What the hell ever happened to the good old days when you could just tweak someone's account in the User Mangler, and maybe swap a 72-pin stick of SDRAM or restore someone's Solitaire shortcut? LMAO
Posted on 04/13/2009 7:00:03 PM PDT by dayglored
New data shows that the vast majority of corporate IT departments won't touch Microsoft's next OS until at least 2011.
Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) may need to keep its Windows XP operating system around a little longer -- at least for its deep-pocketed corporate customers....
The survey, of more than 1,100 IT professionals, is one of the first extensive looks at Windows 7's early sales prospects. It found that a whopping 83% of enterprises plan to skip the OS in its first year.
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.
"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,...
The news for Microsoft doesn't get much better in Windows 7's sophomore season. Fewer 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.
Widespread failure by corporations to embrace Windows 7 could cause problems on a number of fronts....
(Excerpt) Read more at informationweek.com ...
If Microsoft allowed an in-place upgrade to Win7, I'd consider it sooner.
But the fact that going to Win7 can only be done with a complete wipe and re-installation of all our deployed applications -- with a user base that's distributed all over the globe -- means "NO". I'm not ready to jump at the chance to bring my company to a screeching halt.
We develop software. We've got Macs and some Linux boxes in use, and run Unix as our network OS. But the vast majority of my users are on Windows XP, and will remain there for the foreseeable future.
What about you and yours?
Tech pings, please?
If Soros’-Handpuppet-In-Chief gets his wish, 83% of businesses won't exist next year.
Of course, a huge number of home users will be on Win7 next year. This is about BUSINESSES.
Well, yeah, there is that little problem, isn't there....
The vast majority of our systems, about 2650 of them, are still running Windows 2000 Professional. We have fewer than 300 XP boxes, most of which are laptops. We publicly do NOT support Vista.
Mark
Rather than bigger, fancier, slower people want smaller, simpler, faster OSes. Even simple users - the ones supposedly helped by the overly rich feature set - would be aided because of faster responses: they aren't clicking on something else before an operation completes and therefore increasing odds of an abend. If you doubt this, look at how many are sticking with Microsoft's best release, Windows XP.
I don’t touch a new MS OS till at least SP1 is released. I’d start playing with it on a test machine to get familiar with it, but thats it.
For personal or business use, I always wait for a SP1 type release. That usually marks the point when its ready for true evaluation to be run in a production environment.
We were forced to upgrade ALL of our PCs at our site to Vista. Don’t know if this was company wide. If it was, I work for a huge company.
A lot of the PCs were running 2K, some XP.
We subcontract our IT to a third party. I am convinced that it was all a way for them to make lots of bucks.
In a year of so, we be upgrading all of our PCs to Windows 7.
Yuck!
The old wisdom about buying a GM car was not to buy one in its first model year. Eventually that led to many people not buying them at all.
Yeah it’s a shame in place installs aren’t allowed for Win 7 over XP but I think for a more stable OS environment Windows needs to do this.
Yeah I am going to be called a MS Bot, as usual, but I think Win7 is the best MS OS by far. It runs flawlessly on my AMD 3800+ 2 gig system and on my laptop I actually increase my battery life by 50% with wifi on.
Personally, I'm hanging on to XP SP3 until I can get my hands on Win2k8 Server. It has Hyper-V native and that bad boy ROCKS! It's so easy to use...when Win2k8 is deployed widely and Hyper-V catches on...VMWare is going to be in serious doo-doo.
It’s like System 7, but for Windows.
It may be -- and it SHOULD BE, after all, right? ;-)
The problem for Microsoft is that XP was the best for a damn long time, and it's still entirely fine for most of what businesses need to do.
Yep, agree completely. Been burned, don't like it.
I’d love to upgrade my laptop.
From Vista to XP.
Ever since SP1, Vista has been really nice. In fact if you want to run 64 bit, Vista really is the only way to go with Windows.
It’s a tough choice for business though. Going to Win Server 2008 is a big step, but that works best with Vista obviously. And I’d be wary of 7 until SP1 as well, so.. I can see a lot wanting to hold off.
If they keep the DRM BS in 7, I won’t “upgrade” to it at all.
What the hell ever happened to the good old days when you could just tweak someone's account in the User Mangler, and maybe swap a 72-pin stick of SDRAM or restore someone's Solitaire shortcut? LMAO
Hey, there’s always Vista! ;O)
It should be, and so far is IMO. You are right though on XP, it will be hard for businesses to want to get away from an already proven system.
Unfortunately Windows has become the poster child for socialism. Everytime I do something in Excel, it thinks it knows more than I do and formats numbers as dates etc. Then that Reviewing toolbar that attaches itself like a rabid dog to files. I have killed it and killed and it reappears. Just like liberals.
Meh, overblown. I have ripped every dvd, blu-ray and hd dvd on Vista and haven’t had a single bad thing happen to me.
So they are finally learning after being screwed by Windows 95, 98, 98SE, Millennium, and XP?
So they are finally learning after being screwed by Windows 95, 98, 98SE, Millennium, and XP? Oh, and Vista, too.
A current problem that has gotten bad and is only getting worse is web page content.
More and more script languages are being embedded in webpages performing advertising and behind the scenes activity that can slow loading and performance down to a snail’s paces. Even with 512meg of RAM I am getting web pages alone that are forcing my virtual swap file to become very low on memory and have to enlarge. This is a webpage — excuse me you memory hog programmers.
