Windows Vista's left such a bad taste in the mouth it's become one reason most organizations won't be moving to Windows 7 next year. A poll of 1,100 Windows customers has found 84 per cent won't be adopting the successor to Windows Vista during the next twelve months. The survey of IT and management staff by systems management …
Mac's = 10%?
That's pretty impressive.
Unsurprisingly, we are one of the 83% that will be going straight to Windows 7. I'm looking forward to the release candidate so I can prep a laptop with our standard work install and look for issues. I'm imagining SAP will probably give us some grief but what the hell is new?
Interesting times are ahead
It occurs to me that one of the main reason that corps are avoiding the move to Vista, and apparently W7 now too, is the perceived compatibility problems and the retraining that would be required.
Interestingly, these are also the two main reasons usually touted to explain why Linux will never displace Windows on the desktop.
On top of that, there is the whole bloat factor that would require corps to roll out vast numbers of hardware replacements to cope with the vastly increased resource demands of MS latest offerings, were they to choose the upgrade option. This is a problem that Linux does not suffer from.
It seems to me that the only thing keeping most corps on Windows is the "If it aint broke, don't fix it" attitude, but eventually XP will become broken, if only due to extreme old age.
The only question then becomes, how many MS generations will have been skipped by corps? Inevitably, each new windows version will be "improved" (ie made different) and the longer lusers get used to XP the harder it will be be to shift them to what will possibly be a vastly different OS.
Ironically, Linux has the potential to be a less painful transition target than Microsofts.
You see, Microsoft has a problem. For years they have maintained an unholy symbiosis with hardware manufacturers. MS demands that their oems sell Windows *exclusively* in return for "marketing assistance". In return, MS promises to greatly increase the hardware requirements of each new release in order to "stimulate" hardware sales.
This worked fine for a decade or so, as the first versions of Windows were undeniably crappy. WFW 3.11 was the first usable version of Windows, albeit it was little more than a glorified menu system. As well, despite having the same clunky gui as WFW3.11, Windows NT 3.5 was a huge improvement for corps as far as networking and stability was concerned. When the W98/NT4.0 user interface was introduced it added significant additional memory and other hardware requirements but the improvements on offer were worth the upgrades. Also, people weren't dumbed down into a user interface monoculture at that point so they were more amenable to adapting.
Finally, along came W2K/XP. At this point we have the unification of the W95/98 branch with the NT branch. Once again, corporate friendly improvements were added with active directory and the new driver model amongst other things and again, the additional hardware requirements were worth these features alone, and the user interface had remained largely unchanged since the release of 95 so for corps it was a no brainer.
Microsoft sells operating systems, corporates get much more control over their increasing numbers of seats and hardware manufactures receive a steady stream of orders as companies purchase seemingly endless numbers of new PC's to support the newer OS's.
Then MS dropped the ball. After huge amount of blowing their own horns about the amazing new feature set of their next OS, "longhorn", which was intended to be rewritten entirely from scratch, we eventually, after a previously unheard of delay between releases, they eventually served up the steaming turd that is a vista. Longhorn had been quietly and unceremoniously dumped a year or two earlier when it was realised that they were never going to make it work and the industry were starting to make jokes about the ever increasing list of dropped features and delay announcements coming from Redmond. Microsoft was quickly becoming the laughing stock of the industry.
So, it was decided to dust off the old XP code and polish it up and call it a new release. A whole lot of bloat was added in the form of DRM restrictions which are in no way an enticing "feature" as far as corporates are concerned. Security was "improved" in the form of UAC, which might possibly be of small value to home users but to corps, who in the most part have their desktops already locked down and don't want their users to have access to admin rights then once again this new feature was totally unwanted.
To make things worse, in their hurry to differentiate Vista from XP, MS had slapped together a fancy new 3D gui which ultimately was to be Vistas primary "selling point". This too offered nothing to corporate users because not only does the new interface require vast investments in new hardware but it requires that their users (users who have spent 5+ years using XP and have long forgotten how to adapt to new interfaces) will require retraining.
The bottom line is that to move to Vista, corps receive VERY little benefit and what little they get come at great cost.
So, what about the great Saviour that is Windows 7? MS say they have stripped the bloat. I will ignore speculating on exactly why the bloat was there in the first place and simply wonder about how they have done so. I haven't played with W7. Some people report that it is in fact more nimble and less demanding on hardware, but in this game astroturfers, shills and fanboi's abound so it is hard to say.
