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!

Gartner Tells Businesses to Forget About Vista

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the whereas-9.04-to-9.10-is-not-bad dept.

Windows 309

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

cancel ×

309 comments

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

Insightful analysis... four years late. (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27981867)

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

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

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

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

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late. (5, Funny)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#27981917)

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

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

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late. (5, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982029)

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

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

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late. (0, Flamebait)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982329)

Well... I think th "swimming in money" aspect is already way smaller than it was, and I also think that Microsoft is already preparing for the moment when it will be gone. Which certainly will happen when Win7 fails.

*hopes this will happen*

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late. (1)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982411)

Heck, MS has more feet then that.

THEY'RE GIANT ****ING CENTIPEDES!!! FROM HELL!!! WITH LASER CANNONS!!!

(Look at that, I just shot myself in the foot with a laser cannon. And that's what I do to my friends!)

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late. (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982649)

And don't forget, the laser cannons are attached to its head!

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late. (2, Informative)

dr_wheel (671305) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982553)

"They shot themselves in the foot with Windows ME too, luckily for them they had the reasonably stable Windows NT ready to go out the door."

Not exactly sure what you meant by this. Windows NT was around long before ME. I thought, maybe you meant Windows 2000. I was pretty sure that ME and 2000 were released around the same time. Nope. According to wikipedia, Win2000 came out in February 2000, while ME came a full 7 months later in September. So... what exactly did you mean?

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late. (4, Informative)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982563)

MS is swimming in money

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

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

Their revenues [microsoft-watch.com] are dropping through the floor.

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

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late. (3, Interesting)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982689)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late. (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982841)

Apple can't make it in the netbook category because they won't sell cheap hardware plain and simple. If Apple really wanted to crush MS all they would have to do would be sell OS X for PCs. They could do it easily, build up ~25% marketshare in the first few months, and basically confine MS to gamers and businesses, until they built up about 50% marketshare in a year or so.

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

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late. (1)

besalope (1186101) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982859)

Not that I like M$FT, but they did have a 2:1 stock split in 2003 that would help decrease their stock price. More shares = lower value per share.

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late. (3, Insightful)

adolf (21054) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982961)

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

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

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982095)

It's the beginning of the end of the road for the motherfuckers. They just ran out of operating systems to hype (in case the lower-IQ /. readers haven't yet realized that 7 == Vista SP2). Microsoft's intertia will keep them running for another 20 years before they run out of lobbying money. Then the contractors will drop Microsoft's operating system like pro sports' streaming has already dropped Silverlight.

Unless you have something else for us, Microsoft. Please, let's see it! I'm sooo looking forward to the Zune II! PFFFFFFhahahaHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late. (2, Insightful)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982539)

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

Microsoft shot itself in the foot at some point with Windows 3.x, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, various iterations of Windows XP, Windows Vista... the list goes on and those are only their operating system FUBARs. My personal Microsoft Office FUBAR list starts at the "red crosses of death" that fucked up one of my first project reports almost two decades ago and goes on from there. You can probably find a longer list than mine. The only thing that differed from shot to shot was the caliber of bullet they used which so far has been anything from a 22 cal to a 20mm explosive shell. Most other companies in the software business can only afford a limited number of foot-shots before they go bankrupt. Microsoft's saving grace is not an infinite supply of feet but rather a cash money powered ability to heal from shooting them selves in the foot with amazing speed.

not really that insightful (4, Insightful)

Gary W. Longsine (124661) | more than 5 years ago | (#27981949)

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

Before you start the switch you should (4, Funny)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982077)

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

Real Insight: Microsoft is also skipping Vista. (2, Interesting)

reporter (666905) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982063)

The real insight is that Microsoft is also skipping Vista. The new Windows 7 has a built-in virtual machine that emulates Windows XP. Windows 7 does not emulate Vista.

Why? Likely, the number of Windows-XP users is substantially larger than the number of Vista users. Sheer profit motivates Microsoft management to pursue the larger market: Windows-XP users.

