Gartner Tells Businesses to Forget About Vista

Barence writes "IT analyst firm Gartner has told businesses to skip Vista and prepare to roll out Windows 7. Companies have traditionally been advised to wait until the first Service Pack of an operating system arrives before considering migration. However, Gartner is urging organisations that aren't already midway through Vista deployments to give the much-maligned operating system a miss. 'Preparing for Vista will require the same amount of effort as preparing for Windows 7, so at this point, targeting Windows 7 would add less than six months to the schedule and would result in a plan that is more politically palatable, better for users, and results in greater longevity.' Even businesses that are midway through planning a Vista migration are urged to consider scrapping the deployment. 'Consider switching to Windows 7 if it would delay deployment by six months or less.'"

Comments

Insightful analysis... four years late.

[symbolset]

What Gartner is for is to tell us what Microsoft wants us to do.

What insightful, cutting edge analysis this would have been... four years ago.

The Gartner experts say all companies should move off Windows XP by the end of 2012 to avoid problems with application compatibility.

I agree with this part... but do not agree about what companies should move to. It's time to get off the train to crazytown.

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late.

[mangu]

I agree with this part... but do not agree about what companies should move to.

With Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot with Vista, the big question is how many feet they have. If the answer is "two", then windows 7 is their last bullet.

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late.

[Darkness404]

Heck, MS has more feet then that. They shot themselves in the foot with Windows ME too, luckily for them they had the reasonably stable Windows NT ready to go out the door. I think the only reason why Windows 7 will succeed is that MS's hardware requirements are commonplace. For example with Vista, you had companies left and right selling laptops and desktops with the minimum specs needed for Vista, they would have been great XP machines, but for some unknown reason they put Vista on them, that totally killed its reputation (because for some reason people think its *normal* to require 1 GB to run an OS, which I don't understand).

MS is swimming in money. On the other hand, they keep losing mindshare to Apple left and right.

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late.

[mangu]

MS is swimming in money

That's relative. Their stock value, currently around $20, never again reached their peak of $60 after 2000.

Their cash reserves aren't what they used to be, they spent two thirds of it trying to shore up the stock price, without result.

Their revenues are dropping through the floor.

It's a huge company that won't disappear so soon, but if you pay $40 billion in dividends and still have so much problem to get the stock price back to 30% of the peak...

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late.

[SerpentMage]

I don't know anymore about a company that wont disappear soon...

I have been thinking quite a bit about this and the one thing that could REALLY do major damage is the fabled Apple Tablet.

Up to this point Apple has been gaining market share, by building new markets for itself. Point to Apple.

But this netbook thing I think is here to stay and we have not seen the end of that design. Thus if Apple were to bring onto market an Apple Tablet in the netbook range then people would seriously look at that device.

I don't have an iBook (had one several years ago). Write code for the most part using Windows and .NET. But I have an iPod Touch and Apple has made some nice revenue from my buying of music and apps.

Now if they were to bring onto market a Tablet I would be client number 1 because right now I want an easy to use tablet to surf my information. Yes I have a Windows Tablet, but Vista sucks big time.

And this raises another point. If Apple puts in a stake in the netbook market how much longer will companies like HP wait and beg for scraps from Apple? They will go scurrying to Apple for anything because they don't want to risk landing in the abyss...

And I am sure that Steve Jobs would just love to stick a stake into Microsoft for the decades of damage Microsoft caused...

Thus I do think if something like this happened, Microsoft VERY QUICKLY would go the way of the Dodo...

Disclosure: I write programs using .NET and that would put a crimp in lifestyle...

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late.

[adolf]

What's 1GB of RAM these days? $12? Sheesh.

Vista has far cheaper memory requirements than any other released version of desktop Windows, to date.

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late.

[samriel]

Put OS X on PC hardware and Apple will be the next king of silicon valley.

Yes, they would win on the software side. However, if you can put OSX on PC hardware, then you have no incentive to buy Apple's own hardware. This knocks the legs out from under Apple, and they have a net loss from this move. They haven't done it yet for good reason.

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late.

[bonch]

I don't think Apple is interested in the netbook market because they consider the iPhone to be their portable computer.

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late.

[capnkr]

{snip}...certainly will happen when Win7 fails.