But what I can say that if it is not substantially similar to XP in the areas of compatibility, user interface and hardware requirements then I doubt very much that corps will have much interest in it either, and quite frankly I cant see Microsoft pulling out most of the code they added with Vista, I think it is far more likely they have simply redone some of the hurried code they produced in the rush to create a "new" product in the wake of the longhorn debacle.
Meanwhile, we have the biggest financial crisis since the 1930's on our hands and businesses are hardly of a mind to go out and purchase new fleets of PC's with the latest Windows extravaganza preloaded. I reckon businesses will continue to ride the depression out as best they can with the equipment they have now. But if Microsoft tries too hard to bully them into dropping XP in favour of W8 I think they might find they will be more successful than they think at shifting business over to a newer platform, it just might not be the platform they are hoping they will move to.
Perhaps 2010 will be the year of Tux?
It's not the compatibility that burns me
It's the bleeding incompatibility with Pre Vista Roaming profiles that's the real pain in the ass. And the printers; Oh God, the printers.... And then there are the GPOs, and the Software deployments that may or may not work even if your user has admin rights on their machine and the Windows 2008 Servers that you need to handle the GPO extensions and the tools to creates the WMI filters that spit out the wrong information on the Version numbers of the OS and the attendant AD changes to the schema, the Logon Scripts that won't run because they did but you can't see the results because they're hidden. It's the Terminator coming to tear your heart out.because that all it does and it will not stop...it just goes on and on
Paris, because she organized all of this, I'm sure of it.
XP does everything
What businesses really need anything that Vista or 7 provide?
Surely if you're wed to MS then XP is enough for every business application. The only motivator to move off XP is planned obsolescence by MS (or by hardware vendors with their arms twisted behind their backs by MS).
If you're going to make a change then may as well break for freedom. Ubuntu et al are now sufficiently mature that you don't need to feel geeky to use em.
Not exactly a M$ fangirl here, but I can happily report that W7 beta is indeed a VAST improvement over Vista. I've been dual-booting it on my laptop since about a week after the beta went public, and so far it's been a damn pleasure to run. Now that Chrome is compatible, the OS is 100% compatible with all my apps. On top of that, the system has never crashed, and it boots quicker than XP does. Most of my equipment around here runs various flavors of Linux, but I'll definitely be picking up a copy of W7 when it's released... and I never thought I'd be willing to pay for a copy of Windows!
There's a couple of things that take getting used to, but not having a Classic mode for the Control Panel isn't enough to make me turn my nose up at it, and the UAC is definitely not the problem it was in Vista.
RE: Goat Jam
My heavens, man,... erudite, intelligent, well thought out, concise comments...
What are you trying to do? Give the Comments Section" a good name...
Note to the Editorial Staff... perhaps you should keep your eye on this guy...
Vista = Bloat, XP = OK
My experience with Vista is very limited: two (new) machines of the dozen or so I work with...
1) While the brand-new dual core Dell XPS Vista laptop boots, I would boot up my seven year old IBM Thinkpad X30 laptop (1.2 GHz single core), connect the wireless, cruise the 'Net, read my email, and cruise eBay before the Dell had gotten to any point of being ready. I'm not a tweaker, but just removed all the unnecessary Windows XP stuff from my X30 that I did not need for a simple Web browser laptop (Netbui, MSN Messenger, etc).
2) My father's new HP Media Center Vista PC with Dual Core, 3 GB RAM, etc, also booted and ran very slow, even with extra MS stuff removed. Would not recognize 2 year old color printers, would not recognize professional grade photo scanners (even with Vista drivers), etc. Ended up going back to XP, everything ran almost immediately. Turns out it is a really fast machine under XP, runs Photoshop 10x faster than with Vista! Go figure.
Vista is a disaster if you try to run anything beyond Microsoft's herd of new software, or try to get drivers for anything more than two years old (Epson and Polaroid must be in MS' bad books, their new Vista drivers just would not work).
I may try a copy of Win 7 in a few years on one of my laptops during one of their occasional XP re-installs, otherwise I'll just stick with XP for now and try the with newest Ubuntu Linux on one of my X30's.
Many thanks to Microsoft for once again being the poster boy for how not to run a company (we used Windows '95 as an example of bad software & bad business in school, and predicted MS' absolute demise by 2005. We forgot about that eating other companies would give it eternal life...)
