×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

429 comments

I'll deploy Win7 (5, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689077)

When XP support ends in 2014. By then, Win7 will have been shaken out.

Re:I'll deploy Win7 (1, Insightful)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689219)

When XP support ends in 2014. By then, Win7 will have been shaken out.

I love that optimism man, I guess you one of the guys that still vote for politicians on the basis of the promises they give!

Re:I'll deploy Win7 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689335)

Promises?! Here in Kang's tiberium mine, we prefer to call them "obamas". Kodos 2012!

Re:I'll deploy Win7 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689713)

Dang, looks like you struck a nerve! How's that hopey-changey thing working out for you, folks? I just read that the State Department is exempting foreign diplomats from paying property taxes in NYC. Meanwhile, we're talking about taxing your health care benefits to give health care to people who don't even work and therefore contribute nothing to society. Once again, the super-rich take care of the super-rich, and give everyone else the finger. Not much seems to have changed from where I'm sitting. The same goons still hate America, we've alienated traditional allies like England and Germany, we're still printing money out of thin air, only now Russia and China are pushing for a global currency to replace the dollar. Obama was very timid about initially supporting the protesters in Iran, yet he has quick to denounce the perfectly legal action the Honduran Congress took to prevent Zayala from pulling a Hugo Chavez on his people and making himself king for life. We're still trending towards a bloated, centralized government run amok, trampling your individual liberties and micromanaging every aspect of your life from what kind of car you're allowed to drive, to how much electricity you're allowed to use, even to how much money you're allowed to make. The cage gets smaller every year, and yet somehow the parent post is trolling. You all are a bunch of ignorant, hapless shep, and I blame your slothfulness and inattention to detail for this country's current state of affairs.

Re:I'll deploy Win7 (5, Insightful)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689689)

I love that optimism man, I guess you one of the guys that still vote for politicians on the basis of the promises they give!

Excellent analogy, but for a slightly different reason.

By the time we recognise that the current elected official sucks, there's an election right around the corner. That election not only offer promises of the new, but also allows us to forget the failures of the past.

The trouble with Microsoft is that we end up electing the same guy every time.

Microsoft Support Lifecycle FAQ (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689273)

Correct, Windows XP will be on Extended Suport until 08/04/2014.

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&C2=1173 [microsoft.com]

Here is a list of what is covered (Security Hotfix Patches & Microsoft Knowledge Base.)

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy [microsoft.com]

There's also a horrible rumor going around where people are assuming Windows XP will become "disabled" in 2010 unless you upgrade.

I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either (4, Insightful)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689079)

but that dosnt mean 6/10 wont deploy it. I imagine plenty of those are just waiting to see how well or not it plays out for other companies. If 7 Manages everything it promises, im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the end

Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either (2, Insightful)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689161)

If 7 Manages everything it promises, im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the end

You must be new here :) When was the last time that MS delivered everything it promised?

Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689431)

You must be new here. When did MS delivering what it promises have anything to do whether management decides it's time for an "upgrade"?

Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either (5, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689171)

I am still waiting for what Microsoft Promised me for Windows 95.

Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689203)

So you have plenty time to wait, since windows 7 is not even shipped yet

Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either (1, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689385)

> If 7 Manages everything it promises, im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the end

What does it promise that businesses need and don't have?

Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689655)

> If 7 Manages everything it promises, im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the end

What does it promise that businesses need and don't have?

That ability to be included with newly purchased computers. Maybe large corporations can get deals to put XP on new computers for as long as they want, but I doubt most smaller companies can afford deals like that.

Also, as the mass market shifts away from XP, hardware/perhiperal vendors are going to stop writing device drivers for XP at some point.

So in 3 months (5, Informative)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689083)

It's gone from 83% that won't [slashdot.org] to 59.3%.

Based on that, if MS wait nine months there will be people buying two copies.

Re:So in 3 months (5, Funny)

falckon (1015637) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689247)

By extrapolating [xkcd.com], in two years people will be buying five copies. I guess Windows 7 will finally be the prize winning cash cow Microsoft has been dying to create!

Re:So in 3 months (0, Redundant)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689305)

The day before 7 is released people had 0 copies of Windows 7, the day its released they had 1, so in two years everyone who purchased it should have 730 copies.

