back to article MS pitches Windows 7 at biz world ahead of Chrome OS release

Microsoft is telling biz punters not to put off upgrading their operating system to Windows 7 while they wait for Internet Explorer 9 to be released. Unsurprisingly, the software vendor is encouraging business customers to adopt Windows 7 ahead of the expected spring 2011 arrival of IE 9. Redmond typically pushes customers to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

bah same problem as linux

It just wont run all my games:(

would love to have an OS that you can easily trim all the Fat off it and just have what you need.

1
0
Unhappy

IE9 ? Win7 ?

And if your major big business is XP + IE6 with no plans to upgrade ?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Then it's time...

to re-assess your business and plans.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

If your major big business...

If your major big business is supporting a 9 year old operating system, with a browser first introduced 9 years ago that's been on life support for 4 years... with both operating system and browser obsoleted by not one but *two* generations of development, you really are doing it wrong.

0
0
FAIL

Welcome...

...to most government IT departments. And their contracted service providers. Not because they want their customers to be running obsolete kit, but because Govt mandates it because it is 'cheaper'.

No concept of spend to save anywhere there.

0
0
Silver badge

@IE9 ? Win7 ?

"And if your major big business is XP + IE6 with no plans to upgrade ?"

Then slap linux on the PCs, and run XP in a VM with IE6. You can firewall it so it only connects to your corporate Intranet IP range, forcing users to use modern/safer browsers on the host OS to access the wild web of wibbles.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Doing their best to combat unemployment in the IT sector

And I'm not complaining!

0
0
WTF?

If your major big business...

If you're a major big business with 10,000+ pc's are you really going to spend $50 + per seat to upgrade to something that just makes things a little prettier?

Not to mention the majority of the operating hardware not being up to windows 7 minimum requirements, requiring even more outlay.

Businesses need something functional, there was a need with prior versions of windows to upgrade due to the sheer number of bugs in those earlier versions. But XP for the most part works.

Secondly, all the IT Personnel need to be trained, then staff need to be trained. The costs spiral out of control.

Thirdly a lot of these companies run proprietary software, written donkey's years ago, with ridiculous support contracts that won't run on Windows 7, getting systems like this upgraded costs a fortune.

There are only 2 paths that will induce demand for something like windows 7, 1 is a software package that the company must have that requires windows 7+, the other is there is no support for the existing product.

1
2
Silver badge

@annodomini2

If you're a major big business with 10,000+ PCs then you may not have to spend $50 per seat to upgrade as it's probably going to be taken care of in your volume license - after all, MS would like you to upgrade. The majority of the operating hardware will likely be fine with Windows 7 given that Core 2 Duo has been out since 2006 and hardware generally has a write-down period of around 3 years although renewal is likely longer. This should mean you are unlikely to find much predecessor kit about, but even then I have run Windows 7 on a 3GHz P4 just fine - it can automatically strip out a lot of the flash graphics to make itself more performant.

What it brings in the functional aspect is a 64-bit operating system which is far nicer and, in my opinion, easier to use than XP. It's also more secure. I have both on 2 different machines and XP just sucks after a period of using 7. Upgrading to Windows 7 is a great opportunity for companies to make the move to 64-bit and is exactly what I am witnessing with my current employer.

I'd go easy on the whole "staff need to be trained". IT people yes, but general staff should be able to use the OS. Logon, find app, do shit. It has a start menu, a programs section, pinned items and an ability to search for an application. All but one of those are in XP. You'd have to be a bit thick to not be able to make the switch as an end-user as the same old apps will be there.

Proprietary software can likely be installed in compatibility mode or you could just run up a XP VM in order to use it - don't hamstring an entire enterprise for the apps of the few. Most businesses just use the same old apps (mail, internet, office) with a few specialties thrown in, very few of which will be an issue. Such large businesses will likely have VM infrastructure and/or Citrix remote access infrastructure - either of which can be used for legacy apps.

The main demand paths for Windows 7 use will be (in no particular order):

1. The end of MS support - 2014 is a long way off but best of luck with the last-man-standing approach

2. The rising costs of XP support - there will likely be 3rd party software providers who don't want to support XP just like there will be ones who don't want to re-write/engineer for 7. Persuading them will come at a cost.

3. The need for 64-bit computing - XP-64 driver support is awful.

4. Software being 7-only

You mention 2 of the above and I certainly wouldn't underestimate the power of any of the above for pushing even large corporates to using 7 over XP. Using an OS that's 2 versions behind and around 9 years old may be seen as an unsustainable/unacceptable operational risk.