Thumbs down to MS and their bloated excuse for a relatively simple OS.
can we PLEASE
.......have a bsd /opensolaris icon?
aah... why mac
The number of mac users have gone up in the company i work too, the bad thing is that more and more of the it department are moving from windows to linux (as moving to linux doesn't cost anything.. but moving to a mac costs in hardware and software)...
And now there isn't anybody ho would support mac
Conservative caution in IT long pre-dates Vista
"Windows Vista's left such a bad taste in the mouth it's become one reason most organizations won't be moving to Windows 7 next year."
Nonsense. The fact most companies are conservative on rolling out new operating systems pre-dates the PC, let alone Windows Vista.
No sensible IT manager wants to be on the bleeding edge of technology unless there is a desperate business reason.
Businesses postponing Windows rollouts...
Just like we do like with every.version.of.Windows.
@ ignorant, ranting, bandwagon-riding Goat Jam
"After huge amount of blowing their own horns about the amazing new feature set of their next OS [...] the industry were starting to make jokes about the ever increasing list of dropped features and delay announcements"
So, pretty much like any proposed Linux distro then? Are you genuinely unaware of the phases that ANY product goes through? You don't just say "I'd like to do XYZ!" and then somehow magically create it without problems. I wish the world was so easy. I'd invent an internet-based idiot swatter and point it at El Reg commentards.
"So, it was decided to dust off the old XP code and polish it up and call it a new release"
If that's the case, why would there be compatibilty problems resulting in people staying with XP? Have you actually ever *used* Vista (or Windows 7)? I'd note some of the major codebase changes, but I doubt you have the level of technical knowledge required to understand most of them.
"Security was "improved" in the form of UAC"
So, you advocate Linux, and yet attack Microsoft for implementing the same non-root-privelege system that Linux uses? I agree that Vista's approach was a bit too in-your-face (remember, I'm not defending Microsoft here, I'm just trying to dispell some of the I'm-a-moron-who-automatically-jumped-on-the-Let's-All-Hate-Microsoft-bandwagon-without-thought-or-knowledge nonsense that's floating around here). This is supposed to be a site for people who actually *know* something about IT.
"MS had slapped together a fancy new 3D gui [...] users have long forgotten how to adapt to new interfaces [...] will require retraining"
So, you advocate Linux, and attack users for being unable to adapt, and yet don't realise that any move to Linux would necessitate adaptation and retraining even more so - not only would ALL of the familiar apps be different, half of them would even (gasp!) have different names! If users really are as stupid as you try to portray, then surely this is a step backwards?
Uh... I've personally had Vista running quite useably on a 2003-era Compaq Presario 2500 laptop. It's quite scaleable and the only problem is the graphically-intensive Aero Glass UI, which - you don't seem to realise - is actually optional and quite easy to switch off or reduce from Aero Glass to standard Aero. Oh wait, you're about to mention Vista's incredibly high amounts of RAM usage, aren't you? And XP always has low RAM usage? Oh dear, I suppose you don't understand anything about RAM usage at all then. I would try to point out that Vista is precacheing and doing things that Linux does - after all, unused RAM is wasted RAM; look up articles on "Superfetch" if you want to read it from Vista's point of view - but I suspect it's a bit too complex for your little troll mind.
Well, rebutting your "arguments" (such as they are) has amused me for the last few minutes, but now I have to go and interact with people who actually know something about computers.
Businesses are always risk-averse in their purchasing, so yes they will hold off from upgrading to W7 straight away. Any sensible business will wait for any initial bugs and incompatabilities to be sorted out, and for their business-critical systems to be fully tested (by somebody else of course) on the new OS and maybe a new W7-compatible version to be released.
If W7 gets a good reaction in the general media, the drive to W7 in business wil be on, regardless of what happens in the technical media like El Reg. Vista quickly got a generally-perceived reputation as a poor OS and that effectively killed it as a corporate option.
The move to W7 will also not begin in earnest until the company directors start seeing W7 at their executive lunches, seeing W7 turning up on their shiny new freebie laptops etc. from suppliers, and seeing W7 on CSI or the new James Bond film. Then they will decide that it is time to move to W7, and that will drive the decision, regardless of what IT say. Another advantage of waiting is that many of the staff will already have made the move to W7 on their new home machines, thus creating a pool of informal trainers/troubleshooters/evangelists for W7 to smooth the corporate transition.
Anyone who really thinks that corporate IT decision-making is technically driven needs to come and see what happens in real life.