One way for Microsoft to make it a Sure Thing: instead of having proper security be a simple 'best practice', continue to have it be simply The Most Expensive Option.

FTFA -

"AppLocker, meanwhile, gives companies granular control over the applications - right down to the version number - that employees can install on their office machines.
"Both of these will require Windows 7 Enterprise Edition, available only to organisations with Software Assurance, or Windows 7 Ultimate," the Gartner analysts warn."

Foot, meet bullet.

This is not just something for corporate use. I have plenty of clients who would be glad to benefit from letting me use this tool on their systems (and boy would it make my job easier...). Parents could use it for the kids, geeks could use it on the systems they invariably get asked to fix for a buddy, etc... MS keeps getting their asses handed to them on the issue of basic security. When are they going to finally learn that they *need* to implement/make available good security across _all levels_ of their OS? The totally free software that I use has a bare fraction of both the potential and the real-world security problems MS OS'es have.

So why does MS continue to act as if charging for security is a Good Thing, when it can so easily be had for free?
And why don't more "expert tech analysts" call them out on this?

Yeah, yeah - I know...

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late.

[mdwh2]

512MB? Amiga can do a multitasking GUI in 512 KB. Beat that, Ubuntu boy.

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late.

[petermgreen]

MS ported most of the important stuff (plug and play and support for a common driver model between the two lines to help hardware manufacturs transition) to the NT line with 2K but bottled out of pushing 2K to home/small buisness users and produced another version of the 9x line instead.

So when ME flopped it wasn't a huge deal, they just added a home edition to the next minor release of the NT line and scrapped 9x. While 2K/XP was slower than 9x it was a noticable improvement in terms of both stability and ability to handle lots of windows open at once.

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late.

[ozmanjusri]

So why does MS continue to act as if charging for security is a Good Thing, when it can so easily be had for free?

Microsoft has a delicate balancing act to manage.

There's a massive industry that's emerged to work around Windows' security deficiencies. Companies that collect malware in honeypots. Companies that generate malware signatures. Companies that write antivirus software. Companies that train users how to avoid Windows pitfalls. Businesses to monitor networks for intrusions. Businesses to repair or reinstall failed Windows machines. Security researchers, patch writers, forensic specialists... and so on, ad nauseum.

There are millions of people kept in continuous employment just to protect and maintain Microsoft's OS, many of them the "expert tech analysts" you're asking to call Microsoft out. Unsurprisingly, those people are often Microsoft's most energetic supporters.

Microsoft does not want to alienate their most ardent fans.

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late.

[Spasemunki]

The stock price will likely not reach those heights again not because Microsoft is fundamentally in trouble, but because the market primarily values growth. Microsoft already owns a piece of damn near every computer in the world, so there's really nowhere to go but down; their non-core offerings have, at best, a checkered history and don't inspire confidence in investors.

MS has been transitioning out of the 'growth' mold in the assessment of stock pickers for years. That's why the price is down, and is staying down. Paying out dividends is not a ploy to buoy the stock price, as the stock is already training at a premium way above the dividend value; paying dividends is just what a reasonable Board does in response to a huge excess of cash that can't be reasonably invested in growth. They're a publicly traded company and have to act in the interest of the shareholder.

As to their revenues... they took modest losses in one of the worst economies since the Depression, during a period when their last major product release is several years in the mirror, and people are holding out on major purchases as the next one comes into view. That's a pretty enviable position to most companies.

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late.

[rootofevil]

theyve been down this road before. the clones were nothing good, and almost caused apple to fail.

those who dont know history...

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late.

[DDLKermit007]

You don't know anything about drivers do you? So what if Apple opened up their OS tomorrow to ALL shitty hardware on the market they would fail. OSX is a solid little thing because Apple tests the hell out of hardware in their machines. So much of MS's time is spent making sure every cheap POS PCI card you drop into your system works halfway. Apple would go from making something elegant, and functional to damage control overnight just like MS.

Gartner

[sentientbeing]

Gartner is just a Microsoft lobbying group. Treat them as such.

Re:Gartner

[jcr]

Gartner is just a Microsoft lobbying group.

