Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

83% of Businesses Won't Bother With Windows 7

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the count-me-in dept.

Windows 545

Olipro writes "Most enterprises stated they won't bother with Windows 7 for at least a year as they simply continue to distrust that compatibility issues won't occur with their mission-critical software ... The Million Dollar question will be whether the fact that XP upgrades to Windows 7 requires a clean install will prove to be Microsoft's undoing." I suspect that will change before they actually release the OS.

cancel ×

545 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27556335)

w00t!

Re:FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27556831)

First reply to the first post! WOOTLIES :):):)

Huh. (1, Interesting)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556337)

I don't blame them in the least.

Re:Huh. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27556531)

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

Re:Huh. (5, Insightful)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556587)

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

I wonder if this questionnaire took into account businsses that got Vista. Most likely these companies will not upgrade at all since they just spent a ton of money on Vista. This article is flawed and fails to be news. Wait, it's anti-MS bashing so it is news here.

If software/hardware companies want more early adopters they need to offer substantial discounts. For example "Be the first 25,000 to order our stuff within the first three months and get 50% off software, and 15% off hardware". That will get you more early adopters.

Re:Huh. (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556709)

Another reason is training and support. Vista and Windows 7 are so much more different from Windows XP. If someone calls "Tech Support", tech support will have to have a completely different script/list for Windows 7.

In comparison Windows XP is more similar to Windows 2000 (and Windows XP in "classic mode" is vey similar).

Actually now would be a great time for a Windows XP compatible operating system.

If someone could come up with a decent Windows XP compatible O/S, Microsoft could lose significant market share. Might get even more interesting if it supports DirectX 10 :).

Re:Huh. (0, Flamebait)

kokojie (915449) | more than 5 years ago | (#27557031)

It's impossible to have a "XP compatible OS" since the OS would have to support WIN32 API. The WIN32 API is copyrighted so if Microsoft doesn't license it to you, you can't use it.

It also just takes time to test things (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#27557053)

I do Windows support for work so one of the things I do when a new version is coming out is test various apps and services and find out what works, what doesn't and so on. Sometimes things don't work and you have to find a workaround, or wait for the vendor to update things. There is NO reason to jump right in and cause problems. You wait and test instead, and then when it is ready, start deployment.

Also many systems you don't really want to upgrade. They are too old to run a new OS well. So you leave them with what they have for their lifetime. The OS upgrade happens when new hardware is purchased, though that isn't seen as an 'upgrade' by normal metrics.

So I'm not surprised that businesses aren't jumping on board. Why would they? In our case (a university department, not a business) my desktop will start running Windows 7 when the RC comes out. Maybe one or two other tech people will do likewise. When the release comes out, only new systems will be purchased with it, and depending on what they are doing they might get XP or Vista put on them if there are 7 issues. We won't start offering it as an upgrade for probably 6 months after release, since I'm guessing it'll take that long to make sure everything is thoroughly tested and there's been time for vendors to issue updates. At that point we'll likely move anyone who wants to over, and try and have all new systems running it, but won't make a big deal if people want to stick with XP. We probably won't start pushing it hard for another year or two. It will have to be gone by 2014, of course, because that's when security patches stop.

There's just no sense in rushing in to a new upgrade. That doesn't mean you are opposed to it, just that you want to do it right.

Death by self-competition (5, Interesting)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556601)

It's almost funny. Linux can't beat microsoft. But why bother ?

In the department of "clobbering microsoft" the one organisation that's really doing some damage is microsoft.

Perhaps we just need to wait a few years.

Re:Huh. (4, Insightful)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556705)

Sure my main computer is on XP. I am running OSX Tiger at home and I won't be upgrading to Leopard any time soon. My other computer runs Mandriva 2007. No upgrades either for me. It works. At work I use Vista. What I'm saying is: MS or not: the time where people used to literally stay in line to upgrade an OS are over. Nobody (but a few nerds) cares about that anymore. Ans even some nerds like me have more important things with their lifes to do.

Re:Huh. (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556985)

the time where people used to literally stay in line to upgrade an OS are over.

Only because there isn't a "line" for getting Ubuntu.

Re:Huh. (5, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556759)

As an IT Manager for a small company, I have no reason to move off of XP. Until I am forced, I will not migrate to Vista or 7. There just is no compelling reason to do so. More and more I seek to take functionality AWAY from the desktop. There are applications we use that require us to use Windows on the workstation, but more and more we look to web apps to meet our core business needs.

The fact is there is nothing in Vista that makes me want to move to it. There are no problems with XP that are making me look for solutions. We are in the process of locking down workstations to the point that even the security concerns become irrelevant. If you asked me what killer feature would make me switch... I couldn't think of it. Certainly not in what I have seen so far.

The only thing that will make me switch is the unavailability of the OS. And even that would take a while. We order standard model PCs, and do disk imaging. If I found out about Dell not being able to offer XP to us any longer, I'd make one last order for 20 PCs of that model, image and be set for two years.

Bottom line is that XP (heck even 2000) meets the needs of most businesses. Microsoft would (and likely will) have to force us to switch. Why screw with what works?

Neither do I, because of these 2 issues (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27556999)

1.) REMOVAL OF THE PORT FILTERING GUI FRONT-END CONTROLS in VISTA &/or Windows 7 - Port filtering functions perfectly operating simultaneously alongside software firewalls, & IP Security Policies

(All 3 security "filters" for IP here, run FINE together, even w/ a NAT true stateful packet inspecting "firewalling" router, for example)

They do so in a layered security manner, just like door handle locks (firewall), deadbolt locks (port filters), & chain locks (IP Security policies) do...

(I.E.-> Take 1 of those 3 layers down (which is what many malware seek to do, right away)? The others are STILL IN THE WAY, since they all operate via diff. drivers on DIFF. LEVELS of the IP stack...!)

