Slashdot Mirror
A Majority of Businesses Will Not Move To Vista
oDDmON oUT writes "An article on the Computerworld site quotes polling results from a potentially-divisive PatchLink survey. The poll shows that the majority of enterprise customers feel there are no compelling security enhancements in Windows Vista, that they have no plans to migrate to it in the near term and that many will 'either stick with the Windows they have, or turn to Linux or Mac OS X'. A majority, 87%, said they would stay with their existing version of Windows. This comes on the heels of a dissenting view of Vista's track record in the area of security at the six month mark, which sparked a heated discussion on numerous forums."
Perhaps this could be because they are already satisfied with the versions of Windows that they have? At least satisfied enough that they will put off upgrading and spending all that money until a few years from now.
It didn't suck enough. Stuff works with it, it's secure enough, it's no longer costly, it uses a fraction of the firepower recommended for Vista.
I don't think Vista is a bad OS at all. But if XP is working fine, and the next step up is only a mild improvement (and from my experience, something that the home user will notice more than a work user), it's not worth switching. XP just isn't bad enough to move on from.
(Now, if only OS's could get crappier over time, like cars...) Maybe MS should release a "critical update" that turns it into Windows ME or 98.
I like basketball!!1!
Notwithstanding the issues some users are having, Vista seems to me to be more of a consumer oriented operating system. It doesn't really have much to add to businesses beyond UAC, which I'm guessing most system administrators will turn off (in exchange for one of their internal security policies). Thats not even considering the fact that large businesses are extremely slow to upgrade to anything new. We only got XP Service Pack 2 where I work in the past year.
Businesses were *very* slow to adopt XP for many of the same reasons. Until the platform is patched up some and compelling business reasons come out in favor of migrating, they won't. It's been like that with every Windows release actually. This isn't news; it is normal.
Whether businesses will have a choice when they order new computer's through their provider.
It's unbelievable what they have compromised just so they can have flashy graphics and smooth looking buttons. It all boils down to one thing in the end however, I just don't see any benefit to upgrading any time soon so therefore there's no reason to. We will continue to buy our new PCs from Dell with Windows XP on them until they either quit offering it or we have a piece of equipment that requires it.
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
2% said they are already running Vista
9% said they planned to roll out Vista in the next three months.
87%, said they would stay with their existing version(s) of Windows.
8% of those polled acknowledged Linux plans and
4% said they would deploy Mac OS X.
I would say "many will stick with the Windows they have", certainly, but I'm not sure I would call 8% or 4% 'many'. And somehow I suspect 'linux plans' might not mean complete replacement of Windows on the desktop.
Just my $0.02
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
I suppose this is probably a hoary old chestnut, but I always wonder how long we can be kept on the upgrade band-wagon. Up until quite recently, I ran a Windows 98 machine because it did most of the things I needed it to do. I could connect to the web, make SSH connections, write Word documents and play (older) games. It also had a really small install and ran on a crappy old machine.
For people who don't need the latest and greatest hardware support, where is the motivation to upgrade at all? I suppose there are probably security issues with the older Windows versions, but I think you can avoid a lot of this by being careful; something which will probably still be necessary with Windows 2060.
This argument applies even further with application software like Word. I'm not sure I've noticed any of Word's new features since they started underlining my spelling errors, and yet there have been quite a few major (expensive) version since then. Other than version incompatibility and the fact that everybody else is upgrading, why do we need a new version?
Peter
I can't imagine ANYONE using Vista. I tried - honestly - to like it for at least a week. However, when you get screens like the one below, you just have to upgrade to Linux..
i sta_register2.jpg.jpg
http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2007/20070519_v
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
The problem with Vista is not with Vista itself. The migration of Windows XP was reasonable because any pre-existing operating system from Microsoft just didn't cut it. Several years later, XP is so mature and secure that the advantages between XP and Vista are less significant. Had Vista been released in its current state two years ago, I guess Vista would have been an obvious choice.
I have no doubt Vista will become significantly better in a couple of years and narrow the competition with the next-gen Windows, but that's how it should be too. After all, XP and 2K were very similar at first, until service packs and such made XP much better. In the meantime, development of 2K halted, which presented a bigger gap between the two systems. The same will happen with XP and Vista.