I remember when Gartner was telling everyone that OS/2 would matter. It's not that they work for MS as such, it's that they're in the business of providing CYA documentation for anyone who wants to do what everyone else is doing.

-jcr

Re:Gartner

[marcello_dl]

sometimes you sacrifice something expendable for the result you want; the expendable concept is "vista sucks", which many people believe anyway. The result is "wait and buy win7" instead of "windows isn't dominant anymore, consider the alternatives"

 

Re:Gartner

[CarpetShark]

They're not suggesting that. They're TELLING people to stop sticking with XP, and spend money on Windows 7. Microsoft cut its losses on Vista a long time ago, but obviously had to keep up some pretense that it was really a good product, and doing well. Their main goal for a long time has been to get Windows 7 out in some sort of more-acceptable-than-vista state (which they seem to have failed at), and to make sure people buy it this time, which they're attempting to ensure with extra PR, and the usual highly questionable tactics like this Gartner thing.

Re:Gartner

[NeverVotedBush]

Absolutely true!

Microsoft Windows is by far the first choice of hackers, malware authors, organized crime, and government espionage operations.

Windows is definitely their preferred OS and I doubt that will change with Windows 7 especially with the various issues that have already cropped up in RC1.

Re:Gartner

[ozmanjusri]

I've only heard good about Windows 7 so far.

Try it yourself then.

I've used it long enough to get a feel for the OS, and would say it's not bad. Certainly feels better than Vista, but not as good as a well-sorted XP install.

That's the main problem with 7 - it doesn't change anything significant about using a computer. It won't make your life easier or your work more productive. Sure there are some minor enhancements, but nothing you can't get on XP with a few freeware apps, and is is definitely more sluggish on the same hardware than XP.

So in exchange for your couple of hundred dollars and a mandatory hardware upgrade, you get a whole lot of... not much at all, really.

In the Year 2015 ...

[eldavojohn]

Software Engineer: I sure am kind of on the fence about Windows 8, it's too quick and responsive ... I can't put my finger on it ...
Systems Engineer: Not enough bloat? Maybe you just miss Windows 7?
Software Engineer: No, it's not that ... it has the quality of that one before Windows 7 ...
Systems Engineer: Windows XP?
Software Engineer: No, there was something that happened briefly in between those two that Windows 8 feels like ...
Systems Engineer: I don't know what you're talking about, we need to get back to work, here are all your requirements.
Software Engineer: Vivid? Vivace? Something foreign sounding ...
Systems Engineer: No, you idiot, shut up! Don't you remember the ...
Software Engineer: VISTA!
*men with guns in black clothing with Gartner symbols sewn into them storm from the Gartner door near the servers and slip bags over the two engineers' heads and drag them towards the exits; they are never heard from again*

not really that insightful

[Gary W. Longsine]

Insightful would be something like this: Businesses which are dependent on proprietary document storage formats like .doc, .xls, and .ppt, or upon Windows-only programming frameworks like Win32, .Net, or ASP should immediately begin migration to platform independent programming API and document storage formats.

Re:not really that insightful

[mhall119]

Or investing in Wine and Mono, to make their existing infrastructure platform independent.

Re:tell me again...

[RiotingPacifist]

Home users - Security, UAC stops stuff running as admin.
Business - erm,well,err...?

I've been saying this for...

[Anarchduke]

For all the venom poured at the feet of Gartner, they are only saying what I have been saying since for months.

Gartner is only giving advice that many IT analysts have been saying for quite some time. Skip vista, hold on to Windows XP, and wait for the next release before considering upgrading. Hardly a controversial statement, especially with Windows 7 due to go Gold by the holiday season.

I know Slashdot has a tradition of instantly hating everything remotely associated with Microsoft, but Gartner is an IT firm that spends a great deal of time advising businesses on how to best implement Microsoft products. They aren't the Mouth of Sauron, speaking what the Eye of Mordor wants spoken.

Honestly, Microsoft would really prefer that businesses upgrade to Vista now, then upgrade to Windows 7 a year from now. That means more money to them. Gartner is only giving common sense advise and saying, hold off on spending your money because Vista is dead end.

Yes, we would all like to see more businesses switch to Linux, but that isn't going to happen very quickly, if at all. But if your company is thinking of migrating from XP to a more modern operating system, it would come as no surprise if the analyst they hired said, "don't go to Vista, wait for Windows 7".