Re:Real Insight: Microsoft is also skipping Vista. (4, Insightful)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982169)

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

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

Re:Real Insight: Microsoft is also skipping Vista. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982753)

Its 100 Vista compatible because it is Vista. duh.

Re:Real Insight: Microsoft is also skipping Vista. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982171)

Or, it's because Windows 7 and Vista are the same thing at the core, and emulating Vista on Windows 7 would be like emulating Windows 95 in Windows 98.

XP Mode. (5, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982353)

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

Re:XP Mode. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982671)

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

It does seem convenient (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982249)

It does seem convenient since MS could use the influx of cash (not to mention the good press if adoption goes well). However, considering that staying with a mature XP has worked out better, would it be worth it for businesses with existing XP installations to start migrating to Vista now since it has been tested, and hope for an extension of Vista's availability and support in the same vein as XP's?

Please apologize to Ozzie Osbourne (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982287)

That should be Crazy Train

Re:Insightful analysis... four years late. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982741)

Yes, this Vista / Windows 7 dilemma reminds me of when I lived in Parador and had to choose between the Blue party and the Red party. I chose Blue. Some went with Red, but I found Blue more compelling. True, both parties ran President-For-Life Simms, but Blue had something Red lacked. It's the same way with Windows 7. It's new and fresh.

Gartner (5, Insightful)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 5 years ago | (#27981881)

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

Re:Gartner (4, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27981999)

Gartner is just a Microsoft lobbying group.

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

-jcr

Re:Gartner (2, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982067)

Then why are they suggesting that businesses avoid Vista and cancel existing transitions to Vista? That doesn't sound like a Microsoft party line to me.

Re:Gartner (4, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982161)

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

 

Re:Gartner (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982473)

Considering we're talking about desktop operating systems deployed in a corporate environment, saying "Windows isn't dominant anymore" would be a lie.

Re:Gartner (3, Interesting)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982165)

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

Re:Gartner (2, Informative)

home-electro.com (1284676) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982441)

/., please stop posting these stupid Gartner reports.

Moderated story -1. SPAMBIN

In the Year 2015 ... (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27981895)

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

Pretty funny (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27981899)

how they change their tune 180 degrees when it becomes convenient for Microsoft. (Apologies for the mixed mataphor.)

tell me again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27981939)

What either Vista *or* Windows 7 brings, in practical terms, to the typical business or personal XP user, other than the guaranteed availability of (paid) tech support.

We already know that either of the newer versions require relatively recent hardware b/c they consume more CPU, RAM, and disk than XP does.

Re:tell me again... (4, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27981957)

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

Re:tell me again... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982507)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:tell me again... (3, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982719)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:tell me again... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982079)

We already know that either of the newer versions require relatively recent hardware b/c they consume more CPU, RAM, and disk than XP does.

And it costs more to run. Using the 3D graphics hardware to render the GUI will cost more.

Re:tell me again... (2, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982179)

tell me again...What either Vista *or* Windows 7 brings...

DRM, reduced performance, and upgrade fees.

Re:tell me again... (-1, Flamebait)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982327)

We already know that either of the newer versions require relatively recent hardware b/c they consume more CPU, RAM, and disk than XP does.

And if you do have 2 processors/8 cores/16 threads, 72GB of RAM and 4TB of SSD storage in your desktop PC, W7 can't use it. It's a toy. With Ubuntu you can run unlimited virtual appliances on that box. In addition to typing up emails and scanning documents it's a full participant in a private cloud that can step up and do HA duties when the halon goes off in the server room.

So... within months of W7's release we could go to 4 processors/32 cores/64 threads, or something even more amazing and what's Microsoft's shiny desktop OS got? Explorer 8 and Freecell. Yet another desktop theme. Yet another empty promise of increased security. Ooh.

Re:tell me again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982711)

So, you aren't aware that Win7 can handle up to 256 cores. Where's you research to prove your point?

http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Mark-Russinovich-Inside-Windows-7/ [msdn.com]

Discusses the removla of dispatcher spin locks from the scheduler which allows a Windows 7 desktop to run up to 256 cores.