Dear god these guys are stupid
Of course they won't change to Windows 7, it has bog all to do with vista, its to do with the fact that businesses do not like to change there computer systems in the first place!
Many of these companies are STILL running IE6, possibly still not on the latest xp service pack etc.
If your gonna kick vista in these "news articles" (note the use of inverted commas because the articles on this place are getting less and less like news, more like troll food) at least use a proper reason.
Don't need to replace what isn't broken!
Yes, Windows 7 will be fantastic but for the company I work for it's not a requirement because XP works fine & dandy. Rolling out Windows 7 will be unnecessary and cause unwanted work. Plus 75% of my users are Citrix users so it really doesn't matter what OS their PC's are running.
I can only see us rolling out Windows 7 when we have to. By that, I mean when Dell no longer offer XP as a downgrade option on new PC's and laptops. But even then, if we create an image we can keep rolling out XP 'til the cows come home.
From a personal point of view, I will buy it the moment it is released for my home PC, because it just makes sense to.
Re:Interesting times are ahead
Well I'm definitely not a MS fanboi but I did have a play with Windows 7 and it does indeed seem more accepting of "lesser" hardware than Vista ever was. At least, it runs on my Celeron 1.4 lappy with useable speed whereas I would expect that Vista would take about an hour just to boot.
Then again, with MS' reputation for screwing up the OS between beta and final release I wouldn't be surprised to see that change.
I agree with a lot of what you said though, and I think in this climate they will find it hard to persuade companies to adopt Windows 7. As a home user I almost certainly will use it, but on a professional basis I'm pretty sure we'll be waiting at least a year after release (probably until after the first inevitable service pack!) before we think about extending it past the testing phase.
vista was great!
as without it being installed on my new home 'puter I would never have found just how good ubuntu is!!
It seems a shame ...
That so many organisations are not willing to embrace modern (or more modern) technologies.
"Businesses will postpone Windows 7 rollouts"...
Since when were businesses early adopters? Most companies I know wait until SP1 before even thinking about stepping up....
Coat, my, I'll, get.
Ah, very nice
Recession, XP discontinued and no viable successor from MS. Here's hoping for a Linux surge! :)
Cant see the point
Of Windows Vista or Windows seven, unless I want to replace all the hardware & most of the software & end up with all sorts of other non compatibility issues.
Theres nothing new that we cant already do with Windows 2000/XP & Office 2000
It looks to me like microsoft are going to *have* to support XP for quite some time to come, if so many businesses are reluctant to move 'up' to windows7.
Either that or, given the current financial situation, the IT beancounters will be weighing up the options; buy expensive new kit & retrain for new microsoft OS, or, retrain for a different (linux?) OS?
The big thing in microsoft's favour is the all-pervasive (well, almost) nature of "Office". That, and the fact that most third-party software, particularly in the engineering side, is geared up to some variant of windows or other. (XP / CE / 98 / even 95!) Yes, I still come across Win95 in some industrial applications. Why? Because it still *works* at what it's doing. I've even come across one installation running on DOS!
W7 will make its impact in the consumer market, as MS will (I imagine) stop offering (or making available) any predecessors to the PC manufacturers. I doubt if they'll be bold, or foolish enough to try and *force* it onto business users though. Not until Joe Public has done the "extended Beta trials" for them.
Yep, I agree with most of what you said. My main PC is a dual boot Vista/XP that stays in XP about 99.9% of the time as I can't stand the Vista restrictions. However, I have been running the W7 beta on it via VirtualBox - which is also running various versions of Linux and W95/98/2000 - and W7 does seem like a large improvement over Vista and I'm definitely not an MS fanboi - I'm a web developer who regularly curses IE (*ALL* versions including the supposedly web-standards compatible version 8) and uses Gentoo Linux for my test web servers.
Its easy - Just virtualize the old XP apps, host them in the datacenter / cloud, and install a customized ubuntu for all workstations.. Get away from having to have windows on your desktops and start saving time and money.
Sur-prise Sur-prise Sur-Prise (Gomer Pyle voice)
This is "news"? Windows is going downhill. Microsoft's profits are "flat". Its stock price hasn't gone anywhere since Windows XP was released.
When the smoke clears, there will be another "service pack" of XP, and it might even last a couple of years. What everyone understands now is that they DON'T need another operating system every two/three years like in the past. XP has lasted now for over 7 years, and why change. You just don't get anything for it, and in troubled economic times, there is no compelling reason to upgrade. This is even reinforced more when the "cost" often includes faster hardware that used to be pushed out by Intel, but just doesn't come out that fast any more.