Re:I've been saying this for...

[rahvin112]

Honesty would be Gartner saying that Windows 7 is Windows Vista with a new coat of paint and that there is no real reason to upgrade to Windows 7. The press turned against Microsoft on Vista because of the IT backlash, but lets be honest they've bought the press lock stock and barrel on Windows 7. There isn't a damn thing different about Windows 7 and vista under the hood. The same things that Gartner and others blasted Vista for is being ignored with Windows 7. Microsoft must have paid the appropriate people really well in advance of the Windows 7 reviews because franly their's NO business incentive to upgrade from XP.

Thanks, Shill!

[drinkypoo]

Gartner is telling us to pretend Vista never happened, just as Microsoft intends. But that's like seeing the original Highlander, then seeing Highlander 2... and then going to see Highlander 3! Why the fuck would you do that? You know it's going to be a let-down.

Before you start the switch you should

[ClosedSource]

Immediately file for Chapter 11 because you might as well get all of the reorganization done all at once.

Skoda tells me to buy a new Skoda

[knarf]

Sony tells me I need a Blueray player, Philips says I should look into ditching that old coffee maker for one of those wasteful cartridge-thingies, Proctor and Gamble insists my hair needs Head and Shoulders, Gartner says we should consider buying the next Microsoft operating system. Since when do I care about what advertisers say?

Re:Real Insight: Microsoft is also skipping Vista.

[TheThiefMaster]

It doesn't emulate Vista because 7 is 100% Vista compatible. Nothing to emulate.

There's a program compatibility option, and all it does is report "Vista" as the OS instead of 7.

telling the obvious to the clueless

[petes_PoV]

... AND getting paid for it

You've gotta respect the "analysts" at Gartner. Anyone who's read anything about PCs within the last year would have come to this conclusion. However, when you write it in a high-priced report, and present it in a pretty cover, some sort of Dilbert-ian logic takes over and the contents (whatever they happen to be) suddenly have the meaning, insight and authority that makes them worthy of directorial consideration.

Re:telling the obvious to the clueless

[StormReaver]

> Anyone who's read anything about PCs within the last year would have come to this conclusion.

Anyone who's used a Microsoft operating system in the last 15 years should have come to this conclusion a long time ago. I predict two things will happen:

1) The sun will rise in the morning (obvious inaccuracies aside).

2) Microsoft will release Windows 7 to much fanfare, and people will forget the last 15 years of wasted effort trying to keep Windows in operation. They will be shocked, SHOCKED, at all the Windows viruses hampering their work and play. They will bitch and moan, but will keep throwing their time and money in the fire. The temporary good judgment they showed at avoiding Vista will evaporate.

Re:Why go to Windows 7?

[symbolset]

What is ITS value prop?

It could be your last chance to get committed to Software Assurance. That's the amazing deal where you pay Microsoft every year 1/3 the price of their full software stack and in return you get to use the useful upgrades they come out with every twelve years for FREE.

XP Mode.

[symbolset]

XP Mode marries all the reliability and security of XP to the usability and device compatibility of Vista. Brilliant!

Re:XP Mode.

[ozmanjusri]

XP Mode is done through virtualization and only works on some CPUs.

Yep.

And if you're going down that path, why not run your instance of XP in a VM on Linux?

More compatibility, less cost and far fewer security issues. If you're going virtual, what's the point of Windows 7 at all?

Re:So - Why would I upgrade to Windows 7 Over XP?

[cfryback]

This is an ongoing question. I was forced to explain the reason for going to XP (migration done this year!) from 2000. Since migrating, I think we have only had one or two BSOD's - and a quick BIOS upgrade fixed that (we are an HP shop, BTW). Sure I mean there was no real technical reason to upgrade, as most of our users use apps and not the OS features anyways. But I am convinced that but not upgrading, you end up like we did - an old OS trying to run on modern hardware, which was becoming a support nightmare trying to explain why their PC would BSOD three or four times a day. We going to Vista? Not a chance - but I am running Win 7 on a test PC, and have started loading in our corporate applications - and as such all working as expected. Though I have noticed that everything SEEMS to be running quicker on 7 vs XP. Keep in mind, I am running it on a very stock standard HP 7600 (Pentium D705, 2GB Ram - 80Gb HD) - aside from the Areo interface (which I doubt we would have anyways) everything else is working just dandy.