Re:So in 3 months (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689449)

t's gone from 83% that won't to 59.3%.

Based on that, if MS wait nine months there will be people buying two copies.

We get stories like this every time MS releases a new OS. There are the occasional flops like Windows ME and Vista that don't see widespread enterprise deployment but despite the universal predictions of doom you get each time most of them actually do end up being widely used in businesses. Examples include: Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000 and Windows XP, I remember all sorts of columnists, bloggers and other speculators crawling out of the woodwork and predicting businesses wouldn't use them. Particularly Windows 2000 and Windows XP who turned out to be widely used regardless.

Re:So in 3 months (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689671)

http://xkcd.com/605/

Why would they? (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689101)

If they were happy with XP and didn't want to get the hardware required for Vista (plus the risk of a new OS) then why would they want to get Windows 7, given that it is essentially Vista at heart. It doesn't matter what they call it, it's still not as fast, and with a small a footprint as XP?

I'd have thought the future of business's IT apps/work is internet/web apps, but served up on an organisation's intranet.

Re:Why would they? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689343)

The only reason I see that companies would pay for a substantial cost in upgrade is to appease the employees. If employees are happy they work more efficiently. If I was running a company I would wait until Windows 7 comes out and switch over a couple of first adapters with a warning that they may have problems. I would make the decision after I get feedback from them and an overall water cooler talk.

Re:Why would they? (1)

ibookdb (1199357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689595)

Employees are very happy with XP and cringe at change. So many complaints about the ribbon etc. when upgrading to Office 2007. Businesses will change to appease the management, not the employees.

Re:Why would they? (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689645)

we STILL downgrade people because of 2007/2008. They would rather deal with the occasional incompatibility issue requiring the converter than the awful UI design of Office 07/08

Re:Why would they? (4, Interesting)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689469)

I must be getting older.

It doesn't matter what they call it, it's still not as fast, and with a small a footprint as XP?

I remember saying the same thing about XP in regards to Windows 2000... "It's exactly the same, but with a lego-land interface, and a firewall that won't let you use the apps you want, but allows all the viruses in. It's bloated and slow. I want nothing to do with it if I can avoid it."

Then XP SP2 came out: "Well, it's still bloated, but with new hardware it's not bad... At least we can make exceptions to allow our apps to access the network finally. Too bad it has double the footprint of SP1."

Funny how Vista (and a few years) changed our perspective so much... Because it was such a resource hog, it made XP seem tiny.

Re:Why would they? (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689649)

Then by that argument why did they upgrade from NT to server 2003?
With each generation of software it is more intensive then the last. Then again the hardware is also more intensive. A person running windows NT/2003 servers won't upgrade to windows 7 because the hardware can't handle it....then again the brand new dell computer is more powerful then that old win nt/2003 server. Once they upgrade their servers they will upgrade their software.

Internet/web apps is still very much pie in the sky. It has a TON of hurdles before it becomes adopted. First proponents have to guarantee 100% up time and second they have to gaurantee 100% privacy with no bull crap like "we can change the terms of the agreement at anytime", oh and third - the price better be absolutely right.

I almost pity Microsoft. (4, Interesting)

millia (35740) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689113)

It's got to be tough. You can't kill off XP like you want to, because people really really might leave. But it looks foolish to support that morass of code in spite of the NEW morass you've spent all that money on.

In the long run, they'll switch. Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it. Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.

Re:I almost pity Microsoft. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689255)

Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.

The industry waxes and wanes back and forth between client-server based systems, and thick clients.
Are you really sure you want Microsoft and other web companies as your mainframe? This phase will pass.

I don't know about you, but I want my data locally.

Re:I almost pity Microsoft. (1)

millia (35740) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689325)

I want *my* data locally, sure. But if I'm a business, I'd prefer my data locally, too, on a server serving a webapp.

However, I'm atypical, since I have a mac and 3 linux boxes at home.

oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again.. (4, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689347)

In the long run, they'll switch. Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it. Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.

It's interesting, in that, so many people of the current generation see webapps and centralized computing as the new best thing.

See, some of us old people got into the PC revolution when we were kids because we were rebelling against centralized computing. We hated the account quotas and slowness of shared system resources in college, the straightjackets around information, and we wanted to smash all of that. We saw that giving people power tools like spreadsheets and desktop databases empowered them over the static mainframe systems of old, that a computer was something that you owned, was, well, a personal thing.