AND

2.) The issue with HOSTS files involves EFFICIENCY more than security though!

See - in removing (after a 12/2009 Patch Tuesday update) 0 as a valid blocking IP address (vs. the larger & slower 0.0.0.0, & worse still the default 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter address)? MS made a blunder on disk, since the filemass is now larger & WILL be slower to read thru, as well as not being able to 'pack' as many entries into a tinier filespace to read them up from.

Contributing to inefficiency & yes, "bloat", in doing this latter one...

----

Top that off w/:

A.) Built-into-the-OS "DRM"

&

B.) The practical removal of OpenGL gaming

(Oh, on this one? Well - There are supposedly ways to make OpenGL games run though, via the OpenGL icd iirc, but it's a hassle & the games do NOT look like they were intended to be from what I have heard tell, once the 'hack' is put into place)

?

TO Microsoft: YOU CANNOT SELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY DO NOT WANT... who the hell are your marketers, & what are they thinking??

APK

P.S.=> I am only "SCRATCHING THE SURFACE" of other things folks' objected to in both Windows 7 &/or VISTA (I personally also didn't like the amount of interface change that occurred, dumb really, for a company into "backward compatibility", because it makes people 'relearn' how to do what they've done for more than 14++ yrs. in Windows 9x - current MS OS' based on the Windows-NT branch of them)... apk

Re:Neither do I, because of these 2 issues (2, Funny)

geekboy642 (799087) | more than 5 years ago | (#27557059)

Gene Ray [timecube.com] ?

xp does the job well (5, Insightful)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556367)

why upgrade when the current software provides everything you need

Re:xp does the job well (5, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556537)

why upgrade when the current software provides everything you need

Security? Although software doesn't wear out, one must keep updated against the newest vulnerabilities.

Perhaps Microsoft should consider adopting a six months interval between updates, like Ubuntu does. That would make for less marketing glitter, since updates would become trivial happenings, but would also make for less traumatic failures.

KDE 4 was a terrible mistake, but it's no big deal, we don't need Ubuntu 8.10, just keep 8.04 and wait for 9.04, or 9.10, or whatever update will have a usable KDE.

Re:xp does the job well (0, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556701)

KDE was a terrible mistake, but it was no big deal because I tossed that shit into /dev/null and installed a working competing window manager. No need to stay at 8.04. Maybe someday the KDE unfutz their garbage, but no biggie if they don't

Re:xp does the job well (0)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556939)

Also, the Vista prefetch thing is amazing. The more I use Vista the more I've gotten used to it; everything opens instantaneously now (it preloads your frequently used programs like Firefox into RAM, ready to be run). When even the most basic computers seem to come with 3GB of RAM, there's no point in just letting it sit around.

Re:xp does the job well (1, Troll)

spydabyte (1032538) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556547)

Because XP will stop being supported with the release of Windows 7. Then all the internal unfixed bug sheets of XP will be reported and published in China, Russia, and wherever Conficker came from. Then Microsoft will stop pushing all new copies of XP and accidentally invalidate all "genuine" XP keys.

I'd say that's a pretty good reason to "upgrade".

Re:xp does the job well (3, Funny)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556551)

Exactly. Why upgrade to new comments when the current ones provide all the insight you need?

Re:xp does the job well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27556639)

Oh My Gawd! Like totally gag me with a spoon. This is so Bitchin' Like when I was talking to my boss and I said like "Why don't we upgrade like to the vista dude!" And he like said "No. That vista is totally groady to the max!" and I'm like, "Well, whatever!" and then we had some jello shots and went to bed. So, its like XP here until whenever...

Re:xp does the job well (4, Insightful)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556557)

Because eventually updates are going to go away. And Hardware is going to break and hardware manufacturers are not going to devote the resources to writing the drivers for the new features on printers or scanners or whatever for XP.

Re:xp does the job well (5, Insightful)

goltzc (1284524) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556921)

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

Re:xp does the job well (2, Interesting)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556967)

Updates for Win2000 went away ages ago, but there are still a *lot* of companies still using it for infrastructure. Most are on 2003.. even Win2008 is not seeing any significant rollout yet, and we don't expect it to do so for at least another 2-3 years.

Windows 7? That won't even *start* to enter the test cycles of most companies until next year.

Hardware manufacturers will make drivers as long as there is demand. They will continue to support XP until there's no significant use of it - so you're good for another 5 years at least.

Re:xp does the job well (1)

Ravenscall (12240) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556593)

Bug fixes without having to pay Microsoft through the nose. Although I would hope at this point most enterprises can work around whatever bugs might crop up in relation to their software.

Re:xp does the job well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27556809)

Bug fixes without having to pay Microsoft through the nose. Although I would hope at this point most enterprises can work around whatever bugs might crop up in relation to their software.

Once XP goes end of life the only way you are going to get patches is if you pay Microsoft through the nose for a enterprise level support contract. And even then it will be a 'best effort' to get fixes backported to XP.

Re:xp does the job well (5, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556617)

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

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

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

So basically, yeah, why would they upgrade, especially when their profits aren't that good. What's bizarre here is what happens now? We have a huge entrenched monopoly operating system that nobody really wants to give up, do we just keep buying new computers and put old software on it? Do businesses end up like the aircraft traffic controllers with software 20 years and more out of date just because that's what works?

For myself, since I'm a dual rabid apple and linux fanboy, I certainly don't mind reading about how MS can't get people to buy their new product, but I don't see how this situation really helps apple or linux either. (I'm actually not an apple fanboy, I just think they make good hardware and software that isn't too annoying to use.) If they're worried about software compatibility migrating to vista, what makes anyone think they'll pick a non-windows OS? More likely they'll just keep putting band-aids on old systems.