Re:tell me again...

[Anonymous Coward]

An upgrade to Windows 7 from XP brings a lot more than people think for businesses:

BitLocker + a TPM means that a laptop theft basically becomes "just" a hardware theft, as opposed to hardware + data on it. A cost of a laptop is chump change compared to the revenue loss and loss of PR face when having to report that sensitive data was stolen to shareholders, the SEC, customers, and the press. BitLocker can also be used on workstations so a redeployment or sale of machines can be done without trashing the hard disks. Just a format command will do the job. (Vista's format.exe command explicitly overwrites the volume master key sectors, ensuring that recovery of any data even with a copy of the recovery info isn't going to happen.)

A decent privilege model. Apps shouldn't demand admin or LocalSystem rights unless they need it. No, this isn't a magic bullet for security, but it is a great step in the right direction. XP also has this, but most developers still just write assuming that all users are in the Administrator's group.

BitLocker To Go = those tons of USB flash drives are at least protected with some type of password that users write to (assuming the policy to require it before writing is allowed is set.) If user loses the password, the data is still recoverable.

Better OS imaging. WIM is a lot more customizable than XP's imaging model. The only exception is the fact that even VLK editions of Vista require activation which make this a major thorn in the side of businesses, even with an internal KMS. You can make multiple corporate images and images can be used across CPU/HAL architectures, as opposed to having a specific image for a certain model Dell, another image for the HPs, and so on. Add some PXE support, and you can reimage a new or trashed machine with just a boot from the network, as opposed to the Ghost CD and an external hard disk.

There are a number of under the hood things that Vista has that people don't notice which do improve security and reliability. ASLR, multiple privilege levels (like how IE8 runs in a pseudo-jail), background checking of disk filesystem integrity, volume snapshots, disassociation of Windows Update from Internet Explorer, and a good number of other security improvements.

The activation issue is, in my personal experience, the second biggest reason why businesses stay with XP, the first being the issue of legacy drivers that don't work under Vista. I just don't get the point of activation in VLK editions. The BSA will rip a business to component atoms who is caught pirating, so activation doesn't ensure MS gets any more revenue than it does already in the business sector.

Um...

[sootman]

... won't businesses wait for Windows 7 SP1 anyway?

That said, every geek worth his salt (let alone any actual IT professional) should take advantage of the fact that MS will let you download and run the Release Candidate Customer Preview of Vista 7 Ultimate for free for a year. Works just fine in VirtualBox (also free, for Win, Lin, and OS X) as described here. Even if you hate MS for whatever reason, it's still worth knowing what they're doing, especially if you can do so for free on whatever platform you're (probably) currently using.

Re:tell me again...

[RiotingPacifist]

BitLocker + a TPM means that a laptop theft basically becomes "just" a hardware theft, as opposed to hardware + data on it.

BitLocker To Go = those tons of USB flash drives are at least protected with some type of password that users write to (assuming the policy to require it before writing is allowed is set.)

But companies that need this have been doing it on xp for years, companies that don't still wont bother because of the additional overhead.

And while i do agree that windows7/vista are significantly more secure, I'm under the impression that companies have been able to lock down xp pretty well and migrating means having to lock down a whole new system that admins are less familiar with

The activation issue is, in my personal experience, the second biggest reason why businesses stay with XP, the first being the issue of legacy drivers that don't work under Vista..

I think the biggest reason is that it requires a significant effort, and for a properly secured system there is little benefit.

Re:Why migrate from XP to vista?

[BenoitRen]

Windows 32-bit has been able to address more than 4 GB of RAM for at least a decade now. You just weren't licensed to use it.

Re:Gartner, highest bidder

[CarpetShark]

Everyone agrees on skipping vista. It's a common propaganda trick to start with something you'll accept (vista sucks), then feed you what they want you to accept next (buy Windows 7).

Re:Why migrate from XP to vista?

