The SmoothText Project on MSFN
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 ...
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.
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.