Maybe what Microsoft really needs is an XP emulator, like the classic mode in OS X or rosetta for running PPC software on Intel, or an independent implementation of the XP API, like what's in wine. I haven't haven't heard anything about Microsoft designing such a thing though, has anyone else?

Virtual PC is an XP emulator (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556765)

Maybe what Microsoft really needs is an XP emulator, like the classic mode in OS X or rosetta for running PPC software on Intel, or an independent implementation of the XP API, like what's in wine. I haven't haven't heard anything about Microsoft designing such a thing though, has anyone else?

I believe it's called "Microsoft Virtual PC". I'd imagine that the big thing stopping Microsoft from bundling a disk image of WinFLP [wikipedia.org] (cut-down Windows XP designed to run on Windows 98SE-class hardware) with Windows 7 is the possibility that it might get distributed separately.

Re:xp does the job well (4, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556733)

why upgrade when the current software provides everything you need

1. What you said.
2. Nobody has the money to upgrade anyway.
3. Nobody's coming up with anything new to justify throwing everything out.
4. Netbook phenomenon is finally putting emphasis back on getting more for your dollar rather than writing bloaty code and throwing horsepower at it.
5. Repeat point 2, nobody has the money to throw out perfectly good hardware just to get a new OS that does pretty much what the previous one did.

I know predicting the death of Microsoft is good fun and we've been doing it for years. I won't say this is the death knell but this is certainly a bit of a pickle. The plural of anecdote ain't data but a lot of people I know are going Mac out of frustration. Those who haven't are still adamant about keeping XP.

Re:xp does the job well (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556903)

This bring a great opportunity for the Linux/OSS folks to mess up horribly.
With people afraid to upgrade their windows systems. They are going to approach a point in a few years where their technology is so behind that they will need to upgrade and get new app. Being a case all their old software will not work, it leave the old excuse to stick with windows is the fact their software runs here. So this would be an excellent opportunity for a hug business Linux adoption.
However I feel they will do something stupid, Like knowing they have the advantage and using it as an opportunity to push the politics of Open Source Down their gullets, vs. just letting Free as in Beer be the best selling point, thus making people afraid of Open Source as Business Politics may not mesh with Open Source and then going back to Windows.

As to the last line of the post... (5, Insightful)

Cormophyte (1318065) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556381)

...MS hasn't often demonstrated an ability to make major functioning software improvements at the last minute. I suppose we'll see, though.

Re:As to the last line of the post... (5, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556599)

Its not improvements businesses want, its stuff that works with the stuff they've got. Who cares about running a new OS if the old one still works, and the new one would cost you for the new OS but also new hardware, new versions of your existing software (if its available).

Some businesses moved to Vista and found that MSs plans to drop backwards compatibility (in favour of new .NET everything) meant lots of applications stopped working. I think this is a big reason why they're very cautious this time, and also why XP is the 'top of the pile' as generally it tried to keep that backward compatibility going as much as possible.

they will if they don't want to pay for support (5, Interesting)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556391)

Mainstream support for XP ended last week. It's dead, Jim.

2003 to 2009 is longer than any version of Ubuntu is supported. It's had a nice life. Shoot it in the head, and move on :-)

Re:they will if they don't want to pay for support (5, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556421)

Shoot it in the head, and move on :-)

I just did exactly that. Now, does anyone know of a good deal on a new monitor?

Re:they will if they don't want to pay for support (2, Insightful)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556447)

But in the enterprise support will continue. We have almost no Vista, though we do have a corp image for it. We still have 2000 running on servers. Windows 7 full-scale adoption will be as fast or slow as every other version.

Re:they will if they don't want to pay for support (4, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556573)

The difference is, the newer versions of Ubuntu, dare I say it, actually work. If I don't like Ubuntu or it doesn't work, I can just as easily move to Debian, Red Hat, openSUSE, or any other distro with minimal loss because all the applications are still there and everything is standardized, not to mention its free. With Windows if I wanted to jump ship, I would either have to learn a new OS (Mac, Linux, etc), or stay with Windows, buy overpriced hardware and still spend money retraining people and pay for the software too.

When I upgrade Ubuntu, its painless, just about everything works the same, same data, same everything just newer versions of some software which generally work the same as the prior versions. Everything is still reasonably fast (though it might be a tad slower), on the other hand, performance is almost non existent on Vista and you will notice a drop in speed and a loss of money in your wallet.

Re:they will if they don't want to pay for support (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556725)

When I upgrade Ubuntu, its painless, just about everything works the same, same data, same everything just newer versions of some software which generally work the same as the prior versions. Everything is still reasonably fast (though it might be a tad slower), on the other hand, performance is almost non existent on Vista and you will notice a drop in speed and a loss of money in your wallet.

Unless, of course, you've upgraded from KDE 3.x to KDE 4.x. Then it's like a whole new OS. (posted from Kubuntu 9.04 beta, with KDE 4.2.2 which I am loving)

Re:they will if they don't want to pay for support (4, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556703)

Shoot it in the head, and move on :-)

That's how I've always dealt with XP machines in zombie networks. [what-is-what.com]

Re:they will if they don't want to pay for support (0, Flamebait)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556909)

2003 to 2009 is longer than any version of Ubuntu is supported. It's had a nice life. Shoot it in the head, and move on :-)

Yes, but does Ubuntu of 2009 run on the machine of 2003? How much does an Ubuntu upgrade cost? Can you hire somebody to fix bugs in your 2003 version of Ubuntu? Can you get "new" copies of your 2003 Ubuntu and install them on new machines? ...

ps, yes I know there was no Ubuntu in 2003.

Re:they will if they don't want to pay for support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27556965)

2003 to 2009 is longer than any version of Ubuntu is supported.