[spanky the monk]

I used to pull working computer/parts out of dumpsters all the time at uni. If you live in a first world country and don't need to play games, you don't even need to buy a computer! Just dust of some garbage and install your favorite linux flavor. Yesterdays gaming machine is my workstation.

I haven't bought a computer for about 6 years.

Makes sense

[thetoadwarrior]

Windows 7 is basically a service pack for Vista so it's not like you're moving to something completely different. You're moving to Vista as it should be.

SAVE VISTA!

[David Gerard]

Original blog post - Facebook group

Microsoft has said it may ditch Vista the moment Windows 7 comes out. They've since backtracked - but we need to make sure they know our feelings.

Windows 7 is CASTRATED APPEASEMENT to soy latte-sipping girly-men who wish they owned a Mac. We want a REAL operating system. An operating system that PERSONIFIES America's INDUSTRIAL MIGHT. That makes you feel AWE at the MAJESTY of the progress of its operation. VISTA is a monument to everything that makes us the country we are!

Like Chrysler, like Hummer, like Edsel - "Vista" is a name that will be remembered as the greatest operating system in Microsoft's history.

Just Say "No" To Seven -

SAVE VISTA!

We want ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE to join the Facebook group. So far we have about 80. TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS!

"I fully support this initiative. My computer business employs 200 people; the best possible thing for it is to make sure Vista continues and goes forward." - M. Shuttleworth, London

"I can't tell you how much Vista has done for my business. So many people depend on it." - S. Jobs, Cupertino

"Vista is the one thing that will keep people seeking out and using systems that are at the forefront of technology. It's been the best thing for all of us." - L. Torvalds, Portland

"I'm ... I'm touched. *sob* I didn't think anyone cared. You guys. Developers! *sob*" - S. Ballmer, Seattle

Re:Samba support

[fluffy99]

Well, W7 does not support Samba yet

It's Samba that needs to catch up, not Microsoft. Windows7 dropped support for the archaic NT4 domain structure that Samba emulates.

Samba is a poor substitute as a domain controller. Sure you can get an NT4 style domain working, but you're missing out on all the power that Active Directory gives you. For that matter, Samba leaves a lot to be desired as a windows file server as well.

Emperor wears a Thong

[eyepeepackets]

The reviewers who actually do performance evaluations of Windows 7 continue to make this point: The performance between Windows 7 and Vista is marginal at best and often indistinguishable.

Windows 7 is Vista with a marketing make over. It's being pushed from the bottom up in a faux ground swell astroturfers saying "Windows 7 is great!" but ignoring the performance evaluations.

The best that can be said for Windows 7 is that its true name should be Vista SP2.

They're improving their value prop

[symbolset]

Now you can't get a lot of their more exciting offerings like Server 2008 Datacenter edition unless you buy SA. Which means if you don't buy SA, you have to buy a separate copy of Server 2008 for each virtual machine you might run. And you can only transfer the license every 30 days, so if your cluster fails over you have to wait a month before you fail back, and run your cluster in non-redundant mode for that month. So the non-SA versions of Server 2008 are crippleware because they can't do HA. Way to sell product by subscription! These reality enhanced individuals have no idea what their competition is doing to their value proposition. And even if you buy into that they only support VMs that run Windows and their Novell Linux lapdog, SUSE SLED. Ubuntu? Redhat? Mandrake? Oracle Unbreakable Linux? BSD? Debian? Never heard of that stuff.

For those who are paying attention, Software Assurance is the incredible deal where you pay Microsoft every year 1/3 the price of their full software stack and in return you get to use the useful upgrades they come out with every twelve years for FREE. Isn't proprietary licensing great? There are other rules too. You wouldn't believe what obscure rules in the license agreement these tards pulled up when they were trying to drive Ernie Ball out of business. What they got instead is that he paid them, deleted their software, and became a Linux fan.

Suing your customers isn't the best way to win friends and influence people.

Re:Samba support

[The Cisco Kid]

Sure, catch up with an undocumented proprietary moving standard. Guess what - thats one of the reasons MS keeps changing things - it isn't to make it work better, its to make solutions from anyone other than MS work less well.

The correct solution is to ditch the entire Microsoft paradigm altogether. Things like Samba are just a band aid for the drooling masses who's eyes glaze over if the buttons aren't in exactly the same position on every computer.