Re:tell me again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982947)

what the fuck are talking about
try
w7 64 you moron

Why migrate from XP to vista? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27981963)

Makes me wonder what goes on into people's mind when they consider migrating from xp (x86 or x64) to vista. The functionality is the same, if not better in XP and it is a lot more efficient. Our team of designers uses XP x64 Pro and not vista, simply because of the benchmark differences. I've been testing Windows 7 RC1 (7100) for the past week and It's been going very smoothly. For the most part, I feel like it's faster than XP, but sometimes it doesn't feel that way. What's so impressive is that they managed to make the interface so pretty without it having an effect on performance.

As of yet, I haven't encountered any problems except for this ONE msi that had "blank" buttons but it installed properly anyways. Needless to say, after running some numbers I might get our systems switched to RC1 because it's that amazing of an OS.

Re:Why migrate from XP to vista? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982085)

The reason is simple for a small business or home user. Its what was on the computer. If you don't employ a full-time tech person, are too small or have too few computers to buy in bulk and get volume licensing, and don't have any software that is mission critical that doesn't work on Vista, I can see why many people would move to Vista.

Its hard to argue to keep an early P4 machine when a few components start failing whenever you can get a machine thats much more powerful for ~$300. If you don't have a volume license for XP, that requires you to pay an extra $50 or so, which is 1/6th of the machine's price! When faced with these facts, small businesses move to Vista because theres nothing else that doesn't cost more.

Re:Why migrate from XP to vista? (2, Insightful)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982303)

Its hard to argue to keep an early P4 machine when a few components start failing whenever you can get a machine thats much more powerful for ~$300.

Except that most likely early P4 machines are not failing. I'm typing this on a P-IV 2.6GHz machine. It's been running since fall 2003. Yes, I did some minor upgrades: Notably, 512Meg RAM to 2Gig RAM, 120Gig IDE HD to 500Gig SATA and a better graphics card, but that was mainly because I got it out of another machine... The original, while only DX7 would have done fine: I don't play games. None of these upgrades were necessary. The 2Gig were on sale (and is the maximum possible according to the motherboard documentation). The harddisk, I could have avoided by copying superfluous stuff to a terabyte-USB disk.

In the same room I have a P-IV 1.9GHz with 512Meg RDRAM. I got it out of a dumpster. Works perfectly fine. No components are failing.

The components that most often fail in computers are in order: power supplies, fans, and harddisk. Only the last one is really a problem. None of them are expensive to replace.

Sure, a 300€ PC bought new would blow away performance-wise, but keep in mind that I save 300€ by not spending money on a new machine since my current one does everything I need. Before you say anything: yes, I probably upgraded it in excess of 300€ (after all, those upgrades were done over a span of 6 years), but I spent them ages ago. Not now...

300€ is a lot of beer I can drink instead ;-)

Re:Why migrate from XP to vista? (3, Insightful)

spanky the monk (1499161) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982853)

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

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

Re:Why migrate from XP to vista? (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983019)

I haven't bought a computer for about 6 years

Except for the EEE 701, neither have I.

My current server is a frigging AMD64 3400+.... From a dumpster. That would make a nice desktop.

Re:Why migrate from XP to vista? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982363)

If you need the 64 bit memory range for some reason, Windows XP 64 bit will not cut it as drivers for that version of the OS are scarce at the most inconvenient times.

But if you are comfortable within 3.5GB or less (give or take a few hundred MB) then Windows XP 32 is still king of Windows.

Re:Why migrate from XP to vista? (5, Funny)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982813)

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

Vista is going the Windows ME way (1)

zaibazu (976612) | more than 5 years ago | (#27981973)

A few nice features added but easily outweighted by too much crap that only pissed off the end user.

Why go to Windows 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27981989)

Sooooo... why go to Windows 7? What is ITS value prop?

Re:Why go to Windows 7? (3, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982243)

What is ITS value prop?

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

Re:Why go to Windows 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982525)

I remember when the Microsoft sales rep told me about this. i told her immediately and flat out that it held no value for us of any kind and would not be considered at all. i also told her I knew this was simply a way for Microsoft to recover the revenue it had been losing not being able to sell Office for $4-$500 a pop anymore.