Unlike Windows though, Ubuntu is free (and free to upgrade). Also, it's first release was almost 5 years ago. They improved so much, that their first release was literally obsolete within 1 year - I remember having to mount CDs/DVDs for several releases via the command line. And other thing just did not work without fiddling. Then there were a few later releases that were almost useless to play DVDs and other fun stuff without going some 3rd party made software downloaded through CLI magic. At that time, Ubuntu had neglible market on the corporate desktop, so rather than putting resources into maintaining past releases, they stuck nearly all of it into future ones. Right now and the forseeable future, the six month cycle is needed and welcomed and the 3 years LTS should be long enough for their market, although I can see a point where their product has matured to the point longer support cycles come into play.

XP's long support is nice, besides bad security for home, sometimes you can feel the feature freeze. Before OS X and Linux became viable alternatives earlier this decade, it wasn't such a big deal because their was little competition to show a better or more convenient way to do some things. Which is probably one big reason why Microsoft isn't sitting on its laurels so long with Vista as it did with XP (asides the bad PR from Vista's release).

To think that after 1 decade, where all the other hardware and software evolved and has gotten better, that the underlying OS doesn't have to be better in some ways gets to be demoralizing and ridiculous.

Dubious (5, Insightful)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556397)

First it's 84% of IT pros [zdnet.com] and now it's 83% of businesses? Might have something to do with these surveys being carried out on a submission basis, where the only people who respond are a minority that are either passionate "must-have-the-latest-version" fanatics or passionate "anything-other-than-XP-sucks" fanatics. The apathetic majority isn't taken into account.

Re:Dubious (1)

ThreeGigs (239452) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556923)

The apathetic minority can't be bothered to upgrade/change, much less vote on a survey. Thus their numbers, if accurately represented, would probably push the percentages even higher.

Re:Dubious (1)

BigJClark (1226554) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556981)


Didn't you know? 79% of people make up statistics as they go.

Its true.

Re:Dubious (1)

jfim (1167051) | more than 5 years ago | (#27557013)

Indeed, it's a pretty dubious statistic. Anyway, what kind of business desperately needs to update in the first months of an OS release(excluding software development/testing)?

Besides, if your business relies on having some mission-critical piece of software that your vendor still hasn't managed to make work on Vista by now, you should seriously consider kicking that vendor to the curb for being incompetent twits and migrating away from them.

Maybe it's just the economy stupid! (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#27557039)

I don't see people mentioning the economy but it should be taken into consideration. For many small businesses, asking if they'll upgrade to Windows 7 is the equivalent of asking if they'll buy new computers soon.

In addition, all the upgrade happy people have gotten burned with Vista. I don't find Vista bad, I use it and am happy with most of it except for the bloat. But a lot of people must feel slapped in the face by Microsoft when they paid for Vista and are asked to pay for Vista SP3 aka Windows 7 now so soon after Vista's release.

Re:Dubious (5, Interesting)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#27557065)

First it's 84% of IT pros [zdnet.com] and now it's 83% of businesses? Might have something to do with these surveys being carried out on a submission basis, where the only people who respond are a minority that are either passionate "must-have-the-latest-version" fanatics or passionate "anything-other-than-XP-sucks" fanatics. The apathetic majority isn't taken into account.

Yup, this is why I prefer to base myself on real market statistics. People often don't know what they'll do until its time to buy.

My reasons for not wanting to move to Windows 7 is pretty much the same reason for not moving to Vista:
  - Windows 7 feels like a Vista 2
  - Windows XP works well enough
  - I get the feeling that real people weren't taken into account with some of the UI changes
  - I don't see the "must have" features (maybe someone can convince me otherwise?)
  - I don't want to reward a company that needs 6 versions of the same release

I am probably expecting too much from the OS and maybe I'll have a change of heart in six months. I can't say I'm someone who doesn't want the latest and greatest since I tend to keep up to date with whatever the latest version of my Linux Distro or MacOS X, when then there hardware is covered. These latter two probably have their own issues, but apparently I am capable of overlooking them for whatever reason.

They don't have a choice (0)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556403)

XP will be fased out and I don't see companies using the abandoned version that we call Vista(it's the truth!). Unless they want to get an illegal version or stick to their old licenses if they still have it. XP is old and MS is trying to obsolete it and since they have the monopoly on spreading Windows, companies will have no choice.

We WILL switch to Windows 7 or you will be forced to choose a different OS like Mac OS or a GNU/Linux flavour(or a dying *BSD ;) )

Re:They don't have a choice (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556691)

What does having the monopoly on Windows (which really it isn't a monopoly since they in fact created the software so let them spread it) have to do with forcing an upgrade? You an still use XP if you want, you just don't get the support, much like Red Hat or Novell's EOL for their commercial linux distros. They're not saying you cannot use. Just that they won't support it. Microsoft has every right to obsolete Windows XP. What makes them evil is their bad practices.

Re:They don't have a choice (0, Flamebait)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556737)

XP will be fased out and I don't see companies using the abandoned version that we call Vista(it's the truth!). Unless they want to get an illegal version or stick to their old licenses if they still have it. XP is old and MS is trying to obsolete it and since they have the monopoly on spreading Windows, companies will have no choice. We WILL switch to Windows 7 or you will be forced to choose a different OS like Mac OS or a GNU/Linux flavour(or a dying *BSD ;) )

Way to butcher the English language and fail at law. Owning exclusive rights to produce your own product is not a monopoly. The word "fased" does not exist, but the word "phased" does exist. MS is no different then any other company who chooses to discontinue offering services to an aging product. XP has been out for a long time and they would like to make new revenue sales. Windows 7 does offer many new features that XP does not. A company has the option of sticking around with XP and Office 2003 if they so choose, or they can upgrade.

