Businesses not in a rush to move to Windows 7

Rik · Apr 14, 2009, 09:10:26

According to El Reg:

QuoteWindows 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 specialist Kace also found three quarters will stick with Windows XP during the next year rather than move to Windows Vista as a stepping stone on to Windows 7 - expected this year.

Sebby · Apr 14, 2009, 13:17:29

It's a shame, because Windows 7 is going to be good, but the total failure of Vista is already ruining its chances before release!

Glenn · Apr 14, 2009, 14:21:41

Most companies won't touch it until SP1 has been released and proven

Rik · Apr 14, 2009, 15:01:22

Some individuals too, Glenn.

bobleslie · Apr 14, 2009, 15:23:20

I've been using Win 7 for some time now. Frankly, it's buggy and it provides little or no advance on my hardware versus Vista SP1 which I have installed on my two main machines. So I've deleted it. For once, I'm not going to bother upgrading to Win 7.

Rik · Apr 14, 2009, 15:27:50

That's right, Bob, come and join us Luddites.

)

bobleslie · Apr 14, 2009, 15:36:13

Yesterday, I installed PCLinuxOS 2009.1 on the Win 7 HDD. I'm a card carrying luddite ( since the early 1990's).

Gary · Apr 14, 2009, 19:05:59

If it works for you, why change it, and Vista since SP1 has gotten much better, its just because a scape goat alas by the media, a bit like Apple make the best phone since mobiles began, but only just got round to adding cut and paste and mms messaging, or Symantec make the worst AV, yet it has some of the best detection ratings in the business, all have become media stereo types along with Vista, and its yawn worthy news on so many sites now I prefer looking out the window and seeing real life

Sebby · Apr 14, 2009, 19:18:31

I have to disagree about Vista. It's not a scape goat at all. It's a failure because it's so bad for the majority of users.

Den · Apr 14, 2009, 19:25:10

I like Vista

I have three computers, two with Vista and one with XP but if I had to chose Vista would win everytime (and I use it for business) 8)

D-Dan · Apr 14, 2009, 20:43:52

As much as I hate to admit it - since I gave Vista a 3rd chance (having installed it and replaced it with XP again twice before) I'm getting quite comfortable with it now. Mind you, this is only since I upgraded my CPU, graphics card and installed additional RAM. It really is a bigger resource hog than any OS should be, but at least now I don't notice it.

Steve

bobleslie · Apr 14, 2009, 20:54:06

Oooh....rebellion in the air! I love it.

How anyone can describe 200 million copies in less than 2 years a 'failure' amuses me no end.

The main category of user that seems to have the most problems with Vista are Mac users and Linux administrators.

drummer · Apr 14, 2009, 21:55:26

My sister works for a very large law firm and they only went to XP from Win2k about two years ago when they upgraded their hardware, primarily because they're only concerned with security, reliability and cost.

I'm guessing most large businesses would willingly use some form of Linux if the directors weren't already familiar with the Windows environment and they could get their heads around the notion that "reliable" "secure" and "free" aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

My prediction is that most businesses will be using Win7 about three years from now.

Sebby · Apr 14, 2009, 21:59:57

Quote from: bobleslie on Apr 14, 2009, 20:54:06
Oooh....rebellion in the air! I love it.

How anyone can describe 200 million copies in less than 2 years a 'failure' amuses me no end.

The main category of user that seems to have the most problems with Vista are Mac users and Linux administrators.

I hated it when I was a Windows user.

Don't get me wrong; I like the concept and I like what MS have done, but the implementation is poor.

And anyway, if it was such a success, why would MS be rushing out Windows 7 so quickly?

john · Apr 15, 2009, 00:02:21

Quote from: bobleslie on Apr 14, 2009, 20:54:06
How anyone can describe 200 million copies in less than 2 years a 'failure' amuses me no end.

And that's just the legal ones

Rik · Apr 15, 2009, 00:06:04

Though many of those simply shipped with new computers, of course. How many people chose to upgrade would be a more interesting figure.

Dopamine · Apr 15, 2009, 00:24:34

Quote from: Sebby on Apr 14, 2009, 21:59:57
And anyway, if it was such a success, why would MS be rushing out Windows 7 so quickly?

To make money.

The majority of PC users neither know nor care about their OS, they just use what comes bundled with their PC. They'll upgrade when they feel that their equipment is out of date and/or things have moved on and they're falling behind the times.