Slower and slower software and hardware that just doesn't keep up. Why bother!!
Sur-prise Sur-prise Sur-prise!
Getting worn out...
I've spent so long working on Microsoft systems, I once felt I'd never switch to anything else.
But why would I want an OS that runs slower (on faster hardware) and doesn't let me run stuff I ran before? I'm sure compatibility takes hard work, especially when keeping things secure. But is it so much harder than it was at Windows 95?
Must the Windows driver model change incompatibly at every release? If not, why does so much stuff need new drivers? Is it the same with Macs and Linux systems? How many businesses expect to change all their peripherals when they buy a new PC? How many home users expect to do the same?
IE7 loads from my "shortcut" key combination in less than a second, but when I installed IE8 recently it was so sluggish to start, I kicked it out the same day. I'm suspicious that Microsoft cares as much about how fast the OS runs. "Never mind the speed, feel the experience!"
I run four PCs here in my tiny home business. There's no chance that they or any replacement will run Vista and it sounds like Windows 7 will be no more compatible with the programs I run now, so I'll be a very late adopter. Maybe we should wait until Microsoft is desperate enough to make what users want. Windows 8? Windows 9? (Wake me up when it runs WinFS, promised with Vista).
Perhaps some really do thrill to the "visual experience". (Does Vista offer much else? Will its replacement) Perhaps we could hear from some of them. Meanwhile, I have work to do.
"This too offered nothing to corporate users because not only does the new interface require vast investments in new hardware but it requires that their users (users who have spent 5+ years using XP and have long forgotten how to adapt to new interfaces) will require retraining."
To be honest, I'd expect someone who works with Windows all day to pick up a new UI pretty darn quick. That was the problem with Vista ironically - it's actually so similar to XP, you're left feeling shortchanged. £200 for a reskinned XP isn't good value for money.
Now we come to the heart of it
That vista was bad and gained worse PR was one thing.
That corporates don't need anything more than xp really changes the environment in a way MS probably imagined. The incumbent supplier now has to compete with itself - and its not doing so well.
I have an old 66Mhz '486 box with a 400Mb HD and 16Mb RAM, running Windows 3.1. Subjectively it doesn't seem any slower than a 2.5GHz dual core based box with a 400GB drive and 2Gb RAM running Vista.
And, apart from the obvious multimedia apps, the Vista box doesn't seem to do a whole lot more than the Win3.1 box.
So what *does* Vista do with its 38x processor speed (ignoring the dual cores), 250x memory and 1000x storage advantage? (not to mention the difference between the 512Mb NVidia graphics compared to the 256Kb Cyrus Logic card in the '486)?
This is news?
MS plan to release new OS version. Corp types decide to wait and see.
This article applies equally well to 95, 98, NT 4, 2000, XP. The reason Vista hit the skids in corporate bourgeware land is that its product lifespan rather amusingly failed to exceed the wait 'n see period.
I expect to see the "Corporates plan to wait for Service Pack 1" article next week.
I do not see the reason to go with either
I run Linux Ubuntu it is safe secure and easy to use, Microsoft is just one big expense. With the new system companies would have to upgrade hardware and even software.
I would like to see a major company take the Linux plunge and see the difference .
So, not the recession then
as the reason IT departments aren't willing to spend millions upgrading a system that works today ? Scared of losing their jobs perhaps ?
Paris - she goes down quicker than my portfolio value did :-)
All post XP Windows useless
No full screen DOS = fail, big application in a VGA graphics mode - fine on XP no hope on VIsta ir Windows 7 - why should we downgrade!
Horses for courses
The problem is Microsoft is mixing their business models. As Goat Jam here has suggested, corps do not like changes, least of all trivial ones, as it punches a substantial hole in any IT manager's budget.
In my IT career experience, the business market has always been made up of stable, long-term (5 years or more) systems with incremental upgrades that are 100% backward compatible. Suppliers adopting that approach has always been successful and a lot of them, dating back to the late 60's are still around and doing well. The same applies to the home market, albeit a lot have specialised into producing games, but that's only a natural evolution.
Microsoft on the other hand have tried to mix the two and yes, XP has been used successfully in the business environment but only because it has roots in NT which in turn, was hugely influenced by VMS. Because it had all the security features of NT, it can be locked down for the business environment while the home environment used it openly but painfully with the plethora of malware filters.