I do not know how old you are, but assuming you are at least in your 20's do you not remember when MS went from Win98/NT to XP? Everyone bitched and moaned and now we have "Windows XP fanatics" who absolutely love XP. Vista was bad, but 7 seems great so far. I have been using it in Beta and have zero complaints. Then again I have been using Vista 64 Premium and Vista 32 Home (desktop/laptop respectively) and have no complaints.

Re:They don't have a choice (4, Insightful)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556751)

This is, of course, precisely the reason so many big companies still use COBOL [slashdot.org] , right?

Legacy is a powerful force in industry. It is often perceived that the cost of maintaining the old systems is less than the cost of replacing it, especially when you consider compatibility, debugging, reliability, down time, retraining, infrastructure upgrades, policy changes, etc. etc.

Here's your choice: Stick with what you have. Although it can be a real pain in the ass, at least you're used to it after all these years and can handle the quirks to keep things running. OR you can spend a whole lot of money to scrap everything and start over with a totally new setup that's one big question mark all around, especially when the vendor's reputation is losing ground.

Questionable surveying methods aside, it is not difficult to imagine companies aren't too keen to jump on board.

XP is old. And MS would love to retire it, but the industry is getting fed up with their shenanigans. The individual homeowner might not have the purchasing power to hurt them, but big companies with thousands of licenses do - MS will either give them what they want (which is, apparently, XP) or they will lose the customers.
=Smidge=

re: XP to Windows 7 requires clean install (0, Troll)

eos3fan (1309791) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556419)

No problem! Microsoft can just bundle a lacie external drive with each seat licensed to store and restore users' files! Problem solved! I wonder if Doom will play on Windows 7 ....

Re: XP to Windows 7 requires clean install (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556783)

Your network should be designed so that personal files are stored on a file server, not on the local machine. Even if you don't have full roaming profiles set up, you can still mirror their "documents" folder onto a primary fileserver with a backup solution. If all the users files are on the local machine, you must be used to spending a lot of time rebuilding machines already, so what's the problem?

Anyway, who the hell would want to do a dirty install? Upgrades between versions work indifferently at best...Usually it causes some problems, and you always get better results installing clean. It's a moot point though...Who does individual installs on more than a handful of machines? We usually just create a few different images, and push the appropriate ones to the appropriate machines across the network. Instant upgrade.

recession vs. windows tax (2, Insightful)

mtrachtenberg (67780) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556439)

Microsoft now has to battle the recession as well as Linux. So now the PHB's finally have an argument they understand -- salaries vs. upgrades.

Distrust? What about testing? (5, Insightful)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556449)

Most enterprises stated they won't bother with Windows 7 for at least a year as they simply continue to distrust that compatibility issues won't occur with their mission-critical software...

First off, whoever edited that sentence needs to get a clue-by-four -- "distrust that issues won't occur" is just terrible English.

About the content, why would any IT person ever have to resort to "trust" anyone for their software compatibility? You'd almost think they can't grab a VM image of Windows7 and test their software to see if there are compatibility issues.

If I were a CIT and someone came up to me with this dribble, I would tell them to build a testbed and actually report on compatibility issues, possible savings, and so forth. Windows 7 probably won't be worth the money but deciding that before you actual evaluate it is madness.

Re:Distrust? What about testing? (1)

Dotren (1449427) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556865)

About the content, why would any IT person ever have to resort to "trust" anyone for their software compatibility? You'd almost think they can't grab a VM image of Windows7 and test their software to see if there are compatibility issues.

If I were a CIT and someone came up to me with this dribble, I would tell them to build a testbed and actually report on compatibility issues, possible savings, and so forth. Windows 7 probably won't be worth the money but deciding that before you actual evaluate it is madness.

Well said.

This is actually exactly what I'm doing now for my university campus... I'm typing this on a Windows 7 32-bit beta 7000 install right now and I've had very few compatibility problems with any of the software. A few crashes with Adobe Reader when used in pdf-in-browser mode and some stuff with Chrome (I'm using a beta version of that too).

I've used Vista at a previous job and at home... I've actually had more compatibility issues while using 2008 as a desktop os than I did with Vista Ultimate. The compatibility issues have, for the most part, long since past and any competent techie can simply load a VM of Windows 7 and test out their apps. If they don't work, fix them so they will.. it's not Microsoft's job to give you an OS that never advances or changes so that your 10 year old apps will continue to work.

Also, who wants to do upgrades instead of a clean install? You're just asking for trouble... format and a clean install generally seems to perform a lot better. If you're in a situation with a lot of computers, well, thats what Ghost or Windows Deployment Services is for.

This is normal (5, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556453)

I've been working in software development for 35 years. No company I've ever worked at jumps on new versions of Windows, they all have a policy of waiting at least until SP1 regardless of whether its an improvement or not.
The only news here is that the figure is that 17% might move straight away. From my own experiences I would have thought nearly all, if not all companies would wait at least a year.

Re:This is normal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27556625)

Mine as well. I guess if you don't have any custom applications it's not as big a deal. Could the 17% be small businesses running stock programs with limited (i.e. no server) networking?

I expect good reviews for Windows 7 (aka Vista SE) but still expect most of my customers to decline updating immediately.

Re:This is normal (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27557037)

That's because the figure isn't companies as the summary suggests, but IT professionals.

I'd be very surprised if 1.7% of companies jumped straight away let alone 17%. There's just too much at stake, especially now.

I've worked out the answer to MS's problem! (5, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556469)

Microsoft has announced the infrastructure for its cloud computing service Azure, formerly (and presently) Windows Vapor [today.com] .

"We want to be more responsive to your needs," said Sam Ramji of Microsoft during a Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit panel this week as he wiped rotten tomatoes off his suit.