XP users are just one development out of date, which doesn't sound too bad. When they're two OSs behind though, there will be loads who upgrade for no other reason than because it's the thing to do and because XP sounds "old". Same as those who upgrade from perfectly functional seven year old cars to new or year old models: it's perception rather than a genuine or practical necessity. Microsoft exploit it very well.

D-Dan · Apr 15, 2009, 00:29:59

Much as I'd like to agree with you on this, Rik (and I really would) your analogy is flawed. A car from 100 years ago will still work perfectly well on today's roads (assuming the car is well maintained) without modification. A computer from 15 years ago won't work on todays technological roads. It will do what it did 15 years ago, but doesn't have a prayer on the new speed bumps.

Steve

Rik · Apr 15, 2009, 00:48:44

I wasn't arguing about cars, merely that many of the sales were as a result of new computers shipping with Vista installed, Steve.

Dopamine · Apr 15, 2009, 01:02:50

I understand your point, Steve, but that's why I used seven years as an example.

I make my living from the web, yet happily use XP daily on a five year old machine, including CPU intensive Photoshop and video editing work, and haven't come across any situation where I've needed a better OS. More speed would be nice at times, but that's about all.

My family use a seven year old PC with XP, and I never hear a complaint. It's noticeably slower than modern machines, but in everyday use they are perfectly happy with it.

I'm not a Vista user, but can anyone tell me anything worthwhile that it can do that XP can't? And what will Windows 7 do that Vista doesn't? ("Work properly" aside

)

Good luck - and my grudging admiration - to Microsoft in wringing money out of us, but I do wish they would stop! We don't reinvent the alphabet every few years, so why do they have to push new OSs on us? Haven't they heard that there's supposed to be a global financial downturn?

JB · Apr 15, 2009, 09:40:03

After it had been on the streets for a couple of years and had 'most' of the teething troubles sorted, Win XP became a very hard act to follow by MS. It did pretty much what users wanted, was stable, speedy and I'm guessing that other than being supplied with new machines most users 'upgraded' to Vista because it looked more pretty and less aged rather than actually understanding what goes on at kernel level.

IMHO in Win 7, MS will be looking to capture many of the XP users who post Vista (and without XP updates) will be looking for an OS on a par with XP. Plus of course the fact that new machines with an MS OS will have Win 7 as standard.

talos · Apr 15, 2009, 09:56:44

Quote from: Rik on Apr 15, 2009, 00:48:44
I wasn't arguing about cars, merely that many of the sales were as a result of new computers shipping with Vista installed, Steve.

I and many others upgraded our Mc's last year and promptly took Vista out and put XP in, I wouldn't think many bought new computers just because of installed Vista, I think many of us have become wary of Microsoft's new "improved" systems.

bobleslie · Apr 15, 2009, 11:40:04

Here's an interesting insight into the Vista image problem.

As for downgrading a Vista-capable PC to XP, that's like kicking yourself in the nuts!

Rik · Apr 15, 2009, 12:41:20

Good read, thanks Bob.

Glenn · Apr 15, 2009, 12:48:46

Each time MS releases a new OS people/companies are very loathed to follow. XP was no different, it was bloated compared to W98 & W2k, but given time MS sorted out most of the issues.

Steve · Apr 15, 2009, 12:55:21

Thanks good read. What's always puzzled me is why the OS should be put forward as the showcase of any computer system. I know the roll it plays but surely it should be as unobtrusive as possible, after all it's the hardware and role specific software that gets the job done not the OS. I have no wish to get excited about this OS or that I just want it to shut up keep quiet and let me work without interruption.

Sebby · Apr 15, 2009, 13:09:31

Quote from: bobleslie on Apr 15, 2009, 11:40:04
As for downgrading a Vista-capable PC to XP, that's like kicking yourself in the nuts!

No, it's like stroking yourself on the nuts.

talos · Apr 15, 2009, 13:57:36

QuoteAs for downgrading a Vista-capable PC to XP, that's like kicking yourself in the nuts!

Far from it, when you have not got time to "play" with a new system, you will go for one you know and trust to get the work done. I played with Vista over the next few months, and I quite like it, but I dont trust it enough to totally rely on it.

Rik · Apr 15, 2009, 14:27:08

I think that's at the heart of an issue. If a new OS fundamentally changes how we do things, it slows us down. I tend to resist such change unless I can see an end result that will benefit me, and with Vista, that simply didn't happen.

Sebby · Apr 16, 2009, 00:09:42

I actually think that Vista is more logical. It's a big learning curve as it's so different to XP, but the changes are good. As I say, its the performance that lets it down.