IMHO, it's becoming a tougher proposition to justify remaining on XP than moving to 7.

1
1
Stop

Which browser?

Microsoft chose to only make IE9 available at the enormous cost of upgrading** and it just ain't worth it.

Just install XP with any modern browser and remove access to IE6. Job done.

Why should a business building and selling spod rods and gangel pins be interested in filling Microsoft's coffers? It's Microsoft's business to extract more money by obsoleting IT, a job which they do extremely well. It's the gangel pin manufacturer's business to sell more spod rods and keep costs low.

If XP was good enough 8 years ago, it's good enough for now.

** Costs include: training, planning, migration, hardware, software, testing, support, personnel, infrastructure updates... Not migrating includes costs such as: [none of the above].

0
1

Good points and bad points

"If you're a major big business with 10,000+ PCs then you may not have to spend $50 per seat to upgrade as it's probably going to be taken care of in your volume license - after all, MS would like you to upgrade. The majority of the operating hardware will likely be fine with Windows 7 given that Core 2 Duo has been out since 2006 and hardware generally has a write-down period of around 3 years although renewal is likely longer. This should mean you are unlikely to find much predecessor kit about, but even then I have run Windows 7 on a 3GHz P4 just fine - it can automatically strip out a lot of the flash graphics to make itself more performant."

Due to the recession a lot of companies haven't upgraded a lot of their old hardware, cost cutting everywhere.

Moving to 7 on these older systems as you state is not impossible, but it compromises performance and as a result the efficiency of the worker, this adds cost.

"What it brings in the functional aspect is a 64-bit operating system which is far nicer and, in my opinion, easier to use than XP. It's also more secure. I have both on 2 different machines and XP just sucks after a period of using 7. Upgrading to Windows 7 is a great opportunity for companies to make the move to 64-bit and is exactly what I am witnessing with my current employer."

1. For the majority of workers, who know little if nothing about PC's other than what they do in their daily tasks (e.g. Email, Spreadsheets, Word Processing, Presentations, Internet and those proprietary applications), how would 64bit computing assist with the majority of these tasks?

2. Security is a relative and abstract term, 'more secure' is subjective and a matter of opinion.

3. I have 7 on my desktop at home and XP on my home laptop, work laptop and desktop. Personally I know how to use both and while 7 is nice and pretty, XP works perfectly fine in both environments again this is a matter of opinion, but if the worker feels more confident with what they are doing, they will be more productive.

64Bit allows more RAM to be used, 64bit extensions on the processor to be used, the RAM benefit with 7 is because the OS itself consumes too much relative to XP and with certain types of applications that consume large amounts of RAM, Graphics work generally. The majority don't need this capability.

64Bit extensions are good for math heavy programs, but the majority of general apps do not make use of them unless it's been specifically written for x64.

"Proprietary software can likely be installed in compatibility mode or you could just run up a XP VM in order to use it - don't hamstring an entire enterprise for the apps of the few. Most businesses just use the same old apps (mail, internet, office) with a few specialties thrown in, very few of which will be an issue. Such large businesses will likely have VM infrastructure and/or Citrix remote access infrastructure - either of which can be used for legacy apps."

Why would a company spend money on a new OS to run their applications in a virtual machine, when it works perfectly fine on what they already have?

"1. The end of MS support - 2014 is a long way off but best of luck with the last-man-standing approach

2. The rising costs of XP support - there will likely be 3rd party software providers who don't want to support XP just like there will be ones who don't want to re-write/engineer for 7. Persuading them will come at a cost.

3. The need for 64-bit computing - XP-64 driver support is awful.

4. Software being 7-only:"

1. True support will end, but why upgrade now when you have 3 and a bit years of support remaining?

2. True, this I didn't cover

3. See above

4. I covered this

"You mention 2 of the above and I certainly wouldn't underestimate the power of any of the above for pushing even large corporates to using 7 over XP. Using an OS that's 2 versions behind and around 9 years old may be seen as an unsustainable/unacceptable operational risk."

As the software is 9years old many are experienced in using it, they know what to look for, how to set it up and adapt it to their systems. The majority of major issues are known and are either addressed or acceptable work arounds are in place.