If W7 is to succeed, it has to be 100% backward compatible with XP but better. The question is how better? This the question Microsoft is not addressing or if they are, they are thinking better == prettier, hence more eye-candy and "better user experience". I can't speak for anyone else but my definition of better user experience is better response, crash-free sessions, no worries about malware, the ability run my collection of software acquired though years, to install all the software I can eat and having a system that just works. At the end of the day, an operating system, which is what Windows is, is simply a supervisor program that controls your hardware, not some all-encompassing mass that lets you play DVDs, surf the Net and fulfils your every desire at the same time... Can I mention Linux now?
I've not tried it but it's rubbish...(!!?)
I've not tried product X, but watch as I attempt to preemptively dismiss any compliments it gets as "fanboi-ism".
Comments like that taint the authority of that whole page of tedious, recycled "history of business o/s" pseudo-analysis. And on that basis, I dismiss your dismissal. Given your icon choice and last statment, I call "fanboi" and thus, by your own logic, render your post null and void.
What's actually new about this?
As far as I can see - not much.
Every business I've ever worked for has been deliberately slow to adopt new operating systems. It was the same going from NT4 to 2000 to XP. I don't think the reluctance to embrace Win7 the moment Microsoft ship it out of the door has anything to do with Vista's perceived failures.
In fact, I expect Win7 will bring with it all the same compatibility problems that Vista did - it's just that we're now two and a bit years further down the line and most of the hardware drivers have had a chance to catch up. If anyone is still running legacy software or hardware that has to have XP, Windows 7 isn't going to be the answer to their problems.
I don't really buy into the user-retraining argument either. Vista isn't that different to XP from your average user's point of view. Programs still load in the same way (double-click / Start - click) and the start menu is still where you expect it to be. The real culture shock will come when people are forced to leave Office 2003 behind. (For the record, I think Office 2007 is much improved, but I do occasionally still miss my drop-down menus!)
The main reason migration will be slow, though, is surely that Windows XP continues to be good enough for most businesses whose users just need to run Office (2003) and IE.
Ash: what did you see ?
"Unsurprisingly, we are one of the 83% that will be going straight to Windows 7", Ash Chapman
"A poll of 1,100 Windows customers has found 84 per cent won't be adopting the successor to Windows Vista during the next twelve months"
Ash: what did you see. I read it as saying 84% won't be going straight to Windows 7 ..
But what if your workstation has local hardware, such as scanners or 3D graphics such as for CAD? Those don't virtualize well. Also, virtualization servers are themselves an outlay that businesses may wish to avoid.
sod the corprates you can't play dvds in anything but windows media player in the beta. Boo.
However there is one amazing advance, so advanced that it's almost a clincher! It can SCALE! desktop images. I mean damn, that's amazing. No more centre, tile, stretch, the darn thing can scale! However it can't play dvds. What to do what to do, power to scale desktops or no drm.
@AC Tuesday 14th April 2009 09:31 GMT
Please tell me you forgot the joke icon!
What has Vista over 3.1
Errr the internet, USB, Serial ATA, A/V, photo, plug and play, wireless. in fact pretty much all hardware and software advances since 1994
My work laptop doesn't even have SP3 for XP yet. Large corporations do tend to be careful with upgrades, moreso when you have to test for compatibility with McAfee/Odyssey/Cisco/Pointsec/Unicenter/random-vpn-client...
On the other hand, I'm scheduled for a hardware refresh and am waiting for a New! Shiny! Pavillion(so far the only good thing of having been borged, this Latitude sucks planets through straws)
...this will be "The One" for sure!!
Microsoft has only itself to blame over Vista. Yes I have tried it and yes it is that bad, before you ask.
Something that still puzzles be is this artificial euphoria surrounding Windows 7. Yes I have tried it and yes it is an improvement, before you ask again.
One item worth noting for future reference, the later betas of Vista were never quite as bad as the final RTM release. Yes I...you get the picture.
It's as if Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, decided to add bloat (it's a feature) at the last possible moment to dumbfound their customers and business partners alike. Will history repeat itself is the question nobody wants to ask.
Lots have switched to GNU/Linux
Brian wrote: "I would like to see a major company take the Linux plunge and see the difference "
e.g. The French police saved 50 million euros.
e.g. IBM, Novell, several banks and lots of governments use GNU/Linux.