"We want all open source innovation to happen on Windows 7. In practice, Windows is too slow, and just putting Linux underneath the same software stack triples performance. So we're running the Windows versions of the software on Linux using Wine. We'll also be funding the Wine on Windows initiative."

The new Microsoft Amazingly Open And Genuine Public License allows you complete freedom to use, modify and redistribute the software provided that every copy comes with a DVD of Windows Vista Ultimate, you acknowledge that Microsoft's FAT patent protects a remarkable and valuable innovation in computer science and all accompanying documentation is in OOXML. Also, all your data belongs to Microsoft.

The overwhelming dominance of Microsoft was assured, he said, pointing to their success in paying netbook manufacturers to use Windows XP and paying US retailers not to stock the Linux versions of the computers. "We're also enforcing our patent on right-clicking. And on the number seven."

Get daily email alerts [slashdot.org] of new News of the News — home delivery via Feedburner [slashdot.org] !

Re:I've worked out the answer to MS's problem! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27556637)

Slashdot needs a -1 Unfunny mod.

I've worked out the answer to un-Funny mods! (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556803)

If you disagree with several Funny moderations, get an account and start metamoderating once you're eligible.

Re:I've worked out the answer to MS's problem! (2, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556825)

The new Microsoft Amazingly Open And Genuine Public License allows you complete freedom to use, modify and redistribute the software provided that every copy comes with a DVD of Windows Vista Ultimate, you acknowledge that Microsoft's FAT patent protects a remarkable and valuable innovation in computer science and all accompanying documentation is in OOXML. Also, all your data belongs to Microsoft.

The overwhelming dominance of Microsoft was assured, he said, pointing to their success in paying netbook manufacturers to use Windows XP and paying US retailers not to stock the Linux versions of the computers. "We're also enforcing our patent on right-clicking. And on the number seven."

I'm having difficulty telling the difference between satire and the news these days. Doesn't seem too far off here.

Businesses are cautious: News at 11 (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556475)

Isn't this basically the exact same story Slashdot ran before Windows Vista was released? Guess what guys: Businesses tend to be conservative by nature, and aren't going to do a massive upgrade without a good plan. For any reasonably large business, it will take several months to certify all of their internal software with any new OS release, not to mention the actual time it takes to execute the switch. They would be saying the same thing if you asked them when they would be switching from RHEL 5 to RHEL 6.

The norm? (3, Insightful)

Mr. Samuel (950418) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556481)

Most enterprises stated they won't bother with Windows 7 for at least a year

Well, seriously, how often do business environments run a brand new version of Windows? I don't work in IT, but I'm going to go with almost never. This doesn't sound very special.

Re:The norm? (0, Redundant)

Mr. Samuel (950418) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556697)

I actually did something amazing right now and read the full article.

While the business market typically tends toward caution when it comes to new products, the figure is nonetheless surprising given that almost no large companies migrated to Vista and as a result most have been using XP much longer than planned.

So the article suggests my initial comment, but I don't see why skipping Vista implies an immediate move to Windows 7. Obviously XP works for people.

Re:The norm? (4, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556727)

Absolute rubbish. All real businesses plan to deploy as-yet-unreleased technology all across their business within the next year. Why, I was talking to a local farmer just the other day, and he plans to replace all of his tractors with electric ones within the next year, and the local factory is planning on replacing all of their equipment with brand new machinery (due to be released fairly soon) some time within the next year.

Re:The norm? (1)

silanea (1241518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556889)

You are right, but what makes Windows 7's situation peculiar is the fact that due to Vista's rather epic fail in the corporate market Microsoft currently has no viable operating system there. XP is being killed off, Windows 7 is still quite a few months away from release, and few - relative to Microsoft's total market penetration - companies have switched to Vista despite the first service pack being out for some time now. And since most companies will try to keep their infrastructure (client and server OS) within the same generation there is little incentive to upgrade to Server 2008 unless you want to move your clients to Vista (or Windows 7 once it's available), and no Server upgrade usually means no Exchange etc. upgrade, and this will cut into Microsoft's profits across most of their product line.

Of course.... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556489)

Why would businesses "upgrade" to Windows 7 whenever XP (or dare I say it, Vista) does the job fine. Windows 7 really offers nothing more than XP. Why? Because most businesses have one purpose for an OS, to run applications. MS's applications are usually so crappy that a third-party application has to be installed to do the job. If this third party application runs on XP then thats all they really need. The reason why Vista was so ill received is that the sole purpose of MS's OS (in the business world) didn't work. UAC made half of the applications be run as admin to run correctly, the OS itself was slow and sluggish, the new dialogs seemed change for change sakes rather then any usability improvements (especially for the computer illiterate types you have at the top of businesses that know only how to click the third icon from the left), etc.

There is no need for a business to "upgrade" from XP to Windows 7. No speed/performance increase, no new interesting programs, no gain of any new capabilities when coding programs so no new programs will require Windows 7, etc.

Re:Of course.... (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556543)

I have to respectfully disagree.

Once you install SP1 and disable UAC, the OS is quite usable. It actually performs better than XP in some areas.

The only complaints I have are related to the windows explorer and file operations.

And I've been beta testing windows 7. It's much nicer than xp and vista. Much faster too.

Re:Of course.... (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556643)

I have to respectfully disagree. Once you install SP1 and disable UAC, the OS is quite usable. It actually performs better than XP in some areas.

Thats the thing though, its not usable by default. Anyone who buys a new computer at Best Buy and gets Vista ends up with UAC and a nearly unusable computer. Being mostly computer illiterate save for surfing the web and checking e-mail, they don't really know how to fix it. So they know its Vista, know that its a new computer so it should be faster then their aging Pentium 4 with XP, but when its not they know who to blame: MS and Vista. Sure, Vista can be made usable, but the fact that it isn't by default shows a lack of planning by MS.

