Slashdot Mirror
Most Companies Won't Deploy Windows 7 — Survey
angry tapir writes "Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year, according to a new survey. Of 1,100 IT administrators who responded to the survey, 59.3 percent said they didn't have a plan to deploy Windows 7. (Full results, PDF.)"
When XP support ends in 2014. By then, Win7 will have been shaken out.
but that dosnt mean 6/10 wont deploy it. I imagine plenty of those are just waiting to see how well or not it plays out for other companies. If 7 Manages everything it promises, im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the end
It's gone from 83% that won't to 59.3%.
Based on that, if MS wait nine months there will be people buying two copies.
If they were happy with XP and didn't want to get the hardware required for Vista (plus the risk of a new OS) then why would they want to get Windows 7, given that it is essentially Vista at heart. It doesn't matter what they call it, it's still not as fast, and with a small a footprint as XP?
I'd have thought the future of business's IT apps/work is internet/web apps, but served up on an organisation's intranet.
this might buy some time for XP users
It's got to be tough. You can't kill off XP like you want to, because people really really might leave. But it looks foolish to support that morass of code in spite of the NEW morass you've spent all that money on.
In the long run, they'll switch. Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it. Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.
stored on computers from birth to the grave
You don't need a plan - it'll install itself automatically via windows update. And then automatically rat on you for piracy.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
6 in 10? not a very big sample!
IT grunts know not to deploy a Microsoft by-product until at least Service Pack 2 comes out -- somehow I don't see Windows 7 SP2 being out by the end of next year. Not to mention the real world concerns of budgets, hardware upgrade cycles, training, etc. In other words, no real surprise here.
This is the MO of most companies when a new version of Windows comes along. Not only because businesses don't use a new version of Windows, nor do they upgrade their existing installations. Did anybody actually think it would be different this time?
We still have IE6 installed by default at work. The reason we haven't upgraded is because it'd break some of the applications and they don't want the headache of having to retest the application (that's the excuse anyway), so we're stuck with it.
I expect we won't be moving to Windows 7 any time soon either, XP works fine and not only would they have to spend money on the upgrade, but they'd have to re-train everyone.
Summation 2
"Have No current Plans" != "Won't Deploy"
Two years ago, my company had "No Current Plans" to move our MS Applications to their 2007 versions, but here we are, with Office/Exchange/Sharepoint all 2007.
"No Current Plans" may just mean just that... they don't have any plans. That's a far stretch from "we won't".
Watch the Teaser Trailer for "The Lightning Thief" Her
I'm all for bashing ms but this sounds like a pretty big number to me.
(I had to say that.)
Seriously, my department (1500 employees) has not made a move to either Vista (we now have about 30 Vista machines) or Win 7. I run it in VirtualBox under Ubuntu and so do about two others. However, the rest of the 1400 or so machines are running XP or even Win2K still. As it is, we've yet to find a compelling reason to "upgrade" from XP/2K. Most of the users have one or two apps running, some even run mainframe terminals still. The rest use office apps, which work just fine in XP.
For home users I can see moving to Win 7 (or even Ubuntu) but the business case just doesn't seem to justify the cost. Even new machines don't really seem to out perform older ones (< 5 year old) by much.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
Every time a new version of Windoze comes out, we see a survey saying most places won't install the new version. So either most places are still using Windows 3.11 or they switched to Linux right?
Ok ok I know most places dont' upgrade every year, so it takes 2-5 years before the newest version takes over. So really this survey is nothing new and I wonder if it is even newsworthy.
40% adoption rate in one year? Thats crazy good.
6% by the end of this year? and it comes out at the end of October?
FFS they are literaley producing gold nugets out of their rectum and you are complaining that they aren't platinum.
6 in 10 companies don't want to needlessly spend money and wish to continue using software that does what they need.
We're in tight economic times. Companies are not going to upgrade unless they have a real need for a new feature. I have several clients who are still running on Windows XP and have absolutely no need to change that. Same goes for Vista. If their current systems are running smoothly and meeting requirements, there is no reason to change things.
The only reason I'm upgrading at least one of my machines is because my clients expect me to be informed about the latest versions, whether they themselves are actually using them or not.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Kind of sad that Microsoft peaked with XP SP2, no?
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Correct, Windows XP will be on Extended Suport until 08/04/2014.
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&C2=1173
Here is a list of what is covered (Security Hotfix Patches & Microsoft Knowledge Base.)
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy
There's also a horrible rumor going around where people are assuming Windows XP will become "disabled" in 2010 unless you upgrade.
What does 7 have that they need and don't have with XP? Does your company replace all the furniture every time Herman Miller comes out with a new line?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
On any given piece of hardware that can run XP or Vista/Windows 7, XP runs faster.
It's smarter to run XP, not lazier. And until MS gets their head out of their butt and gives people a better product than XP, people will not buy it on their own free will.
I think that the point is that it is historically low.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Its system requirements are higher than Vistas. With more overhead, how is it supposed to run well on netbooks (as claimed)?
If it runs smoother than Vista, why shouldnt it be treated as a version of Vista with the bugs fixed? Hard to justify paying additional for that.
In the long run, they'll switch. Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it. Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.
It's interesting, in that, so many people of the current generation see webapps and centralized computing as the new best thing.
See, some of us old people got into the PC revolution when we were kids because we were rebelling against centralized computing. We hated the account quotas and slowness of shared system resources in college, the straightjackets around information, and we wanted to smash all of that. We saw that giving people power tools like spreadsheets and desktop databases empowered them over the static mainframe systems of old, that a computer was something that you owned, was, well, a personal thing.
Quite frankly, if it wasn't for ISPs being such a PITA about bandwidth for uploads and hosting, and if, honestly, there was more adoption of IPv6 so that everyone could have their own address, we would see a lot more desktop to the internet hosting. A quadcore PC could easily host a blog or a facebook account. Indeed, I would be the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does, except that you own your data, and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications.
This is my sig.
Everywhere I've ever worked has taken the approach "let's give the new version time for the bugs to be shaken out. Then we'll see how they get on and make a decision". This was the case in the days of Win2K, Windows XP and Vista.
Vista broke a lot of things while bringing nothing particularly beneficial (at least for a business) to the table. Anyone who hadn't already paid for it through something like Software Assurance was therefore very likely to say "No thanks".