@Jason Togneri and a few other
I doubt you ever worked in any large business/org. The real world doesn't work that way.
1. Large business/agency/etc, don't like change. There is unwritten rule "if it isn't broken, don't touch it".
2. There are a lot of very specified software/hardware, which requires the OS must be compatible with them. This is the main reason why Linux/Mac/other non MS OSes will never take over windows family. There is nothing vista/W7 will offer, and the risk to run in problem with business critical software/hardware is too big. There are more things to worry about than just stupid shinning new OS. Give you one example, the place I work for, use a very specified software. When out desktop changed from win98 to XP (we skipped win2k for general users), one small compatibility problem was detected. To date, even after many new "development" which were targeted the "new" OS, it is still not fixed. In case anyone ask, the bloody thing works perfectly fine under win2k or 98, so we knew it is XP problem.
3. It is true that IT decisions are not made by IT people. However there is a limit. Those brain dead management who always make bad decisions, knew where they cannot go. Unless they are going to change the whole software/hardware, they are not going to change the OS. They are not "that" stupid to change working OS (be it XP, win2k, or else, and yes, some large places stick with win2k, even 98).
4. Never ever underestimate the stupidity of people. Some people are simply brain dead when their problem was any where related to computer. I'd expect anyone who dealt with real lusers would know it.
Re: Vista vs 3.1
Sorry to use you as an example case - I do "intellectually" include anything else prior to XP.
"................What has Vista over 3.1
Errr the internet, USB, Serial ATA, A/V, photo, plug and play, wireless. in fact pretty much all hardware and software advances since 1994........."
Yes, fine, but what if you don't need any of this? As a previous correspondent(s) noted it's "horses for courses" Why use an operating system that is in itself more complex than the software/task you need to fulfil, or won't in fact run it?
I have always had this nagging doubt about Redmond and what/who is in control up there. Is it just incredibly sloppy workmanship on the part of the developers, excessively bad communications between the different groups of developer or is it that all the developers are kept in a sweaty basement and are constantly subjugated by the sales division?
The last possibility could actually be true and that all the decent developers long since built themselves a tunnel and have escaped.
It seems that when MS comes out with a new OS, it has new functions and specifications - some of which will never be used - and most of these are because it's considering just it's own stable of applications and no-one else's: and that despite the plethora of SDKs it puts out for people to use.
Maybe I'm just a little jaded having been in this game since Qdos.
Previous versions of Windows never stayed around long enough for people to get use to them. MS left XP on the shelf for too long and the difference between XP and Vista was too much for companies to stomach. Then they panicked and threw up a hair ball and called it Windows 7.
Were it not for the worst recession for a century companies would move to Windows 7 because they have no choice, now they are fighting to stay alive and the latest toy from Microsoft is low on the "to do" list...
Most firms are conservative, once they are trapped in a vendor lock they don't really struggle to break free, most firms could migrate to open standards and upgrade their systems to something Unix based (any will do) but they don't.
It is possible that the firms that survive the recession may look more favourably on Unix/Linux and open source solutions - the next few years are not going to be good for Microsoft.
not sure that Microsoft cares
I'm not sure that Microsoft cares if these huge enterprises deploy Win7 in any quick fashion. Most of the enterprises are on annual software contracts and so they will be paying Microsoft no matter what version of windows they will actually be using.
In this case they will be paying in advance for the ability to deploy Win7, but won't be doing it. Seems like that will lower Microsoft's cost of support as well as XP has to be pretty sorted out by now.
Stop whining and get on with it
Just get on with it.
No, the crappy app you bought fifteen years ago from a company which went bust eight years ago won't work. No, the sloppy thing some junior manager knocked up one weekend in Access 97 won't work.
Spend some money for a change and get the benefits of a proper OS. XP was released in 2001. And we all know that when it comes to software, years are like dog years. It might as well have been released in 1936. Roaming profiles clash with Offline Folders, GPOs are a pig, the Event Logs are a nightmare and I can't wait to get rid of this antiquated crud.
"and I can't wait to get rid of this antiquated crud."
Moving to Linux desktops & BSD servers, then?
Except in Architecture....
"That's thanks to a large number of IT people graduating from college having used a Mac and bringing their skills and experience into the workplace."
Nope, not if they're architects. There's no useful architectural software on Macs these days.
As for Win7, we're migrating our 10 PCs to it as soon as we can. We're very happy with Vista, but are even happier with the way Win7beta runs, so we'll make the jump as soon as we can.