Re:Why go to Windows 7? (1)

mokus000 (1491841) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982293)

That it's not Vista?

I've been saying this for... (5, Insightful)

Anarchduke (1551707) | more than 5 years ago | (#27981997)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:I've been saying this for... (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982087)

Honestly, Microsoft would really prefer that businesses upgrade to Vista now, then upgrade to Windows 7 a year from now. That means more money to them

Aside for all the businesses with software insurance or a similar licensing agreement, where its the same amount of money either way :)

Re:I've been saying this for... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982153)

No, they aren't the Mouth of Sauron, because what the Eye of Mordor wanted to be spoken was something like "One OS to rule them all, and in the blueness bind them"... not even that they managed to say right.

Re:I've been saying this for... (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982273)

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

Yeah. It's just such a duh statement, though. That's why we're making fun of them, they're either restating the completely obvious or making inaccurate predictions.

In other news, Gartner advises not to upgrade computer to Windows 7 while in the tub.

Re:I've been saying this for... (4, Insightful)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982639)

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

Re:I've been saying this for... (1)

hawkingradiation (1526209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982755)

...Gartner is an IT firm that spends a great deal of time advising businesses on how to best implement Microsoft products. They aren't the Mouth of Sauron, speaking what the Eye of Mordor wants spoken.

Gartner sure says what Microsoft wants: it wants users to buy Microsoft products just like "Directions on Microsoft". Good thing for Windows 7!!! In fact for large businesses who seem to have the least need for Vista Gartner actually recommended Vista [cnet.com] . So this is the same analyst who in 2007 recommended Vista for large businesses, or is C-NET pulling another Microsoft and trying to up-sell another Microsoft product just like everybody is up-selling Windows 7? Oh yeah, about Linux never being ready for the corporate environment or Microsoft being too dominant: where is your faith man? I know my faith was personally crushed when the "failure" tag was removed from the article. What a bad day!

Re:I've been saying this for... (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982757)

Gartner is only giving advice that many IT analysts have been saying for quite some time.

Exactly. Haven't you noticed the shill-pattern yet? Most of those people started saying that stuff even before it was clear that Windows 7 booted on most of the machines around, much less after any serious long-term testing that you could possibly build a business recommendation on. These guys have been parroting the Microsoft line for months, that Windows 7 is as good as XP. Only now, others have had a chance to do real testing, it's becoming clear that they lied, as benchmarks show no difference between Windows 7 and Vista.

Re:I've been saying this for... (1)

trawg (308495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982767)

Doesn't this just reek of a clever long-term business plan by Microsoft?

Maybe they realised, years ago, everyone was really happy with XP. Holy shit! They'd made the perfect product! Noone would ever want or need to upgrade again!

So they intentionally release Vista as a turd. Everyone hates on it and noone decides to upgrade.

Then they release the new hotness of Windows 7 - compared to Vista, it's amazing! Everyone gives it good reviews. Why /wouldn't/ you install it? It's SO much better than Vista!

Everyone has, meanwhile, forgotten they're happy on XP and just wants to get back on the upgrade bandwagon.

A CUNNING PLAN!

Re:I've been saying this for... (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982847)

IIRC, Gartner was one of the first to say that all shops should move to Vista. Then, when it came out and had a poor reviews, Then and ONLY THEN, did they say, that MAYBE you might not want to move to it. Gartner is attached to the front of Bill's and Chuck's Pants.

6 months! (2, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982023)

Windows 7 may be better than vista, but surely your going to wait for SP1*, meaning it will be at least a year before its good to go.

*Hell i even wait for 'sp1' before trusting a new ubuntu release (Obviously as a geek i start using it at beta 1)

Re:6 months! (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982577)

Yes, it's definitely bad advice. One never deploys a new MS OS when it's first released. This won't be a six month wait at this point, but 12 to 18.

Thanks, Shill! (4, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982031)

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

I'm still going to wait... (2, Funny)

viyh (620825) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982039)

For Windows 9, which will be based of of linux kernel 2.8.12.