Re:Of course.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27556897)

I'm confused by this. So, the first thing you do with your linux/unix install is make sure you're logged in as root all the time so you can make changes to every part of the system without having to elevate your privilages? My current theory is that people get tired of UAC because their first encounter with it is when they are busy installing all their software and configuring the system to their preferences. Once that's done, you should rarely see a UAC prompt unless you're the type to constantly be screwing around with settings.

Re:Of course.... (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556741)

Once you install SP1 and disable UAC

Surely, once you disable UAC, much of the reason for upgrading from XP has vanished.

Corporate IT being corporate. (0, Flamebait)

Jonas Buyl (1425319) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556521)

All the IT departments care about is that their lousy designed software works. Most IT departments in fact are completely incompetent so any statistic that might originate there is meaningless to me. Here's a little quote to illustrate: "You can't install Firefox, only Internet Explorer meets the company standards regarding security" -- Random ignorant IT guy

Windows 7 adoption (1)

MacColossus (932054) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556523)

Our current plans are to test thoroughly with existing apps and infrastructure if released 2009. If that goes smooth and/or fixes are in place by March 2010 we will roll out summer 2010. As all data is stored on file servers we will image all machines with a Windows 7 fresh install based image. We are currently running XP Pro and will be bypassing Vista. Currently our Snow Leopard adoption plans are slated for summer 2010 as well due to a likely June or after release date. We will be going to Ubuntu 8.10 or 9.04 this summer for our Linux boxen.

Clean reinstalls are good (0)

MpVpRb (1423381) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556535)

IF...and that's a big if, I was going to install Windows 7, I would do a clean install on a new disk. I would keep my old XP disk on the shelf, just in case.

If I was in charge of the Microsoft department of recommended practices, I would strongly recommend this method.

I would NEVER, EVER take my one and only XP disk and try to upgrade it, EVER. Upgrades in-place are just way to risky for me.

That being said, I will stick with XP until it is absolutely necessary to switch.

The answer is 'no' (5, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556545)

The Million Dollar question will be whether the fact that XP upgrades to Windows 7 requires a clean install will prove to be Microsoft's undoing.

The Million Dollar answer is "no". Because when you upgrade a corporate desktop, you don't upgrade in place. You create an image and you reimage your desktops en masse. Anyway, Microsoft will find a way to spur Windows 7 adoption, probably by making Windows XP slower with a required security update again.

Doesn't require clean install (5, Informative)

tonyreadsnews (1134939) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556549)

I don't see anywhere that says upgrading to Windows 7 is going to require a clean install. The only thing that came close was the article last week where Microsoft said they wanted people to clean install the RC instead of trying to upgrade to the RC from the Windows 7 beta .

Also, don't most people want to do a clean install of a major OS version?

Re:Doesn't require clean install (2, Informative)

Olipro (1531021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556805)

according to Microsoft, upgrading to 7 from Vista is just fine. XP to 7 will have upgrade editions available, but it will require a clean install when you run it. ...unless Microsoft do a volte-face that is. naturally, I envision that Server editions will *not* have this issue as R2 is usually released as an additional installation to the base OS.

Re:Doesn't require clean install (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27556891)

I've always done clean installs. Upgrade installs have never worked well, so why are people hell bent on doing them?

No kidding (2, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556553)

Most companies don't like spending money just for the sake of spending money, they have XP in the enterprise right now, and it works, and it doesnt require machine upgrades either. there is no compelling reason to make the switch.

Re:No kidding (2, Insightful)

zoobaby (583075) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556719)

But they will make the switch. Businesses were slow to adopt XP, and even said they wouldn't. Obviously most did. I see Windows 7 having a similar slow adoption rate in businesses, then become a mainstay for 2 MS OS release cycles.

A Clean Install Is Very Crafty (5, Insightful)

Dripdry (1062282) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556555)

Often, that clean install makes for a much faster system after years of cruft building up on a system.

Although there may be compatibility issues, MS making a clean install mandatory might be one of the most clever marketing tools they've had in a while. Then again, it could backfire.

Word of mouth from those who migrate and see how fast a clean build of Win7 is vs XP might breathe new life into the Windows brand.

If Only I Got First Post :( (1)

Olipro (1531021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556579)

woo, I only registered today and got my first submission posted. Anyhoo... I agree with the statistic possibly being a bit of bullshit, though that said, I largely agree that there's very likely still quite a large degree of total apathy towards the newer windows editions. So many companies use crappy legacy apps that are critical to their business despite the fact the software's probably been replaced by something much better... usually the staff need retraining because they're essentially monkeys. Still, withdrawing support tends to give businesses cardiac arrests so "hook or by crook" Microsoft will prevail.

They're probably waiting for Mojave! (4, Funny)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556585)

I know I am, I hear it's quite popular with test groups.

Microsofts undoing is not focusing on end Customer (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556595)

Microsoft has abandoned the end Customer and Developers as their main focus. All of their heavy marketing driven initiatives with companies usually resulting in DRM and other unwanted bloat has made their software unappealing.

Always clean install (1)

Manfre (631065) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556597)

I've never worked at a company that chose to suffer through upgrading between versions of windows. Clean install with a scripted data migration has been the preferred route. It takes slightly longer, but you end up with less cruft on the system.

Re:Always clean install (1)

Olipro (1531021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556629)

pffft, I upgraded a Server 2003 to Server 2008, the baby runs sweet as a nut. of course, it depends what kind of "cruft" you like to install to your machines.

Buzz words removed, non-story (3, Insightful)

clinko (232501) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556609)

Most PEOPLE stated they won't TRY A NEW OPERATING SYSTEM for A year BECAUSE THEY THINK IT won't WORK with their software...

/Paraphrased...

Some perspective here on this (1)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556615)

First, you have to remember that best practice says you never install anything in production before SP1 is released. Second, before you put something into production you have to test it, the bigger the enterprise the more testing you have to do. Third thing is that you have a certain amount of businesses that are small enough to assume that they can't get an enterprise license agreement, or lack the IT staff with enough experience to get one. About the only businesses that will go straight to Windows 7 (insert new OS here) are those small enough that they will actually use the install provided by Dell, HP etc.

I've worked as a consultant with design of large scale deployments (tens of thousands of PC's) across a number of organizations and I can assure you that anyone wanting to deploy the latest OS before SP1 would be considered incompetent and allowed nowhere near a client. The idea that any organization of meaningful size adopting Windows 7 right away exists only in the minds of marketing departments and naive users.

Only a hobbyist or fool (1)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556619)

upgrades their OS without having new equipment first. Business will upgrade as they replace their machines. That has always been the way, so this is no surprise. When their XP machines crap out, they will replace them with whatever flavour of windows is available then... OS upgrade is a misnomer, they are generally new to accommodate new tech that becomes available over time since the release of the last OS. That tech is usually hardware-based and the new OS talks to it better. If you don't have it, the old OS will do just fine. Most realize that.

Duh. (4, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556623)

Not news. Either they just upgraded to Vista, and see no need to move again, or they're still on XP, and have seen no need to move so far.

No business that's not Windows-centric (producing products for Windows) runs out and upgrades to the new Windows first thing. You wait, you see what the stupid early adopters have to say. You install a couple of desktops, see how the new os behaves in your environment.

Then, if you like it, you begin a phased roll out. That's the right way to do it. You minimize your problems, and you make fewer bad technology decisions.

Myself, I'll probably buy 7 for home use, and I think 7 is a much more serious effort than Vista (yea, it's just Vista with some of the annoyances pulled out, and a lot of driver issues fixed, so what?). Eventually I'll need to know it, so might as well get some experience on it.

Well, we actually are... (2, Interesting)

SalaSSin (1414849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556693)

The company i work for (part of a large corporation with several tens of thousands of employees) plans to begin changing to 7 in the third quarter of 2010, depending on whether the first sp will be out by then.

Well, actually, they were planning to go ahead with Vista, but the IT guys (me and 2 other persons for the national division of the corporation (that is 5 companies)) advised against.

Going for another OS is alas not an option, a lot of official software (i mean software we need to be complaint with regulations in my country) only come in MS flavour.

The problem isn't dying support for XP, but just licensing issues, MS won't continue our licenses for XP forever, we already had it changed automatically to Vista, and had to ask to downgrade that back to XP.

When you rely on imports (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556853)

Going for another OS is alas not an option, a lot of official software (i mean software we need to be complaint with regulations in my country) only come in MS flavour.

You used the Commonwealth spelling "flavour", so you're probably not in the United States. So why has your country chosen to rely on imported proprietary products of Microsoft Corporation, a foreign business? Perhaps "complaint" was an apt typo. Complain to your legislators and all the news media you can.

"Microsoft's undoing" (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556715)

Ridicolous. Microsoft could sell MS-branded kicks in the groin for a year, exclusively, and even THAT wouldn't guarantee their "undoing".

Also: since that POS called Windows Vista was released, Microsoft made over 4+ billions net revenues per quarter. Forcing people to do a clean install of Windows 7 will have no bearing on their profits.

Ooooh...Information Week.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27556773)

It must be true.

Enterprises don't do the upgrade install (3, Insightful)

lseltzer (311306) | more than 5 years ago | (#27556807)

Only idiots and consumers do actual upgrades. Any self-respecting enterprise makes their own images and deploys them, complete with apps.

Please, think of the chairs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27556927)

Please I beg think of the poor chairs that will suffer

Still Buying XP Machines (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 5 years ago | (#27557005)

We continue to purchase new workstation machines with XP licenses. We will continue to do so as long as they are available. When they aren't available, we'll probably start buying new machines with Windows 7 or 8, but we sure as hell won't be upgrading any existing machines. All of our business software will still run on 98. The only program I own personally that requires Vista is Halo 2.

In who's interest is this ? (4, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 5 years ago | (#27557015)

Failure by Windows 7 to catch on early might also cause headaches for the wider IT market, slowing sales and innovation.

Windows XP, still in use by the vast majority of businesses, was released in 2001â"meaning that it will be a decade old in two years.

There is a difference between what is good for the IT market and what is good for business in general. Us IT crowd want to push the latest new thing, for some this means mark up on s/ware, others it is more consultancy. What a business wants is a stable IT system that does what the business needs in a stable way -- boring, not sexy. Once applications are written they stay written; the will be changed when the business requirements change, not because the computer systems change.

MS is also caught up in the sales/upgrades treadmill - to not do so would badly damage its bottom line. What is in the best interests of MS is not in the best interests of its customers.

Windows XP, still in use by the vast majority of businesses, was released in 2001â"meaning that it will be a decade old in two years.

Linux is based on 35+ years old Unix, I regularly use programs that are essentially unchanged since I wrote them for System V Unix 25 years ago. How old a system is is not an issue unless you need to make money by flogging your customers new versions. In this regard Unix/Linux is a better platform for companies than MS Windows systems.

32-bit XP to 64-bit Windows 7.0 upgrade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27557025)

I wonder, how many 32-bit OS installations are still around.
Since software gets more and more complex and the amount of data a computer has to deal with keeps rising to, the need for an 64-bis OS will also grow. 32-bit OS'es have reached their limits now, so I suppose almost anyone, who's starting to experience the limiting factor of their 32-bit OS, may want an upgrade to Windows7 as their next step.

I still got a Windows XP 32bit version myself, 4GB RAM in my computer and only 2.5GB usable, so an upgrade to Windows7 is likely to come for me.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>