Slashdot Mirror


83% of Businesses Won't Bother With Windows 7

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.

14 of 545 comments (clear)

  1. xp does the job well by wjh31 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why upgrade when the current software provides everything you need

    1. Re:xp does the job well by mangu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      why upgrade when the current software provides everything you need

      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.

    2. Re:xp does the job well by goltzc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hardware manufacturers will develop drivers for whatever system(s) provide them with the largest potential market. As long as XP has a substantial market share you can bet that hardware manufacturers will develop drivers and support their product under XP.

      --
      Our bugs are smarter than your test scripts.
    3. Re:xp does the job well by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

  2. As to the last line of the post... by Cormophyte · · 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.

    1. Re:As to the last line of the post... by gbjbaanb · · 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.

  3. Dubious by Norsefire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First it's 84% of IT pros 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.

  4. Distrust? What about testing? by Wrath0fb0b · · 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.

  5. This is normal by JustNiz · · 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.

  6. Businesses are cautious: News at 11 by eln · · 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.

  7. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No kidding. I don't know how most businesses are run, but around these parts, XP works, and works well. We don't need any of the features of Vista or 7. Vista has a pretty undeserved bad reputation, and 7 looks like a really good OS, but we're not switching to either until our tools for Windows whatever is as robust and what we currently have for XP....

  8. A Clean Install Is Very Crafty by Dripdry · · 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.

    --
    -
  9. Re:Huh. by furby076 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is nothing new, so why is this news? Most businesses are not early adopters of technology and usually wait until SP1 comes out. DUH! This has nothing to do with VISTA, and has nothing to do with ME. Even hardware companies get the same deal. Businesses that need to keep mission critical systems up will not want to buy the latest and greatest until it has gone through a bunch of patches. Also, let's not forget, that buying software (and hardware to run it) as an early adopter = bigger price tag. Wait a year and things will be about 50% cheaper - which in a business can mean LOTS of money.

    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.

    --

    I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
  10. Re:Huh. by gentlemen_loser · · 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.