sooner or later every new machine that comes through the door will have vista on it. So we will have it, it's just a matter of when and how best to deal with it.

Sheldon

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[diersing]

In small shops maybe, but most mid-size companies and up deploy a managed desktop image (in most cases the manufacturer pre-loads it when the machine is ordered).

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[morgan_greywolf]

I mean, honestly - what does Vista do that XP doesn't? From a business standpoint, of course.

Better centralized management tools. Improved security model. Mostly, the changes affect infrastructure management as opposed to end-user experience. Oh, yeah, the big one: 64-bit support, which is not needed for typical office applications, but is an absolute must for companies moving their CAD workstations to Windows. CATIA V5, for example, fully supports the 64-bit Vista architecture right now.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[rolfwind]

I have seen Ubuntu use 6 months updates to great advantage - every release just gets better and better because you don't expect too much out of a 6 month update, while MS promises the sky and doesn't release for years on end.

I think MS needs to at least consider a model to one of incremental updates (and I'm not talking security fixes, or SP packs here.) This could turn out to be an advantage to them (especially as I see Linux distros closing the gap with tremendous speed).

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[vertinox]

I mean, honestly - what does Vista do that XP doesn't? From a business standpoint, of course.

For one, you won't be able to play Halo 3 LAN games at the office without it!

If it works, don't fix it.

[erbbysam]

If it works, don't fix it.

Disappointment?

[Abcd1234]

Those who expected the initial Vista release to generate a wave of hype will be sorely disappointed.

So, what, all two of them?

Yeah right...

[zappepcs]

Even if I liked MS products, and I'm not saying they suck, I still wouldn't entertain the thought of an upgrade project at this time of year. With support being taxed as it is due to holidays, and training not able to fully support an enterprise wide roll-out, it is just stupid to think companies will gleefully jump on the Vista bandwagon and roll out the shiny new MS products.

People debate the cost of rolling out OSS products for these very reasons, and MS lackeys have touted how a MS upgrade costs less in support and training for the upgrade. The simple truth: The upgrade roll-out costs are near the same when there are feature and function changes. Companies also have to think of the COST of new licenses on top of generic roll-out problems and costs. Its just not a good time of year for such activity. I think it was a poor choice of times to launch?

Incompatibity to force upgrades strikes again

[Whammy666]

Yet again M$ is releasing another upgrade with incompatible file formats to earlier versions of office tools with the expectations that millions of users will be forced to pay yet another M$ tax to exchange documents with fellow business associates. I'm so glad we've converted over to OpenOffice.

I can see no good reason to migrate to Vista, and the compatibility and re-training issues are strong reasons not to. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Education sector not considering it either...

[Omicron32]

I've posted this comment on another story recently, but it's just as relevent to this one.

I work in a school, and as such we have an MS Schools License Agreement, which entitles us to all the latest Microsoft software for a reletively cheap price (I think £30ish a workstation).

We're expecting delivery of our Office 2007 and Vista discs in either the December or January licensing packs. While we may test them around the office, a network-wide deployment (about 350 machines total) of Vista won't even be considered till after SP1 is released. Not to mention all the poorly-written educational software that will need compatability testing on the new OS. Due to the training requirements of Office 2007 I probably can't see that being rolled out till 2008 at the earliest either - especially with the admin staff, since a lot of their applications tie directly into Office and they use it all day, ever day. The training requirements for that alone would cause so many headaches for us to support.

Many people I know who work at other schools in our area aren't even considering an upgrade yet or in the near future. XP works just fine for now and the forseeable future. My school is lucky in that we have a large IT budget and have mostly up-to-date PCs (enough for what they do on them anyway), other schools in my area are still running 333MHz/128MB RAM machines - not exactly the powerhouse needed to run Vista at a reasonable level.

I posted the original comment here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=209148&cid=170 53950

Re:Only gamers will care about Vista

[Whammy666]

Vista may not be an asset to gamers. DX10 doesn't really add any new features to the graphics capability of a system since that is largely dependent on hardware. Developers may like the newer DX10 interface, but there are severe backward compatibility issues for users. Any game which depends on DX10 will not run on XP or W2K platforms. I can't see developers embracing DX10/Vista for fear of excluding a large portion of the gaming market.

Companies haven't upgraded from Windows 2000 yet

[rickkas7]

According to AssetMetrix, as of June 2005 half of all corporate PCs were still running Windows 2000. Considering XP was released in October 2001, I don't find it at all surprising that businesses haven't jumped on installing Vista yet.

Though with Windows 2000 in extended support phase since June of this year, there are probably a number of larger corporations that skipped Windows XP and plan to go from 2000 to Vista.

why?

[blindd0t]

That's simple - the only businesses that have access to it now include MSDN subscribers and members of their partner program. This means it primarily affects developers who are the ones typically interesting in early adoption; however, they really don't support much of their own development tools right now. They won't support Visual Studio 2005 until SP1 is released first quarter next year, they won't support Visual Studio 2003, 2002, or 6 at all (though they do support Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual FoxPro 9.0). You can read up on this yourself, of course.

Yawn

[Mr_Silver]

Don't gforget that:

• Companies were "blah" about Windows XP
• Companies were "blah" about Office 2003
• Companies were "blah" about Windows 2000
• Companies were "blah" about Office 2002
• Companies were "blah" about Office 2000

Companies are blah about replacements to pretty much anything that already works and already does the job well enough. Eventually they'll shift, but only when all their hardware has broken down and been replaced by stuff that can run it, the current operating system of choice is no longer supported and they have major applications that won't run in that aforementioned operating system.

This is hardly new, they have been working this way for years and I fully expect them to be "blah" about the next version of Office and Windows as well.

Slashdot. News for nerds, stuff that is blindingly obvious.

The "Business Argument"

[Z34107]

Vista has a lot of Business features - in fact, they probably have more biz features than consumer features.

BitLocker is a nifty tech that encrypts the system volume, needing a USB key to boot. I wonder how many businesses with (stolen!) laptops would love to have this feature.

Windows MeetingSpace uses the new network implementation in Vista to allow peer-to-peer detection of clients. Meaning you bring your WiFi laptop into a conference room and you're logged into MeetingSpace. The program itself lets you collaborate - you can share an open program and work on it simultaneously, or share your entire desktop, or what have you not.

Speech Recognition is built into the OS and in my experience, actually works pretty well. I can see a lot of secretaries, typing-deficient people, bosses, etc. appreciating being able to dictate to a computer. I can also see some liability disappear as businesses "cure" carpal tunnel and other repetitive strain nonsense.

User Account Control makes it completely possible to run as a standard user or to default to standard user privileges only even when logged into an admin account.

Windows Service Hardening uses the same changes in the Vista kernel that allow IE7 "protected mode" and UAC to function to run each Windows service under its own user. This means that viruses and the like will be unable to mess with the file system, registry, etc. by piggybacking onto a Windows service, because the special user account the service runs under simply won't have those priviliges.

The new Windows Driver Model and Code Integrity make the system more secure and stable. Unsigned drivers are no longer allowed to run in kernel mode. Instead, the kernel exports a set of interfaces used to program most drivers in user mode, meaning:

• Less drivers need to be signed
• New user mode drivers will most likely be easier to program than their kernel-mode counterparts
• A user mode driver crash will not be able to cause a blue screen.

There's a bunch of other stuff, too, like Windows PowerShell that system admins are going to love (although they're releasing this for Windows XP SP2, also).

There's a lot of business features, most of them focusing on security and stability. (Vista also plays a lot nicer with Unix than XP does.) The question isn't whether there's any "business argument", but whether these features are worth the upgrade. For some businesses, they will be; for others, they won't.