18 months from now, however, USB3 will start to become more widespread and I bet we won't see USB3 support in XP. Frankly, that's about the only thing I can think of that Windows 7 might be able to offer. And seeing as USB took years to get from "what's that funny rectangular socket on the back?" to mainstream, I'm not holding my breath.
Dear lovely Corporation,
Here's a new operating system for you. Awfully sorry about the whole Vista thing, won't happen again.
Love,
Bill and Steve.
Wait... just Steve now.
PS. The Windows 7 Corporate Mega Edition will come with a free chair.
Task Mangler
Yes, this is routine stuff but still think it's news worthy. What Microsoft could pull is to warn of a "critical exploit" in all versions of Windows prior to Windows 7 and make money.
When combined with Software Assurance, this can work to move most businesses to Windows 7.
Trust me, Microsoft knows how businesses think and I am sure personnel have been hired to handle "stubborn" business accounts.
It's mid-July, and Windows 7 isn't even released yet. Even if companies started testing Windows 7 in their environments today, planning to deploy it before the end of the year would be pretty fast for any mid-to-large company.
Combine that with the general wisdom that you should wait for Microsoft's first (at least) service pack before purchasing any of their products, and there's an even stronger reason for companies to take their time.
So I really can't see why this article's statistics are considered newsworthy.
They're still working on deploying Vista ; )
Not having a plan to do something doesn't mean you're not going to do it; I don't have a plan to go on holiday next year, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to, it just means I'm not yet working on it.
The interesting figure here isn't the 6/10. It's the 4/10. I'd have to question the sanity of that 40%.
This is not a bash at MS. It is just prudent IT policy, and good business not to use untested software in mission critical environments. No new OS, from anyone, is guaranteed to be mission critical in its first year of release.
Most business do not upgrade entire systems often. There's plenty that have only switched to XP from 200 in the past 5 years.
There's plenty of bespoke programs and macros that run on every enterprise system. It takes at least a year to figure out how a new OS will work with those. That's not even counting driver issues, hardware issues, and bugs.
Plus there's a productivity issue with switching OS. Do you really want to slow down your staff during a recession?
But specifically for Windows 7, why switch? What is the competitive advantage of doing so? There's no real performance gain. There's no real new features that aren't just bling. Sure, it's a bit more secure, but any IT dept has cobbled something together and locked down XP enough for it to work reasonably well.
No, sorry, I'd have to question the business decision of any company that is going to introduce a new OS that will cost them money, productivity, and still have kinks and bugs in it at this early stage in its release.
In 3-5 years, after much internal testing, sure it would make sense. But right now -- corporate suicide.
It is pretty common in corporate IT departments policy to not even consider upgrading Windows until at least the first service pack has been released. No good IT manager will riskt the potential fallout of installing an untested OS on a large scale. Early adopters are generally the adventurous or the ignorant.
Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
A more interesting headline would be: Nearly 4 in 10 companies plan to upgrade to software that doesn't exist yet. Really, how can you plan to roll something out that you haven't evaluated yet? Oh wait, it makes work weather it's good/bad or needed/not. And if it sucks, you can't be blamed for using Microsoft. Now it's all clear to me.
Hell, I wouldn't be working on plans to deploy something that hasn't even been released yet either.
This guy's the limit!
Is anyone surprised?
IT Administrators are typically fairly conservative and cautious. Most folks will wait until SP1 is released. At the very least they'll wait until a few months after release so they can get real-world usage reports.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
The tabloid title says "Most Companies Won't Deploy Windows 7". Whereas the article says they have [b]currently[/b] no such plans. That's quite a significant difference.
We're in the middle of a recession. Budgets are being cut everywhere. Companies are dropping like flies.
Windows 7 is a great OS, but it's expensive to migrate your systems to a new OS, and if Windows XP is doing the trick right now, it's irresponsible to frivolously spend the time, money, and hardship switching just to be at the front of the pack. Every dollar you spend is another dollar you don't have in the bank just in case sales aren't where they should be.
To be honest, I think we're going to see the opposite of what we saw with early versions of DOS and Windows: Originally, people wanted the OS they used on their PCs at work. Eventually, people are going to want the OS they use on their PCs at home, and within 5 years, that OS will be Windows 7 for nearly everyone.
It's been a long time.
First, "no plans" does not mean "won't". It just means that they're not ready yet, or haven't thought about it, or haven't started making preparations for it, etc.
Second, 40% who are planning to deploy it is HUGE. As the survey points out, the first-year adoption rate for XP was 12-14%. The survey itself said "This is actually a strong adoption rate" and "a high acceptance of Windows 7".
This is a case where the TFA (Good Gear Guide, WTF is this?) clearly did not even bother to read the source that they are quoting from.
It is. XP's first-year adoption was 12-14% (it looks like TFA did not read TFS; S == source).
Most companies refuse to upgrade their systems to a new product (at least major product) unless there is 1) pressure from the top, 2) The hardware vendor only sells with that software, 3) a service patch has been released, or 4) they receive such an unbelievable discount it borders on payola.
This is nothing new. This happened with windows NT, XP, 2003, Vista and it will continue to happen. Though most people who have tried windows 7 have stated they loved it. I've had it installed for months now and I have not experienced a single crash and my laptop is running faster with windows 7 then it did vista.
Wait until windows 7 is out for 6 months, has it's first patch and then come out with an verifiable/reliable article saying this information.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
But not for 64 bit / wanting to us 4gb of ram more like (3.5 or less) on some systems. 4gb of DDR2 is so cheap that you should get it or more DDR3 is coming down is price as well.
Also XP 64 does not have many divers for it vs vista / 7.
As I recall, no sites had any plans to introduce 2000, as NT4 was 'quite adequate'.
Then it was XP, as 'no-one wants to buy new machines'.
The two hiccups - Windows ME (unsurprisingly), and Vista. And now here we are, with XP about to go (and more than showing it's age) - and somehow, managers not wanting to frighten chairmen with next years' costs has become a slashdot news article.
Which it would be, if I'd only been in the game for five years....please guys, you're supposed to be impressive, not tabloid-recyclers.
6:10 wont deploy it because 8:10 machines get replaced after 2-3 years. 6:10 are 2-3 year old machines still running XP. the cost of windows 7 will be added to the cost of 4:5 machines machines for sale. therefore, guesstimation odds say 6:10 machines will be replaced with windows7 machines. why buy os licenses when you are going to end up replacing the machines anyway.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Does your company replace all the furniture every time Herman Miller comes out with a new line?
Of coarse!
AIG,INC
We've all read the reviews, and lots of us have even tried out Windows 7. It will of course, remain Windows, inherently flawed. But the improvement over Vista is huge. Businesses that are currently running Vista would be quite prompt to shift to Windows 7, because Windows 7 is everything that Vista is not. On the other hand, businesses running XP are more likely to be complacent with their current setup, and will most likely wait to see how other companies are responding to it, and what compatibility issues crop up.
RutSum.com
who demanded the same game his friends were playing
this is what drives home adoption of new windows versions, and when people are comfortable at home, they will ask for it at work
the scenario
CEO: my son has windows7 and he can do all this [MS BS app] cool stuff..why isn't it on our website
IT Guy: [to ceo]yessir, right away sir
[to undelings] begin the windows 7 rollout for C suite execs, since thier laptops will now be incompatible with the other 99.99% of computers in teh company, we will have to upgrade everyone else
The customer I'm working for won't be deploying Windows 7 anytime soon because they are in the middle of rolling out Vista. Of course we kinda thought about waiting, but to deploy a new operating system requires lots and lots of testing to make sure that most of the applications work. It probably takes almost a year to get it to the point where it can be approved.
I think the difference here is that although many companies have no plans to upgrade, most won't be downgrading either. Our plans are not to upgrade existing machines but when new ones come in, we'll allow Win7 to continue to run and not downgrade to XP (like we did with Vista). This is a big difference between Vista and Win7 and probably successful in MS's eyes considering what happened with Vista.
Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/168270/windows_7_forecast_to_squash_vista_quickly.html
The other side of the coin.
I love predictions. Anyone can make them and anyone can back it up with as much BS as they want. The truth is probably somewhere in between...
Take these two questions:
A. Do you have a plan to move to Windows 7?
B. Do you plan to move to Windows 7?
Obviously A B by a substantial margin. The question isn't a fair assessment.
Except the problem that slows most of our desktop machines down at work is the huge number of background processes chewing processor time rather than memory limits. Also, I think a lot of corporate environments have special suppliers for things like computer hardware and so while 4GB of DDR2 memory off the shelf is cheap a) that's not the price they see it at (add on a premium plus install cost) and b) it's still a cost they've got to justify, no matter how small it is.
Will Microsoft switch to Windows 7 ?
http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/windows-microsofts-red-headed-stepchild-075?page=0,1&source=IFWNLE_nlt_blogs_2009-07-13
From the article ...
"I recently spoke with an IT manager who was budgeting for an Office 2010 upgrade from Office 2003. I casually asked him what features he had deemed important enough to justify a $100,000 budget item. He thought for a minute and admitted that he couldn't think of a single one. So I asked the logical follow-up: Why are you buying it? He had no answer for that either. The $100,000 line item disappeared. He's also sticking with XP."
needlessly [citation needed]
if 37% do do it by end of next year, that's really good. No sane IT department would spend money on large deployments before hardware makers have first released win 7 drivers, and second, those drivers have had some good test time in the wild. Not to mention win OS's are hugely complex systems and with big verison changes only happening every 5 years, or what not, a lot of new problems get introduced all at once.
MS has done it best to fool honest folks like you that you have no choice but to downgrade to XP just because of their (disastrous IMO) UI switch. Office2007 UI has value ... *as a HYBRID*.
Yea yea, "stuff wants to be free", but this is plugin I gladly paid for:
http://www.addintools.com/
So, back to Win 7. I hear it's actually got some solid stuff in it - Vista rebuilt tech, but with at least some of the rust scraped off. I'm sure some of the other UI will be junk too. So I'll get a fix for that. The rest of the OS may actually have useful deep support for emerging tech, especially when the famed MS-Essential SP1/SP2 emerges.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
In other news, 99.9% of businesses have no plans to install Linux clients.
Kind of sad that Microsoft peaked with XP SP2, no?
Too funny. XP was not at all their peak. It was the start of the DECLINE. You want a great fast and lean OS that stayed out of the user's way, look at Win 2k.
Everyone on Slashdot harps on XP like it's this great OS, but it is NOT. I remember everyone here bitching about how about XP was compared to 2k (i.e. dog ass slow in comparison etc).
Frankly, if MS would have added decent USB support to Windows 2k, I would never have switched to XP.
They've gone through the same thing with each version of Windows that's been released. In 2003, less than 10% of corporate PCs were carrying XP. In 2005, it had only gone up to 38%. That's an OS that'd been out for more than three years, and was up against the incumbent Win2000. If Win7 can hit about 40% within a year against an incumbent XP, then that's actually incredible progress.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
"if 37% do do it by end of next year, that's really good. No sane IT department would spend money on large deployments before hardware makers have first released win 7 drivers"
No 'sane IT department' would deploy version one of anything, generally it's best to wait for version three. I don't see any evidence that 'hardware makers' are causing delays in Win7 as it most likely it will come pre-installed on new hardware.
davecb5620@gmail.com
A lot of companies have been holding off an upgrade from Windows XP for years now, because Vista was such a dog's breakfast. So they had already planned on upgrading to whatever came after Vista if the early word was even slightly positive.
Simply because we're switching the entire fleet of computers to Mac systems. A lot more reliable, a lot less expensive, a lot easier to manage.
No flame to Dell or Microsoft intended but their tandem has been biting the company in the behind for quite a while whether it be annoyingly small issues (roaming profiles not syncing correctly) or larger issues like virus outbreaks (even with full commercial anti-virus software), data loss when using SMB and the worse-than-awful support from Dell.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Just wondering what are the numbers for the companies wich are planning to deploy MacOS, Debian/RedHat/Mandrake/Novell NetWare/Sysem V. Isn't it enough beating the bushes? it just mean 4 out of 10 companies in economy close to 1929 paralysis ARE planning to deploy new OS. Jeez, just wondering wether macOS delployment would ever be in 1 out of 1000 companies...
Microsoft has more or less contributed to the ultimate demise of the PC in the work place. Because of all the features, and the lack of reliability stemming from the complexity of all these features, MS has created a maintenance nightmare. Business critical applications are now all web based (at least at my company, everything from HR to shipping to version control etc.). Can't remember the last time I fired up MS Word (I have used Excel).
So why upgrade? What is the one feature that Windows 7 has that I _NEED_?
More secure? What is 'more'? How about rock solid secure to the point I can deploy without special virus protection? Right now XP seems good enough.
Better manageability? Management at this time seems to be locking out users from doing things that are stupid/dangerous and forcing upgrades to cover vulnerabilities. Please see 1st question.
TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
What Microsoft could pull is to warn of a "critical exploit" in all versions of Windows prior to Windows 7 and make money.
Out of sincere curiousity, has Microsoft ever done this?
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
I have no plans to upgrade my current car to the bitching zero emission cars that we will have in 2015 either. I guess no one is ever going to own one according to the logic of the blurb.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Only thing surprising is that 4/10 companies do plan to upgrade next year (at this moment, doubt they will stick to it), I would have expected 1/10 at best.
We are in the middle of world recession, IT budgets have been slashed all over and considering the amount of work a large enterprise has to do to upgrade a desktop OS (all apps, either off the shelf or bespoke have to be tested and upgraded as necessary) I doubt even 1/10 will actually manage to upgrade next year
Windows 7 roll out will not really begin for most major companies until 2011 financial year at the earliest, until then it will mainly be small companies and home users and possibly places that already upgraded to vista if there are not to many incompatibilities or differences and they have the budget for it
Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer promised me something a long time ago.
And this is one delivery they won't miss.
Affectionately yours,
Satan.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
"Out of 100 people I asked, 56 said they prefer Coke to Pepsi" == "The majority of the world refuses to drink Pepsi."
Many companies will deploy Windows 7 in maybe 1 or 2 years when it had some prime time and the strength/weaknesses are explored, fixed or can be coped with.
Not many sane IT people will deploy it immediately after the first release, but they wait until the test bunnies (OEM consumers) had their experiences and the most severe bugs are fixed.
Until then they will carefully poke it with a stick, evaluate deployment strategies, test with existing company applications for compatibility and decide later on.
Some time next year or the year after that the migration process should get some more traction because of the EOL for XP and newer hardware compatibility issues as they get a bigger hassle with time.. but come on, we all knew that already.
They'll migrate if their buddies migrate. If the momentum swings towards migration, Win 7 will happen fast. Look how fast Sharepoint is taking over corporate America. CIO's are drinking the kool-aid. They are being wined and dined by Microsoft's best salespeople. If these salespeople start pushing Win 7 on corporate America, the migration will occur pretty fast.
probably
When i see the word "Most," I think that it's a whole lot greater than half... The article should read: "Little more than half of companies won't deploy Windows 7" A LOT less deceiving.
I'm running xp64 and have no driver or performance problems.... It sees all 4gig of ram also. The difference is that xp64 is based on the server2003 code base so xp drivers don't necessarily work, it being the server2003 code base means a little better stability means no SP3 though .....
Better security.
This is a totally dogshit article.
3/5 of IT workforce don't plan to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year? That's called common sense! You don't install new software in enterprise as it's buggy, unstable, and more often than not full of incompatibilities. A lot of these are fixed with the first Service Pack, which is when big business will start planning.
Sweet Jesus on a bed or roses, I work in a school with around 40 computers *total* and even I won't upgrade until SP1 is out. Doing so before is just begging to be burned.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Driver incompatibility is a mortal (i.e. intentional) sin. Incompatibility of ANY sorts without an easy upgrade path is worse. I have a hard time understanding how Microsoft's management seems to miss this blindingly obvious point again and again and again and again.....
.
People don't want the next big thing. They want their current stuff to continue to work without disruptions.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
It means 41% of IT people ARE going to deploy it, and that is a lot of machines.
I imagine btw - the headline for this if this were Linux would be - 41% of companies will deploy Unbuntu next year and it would be a wonderful thing. Flame away.
This is the biggest problem that I see facing Microsoft. They've committed the cardinal sin of business, which was to produce a successful, long lasting product. As long as XP meets peoples' needs, especially when it comes to profit motivated businesses, they're going to have a very hard time convincing people to spend money on a new product, no matter how good it may be.
It will happen. It will take time. Corporate IT departments have to plan way ahead for a change like this, and so it will take them time to do the switchover, but rest assured, it will happen. XP is clearly long in the tooth at this point. Don't get me wrong. I love XP. It runs most of my home computers. I have 7 PC's... 2 run Vista - one of those is a Media Center desktop. The other is a laptop that came with Vista and I left it that way. The others either came with XP, or in most cases, I built them and put XP on them. But 1 of them, my main computer, runs Windows 7 RC... I love it. It is rock solid. It runs everything I need to run, and it runs it FAST. It is clearly better than XP - the main desktop is better, the performance is as good or better, so there is no reason NOT to go to Windows 7. What will be really interesting is what the pre-order upgrade sales look like. I bought 2 copies. I'll probably buy more later, but wanted to take advantage of the cheap pricing. Bottom line is that new PC's will have Windows 7, as will new netbooks. Once people start using it, they'll want it at work. People will begin to talk about around the watercooler about corporate IT... Hey, I'm running it on my new PC and it works great, and looks so much better than XP... Yeah, me too, why can't corporate get their act together and get our machines upgraded? As soon as the CEO and the CFO are the ones having that discussion, it will be the corporate IT department getting the flame under their collective butts to get it rolled out. Look for this to start in say Q1, Q2 2010, with the pressure mounting by year end. By 2011, 90% of companies will have changed over or will be on their way... And the good news for all the Microsoft haters will be that they'll have another decade to complain about the evil Microsoft corporation...
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
This is not a smart move on the part of those companies which want to stick with Windows XP. Here's my take on the situation. Many will disagree, but there are some valid points.
1. Support: Sure, Microsoft has extended support but what about third parties? What about buying new hardware which will have Vista/Windows 7 drivers, but no XP support. It will come soon enough. And you could even stretch it to the point where hardware upgrades will become a nightmare. With 8Gb of RAM becoming common in high end computers NOW, think about where we'll be in 12 months time. Even low end bargain PC's will have 4Gb, which XP won't support properly right now. And don't bother talking about XP-64bit, there is even less support for that then there is 32bit.