Quite frankly, if it wasn't for ISPs being such a PITA about bandwidth for uploads and hosting, and if, honestly, there was more adoption of IPv6 so that everyone could have their own address, we would see a lot more desktop to the internet hosting. A quadcore PC could easily host a blog or a facebook account. Indeed, I would be the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does, except that you own your data, and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications.

Re:oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again.. (1)

millia (35740) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689557)

First paying computer gig was in 1981, so I'm with you on the whole centralized-vs-decentralized thing. (I'm probably of the generation before you.) Really. I was a little bit concise in my post; sorry. I was just excited because for the first time in YEARS I might actually be that dreaded person, the primary poster, I think. (Didn't happen.)

I should clarify: I see a lot of businesses that switched over from dumb terminals to winxp running frontend apps. The business obviously has some process where they want a central server, hosting a db. If they went to a well-designed webapp, they could deploy WHATEVER on the desk. This excites me for a great many reasons.

Obviously, webapps will not replace everything. I don't want them for *my* docs. But I'm an individual, not a corporation. And there's quite a few business processes that are, unfortunately, just record keeping.

Re:I almost pity Microsoft. (2, Interesting)

squoozer (730327) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689549)

Slow down cowboy. I make a good living writing webapps so if anyone should want everything to be delivered as a webapp it should be me but I just don't see it happening in the near future. On paper there is nothing stopping it from happening, we've been down the thin client road before and some of the new webapps are very feature rich. In reality though I think we will hit many of the same problems thin clients did. In fact in many respects I think we are starting from a worse position because network latency is much higher over the Internet than it is over a local network. Combine that with the fact that all the applications are developed in Javascript and presented through a multitude of browsers and you have a difficult target to hit.

Long live the desktop application!

Re:I almost pity Microsoft. (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689709)

It's got to be tough. You can't kill off XP like you want to, because people really really might leave. But it looks foolish to support that morass of code in spite of the NEW morass you've spent all that money on. In the long run, they'll switch. Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it. Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.

People might leave to what? To Apple? Not likely. There are always people who transition from apple to ms and ms to apple but, and greater so doing OS upgrades as people search new avenues and reevaluate their needs but for the most part this will not cause any appreciable (to the companies) change. Though i find it interesting...now XP is a morass of code.

Webapps are still far into the future...i'd expected windows 9 to come out ebfore web apps become mainstream.

You don't need a plan (3, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689117)

You don't need a plan - it'll install itself automatically via windows update. And then automatically rat on you for piracy.

Re:You don't need a plan (0, Troll)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689269)

Wait, wait, wait. A Microsoft OS that installs by itself with no issues? You mean no more installing XP over and over again, trying to get it to work? Sign me up!

SP2 Syndrome (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689133)

IT grunts know not to deploy a Microsoft by-product until at least Service Pack 2 comes out -- somehow I don't see Windows 7 SP2 being out by the end of next year. Not to mention the real world concerns of budgets, hardware upgrade cycles, training, etc. In other words, no real surprise here.

Re:SP2 Syndrome (1)

gid (5195) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689327)

Since Windows 7 is Vista with a new taskbar it should be ready to go. Seriously tho I'm running the RC on an IBM T60 laptop and it's pretty nice, with biometrics even built in and everything. But I'm also one of those freaks that thought Vista was ok as well. But I might feel differently if I worked for a big company...

Re:SP2 Syndrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689353)

But Win7 is SP2. Vista SP2 to be exact.

Re:SP2 Syndrome (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689457)

I have Vista SP2 and I'm pretty sure it's not Windows 7. It may be SP3 tho.

Re:SP2 Syndrome (3, Informative)

Octorian (14086) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689407)

Except "Windows 7" is really just Vista SP3 :-)
(okay, Vista is NT 6.0, Win7 is NT 6.1)

Re:SP2 Syndrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689589)

Windows 7 isn't a major overhaul like Vista. Instead, it is more of the step from Windows 2000 to XP.

Server-side, this is more obvious: Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2, R2 being the same kernel as Windows 7.

Their loss (-1, Flamebait)

flintmecha (1134937) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689141)

Six in 10 companies are lazy and wish to continue living in the stone age with XP.

Re:Their loss (4, Insightful)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689245)

6 in 10 companies don't want to needlessly spend money and wish to continue using software that does what they need.

Re:Their loss (3, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689285)

What does 7 have that they need and don't have with XP? Does your company replace all the furniture every time Herman Miller comes out with a new line?

Re:Their loss (3, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689735)

Does your company replace all the furniture every time Herman Miller comes out with a new line?

Of coarse!

AIG,INC

Re:Their loss (1)

HellYeahAutomaton (815542) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689303)

On any given piece of hardware that can run XP or Vista/Windows 7, XP runs faster.

It's smarter to run XP, not lazier. And until MS gets their head out of their butt and gives people a better product than XP, people will not buy it on their own free will.

But not for 64 bit / wanting to us 4gb of ram (3.5 (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689651)

But not for 64 bit / wanting to us 4gb of ram more like (3.5 or less) on some systems. 4gb of DDR2 is so cheap that you should get it or more DDR3 is coming down is price as well.

Also XP 64 does not have many divers for it vs vista / 7.

Of course they won't (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689143)

This is the MO of most companies when a new version of Windows comes along. Not only because businesses don't use a new version of Windows, nor do they upgrade their existing installations. Did anybody actually think it would be different this time?

Re:Of course they won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689207)

Most Companies Won't Deploy Windows 95 - Survey
Most Companies Won't Deploy Windows 98 - Survey
Most Companies Won't Deploy Windows XP - Survey
Most Companies Won't Deploy Vista - Survey

Still using IE6 (5, Interesting)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689157)

We still have IE6 installed by default at work. The reason we haven't upgraded is because it'd break some of the applications and they don't want the headache of having to retest the application (that's the excuse anyway), so we're stuck with it.

I expect we won't be moving to Windows 7 any time soon either, XP works fine and not only would they have to spend money on the upgrade, but they'd have to re-train everyone.

Re:Still using IE6 (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689317)

Plus, if companies didn't want to move to Vista, wouldn't many of the same arguments apply to staying on XP indefinitely, regardless of what new versions come out? If the version you have is working for what you need, why switch?

Re:Still using IE6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689461)

My company is also facing the same problem. Our callcenter is still using Siebel 7, which could only run on IE 6. Theoretically it can run on IE 7 with some patch, but it is not stable and buggy.The management decided to standardize the platform to use windows XP with IE 6. Some other callcenters are still using Windows 2000 Pro.

Re:Still using IE6 (1)

will this name work (1548057) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689503)

XP works fine and not only would they have to spend money on the upgrade, but they'd have to re-train everyone.

I hear this argument a lot. Let me ask you this: how much "training" did you get for XP?

Re:Still using IE6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689715)

That's the issue with using windows - there's so many applications to be used and many of them are never actually written to windows standards in the first place so every time microsoft tries to tighten the OS it breaks badly written programs. I Still have clients using accpac for DOS..

In this I am jealous of our Unix/Linux/Mac compatriots.

Re:Still using IE6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689747)

This is why one of the options in Windows 7 is a (free) VM instance of Windows XP so that you can run IE6 or other incompatible applications while still running Windows 7.

This might be more complexity than some people want but it is an option.

Talk about a misleading title (5, Insightful)

gambit3 (463693) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689183)

"Have No current Plans" != "Won't Deploy"

Two years ago, my company had "No Current Plans" to move our MS Applications to their 2007 versions, but here we are, with Office/Exchange/Sharepoint all 2007.

"No Current Plans" may just mean just that... they don't have any plans. That's a far stretch from "we won't".

Re:Talk about a misleading title (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689329)

Exactly. I have no plans to upgrade to Windows 7, either. However, my laptop is getting a bit long in the tooth, and I suspect I'll be replacing it within the next year. I'm pretty sure I know what OS the new one will come with....

Re:Talk about a misleading title (5, Insightful)

Iftekhar25 (802052) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689591)

Mod parent up.

This survey means absolutely nothing. It was taken before Microsoft announced a release date, and that means it's no longer relevant.

Considering that, the number is quite strong.

Windows 7 has a lot of mindshare as "Microsoft [finally] gets it right."

I don't mind burning some karma here, but you gotta call it like you see it.

Re:Talk about a misleading title (2, Informative)

code65536 (302481) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689611)

The other big problem is that whoever wrote the article obvious did not bother reading the source, because he's missing the historical context (XP's was 12-14%, the source states). Seeing as how the "article" is just something on some blog (and was submitted to /. by the owner of that blog... hmm), I guess sensationalizing is better than actually reporting what the source says.

Re:Talk about a misleading title (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689663)

*No plans* means *No Business Reason to shift away from XP* which was the same with Vista. Where I work, we have over 700 systems of which just 3 run Vista and that too for testing purposes. The majority are on XP and Win2K. For the BPO, Vista is a no-go because audio controller hardware does not work with Vista. For the hospital, Vista does not support our PACS software (from GE), so we remain with XP.

With Windows 7, we have tested and found out that neither the BPO nor the hospital can work, even under the so-called XP mode. So we have *No Plans* as well.

So more than 4 out of 10 companies are switching? (2, Interesting)

noname444 (1182107) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689193)

I'm all for bashing ms but this sounds like a pretty big number to me.

Re:So more than 4 out of 10 companies are switchin (1)

code65536 (302481) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689563)

It is. XP's first-year adoption was 12-14% (it looks like TFA did not read TFS; S == source).

Does it Run Linux? (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689221)

(I had to say that.)

Seriously, my department (1500 employees) has not made a move to either Vista (we now have about 30 Vista machines) or Win 7. I run it in VirtualBox under Ubuntu and so do about two others. However, the rest of the 1400 or so machines are running XP or even Win2K still. As it is, we've yet to find a compelling reason to "upgrade" from XP/2K. Most of the users have one or two apps running, some even run mainframe terminals still. The rest use office apps, which work just fine in XP.

For home users I can see moving to Win 7 (or even Ubuntu) but the business case just doesn't seem to justify the cost. Even new machines don't really seem to out perform older ones (< 5 year old) by much.

Happens Every Time (1)

stry_cat (558859) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689225)

Every time a new version of Windoze comes out, we see a survey saying most places won't install the new version. So either most places are still using Windows 3.11 or they switched to Linux right?

Ok ok I know most places dont' upgrade every year, so it takes 2-5 years before the newest version takes over. So really this survey is nothing new and I wonder if it is even newsworthy.

Right on point (2, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689381)

Yes, this is routine stuff but still think it's news worthy. What Microsoft could pull is to warn of a "critical exploit" in all versions of Windows prior to Windows 7 and make money.

When combined with Software Assurance, [wikipedia.org] this can work to move most businesses to Windows 7.

Trust me, Microsoft knows how businesses think and I am sure personnel have been hired to handle "stubborn" business accounts.

...by 2010 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689227)

40% adoption rate in one year? Thats crazy good.

6% by the end of this year? and it comes out at the end of October?

FFS they are literaley producing gold nugets out of their rectum and you are complaining that they aren't platinum.

And why should they? (1)

davmoo (63521) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689249)

We're in tight economic times. Companies are not going to upgrade unless they have a real need for a new feature. I have several clients who are still running on Windows XP and have absolutely no need to change that. Same goes for Vista. If their current systems are running smoothly and meeting requirements, there is no reason to change things.

The only reason I'm upgrading at least one of my machines is because my clients expect me to be informed about the latest versions, whether they themselves are actually using them or not.

Re:And why should they? (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689373)

We're in tight economic times. Companies are not going to upgrade unless they have a real need for a new feature. I have several clients who are still running on Windows XP and have absolutely no need to change that. Same goes for Vista. If their current systems are running smoothly and meeting requirements, there is no reason to change things.

What this says is that Microsoft isn't doing a good job of marketing Windows 7.

Re:And why should they? (2, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689565)

Actually, they're doing a pretty GOOD job. If you can convince 4 out of 10 of your customers to pay for an unnecessary update that nets them no benefit, I'd say that yes, your marketing department certainly did something right.

Bug fixed Vista? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689337)

Its system requirements are higher than Vistas. With more overhead, how is it supposed to run well on netbooks (as claimed)?
If it runs smoother than Vista, why shouldnt it be treated as a version of Vista with the bugs fixed? Hard to justify paying additional for that.

No surprise there then (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689365)

Everywhere I've ever worked has taken the approach "let's give the new version time for the bugs to be shaken out. Then we'll see how they get on and make a decision". This was the case in the days of Win2K, Windows XP and Vista.

Vista broke a lot of things while bringing nothing particularly beneficial (at least for a business) to the table. Anyone who hadn't already paid for it through something like Software Assurance was therefore very likely to say "No thanks".

18 months from now, however, USB3 will start to become more widespread and I bet we won't see USB3 support in XP. Frankly, that's about the only thing I can think of that Windows 7 might be able to offer. And seeing as USB took years to get from "what's that funny rectangular socket on the back?" to mainstream, I'm not holding my breath.

Dear Corporations, (4, Funny)

Centurix (249778) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689377)

Dear lovely Corporation,

Here's a new operating system for you. Awfully sorry about the whole Vista thing, won't happen again.

Love,

Bill and Steve.

Wait... just Steve now.

PS. The Windows 7 Corporate Mega Edition will come with a free chair.

It would be news if they DID (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689401)

It's mid-July, and Windows 7 isn't even released yet. Even if companies started testing Windows 7 in their environments today, planning to deploy it before the end of the year would be pretty fast for any mid-to-large company.

Combine that with the general wisdom that you should wait for Microsoft's first (at least) service pack before purchasing any of their products, and there's an even stronger reason for companies to take their time.

So I really can't see why this article's statistics are considered newsworthy.

Re:It would be news if they DID (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689613)

It's mid-July, and Windows 7 isn't even released yet

It's on our MSDN license...

Of course not.... (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689409)

They're still working on deploying Vista ; )

Re:Of course not.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28689485)

Or they've skipped Vista and are waiting for somebody else to try 7 and let everyone else know how it is.

Misleading Title (1)

verloren (523497) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689421)

Not having a plan to do something doesn't mean you're not going to do it; I don't have a plan to go on holiday next year, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to, it just means I'm not yet working on it.

no surprise (3, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689433)

The interesting figure here isn't the 6/10. It's the 4/10. I'd have to question the sanity of that 40%.

This is not a bash at MS. It is just prudent IT policy, and good business not to use untested software in mission critical environments. No new OS, from anyone, is guaranteed to be mission critical in its first year of release.

Most business do not upgrade entire systems often. There's plenty that have only switched to XP from 200 in the past 5 years.

There's plenty of bespoke programs and macros that run on every enterprise system. It takes at least a year to figure out how a new OS will work with those. That's not even counting driver issues, hardware issues, and bugs.

Plus there's a productivity issue with switching OS. Do you really want to slow down your staff during a recession?

But specifically for Windows 7, why switch? What is the competitive advantage of doing so? There's no real performance gain. There's no real new features that aren't just bling. Sure, it's a bit more secure, but any IT dept has cobbled something together and locked down XP enough for it to work reasonably well.

No, sorry, I'd have to question the business decision of any company that is going to introduce a new OS that will cost them money, productivity, and still have kinks and bugs in it at this early stage in its release.

In 3-5 years, after much internal testing, sure it would make sense. But right now -- corporate suicide.

Not until at least the first Service Pack (1)

secondhand_Buddah (906643) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689467)

It is pretty common in corporate IT departments policy to not even consider upgrading Windows until at least the first service pack has been released. No good IT manager will riskt the potential fallout of installing an untested OS on a large scale. Early adopters are generally the adventurous or the ignorant.

Why would they? (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689483)

A more interesting headline would be: Nearly 4 in 10 companies plan to upgrade to software that doesn't exist yet. Really, how can you plan to roll something out that you haven't evaluated yet? Oh wait, it makes work weather it's good/bad or needed/not. And if it sucks, you can't be blamed for using Microsoft. Now it's all clear to me.

surprised? (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689505)

Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year, according to a new survey. Of 1,100 IT administrators who responded to the survey, 59.3 percent said they didn't have a plan to deploy Windows 7.

Is anyone surprised?

IT Administrators are typically fairly conservative and cautious. Most folks will wait until SP1 is released. At the very least they'll wait until a few months after release so they can get real-world usage reports.

Tabloid (1)

trifish (826353) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689529)

The tabloid title says "Most Companies Won't Deploy Windows 7". Whereas the article says they have [b]currently[/b] no such plans. That's quite a significant difference.

Of course. (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689541)

We're in the middle of a recession. Budgets are being cut everywhere. Companies are dropping like flies.

Windows 7 is a great OS, but it's expensive to migrate your systems to a new OS, and if Windows XP is doing the trick right now, it's irresponsible to frivolously spend the time, money, and hardship switching just to be at the front of the pack. Every dollar you spend is another dollar you don't have in the bank just in case sales aren't where they should be.

To be honest, I think we're going to see the opposite of what we saw with early versions of DOS and Windows: Originally, people wanted the OS they used on their PCs at work. Eventually, people are going to want the OS they use on their PCs at home, and within 5 years, that OS will be Windows 7 for nearly everyone.

VERY misleading article (1)

code65536 (302481) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689543)

First, "no plans" does not mean "won't". It just means that they're not ready yet, or haven't thought about it, or haven't started making preparations for it, etc.

Second, 40% who are planning to deploy it is HUGE. As the survey points out, the first-year adoption rate for XP was 12-14%. The survey itself said "This is actually a strong adoption rate" and "a high acceptance of Windows 7".

This is a case where the TFA (Good Gear Guide, WTF is this?) clearly did not even bother to read the source that they are quoting from.

How is this new? How does this article not fail? (4, Insightful)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689583)

Most companies refuse to upgrade their systems to a new product (at least major product) unless there is 1) pressure from the top, 2) The hardware vendor only sells with that software, 3) a service patch has been released, or 4) they receive such an unbelievable discount it borders on payola.

This is nothing new. This happened with windows NT, XP, 2003, Vista and it will continue to happen. Though most people who have tried windows 7 have stated they loved it. I've had it installed for months now and I have not experienced a single crash and my laptop is running faster with windows 7 then it did vista.

Wait until windows 7 is out for 6 months, has it's first patch and then come out with an verifiable/reliable article saying this information.

Another news site that doesn't study history (0, Troll)

Tomsk70 (984457) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689653)

As I recall, no sites had any plans to introduce 2000, as NT4 was 'quite adequate'.

Then it was XP, as 'no-one wants to buy new machines'.

The two hiccups - Windows ME (unsurprisingly), and Vista. And now here we are, with XP about to go (and more than showing it's age) - and somehow, managers not wanting to frighten chairmen with next years' costs has become a slashdot news article.

Which it would be, if I'd only been in the game for five years....please guys, you're supposed to be impressive, not tabloid-recyclers.

why buy it when your going to replace the machine? (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689711)

6:10 wont deploy it because 8:10 machines get replaced after 2-3 years. 6:10 are 2-3 year old machines still running XP. the cost of windows 7 will be added to the cost of 4:5 machines machines for sale. therefore, guesstimation odds say 6:10 machines will be replaced with windows7 machines. why buy os licenses when you are going to end up replacing the machines anyway.

Vista users will (1)

Apoorv Khatreja (1263418) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689737)

We've all read the reviews, and lots of us have even tried out Windows 7. It will of course, remain Windows, inherently flawed. But the improvement over Vista is huge. Businesses that are currently running Vista would be quite prompt to shift to Windows 7, because Windows 7 is everything that Vista is not. On the other hand, businesses running XP are more likely to be complacent with their current setup, and will most likely wait to see how other companies are responding to it, and what compatibility issues crop up.

I have seen the future - its my 12 year old (0, Redundant)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689757)

who demanded the same game his friends were playing
this is what drives home adoption of new windows versions, and when people are comfortable at home, they will ask for it at work

the scenario
CEO: my son has windows7 and he can do all this [MS BS app] cool stuff..why isn't it on our website
IT Guy: [to ceo]yessir, right away sir
                      [to undelings] begin the windows 7 rollout for C suite execs, since thier laptops will now be incompatible with the other 99.99% of computers in teh company, we will have to upgrade everyone else

Win7? Were still dealing with Vista. (1)

TheLongshot (919014) | more than 4 years ago | (#28689769)

The customer I'm working for won't be deploying Windows 7 anytime soon because they are in the middle of rolling out Vista. Of course we kinda thought about waiting, but to deploy a new operating system requires lots and lots of testing to make sure that most of the applications work. It probably takes almost a year to get it to the point where it can be approved.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...