Re:I'm still going to wait... (2, Funny)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982199)

For Windows 9, which will be based of of linux kernel 2.8.12.

The way Microsoft do things, it'll probably be based off Linux 1.2.1

Re:I'm still going to wait... (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982489)

Kernel 1.2.13 was a good baseline for a long time.

Re:I'm still going to wait... (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982781)

Kernel 1.2.13 was a good baseline for a long time.

Which is why MS forked it around there, and have been working on Windows FT (Fixed Technology) ever since ;)

Gartner, highest bidder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982065)

I no longer trust anything Gartner has to say, even when I agree with them (skip vista), as in this case, I almost feel like checking my own facts again..Gartner's cred is gone.

Re:Gartner, highest bidder (3, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982817)

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

Hilarious Bit of Buffoonery (1)

Timtimes (730036) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982097)

By both Microsoft and this apparently paid-off IT analyst. They might as well come right out and explain to us that continued Windoz torture is good for us somehow. It's all the rage these days anyway. Enjoy.

Skoda tells me to buy a new Skoda (4, Insightful)

knarf (34928) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982109)

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

Re:Skoda tells me to buy a new Skoda (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982839)

> Since when do I care about what advertisers say?

Well, you care enough to know what they say.

Congrats, Gartner (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982115)

At last they manage to say something that were at least half right... But they still have to fix the operating system name in the "prepare to roll out Windows 7" half.

Oops, my mistake (1, Troll)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982123)

I thought Windows 7 was everybody's pet name for Vista SP1.

Re:Oops, my mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982651)

I thought Windows 7 was everybody's pet name for Vista SP1.

no its Vista SP2

telling the obvious to the clueless (4, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982187)

... AND getting paid for it

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

Re:telling the obvious to the clueless (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982855)

> You've gotta respect the "analysts" at Gartner. Anyone who's read anything about PCs
> within the last year would have come to this conclusion.

Well, no. Some of us have come to the conclusion that the thing to do is not have bugger-all to do with any Microsoft products at all.

Keep XP (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982189)

There is a server recession/depression and Business need to put off investments and asset upgrades until the business environment becomes more favorable.

What kind of ROI (return on investment)will upgrading bring? Seems MS had already succeeded in building a better mouse trap. No real reason to upgrade unlike its predecessors.

So - Why would I upgrade to Windows 7 Over XP? (1)

deathpulse (961233) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982209)

What are the advantages again? Are they worth paying money for an upgrade? Windows XP works for me - at home and at work... I think MS has a SERIOUS value proposition problem.

Re:So - Why would I upgrade to Windows 7 Over XP? (0, Troll)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982317)

The advantages to you are that you have too much money and Microsoft don't have enough, it's about equilibrium and all that bullshit. By donating to a multi-billion-dollar bonus fund you can feel good about yourself that you have helped a poor board member while also ensuring that you couldn't spend that money on anything wasteful......like food for example. By cutting back on food you can lose some weight which has all sorts of benefits. A fitness regime which consists in part of vigorous forum posting demanding that XP be allowed to live beyond it's execution date will help too. Don't helping your fellow man feel good?

Re:So - Why would I upgrade to Windows 7 Over XP? (3, Interesting)

cfryback (870729) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982367)

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

Re:So - Why would I upgrade to Windows 7 Over XP? (2, Interesting)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982727)

This is an ongoing question. I was forced to explain the reason for going to XP (migration done this year!) from 2000. Since migrating, I think we have only had one or two BSOD's - and a quick BIOS upgrade fixed that (we are an HP shop, BTW). Sure I mean there was no real technical reason to upgrade, as most of our users use apps and not the OS features anyways. But I am convinced that but not upgrading, you end up like we did - an old OS trying to run on modern hardware, which was becoming a support nightmare trying to explain why their PC would BSOD three or four times a day.

So I'm not the only one who noticed problems with Windows 2000 on new hardware.
My current PC (built from components in 2007) was never quite stable under Windows 2000. I suspect that the hardware vendors had stopped caring at that point and did no real QA on the Windows 2000 drivers anymore. For the MSI graphics card (a NVidia 8600 GT), only an obsolete Windows 2000 driver version was offered at all. A switch to XP fixed the problems.

On the other hand, my older Pentium IV is quite stable under Windows 2000.

semen of the sith lord (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982217)

I slam candles in my ass and imagine bill gates walking out of a store with a boxed linux in his shopping cart and seinfeld wiggling his ass and dancing with microsoft windows flag colored currency curled into his belt.

makes me cum every time

.8 probability that Mister Softee Sucks... (0, Troll)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982269)

and a .9 probability that he underperforms, if you know what I mean!

Is Gartner a Division of Microsoft? (0, Troll)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982319)

Is Gartner a subsidiary of Microsoft?

Re:Is Gartner a Division of Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982451)

Yes it's part of there R&D section. They research and develop there customers. (also know as advertising)

Samba support (2, Informative)

caubert (1301759) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982543)

The company I work for has its network and file sharing built on Samba. Well, W7 does not support Samba yet, so no migration planned. Getting through to shares does actually work, but joining a Samba domain does not. I don't know, MS, please fix it.

Forget vista, forget windows 7... (1)

DeltaQH (717204) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982579)

Get Android with Google docs!!! ;-)

Um... (4, Insightful)

sootman (158191) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982631)

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

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

Re:Um... (0)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982875)

> Even if you hate MS for whatever reason, it's still worth knowing what they're doing,
> especially if you can do so for free on whatever platform you're (probably) currently
> using.

Why? I learn all I need to know about what Microsoft is doing by reading Slashdot.

Bleh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982633)

Gartner has been wrong more than have been right about many major IT issues over the years. It's a bunch of analysts which means people who don't know enough about technology to actually implement it so they write about it instead. I have worked at a number of very large companies that had Gartner accounts with Gartner "experts" on various topics who would come and talk to us and were considered a joke by everyone but management. To be fair though for those who consider themselves Microsoft shills they did in fact advise against using IIS several years ago because of rampant security issues. Anyway what this thread is missing is the fact that very few business want to "upgrade" to 7 either. They don't see the return on their investment. It's not any easier to support, offers no new features or functionality of any use to the average corporate worker and requires a lot of investment to roll out which companies really aren't wanting to do right now. I recommend most companies look at locked down Linux desktops for most users who just need the basics. The fact that most companies right now are planning on sticking with the archaic Windows XP doesn't tell you how good XP is but how bad the replacements are that Microsoft spent years and billions of dollars developing. if we can get Outlook/Exchange and Office out of corporate environments Microsoft is done for. As bad as both products are they are entrenched. The latest version of Windows Server are actually pretty good but not good enough that I don't replace them with Red Hat every chance I get which at this point has been many thousands of servers.

Ahem (0, Flamebait)

furbearntrout (1036146) | more than 5 years ago | (#27982683)

Keep on walking [nordictrack.com] (just sayin.)
Isn't Gartner part of MSFT's marketing division anyway?

Gartner Morons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982823)

How about the strategy of not changing platforms unless you actually need to? The only reason to move from Win2K to XP was because Microsoft wanted businesses to pay some more money. That has been the sole reason to move from any version of WIndows to the next ever since.

Windows 7.....is Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982857)

Windows 7 is Vista. The same. They aren't different. Its just 7 is Vista with a bunch (7?) massive service packs. They are trying to make Vista suck less. Its still the same though. 7 is a refactored Vista. Windows \7ista. Mostly the same. Microsoft couldn't come up with something totally new in such a short time, and needed something (anything) to sell. At some point, you will be able to apply the 7 big service packs to Vista to get windows \7ista. Same beast, but sucks less.

Its all fixed in the next release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27982977)

So let me see if I've got this straight:
If I wait until the next release of Windows then I will get a faster operating system that is more stable and has greater application compatibility. There will be fewer (note - fewer) blue screens of death and drivers will be easy for third party vendors to develop.
Brill - at last I will be able to upgrade from Win95!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?