7 allegedly has something built in that will degrade streaming audio if you try to capture it. I hope that’s not the case because I don’t much want to switch to Linux and I don’t foresee being able to afford a Mac.
Okay, I'm kornfused. W2K3 is a server OS.
I’ve never run into a single ‘DRM’ issue on Vista. I really don’t know what I’m supposed to be seeing.
I’ve been running Linux for 10 years now (SuSE 9 for the last 4). I REFUSE to upgrade everything and risk breaking everything just because a new version has twirling 3-D icons.
Screw Microsoft, Apple and Red Hat for coming up with non-backwards-compatable OSs which don’t actually provide any new needed functionalities. Who needs their crappy upgrades.
Microsoft doesn’t seem to understand that they’re now victims of their own success here.
In Ye Olde Mainframe Days, IBM would roll out a new release of MVS, VM/CMS, DOS, etc and then companies would take YEARS to migrate their apps and workload over to the new system. Often, they’d bring up the old OS and new OS side-by-side under VM/370 at night, working on the transition. Other companies that had a lot of iron would have an older System/370 machine on which they’d run the new s/w, and the developers and IT staff would work on shaking out the bugs and issues there. The new OS wouldn’t go into “production mode” until everything was as well tested as companies could reasonably accomplish.
IBM recognized this and they’d make it a pretty high priority to not break existing applications and give users a long warning period of a) deprecated features, b) obsolete features, c) removed features - release after release. They tried very hard to not surprise the customer base.
Microsoft, on the other hand, loves to make gratuitous changes. eg, the UI. What is being gained by changing the UI on every major release? Nothing.
So now that so much of what used to be on mainframes is being processed on PC’s, Microsoft is now subject to the same caution and conservative adoption rate for new features that used to rule the mainframe world - yet, because MSFT doesn’t sell iron, they absolutely MUST get their customers to buy (nand install) s/w.
This is why Microsoft is going to have margin problems with their business model going forward into the future.
Sure 'nuff true.
My minitower unit at work is running windows 98 and word perfect. When it dies, I’m going to open office and linux on a laptop. I’ve been saying that for three or four years now. It still shows no signs of croaking.
Anybody know if i can resurrect old microsoft works documents in open office?
If what you already have works, why would you mess with it?
If I go the upgrade route, I will not install over the 64-bit XP but instead add another bootable partition. Hard disks are so big nowadays, having another 50 GB bootable partition doesn't cost much anyways. The laptop that came with 64-bit Vista, will be upgraded as soon as Windows7 comes out. From what I hear from beta testers, Windows7 is superior to Vista in compatibility and number of bugs.
\admin hat on\ - you can keep the eye candy, but the upgrade to XP is worth it just to get Powershell.
My last job was supporting desktop and server installations at a major financial. Our group was the front line support for close to 1000 workstations. I completely bypassed Vista, even when we were asked to evaluate the test images of it. My input was that there was no reason to upgrade to it. We were running XP, there was a ton of inhouse developed & vendor apps with new releases coming out all the time, and still ran well on the XP/Windows 2003 images we had helped built and deployed.
There was no real reason to upgrade to Vista. I saw the OS as way too bloated and consumer/home user oriented to run in a business environment.
Hopefully Windows 7 versions designed for businesses will be more worth the upgrade. But I still wouldn’t look to put it into production for at least a year after release or the first SP1.
The worst of all was Vista,
Even though I can get it to work OK, now, after the SP downloads, -—
It was arrogant as heck for Microsoft to NOT allow Vista to run Outlook Express. I did not know that when I bought my new computer, and it has been a royal pain accessing old files.
What else is installed on the computer besides Smoothtext? It looks like you have a new shell installed too.
No, the worst of all was Windows ME, Windows 95, Windows 3.0 and DOS 4.0
Well, yes, I did get burned by ME as well.
I made the mistake of going with the Vista 64-bit too early for my home computer. Many of the virus/firewall software makers wouldn’t support it yet, and certain applications couldn’t run on it period. Games were extremely hit and miss.
It finally became more stable after SP1 and more vendors built versions to support Vista64. But for about the first 6 months, I was really regreting not just going with the 32 bit version. Lesson learned.
Windows ME was a steaming pile. I think it was their worst OS ever, given how far the company had come by then. What a total pile of garbage.
What qualifies as a needed functionality?
If I were still in IT, and I want to get back into the game, I'd wait as well given the criteria for switching to the new OS. I'd also work up a plan (never hurts to keep options open) to switch desktop to Linux. If the vast majority of users only need the basics, no, special windows only applications, why not. You're already using a *nix infrastructure.
Back when XP came out, the company I was working at, didn't switch from W2K for a couple of years. And anymore, considering XP can handle the multi-cores, is available in x86_64 bit versions, why change to W7? Just because M$ wants to maintain "their" revenue stream?
Not a valid upgrade reason IMHO.
I rebuilt my work laptop with a BETA copy of windows 7 a couple weeks ago and I LOVE IT!!! I think it is faster that the XP os it replaced. Wireless config, our work VLAN, all my software - no problems.
The only problem I’ve had is IE 8 not loading some websites properly.
And it does takes up a rather large chuck of my hard drive.....
If you’re talking about the taskbar image, no, it’s plain vanilla Win2k, with SmoothText’s skinning engine on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.