Companies will spend the money to upgrade under 2 basic conditions:

1. Support is not cost effective, i.e. it's cheaper to upgrade. (we both covered this)

2. There are benefits to be had, which will save/make the company money.

But there is a 3rd outsider:

They will upgrade some of their systems earlier to gain that knowledge needed beforehand.

At the end of the day some companies will upgrade early, some won't for the majority of the above reasons.

0
1
Silver badge
Thumb Down

@Mark 65

"...but general staff should be able to use the OS. Logon, find app, do shit. It has a start menu, a programs section, pinned items and an ability to search for an application. All but one of those are in XP. You'd have to be a bit thick to not be able to make the switch as an end-user as the same old apps will be there."

I take it you have not had to deal with a lot of end users then?

Tech folk will adapt quite easily, but sadly a lot of others get stuck if an icon has moved across the desktop!

Any change for a medium-big company needs a lot of thought, planning, and training to work happily. Going from XP to 7 is one of them, you could more or less change to Ubuntu as easily (assuming all business tasks could be solved with Linux equivalents and/or an XM VM) but most folk would realise that is not trivial.

It is not just the droids who can't/won't apply some initiative to find and solve minor problems, it is also all of the other issues of compatibility (user management, networks, applications and data) that need thorough testing before roll-out.

Yes, you have to move from XP eventually, but why rush if there is no compelling reason for your business? And when it comes, why assume Windows must be your next move? Maybe it will be, but analyse all you actually *need* to do, and consider the bigger picture of license costs, long term data/application sovereignty, system security and user training first. You just might find Apple or Linux are a better bet overall...

0
0

Whatever happened to

BeOS.

Now that had massive potential.....

0
0
Vic
Silver badge

BeOS

...is now called "Haiku".

http://www.haiku-os.org/

It's quite pretty. I am sure many people will like it. It's not for me, though.

Vic.

0
0
WTF?

Web Standardisation

"web standardisation" - is that supposed to mean them finally bowing to web standards, or another reference to their attempt to set their own again?

I still can't use web access utilities from many big cproprations, to control their products, on anything other than IE. It's a real pain.

1
0
FAIL

This Is Their Plan?

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. As if anyone is waiting for IE9.

How about offering a compelling NEW feature? No, ribbonizing an existing applet does NOT count.

Actually I'd buy in if you removed some things too, like WFP, IE*, MSN, Outhouse, etc. Or simplify WindowsUpdate so its not a house of cards requiring half a dozen services, a dozen COM registrations and a healthy dose of daily prayer.

0
0
Grenade

How about removing unwanted features instead?

Say, for starters, the draconian DRM?

0
0
Linux

There is a way

"Actually I'd buy in if you removed some things too, like WFP, IE*, MSN, Outhouse, etc. Or simplify WindowsUpdate so its not a house of cards requiring half a dozen services, a dozen COM registrations and a healthy dose of daily prayer."

Understood. Perhaps most importantly, you forget to mention getting rid of Windows Genuine Annoyance. And there *is* an OS that arrives with none of that installed :)

0
0
Silver badge

@Eddie Johnson

I'd especially like the ability to have a windows update more akin to the Ubuntu/Linux distro type package updaters whereby you can enter sources and get fed the updates as you wish.

They would do well to use such a system as a basis for a revamp.

0
0
Jobs Halo

IE9 really? how about SP1?

How hard M$ work to make you forget that none of their OS's have ever worked properly pre-service pack. fanboys argue all you want, the truth will set you free. All bar vista ofc which never worked.

Anyway, ye, don't wait for IE9 ... live it up like 1999 "your putting your most needed application into a web browser?? the thing that crashes most yes!? " ) (support magic btw)

Wait for SP1 . god knows how bad the innards of 7 are, the complete back track on all the vista work. basically XP done right (almost) with vista explorer enhancements.

and SP1 seems to be a collection of hotfixes already installed, in beta for almost a year and still has bugs?

Sound like something you want as a base? :)

2
1
WTF?

Oh come on, really ?

"After all, Google's Chrome OS could arrive on some netbooks as early as next month, so perhaps Redmond is simply trying to stay ahead of the game, or else admitting it needs an insurance policy to keep Wall Street and its investors happy. "

I doubt anyone - least of all MSor Google - seriously believes that Chrome OS Is going to be competing with Windows on the biz desktop. And if anyone on wall street thinks that, then they've been listening to Rob Enderle (unlikely) and deserve everything they get.

In any case, if MS really gave a toss about wall street they'd have pitched Balmer over the side long ago.

1
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums