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.)"
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.
Except "Windows 7" is really just Vista SP3 :-)
(okay, Vista is NT 6.0, Win7 is NT 6.1)
We have no _CURRENT_ plans to deploy Windows 7. You're completely missing the point here. They may not be planning it RIGHT NOW but they're going to see how things turn out. That's not "skip completely."
Okay first of all windows 7 works on PCs that are relatively underpowered (netbooks), and if you have a computer less than 3 years old it should be able to run vista.
And XP is 5.1. It's just a number to deal with crappy program version number compatibility.
LOL. You don't get it, do you?
Windows 9x (DOS) ... Windows ME (DOS) ... Windows NT (NT3.5) ... XP (NT5.1) ... Windows 7 (NT6.1)
Windows NT (NT3.1)
Windows NT (NT4.0)
Windows 2000 (NT5.0)
Windows Vista (NT6.0)
If you can't recognise the incremental changes in the DOS line, or the similarly incremental changes in the different NT lines, than I'd suggest looking a bit more closely. By incremental, I'm referring to both version numbers and the OS itself.
This is very similar to the situation I am in. I currently head IT for a dot-com. Our plan is to replace desktop machines with Linux or OSX depending on job function (writers/sales get Linux, graphics guys get Macs). We have absolutely no intention of "upgrading" _anything_ to Vista/7.
We bumped most of our computers up to Vista this spring, and while, for the most part, it hasn't been too bad, there are still many little idiosyncrasies. Vista has stabilized, that's for sure, but I'd hardly call it as quality an OS as XP (despite the fact that it does have some nifty features). As to Windows 7, well there's just no way in hell we're going to be doing any upgrades to it in the foreseeable future. The next round of upgrades aren't reasonably scheduled for another three or four years, so I suppose then we might bump up, unless we decide to go open source (which we may, I'm certainly moving away from Microsoft on the server front to save the company a significant amount of money in license fees). I've got a few years to figure it all out,
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I call BS on your BS. There ARE benefits to W7 however they fail to balance the large cost of upgrading in a corporate environment (which, mind you, is what this article is about).
Vista still has major bugs. They have NOT all been fixed - many have just been hacked around so they're less painful. I mean, seriously, who releases a new OS that is hideously slow just doing a basic file copy. Any PR flack MS got over vista they deserve 10x over. Only their complete refusal to admit to reality and millions of dollars spend on advertising kept it from being the biggest joke of the decade.
Our refusal to upgrade is NOT
a) based any way on 'shinyness'. In fact, the fewer things my staff have to tinker with, the better.
b) because of some unfounded fear of new ways of doing things. Instead consider having to re-train 1000's of employees (or 100x that even bigger companies) because MS decided to move icons, menus, labels, etc. around. It's not rocket science, but then again plenty of computer-using employees are far from computer guru's. Training cost and time lost figuring things out, getting lost in menus, and so on gets very expensive. Why change when the "old way" actually works quite well?
c) If a global company with global brand recognition, a WAN spanning a dozen+ countries, thousands of corporate clients is a limited world please do tell me what I'm missing. Granted we aren't hooked up to the ISS. But still. Security upgrades are handy but UAC is still not a substitute for proper rights management. Memory management ... is this DOS 6.x and Win 3.11? Improved network stacks...?! I know some ultra-high-demand, ultra-low-latency situations where this DOES matter but none of those computers are running Windows.
So other than misplaced belief in new security (the biggest security flaw exists between the chair and keyboard at any given desk) and some nifty CONSUMER-ORIENTED things there's direct little benefit to W7 as of yet.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.