Full Tilt
Unfortunately. XP is horribly insecure in the default configuration, and few companies have administrators that know enough to make it secure AND useable. Hence the widespread threat of trojans that companies are not even aware of.
A recent survey by websense (unfortunately in German, so rather useless for most people reading here) came up with 98% of companies considering their security "adequate" or better, 53% thinking their security is "very good". 66% of middle management thought that nothing could penetrate their security, their IT guys are rather suspicious, only 25% share the view of their management. Still a lot, if you ask me...
Unfortunately, admins rarely make the decisions when it comes to purchases. They only have to suffer from them.
And the rest of Vista, the eye candy and the fluff, aren't a selling point either for companies. A company doesn't care whether their workers get to "enjoy" their "computing experience" more. Their question is: Does it increase productivity? And the answer is probably no.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
(Now, if only OS's could get crappier over time, like cars...) Maybe MS should release a "critical update" that turns it into Windows ME or 98.
Couldn't help think of Cinderella when you said that. But is that what people really want? Do they really want software decay? No.
That's part of what older generations can't grasp... is how software is infinite and does not degrade like every other product. That means the best business model with software will always be SERVICE not product or captive audience. Just offer a service that makes sense and people will buy it.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
...they could make a compelling upgrade, so users want to upgrade.
It wouldn't be the first time they copied a certain fruit company.
But they will probably just stop supporting XP, and then that 87% will buy Vista, for fear of the next virus.
Lies about crimes
we started last year replacing Windows 2000 with XP in our company. Vista is far away still. Why should any company adapt to a OS before it is tried and tested?
I've met more than a couple sysadmins who were being very indignant about Vista at first with the whole "It sucks, nothing works, DRM is t3h evil, I'm switching to Linux!" line. However as time has gone on none of them have made even a budge in that direction and are indeed toying with Vista. The "Well I'll just switch to Linux then," almost seems to be the sysadmin equivalent of a tantrum in some cases. They threaten with a switch that they not only have no real intention of making, but indeed no idea what would be involved.
Also, given those choices, I'm not surprised there are a small number that are switching. Had you asked me before recently if we were rolling Vista out in the next three months the answer would have been no. We are going to roll it out (somewhere around three months is the timetable for the first lab I'm planning on converting) but it isn't like we are just going to rush in to it. Things need to be tested, license needs to be hashed out and purchased, etc, etc. So while our long term answer is "Yes we are going to slowly convert all systems to Vista in the coming years," we aren't going to be converting them tomorrow or anything.
Really, all the doom and gloom about Vista seems silly as it has been doing just like past Windows OSes, and even a bit better if you use sales number as the benchmark. Adoption isn't going to be in a big rush, but rather a slow trickle. Right now Vista systems are pretty rare, I'm guessing only slightly more common than Windows 2000 systems. Next time this year I bet they are common, but under 50%. Year after that I bet they are the majority, year after that I bet XP is downright rare.
It is how is has generally gone in the past, no reason to assume it'll be different this time as their are no different indicators. No, the increased hardware demands are nothing new. I remember the bitching with XP over 2000 and particularly NT (which some were running when XP came out). Now, the issues seem like squabbling given the progress in computer power. Similar deal with Vista. It may sound like a lot when someone says "Really, you should ahve a gig of RAM for it," until you realise that a gig of RAM is $50 or less. It really isn't a big deal these days and will only become less so in the future.
Well... my sample is a bit smaller, as only two people I know have used Vista in the first place. But both of them were not so happy.
;-)
One is the owner of a small electronics company, and his experience (relayed to me through a colleague) was that he encountered several problems. OK, it's hearsay and not very accurate...
The other one is a software tester from a consulting company we work with. He told me in person that they "set up one laptop for evaluation, and ended up deciding not to switch to Vista". I know the guys from that company as competent testers and reasonably knowledgeable about Windows. If they have trouble getting it to work right, I conclude that the average user should avoid Vista
C - the footgun of programming languages
A verizon cell phone takes pictures, but I can't transfer them to my hard drive, so it is a broken digital camera. Therefore, that "feature" is not a selling point for me.
The iPhone doesn't support Flash or Java (and won't ever support them, from what I hear, because Apple wants to be the only company that can write software for it). Thus, it is broken both as a handheld computer and as a web browser. Again, those features, as cool as they are, are not selling points for me.
Windows Vista comes with spyware, DRM, and other such malware built-in as part of the core OS. Thus, it will not do what I want it to do, and it will do things I don't want it to do. It's new features are not selling points for me.
What I am getting at is this trend, both in software land and gadget land, of trying to make consumers buy products that limit them, rather than empower them. It is as if they are saying, "of course you want it to be an open and compatible system, but if you have that then you might be able to do things of which I disapprove (whether they are legal or not) or for which I would prefer to charge you. So, I will not give you what you want, but you will buy it anyway."
No, I won't.
Large business cant wait forever for main 3 reasons:
1 - MOLP will require it after a grace period
2 - soon, you wont be able to buy a pc with XP. And then later you wont be able to get one with XP support ( drivers )
2a - supporting mixed environments suck, so they will end up upgrading the rest.
3 - new software will eventually require vista.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
About a month after MS announce the date they will shelve support for XP. Remember when XP was shiny and new, or at least shiny and a year old and businesses had a low (though not quite as low) adoption rate? As soon as they announced the date of EoL for 2000, businesses started adopting. It'll happen again this time. MS collects from business about 2 years after each OS release by coercing them by pulling support.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Businesses are real slow to adopt new upgrades, especially when the development environment needs to be very stable. In fact, I literally just got a notice that testing is complete and IT will be installing XP Service Pack 2. That is right, service pack 2.
We develop a lot of aerospace software and are required to maintain development environments that can reliably and consistently reproduce software loads over long periods of time (think life of an aircraft). Using a new OS can throw a monkey wrench into older tools, so we are careful to jump on any new OS or whatever. Not that every company has the same issues, but I bet many have similar concerns. After all, if it ain't broke, why fix it?
This is not really news, is it? I work for an international company of 38,000 employees, i.e. not just a Mom & Pop shop, and we have only recently started moving from W2K to XP.
I guess Microsoft will have to leak one of their security flaws to the public/script kids, and not fix it for a few months, but say it doesn't effect Vista in the meantime.
I'm mostly joking.
I simply can't understand software company logic. They sell a 'product', that is, a cardboard box containing a disk and a book. A few years later they sell more or less the same product (a disk and a book in a cardboard box) with a few changes. But they won't reduce the cost of the previous product. They simply refuse to sell or allow anyone else to sell the previous product at a reduced rate. It makes no sense and no other business (or at least any business that actually makes things) works like this.
Company BozoTron makes Bozo-XKE, a software program that does, well, something. They release version 1.0 and it sells a few at $299 a box. Two years later, they release super-improved Bozo-XKE v2.0 (which does nothing more than muck up the user interface that all their customers took so long to learn, and fix a few bugs). It sells for $379 a box. But you can't buy the old version 1.0 at $100. And the owners of v1.0 can't sell their software for $100 to someone else and have BozoTron continue their support with the new owner. Some software companies might do this, but not BozoTron. You also can't split the v1.0 package and sell one part of it to a company (that will only use that section of the software, and doesn't need the rest of the package) for $50.
So absurd and insane. The only reasonable thing to do is just make copies of XKE and use them however you like. Which drives BozoTron nuts. But that wouldn't be happening if they were a reasonable company with a reasonable marketing plan to begin with. But they aren't, they're a software company, a fantasy business, a virtual corp that only works as long a people agree to continue to give them money.
Now I realize that this goes against everything that the Slashdot community believes in and threatens your livelihood, such that it is, but the only true value in software is what wealth it can create when applied to other economic resources. In itself, software is worthless. Its only value is when it's applied to other techniques, processes, and materials and increases the ability of those other techniques, processes, and materials to make money.
So indeed, if XP is making you money and the cost of going to Vista is going to cost you more money than XP is making for you, then nobody is going to switch to Vista. Microsoft should franchise their old operating systems. Let some other company buy a support license from Microsoft to be the people who adapt and fix the bugs in Windows 98 and continue to support it in its various business environments. They are fools for expecting people to abandon old OS installs and go to unproven alternatives. That used to work for the first twenty-five years of the office PC, but it's beginning to change. People are beginning to realize that their corporate PC needs don't match Microsoft's corporate expansion needs. It used to be that what was good for Microsoft was good for the rest of the corporate community. Now that basic symbionic relationship is splitting. This would be good for the Linux community, but they are too splintered for reliable corporate support. It would be good for Apple, but they took too much LSD and it still shows with their obsession with flashy expensive electronic trinkets instead of rugged flexible low-cost computing systems. Eventually someone else will step up to fill the needs that Microsoft used to be able to do before they lost their way.
XP did not do well but Vista is doing much worse. The rejection seems to be universal. The same low percentage (12%) of business and home users say they want an "upgrade". M$'s power to push upgrades is over and with that goes the whole vendor manipulation monopoly.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Many businesses kept Windows 2000 well after XP came out.
Why? One, it was the "unknown" as in "we don't know what bugs are lurking around the corner."
Two, it isn't trivial to convert an enterprise. Training costs alone are substantial, not to mention the other costs of rolling out a new OS.
In order to defeat XP in the business marketplace, Vista has to be not "just as good as" but actually "better than" XP.
In some ways, Vista has clear advantages over XP:
* It has a longer shelf life. XP support will end sooner.
* It has certain security features not found in XP
* It has certain non-security features not found in XP
On the other hand, it has some distinct disadvantages:
* It presumably has more unknown security bugs than XP, although over time this will approach zero
And of course those things that are "different" which make it more costly than XP for established businesses:
* It has some different bugs than XP
* It has some different features than XP
* The look and feel is somewhat different than XP
I'm sure there are many other advantages, disadvantages, and differences of XP vs. Vista.
It is up to each customer to decide which version of Windows, if any, suits him best.
My personal opinion?
Defer ditching XP as long as possible, but plan on being XP-free well before support ends. "As long as possible" may be "we had to buy Vista the day it shipped" or "we'll stick with XP until the day before support expires" depending on your business needs.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&x =8&y=10&p1=3223
Mainstream support stops on 4/14/2009
Extended support goes out the door 4/8/2014
if Microsoft wants to improve sales of Vista all they need to do is move up the date that they will no longer provide patches for WinXP (security patches). That's the way it happened at my gov agency. They were running Win98 and HAD to upgrade because MS said they would no longer provide security patches.
1) The CEO trades in his/her old laptop for a new one with Vista preloaded. Now (s)he can't do X anymore over the VPN to the company intranet. X being some function for which the Vista API has been redesigned for maximum incompatibility. CEO becomes entraged, pounds his/her fist on the big mahogany table and demands that everyone upgrade immediately. IT department capitulates and orders Vista and the several hundred million dollars of new hardware needed to support it for everyone.
2) Someone points out that the CEO will no longer be welcome at the Bill Gates annual CEO dinner if his/her company isn't up to spec. CEO demands that IT department upgrade everyone to Vista. See above for details.
Have gnu, will travel.
Vista has plenty of security improvements and may well be Microsoft's mote secure Windows version yet.
BUT... Due to the problems with Windows XP's security, I bet most companies already have good third party firewalls, spam filtering, and antivirus tools in place. We already subscribe to the enterprise edition of NOD32 antivirus that has an excellent track record, and use a Linux server with Smoothwall for our firewalling and VPN purposes. (and I'm eager to upgrade to the new Smoothwall 3)
Microsoft has to assume people already have security infrastructures in place, and then the question is no longer "is Vista secure", but "what more does Vista offer than this". And I believe that is the problem for Microsoft. Vista offers no earth shattering security improvements, it merely brings it on par with most existing Unix-based operating systems. But if companies have already taken care of that in other ways by using complete security suites with reasonable subscription fees, why should they discard all that, that already works, to spend a lot of money in retraining staff and reinstalling Vista operating systems en masse? It's a huge risk for no clear benefits.
Vista is clearly better than XP security-wise from my experiences, but the thing is that XP + third party security tools (often free and even open source) is usually good enough.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
We have 2000+ desktops. Out of those maybe 500 could run Vista right now; we still run Win2k on a number of the older ones but are trying to standardise on XPSP2.
So far the only (and I mean -ONLY-) compelling feature I have seen in Vista is the ability to easily control 802.1X (P)EAP settings for the wired network interface from Active Directory GPO policies.
Seriously - that's it. If I deployed Vista we would have never ending complaints about nothing working, and even slower machines.
Maybe we will look a moving when drivers stop being available for XP for newer machines that we buy in 5 years or so, but I will be looking to migrate to thin clients or maybe a desktop Linux by then.
XPSP2 as it stands works ok for us for now.
A silly AC taunts:
XP did not do well - No, it only managed to capture 97% of the desktop market.
By M$ standards and needs, even your inflated share is not good enough. It took two or three years for XP to gain majority share, which is one of the reasons M$ has delayed Vista for so long. Their absolute growth has not been anything good and Wall Street was not convinced - M$'s stock price has remained flat since the tech crash of the late 90's:
Ouch, that's got to hurt. Wait till they see how well Vista is really doing. It's all over for them.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
(1) Don't use your PC logged in as administrator unless updating hardware/OS. Run as command prompt or MMC works great too, and don't even have to log off or switch user.
(2) Patch it to the max.
(3) Disable every service you can. I run Windows 2003 with about 8 or so services on, default install: 25+ services.
(4) Stop using IE for other than Windows Updates. Firefox + AdBlock Plus + NoScript = awesomesauce.
(5) Stop clicking on every "OMGZ! CLICK ME AND WIN!!!!! OMG111!!!" popup.
(6) Stop downloading videos called something like "Pr0nMovieHotBabe.exe". If you really MUST download those movies, use a VM to test them.
(7) Most importantly, common sense. Oh and, did I mention never use administrator unless you have to configure hardware or update OS?
(8) ?????
(9) Profit!
>X was the one thing Classic had never, ever been - stable.
Sure it was, you were just late to the game.
6.0 very rarely, if ever, crashed. I don't recall many crashes before that (unless you opened something larger than Word could handle, then watch out!), and I don't recall them as common on 7.0 and 7.1.
hawk
I've spoken to many people who have used and hated Vista and a few who have sworn if off entirely.
What's really relevant is that Vista came out at a time Microsoft desperately needed to hit a home run. Instead Vista turns out to be a one-hopper to the short stop. An unexpected bonus for Linux and especially Apple.
The culture that produced Vista didn't arise overnight, it's been building for ten years. Vista is the product that comes out of a broken corporate environment.
Ballmer needs to go. He's not the only one, but he needs to go first.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The people who actually did end up switching only did so after XP Pro SP2 (which should have been the official release in the first place), yet many others still continue to use 2000 without any issues. It took Microsoft a few years to stabilise just one release to make it halfway decent; people are sceptical about Vista for reasons such as this. Vista looks cool and all and has some interesting under-the-hood improvements, but the release was rushed, and Microsoft has way too much bureaucratic nonsense going on for them to actually release something good.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
How many times we heard that already? Let's count - Windows NT, NT4, 2000, XP, XPSP2... I don't count the "consumer" versions here. Every time, again and again, they say they wouldn't upgrade and every time, again and again, the vendor makes them do that sooner rather than later. Do we really need to repeat the same "news" pattern with every major Windows version released??
Now, mod me down freely. My karma can't get any worse...
Switching to Mac OS X, that is. The investment required to switch to OS X would entail all new hardware, which is surely more costly that switching to Vista running on existing hardware. Linux might be an option, since it will run on existing PC hardware, but again, the investment in installed, Windows-tailored software must still make Linux the more expensive enterprise alternative. Enterprises will just wait, sticking with XP for as long as they can get support for it. This may slow down the spread of Vista among Windows users and will probably effect Microsoft's quarterly earnings, but it won't spell the end of Vista or the survival of XP. It won't be a boon for Linux or Apple. Maybe it might make MS a little more attentive to what its customers are telling it, instead of it telling its customers what they need and are going to get whether they like it or not. Now that would be a boon...