2. Training: Windows has evolved over the past decade. The user interface and structure of how things are done has changed too. Consider this. Say you have an employee starting who's job requires some basic skills with MS Windows. If that employee has a relatively new computer and hasn't had experience with XP, you would have to take the time/spend the money on training them to use an old operating system. That's just stupid.
3. Why not?: From all the reports I've read, Windows 7 is going to be the LEAST crappy version of Windows yet. Even hardened anti-microsoft people (me included) are impressed with 7. Vista was a mistake, granted. And there would be no sane business on the planet that would have upgraded to Vista unless they had to. But c'mon people. XP was good, but it's also 8 years old.
My next computer I'm building in the next month or so will have a dual boot Sabayon Linux/Windows 7 setup. I run XP/Vista/Ubuntu on my current PC and at the moment, only XP works ;). That being said, Microsoft seems to have finally done something right on the OS front with 7. What's next? "We're not upgrading to Windows 8, We're sticking with XP"? FFS. Let's just all go back to MSDOS and be done with it.
You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
I have a work laptop that Vista hates. A virginal install with all patches applied and updated hardware drivers would BSoD at least twice per work day. Lo and behold, windows 7 worked out of the box. The only thing that I've had any problems with on it so far is the PPTP connection to our corporate VPN. This always fails on the negotiation point, and I have to wonder if it isn't because they're trying to finally kill PPTP.
.NET 3.5 SP1 fix most of those, but not all of them.
A handful of my customers are using Server 2008 w/ Terminal Services, and, so far, the window 7 system is the only one that has never thrown an error while launching an application or authenticating. Every other workstation I've used has had, well, issues. RDP 6.1 &
So I wouldn't exactly call it corporate suicide to upgrade. It might result in a temporary decrease in productivity while you have an employee out of the loop as you rebuild their workstation, but compare that time to what they'd lose if they were like me and had their station blue-screen and were forced to reboot twice a day or more.
Notice that the editor who posted this is kdawson. The question then becomes "How does this editor not fail?". ...
Yeah, I'm still waiting for an answer too.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
I don't know. Have you seen the new HTML5 demos with FF 3.5? They're using Javascript to modify pixels in videos as they play. With Javascript engines getting faster and JS libraries getting more powerful, we may be surprised what intensive work can be done in the browser in the next few years.
They are installing Hannah Montana Linux X86 Basic Edition instead.
"MS still doesn't understand what the term "security" actually means."
Microsoft understands security, and doesn't want it. A secure OS would mean no sales of the version of Windows after that.
Google: Don't do evil. Microsoft: Evil is our business plan.
Did you even care to finish reading his sentence? Is there something wrong with your English language parser?
My 0.02 cents
If my old memory serves me, the headline is basically stating the same thing said by many IT managers when XP was coming out of beta. I would think that due to the fact that Vista has sucked on a scale not known since the bastard child that was born between 95 and XP, that is leading many to make these comments without fully vetting the OS for business environments. I by no means like MS, but I try to be fair. I would imagine that this will be a much more accurate statement to make if things stick a few months after 7 comes out..
Win 7 is going GA in mid Oct 2009, and 40% of fortune 1000 companies plan on deploying it in before the end of the year! The last 2 months of the year. I would say that is extremely successful.
Of course MS will probably only sell 400 million copies of Win7 in 2010, they might as well turn off the lights and go home, with awful numbers like that they'll be broke ant decade now.
The 'big picture' is an enterprise benefit, not just "what is the feature I need from Windows 7?"
That's plain and simple, idiocy. If you don't understand the ecosystem around Windows that's fine and dandy, and I deploy *nix systems regularly but also understand the Windows ecosystem enough to know that in the desktop realm there are distinct benefits. Vista has the same general benefits as 7, but 7 is cleaner and faster, so I'll lump 7 in with Vista for now.
There are a LOT of advantages that may not benefit you, but do give good ROI. Standard imaging format with driver injections, so we can have a 'standard' image is one. Group policy that lets us lock down more stuff and change more settings for applications and the like. Better support for our network stack, because believe it or not, Windows XP actually is not great at communicating with Cisco Switches with spanning tree protocol enabled. Especially if they are Dells (yuck). Windows 7 solves that too.
We have other benefits too, like what we can build AROUND the Windows 7 environment, things we can do in Sharepoint, or within Office itself, or deploying software, etc etc.
The simple fact that you are waiting for the 'one killer feature' that will make you switch from XP, really shows how big haters you are -- I'm glad there's a lot of competition because Microsoft has stepped up the game with 7 and with other applications in its ensemble, and yet in the Slashdot crowd, they keep getting shit for it. Change the UI for better utility in Office? Get screamed at. Keep the UI in Windows the same? Get yelled at.
There's just no pleasing haters, and there's certainly no pleasing haters that don't know what the fuck they are talking about.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
By linking directly to the PDF, the submitter bypassed a summary from ScriptLogic's web page that directly contradicts the summary provided by angry tapir and kdawson:
Hat tip: Ed Bott
This sig intentionally left blank.
I love articles like this! This same "study" has been shown on many other websites. Most of them fess up that the study was sent to 20,000 "IT Admins". Only about 1000 responded. So they have a 5% response to the poll. Second thing I love is that they dont define who an "IT Admin" really is. I know a LOT of "admins" who really have no clue what the direction of their IT department is on a 6-12 month view.
If 6 in 10 business have no plans to deploy Windows 7 in the next year is bad news then I want some of that! Let's see...what would the comparable headlines be? 9.9 in 10 businesses have no plan to deploy Linux (desktop)in the next year! 9.4 in 10 businesses have no plans to deploy MacOS in the next year! Microsoft would undoubtedly be thrilled if 4 in 10 businesses deployed Windows 7 in the next year. Any other software company in the world would be thrilled with that result. Time to move along.
Q: What is wrong with Windows 7?
A: XP
They have a product that works perfectly. Why would they change? They have no reason to.
This is no surprise...and not news.
I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good
Seriously, the economic conditions are the #1 reason our company won't be deploying Windows 7 within the next year.
Our business is heavily tied to the housing market and new business construction (shopping centers, gas stations, dept. stores, etc.) We're still on Windows XP on our workstations and laptops (about 50 machines total). A migration to Windows 7 would basically involve buying all new hardware too, because other than maybe 3 or 4 of the desktops we bought most recently, the rest are SLOW with XP, much less Windows 7.
Right now, we have no interest in changing anything unless the economy improves (which is doubtful it will lead to a big increase in sales for us before the next year is out).
And honestly, like another person said who posted here - there's a very real possibility to moving to Macs if we had to do a wholesale purchase of new hardware.... A few years ago, that would have been unthinkable around here. But since then, several employees have purchased new iMacs for use at home, and all have very positive things to say about them. We have a few applications we use which are only available for the Windows platform, but honestly, we could serve these just fine over our Terminal Server. The Microsoft remote desktop client for OS X works pretty well. As the systems administrator, I'd like a Mac workstation environment here, because it would practically eliminate spyware/virus hassles and save thousands per year on anti-virus software subscriptions. From what I've seen with Windows 7 so far, it has a HUGE number of configurable options buried in it, for everything imaginable. It embodies the typical MS idea that "more is more!", and it's going to be a huge undertaking building a comprehensive group policy to enforce across a LAN/WAN to lock down all the settings the way you want them for your corporate deployment. OS X tends to present the OS to the user the way Apple intended it to be, and many things aren't even configurable without 3rd. party "hacks". That's not always something a home "power user" finds as a positive, but I think it's beneficial for a business setting.
I don't blame them for passing. I installed the Windows 7 Beta when it was first released, and it worked very well. My main mistake was installing the 64 bit version, which had inadequate driver support for some exotic hardware that I have. Microsoft killed off the Beta for the Release Candidate at the beginning of the month, so beta users were forced to re-install the new Windows RC. I expected some of the minor UI issues to be resolved, but instead there are some major new problems. Key issues now are no printers being shown in the control panel, non-working camera image capture (throws an error that a SCANNER is required), Folder settings that don't work, and issues with applications that just don't support Vista or beyond (a Roland ColorCamm printer and the Eclipse IDE for me).
So today I officially give up on WIndows 7 and I'm reverting back to XP for the foreseeable future. The shiny wrapper is just not worth the rancid crud underneath.
I mean, it's not that good, but isn't it?
When my shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.
Isn't Windows 7 officially due out in October? That's a whooping TWO months to ensure that every business application can run as effectively as it is in XP (didn't everyone skip vista in business?) and that their network and infrastructure is ready to handle win7.
I think anyone who plans on converting their business (anyone with more than 3 PCs to take care of) in two months is not only out of their mind, but should be out of their job. Don't screw your entire workforce by jumping to quickly into win7 just because it's new and better. It is, but be sure that all your archaic vendors have caught up with the 21st century first.
... shame on you; fool me umpteen times, shame on me.
In all seriousness, I suspect Win 7 will find its way onto desktops by attrition; as older machines are replaced, most of the replacement will come pre-loaded w/Win 7, as OEMs are 'encouraged' by MS to load it rather than XP, and IT departments decide it's better to give the newer OS a shot than to spend man-hours reimaging each new PC w/XP.
Will Win 7 run as well on old hardware as XP? Of course not, but XP didn't run on circa-1998 h/w as Win 98 did either. Combine Win 7- or even (ptooey) Vista- w/brand spanking new h/w, + its performance shortcomings will seem much less glaring.
As for linux- and I say this as a *major* linux fan, who runs it on a home server + workstation (both homebrewed)- it's sort of like the monorail: it's the desktop OS of the future; always has been, always will be.
-Z
I actually got HM furniture for my office due to 12 year warranty. Cheap stuff (Staples Brand) breaks after a few years---so far, HM funiture is 5 years old and still functions like new (besides the dust). And if it breaks, they'll fix it (ie: usable lifetime wise, I think it's not expensive at all).
Software that does what you need still needs to be upgraded if there are faster and more secure new versions. Got it? Or do you need English dictionary?
I think the news is that 40% of companies *do* have plans to deploy Windows 7. That's huge... that should be read as a huge success for Microsoft.
Comment of the year
Webapps are NOT "where its at" for me, and many others like me. Even if the data and/or documents that you use/create in a web app are stored on your own system, there are still some very serious security concerns that must be addressed. Such as:
Can someone else access your document or data while you are using a web app?
Is a copy of your data/document kept anywhere besides your own computer?
Can someone make a webapp that will automatically send a copy of your data/document to someone you don't want to have it?
I am sure others here can think of more concerns!
Sorry, my data stays on my computer, which means having the apps on my computer.
The management at my work have already decided to move to W7, i tolled it out to my 2 offices over the past 2 weeks and everyone seems happy using it, which has been the usual responce through out our 28 offices. Yes there are still a few niggles here and there but considering we have rolled it out and not retrained anyone i think M$ are on to a winner as i havenâ(TM)t spent all day every day dealing with stupid questions.
Personally i wouldn't of rolled it out yet and had it in testing for a lot longer until i could prove it worked for everything we use, however the user response to it over XP has been phenomenal! I'm not a great Microsoft supporter, in fact Iâ(TM)m an avid supporter of underdogs like AMD, Linux ect. Just because if there were no competition the monopoly could sell us any crap they wanted.
Am I the only person who can't stand completely misleading titles on article postings? To summarize "Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year," as "Most Companies Won't Deploy Windows 7" is just plain idiotic.
Just because there is no "current" plan, doesn't mean they won't make a plan some time in the future. To make matters worse, the title was too absolute. Even if those companies wait 5 years to deploy Windows 7, it still makes the title a lie.
Finally, what about all the companies that aren't bothering to make plans to deploy Windows 7. There's got to be thousands of companies that are small enough not to bother with formal deployment planning. These companies may only consist of a dozen computers which will be switched to Windows 7 naturally as they replace older computers.
Please, can we have a little more honesty in the article titles.
Hmmm, there's an issue with the "we wont' be deploying in 2010" argument. While most are saying they want to do a "shakedown" of the windows7 OS and get all of the bugs out, what most do not realize is the release date is at the end of most companies fiscal year. All of the budgets for 2010 have already been allocated and there is no way any company would approve a budget for an OS that will be deployed as soon as it's released as the app guys haven't had a chance to test their apps in a full production build.
However, if you are a large corporation I can guarentee the desktop engineers already have a working build and would be ready to deploy if it was necessary, but it all comes down to money and dev time!
While XP is still a HUGE force in the corporate world it isn't free to maintain the MS support. It will eventually come down to minor deployments here and there within a firm but full adoption will not happen until 2011 at a minimum.
The real looser here is Vista. I know of maybe a handful of companies that actually did the Vista thing. Everyone else will leap frog it and adopt Windows 7.
Huh? Slashdot modding up revisionist history again? From the survey download page:
41% of organizations plan a wholesale migration to Windows 7 by the end of 2010. This is actually a strong adoption rate when compared to the historical adoption rate of Windows XP in its first year which was cited as 12-14%.
This space for rent.
Since when did anyone start planning to adopt MS's latest and greatest before SP1 anyhow? (or for that matter, a gen-1 Apple product, etc. etc.)
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
The echo chamber misreads another Windows 7 survey --> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1181
Here's a nice graph http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/win7-vs-xp-adoption-rates.jpg
This space for rent.
Is that bad? Since when 40% deployment rate in the first year is considered bad for any OS?
First of all, this only polled IT Administrators. I know of departments where I work at [and even at my old jobs] where IT admins tried to talk users out of upgrading to XP, Vista [and I guess now, Win 7]. The problem is, the user is still the customer, and as much as you want to talk someone out of something, if they're the ones with the $$, you have to do the task.
I used to try to talk people out of switching to XP because 2K was much more stable and for simple things like word processing, internet browsing, etc. it was more than sufficient. But everyone wanted XP, so I'd help them upgrade [I'm talking both about work and for friends/family]. I recently installed a dual-boot Ubuntu/Win XP setup for my dad, and still he uses XP more. He wanted to be able to play around in the apps he used before, and if any of these companies are upgrading computers, you can bet that people will want the latest and greatest [assuming Win 7 is able to work the eye-candy into things].
TFA does cite economy as an issue, but most companies are probably thinking "Could it save me more money now to do a full-upgrade and not deal with the downtime later as I have to do it later?" and that might be a mitigating factor.
The most significant thing is support for more than 3GB of memory. Although I've waited, it will be harder to justify buying 64-bit without proper software support. Of course, maybe it would be better to install 64-bit Linux and run a XP-based VM.
Any company I worked for so far NEVER made any plans to to even begin TESTING anything major until the equivalent of SP1 was out at least a few months.
With that testing usually taking up at least a year, the "deployment" phase when the test were successful would start around the time the NEXT version comes out.
So I predict that IF we ever deploy windows 7 it would most likely be a few month before windows 8 comes out.
By 2014 hopefully Linux will have a good 15% of the market. This should give rise to decisions on whether that costly Windows program is too much. Google should have their OS out with a lot of spit and polish on it working well on desktops and laptops. The EU and other nations most likely will have put the thumbscrews to Microsoft yet again, maybe many times.
XP will still be going strong but Microsoft likely will withhold patches to their most popular product in an attempt to extort you to purchase and upgrade to their latest.
Apple may even have decided that it is possible to bring software development and lots of new minds to their OS by releasing a version that installs nicely on any PC (say for an extra fee or an add-in card (or USB dongle) to offset the loss on profit from their own computer sales).
But the most obvious reason is that it isn't necessary to upgrade to Windows Vista or 7 in order to get your job done. You can continue to work and make it work right with the tools you have. Besides, I think by now, after looking at the Release Candidate of Win 7 that the performance just isn't there with all the security code added back in (they took it out in the beta to make you impressed, but we all know they ultimately had to put it back in)--very manipulative Microsoft was/is. Essentially, Win7 is just Vista7.
It adds little overall and is not even close to the price consumers want. The restrictive internal DRM is there and unnecessary. It's still Microsoft's attempt to control the content market. Gates said a couple years back that computers are no longer primarily used to create content by the vast majority of us, they are used to consume it. That's why DRM is their key locking technology of the future. We need to shun any technology with DRM internals and shun all content that is produced to take advantage of it.
These companies won't migrate because 1) there are alternatives now, and 2) they don't need to, and 3) they are far more aware of the concept of "embrace, extend, extinguish" which leads into the idea of lock in technologies which deny you a choice.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
REAL VIRTUALITY, Seattle, Thursday 2099 -- Microsoft Corporation has announced a limited one-off extension of availability of its Windows XP operating system to April 2101 after criticism from large customers and analysts. This is the fifty-sixth extension of XP's availability since 2008.
Through successive releases of Microsoft's flagship Windows operating system, demand for XP has remained an important factor for businesses relying on stable XP-specific software and installations, who have pushed back strongly against the software company's attempts to move them to later versions. Windows administration skills have become rare in recent years and consultants have demanded high fees. Reviving Windows administrators from cryogenic freezing has proven insufficient to fill the market gap, as almost all begged to work on COBOL instead.
"Windows XP is currently in the extremely very prolonged super-extended support phase and Microsoft encourages customers to migrate to Windows for Neurons 2097 as soon as feasible," said William Gates V, CEO and great-grandson of the company founder. "Spare change?"
Microsoft Corporation, along with Monsanto Corporation and the RIAA, exists as a protected species in the Seattle Memorial Glass Crater Bad Ideas And Warnings To The Future National Park in north-west Washington on the radioactive remains of what was once the planet Earth, under the protection of our Linux-based superintelligent robot artificial intelligence overlords. Company revenues for 2098 were over $15.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
My dad tells a story about how he was one of the first to push NT in the corporate world. Apperently that made the team excited and he got a direct phone number to get support so there would be no flukes to tarnish its image. The story also goes that it worked better than the junk that they had been using, and since it worked well others in the company overlooked the "wonkey new operating system." Though as all things go, management changed and ditched everything because it wasn't the same as everything.
I think its more of management than IT. Even where I work now it still follows this pattern - management changes and they have to step in and change everything so it looks like they are all big and important.
For the record, NT at the time was far, far superior than what they had been using. I dont think I can say that about windows 7.
XP runs everything it does (.net, windows installer, office, etc.) and most companies already have plenty of licenses for it.
*SE*lecting? Even when WE vote, aren't we reduced to a selection process in the higher, voting court. We SElect a laptop or a computer. We didn't vote for ms, they just took over due to inertia, and, unfortunately, without new voting (unless Linux/Open Source, Apple, or the not-yet-founded company arrives), ms will keep being SElected.
(sorry for being pseudo pedantic... You comment reminded me of a Bay Area talk show host who --during the voting irregularity in which one bush/cadge/cabal/etc took over/hijacked/stole office) corrected a caller by remind the caller that the president wasn't EEElected, he was SEEEElected, selected by some court-appointed judges, etc... (been a few years, so i don't recall the exact verbiage...)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
When a company considers migrating to Windows 7, the only thing preventing the project from getting the green light is not the price of hardware that is needed to run it (which is cheap these days) or the security aspects (quite good) - it's the fact that Windows 7 comes with the standards-compliant IE 8. In other words, IE 6 is gone for good. Almost every company runs at least one web application or portal that only works in IE 6 because of years of standards breaking on Microsoft's part. If they migrated to 7 as well as IE8, many of these applications and portals would break. The developers behind these applications (sometimes within the company) would rather not redesign the site to work in IE8/Firefox/Safari/Chrome; instead, they tell management that any migration away from XP and IE6 is suicide. Despite IE8 having a "Compatibility Mode" as well as the fact that it defaults to the old IE6 standards when visiting Intranet sites, many companies are too afraid of breaking their mission critical web applications. The problem with migration to 7 is a browser issue, not an OS one.
"It's a reverse vampire...they....they crave the sun!"
Ok, I get that some people/companies/banana republics upgrade Windows simply because Microsoft has dropped support for the version they're using. I have no warm and fuzzy feelings for the level of support in these things from Microsoft (well, they do fix exploits that Linux fixed or didn't have a decade or two ago, they fix the open holes in things like DRM.. but bug fixes? New features? Hello, Steve, you there?).
But are we, as humans, now finally caught up enough with technology that many we simply don't just take MS's word for it that we need an upgrade? I mean, it used to be a lemmings things.. all sorts of people jumping on the new version. That probably meant the vast majority of us either found the current version so horrible there was no chance of upgrade regret, or we were just entranced by shiny new things sparkled in front of us.
Vista pretty much changed that, breaking that first rule, "well, can't possibly be any worse". So, few upgrades to Vista, many downgrades back to XP.. at least the devil we know has a leash.
But hey, I have a curious idea here: why not release a version of Windows that actually offers a reason for an upgrade? I mean, what's so wrong about that? Not just shiny objects on the desktop, not just "it's different" for difference sake alone... something of actual, defineable value. Also not "well, we're not going to release these new device drivers/programs/porn sites for XP, so you had BETTER upgrade.
'Cause really, I have occasionally upgraded a Windows machine at gunpoint. That's not a way to endear Microsoft love.. that's a way to win enemies. Maybe I'm weird, but to me, the computer is a tool more than a toy.. the toys run on top of that OS and hardware. Make that work better, on my schedule, and I'm your buddy.. gunpoint me, and I'm happy to offer my vast technical expertise telling others why they don't need to bother with that upgrade you forced me into. Hell, the Ubuntu people are nicer about upgrades, despite the fact they do releases more or less on a schedule and give the thing away... they could dangle all kinds of bright shiny objects in front of my eyes and I probably wouldn't get annoyed (well, not too much), given the cost factor. Never any guns at the head.
So it's an epic-non-event that "Regular Folks", meaning business drones, techies, home users, etc. are not flocking to these upgrades... they're a little tired of the strong-arm tactics, still waiting for a legit "why should I spend that $100 on Windows when I can get whiskey, jalapaneo poppers, and a cheap date for less" answer? Deliver something of value... if I see a great new hammer at Lowes that's promising wonderful things over my current favorite hammer, and I believe the hype, I might just buy that new hammer. If the store display is telling me how old and sorry that hammer (from the same company) is now, and Lowes starts selling me a few nails that won't work with my old hammer, I will NOT buy that new one... and in fact, I'll visit Home Depot, Sears, or the local HW guy instead next time.
-Dave Haynie
This post is stupid. My company has no "PLANS" to upgrade either. But, we have several members of the IT Architecture team, myself included, who are actively testing laptops with Win 7 installed against our current corporate infrastructure. So far, Windows 7 gets high praise from everyone including VP of IT. So even though there is no official plan, we will be moving to Windows 7. Maybe we won't upgrade old devices, they'll just get replaced with newer ones and be phased out or maybe we will actually roll out the software. It doesn't matter. Windows 7 is the best OS MS has released since WinXP (which wasn't all that hot when it first appeared mind you but got much better over time). In fact Windows 7 is what vista should have been and coupled with Win 2008 servers (which we already have rolled out to every new build and have begun rebuilding for older systems where the apps are compatible) it will be a win for most companies.
Well put sir. Though this is way, way offtopic.
Not only was vista not a choice, win 7 is not one that will be deployed by this year or next year.....
XP will be used until we move 100% to Linux.
This will be about 8 months to 1 year depending on development of other software, but ms is out at my company.
No more virus
No more overpriced lock in
No more $3,000 for software that exists for $0
No more loss of performance due to security software
No more headaches from the virii du jour
goodbye ms, and good riddance.
1311393600 - Back to Black
No Obelisk of Nod for you!
In other news, 6/10 IT administrators are fucking retarded.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Better support for 64bit and memory > 4GB is probably the key driver for us.
Right now, all of our machines were recently (3 year migration off of Win98) moved up to WinXP in advance of Vista and the sunset of XP. They're all dual-core, 1.8GHz or faster, 64bit machines, with 2GB RAM (upgradeable to 4GB). So we're sitting in a very good spot that allowed us to avoid the whole Vista debacle.
If I wanted, I could roll out Win7 to these machines and probably see good results. We won't, because we don't nee to spend that money. And we're also in a bit of batten down the hatches mode until at least 2010 due to the economy.
However, looking down the road, I can easily see us buying machines with 4GB or 8GB as standard starting in 2010/2011. Memory is extremely inexpensive now (at least for DDR2). WinXP will be getting extremely long in the tooth by then, so we'll need to put something more modern on the new machines.
So I figure in late-2010, or whenever SP1 hits, is when we might migrate existing systems to Win7. It will depend on how compelling it is and how well it runs on existing machines and whether it will simplify things to have everyone on the same platform.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
3 of 5 will install Linux of get Mac's instead PC's.