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.

Comments

they will if they don't want to pay for support

[Saint Stephen]

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 :-)

Death by self-competition

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

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:xp does the job well

[je ne sais quoi]

TFA states two reasons for why companies "dread" windows 7 (dread is the word TFA uses):

"The majority of participants do not plan to upgrade to Windows 7 in the next year. Economic factors are contributing to the delay in Windows 7 adoption for almost half of all participants. Software compatibility is the most frequently cited concern with Windows 7," notes the study, which was carried out by Dimensional on behalf of systems management appliance vendor KACE. KACE's KBox appliance is designed to help IT managers more easily deploy Windows, Mac, and Linux software across the enterprise.

The news for Microsoft doesn't get much better in Windows 7's sophomore season. Less than half of the IT pros surveyed, 42%, said their organizations planned to deploy Windows 7 within 12 to 24 months of release. 24% said they would wait 24 to 36 months, and 17% said they would wait more than 36 months to migrate to Windows 7.

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 Do businesses end up like the aircraft traffic controllers with software 20 years and more out of date just because that's what works?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:Dubious

[Midnight Thunder]

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.

Re:Huh.

[Taxman415a]

Yes, this is new. This is companies holding out on two releases of Windows for a significant time and in larger and larger numbers. Of course a small number of companies still run Windows 2000 or even older, it's a very small percentage compared to the data in this survey. Windows 7 really adds nothing significantly new to Vista, it's basically Vista SP2, but MS is rushing it out in order to get a new name on it to try to sweep all the bad PR from Vista under the rug. What this data is showing is that the strategy may not work as intended. While the article didn't specifically give the numbers of respondents that are planning to wait on 7 that had skipped Vista, based on how high the numbers are for those that are planning to wait for a significant amount of time on Vista, and how low the adoption rates of Vista have been, it is clear there are more companies than ever that are holding off on MS's products and more of them than before are skipping one of MS's releases and holding off on the next one. This survey with a large number of responses and thus more validity than your average junk survey is the first to confirm what many people had been suspecting.

Oh by the way, here's a single page link

Re:As to the last line of the post...

[drinkypoo]

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...