digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Vista: Companies Can Wait

businessweek.com — It's been five years since the last release of Microsoft's Windows operating system, and more than three since the previous iteration of Office . So now that businesses can purchase the two, you might think there would be a lot of pent-up demand. Not so much.

Who dugg this? Made popular Dec 2, 2006

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

67 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+45Vista: everyone can wait.
  • JeffH, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32Companies NEVER jump on new OS'. This is old news and the article seems like it jumps on the "hate on Vista because it's a new Microsoft OS" trend (just like XP). Most big companies still use Windows 2000, because that's all they need. It's lightweight and gets the job done. Vista's new features favor the home consumer, it's probably never going to be a big hit with the businesses. It seems like Office 2007 is the same way (though I think that big companies will start using Office 2007 sooner, because they are vastly superior to the older versions in terms of productivity and results that can be pumped from it).
  • jdstorer2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24I think you mean: "Why spend vast amounts of money when you already have a product that works?"

    And I agree. The only way we'll ever upgrade is if it is forced, and even then, we'll probably just image the machines with XP.
  • terrya64, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21We still use Windows 2000, and I work at one of the largest companies in the world.
  • TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Microsoft has never just cut off support. For example, they planned to stop supporting Windows 98 around 2002, but due to popular demand they continued to support it for 2 years. XP is slated to be supported until 2009
  • Eleo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15It's not outlandish to cut off support for SP1, considering SP2 is just a Windows Update away. It's not like there are really any mindblowing performance or usability advantages to SP1 over SP2 (in fact it's the other way around if I'm not mistaken.)
  • detrate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17The first intelligent comment yet.

    Obviously all these other tech buffs have never worked in or been around 'the industry'
  • akinder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Join the "rebellion"? Get the ***** over it. It's a ***** computer operating system. Use what works for you, if it's Linux, then good for you. Praise Linus to the highest, whatever you fanjacks do, stop shoving your zealotry down everyone elses throats.
  • TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12he must be using a typewriter
  • rikcando, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Currently sitting at the desk of one of those big companies (auto indusrty) , running Windows 2000 Pro. Received a memo we are transitioning to XP one or two user at a time. Expecting a couple months to get it done.
    The Excel and Word I use here are both 2003 verion, with no update in site.

    Sounds like you nailed it.
  • rmjb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10We'll just do what we do now. Deploy machines as they come in. When our supplier ships then with Vista is when we'll "upgrade" but existing machines work just fine as they are.

    - rmjb
  • schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20Wait until the marketing begins. They could use FUD to say that old versions of Windows are dangerous (or utter c**p). Yet, the danger is that it would drive them away (to Linux). A Microsoft's dilemma...
  • mxfreak92, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9hell, i know IT business's that havent seen the need for the xp switch yet
  • MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -14/+22Why spend vasts amounts of money on something that works? The only reason I can see businesses and/or governments upgrading is because Microsoft cuts off support for older operating systems. Cutting off your customers is not a good way of doing business.
  • culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"...you might think there would be a lot of pent-up demand. Not so much."

    You might... if you're absolutely clueless about how costly it is to roll-out any new OS in a corporate environment.
  • tomalakborg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8We use office 2k3 and xp pro - no problems, and when one crops up, there's plenty of other instances of it, so it gets fixed quickly. With the revenue of your business on the line, you can't afford to live on the bleeding edge - especially not if what you have works just fine.

    There's no way in hell I'm upgrading my machines (hardware and software) to vista just so the lawyers can look at aero while they type in word.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7terrya64, you don't happen to work at Microsoft, do you?..
  • cyrix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7That's very true. We just jumped to XP 2 years ago at our univeristy. We have no plans whatsoever to jump to vista within the next 2-3 years either.
  • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@NinjaBoy, save yourself some money and do one of three things.

    a) Get a new desktop background.
    b) Get an new freeeware GUI for windows.
    c) Go buy some rose-colored glasses.
  • Araxen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The company I work for just literally upgrade to XP within the last month. It'll be another 10 years before Vista see's the light of day here.
  • Bob042, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Our school (I know it's not a business) just got XP last year, and that's ONLY because they got a bunch of grant money to buy new computers, and those computers happened to run XP. There's no way they would put an actual graphics card other than integrated into all the computers just for the fancy shinies of Vista.
  • InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6We have a mix of W2K and XP here. I personally like W2K over XP. There is zero interest in upgrading to Vista. It just isn't going to happen. We have all the service packs archived to XP and W2K, so if we need to rebuild a system, it's no big deal.

    Our newer systems are running Linux and KDE. Firefox + OpenOffice + Gimp takes care of 99.9% of our needs. Our servers run LAMP. No problems. Gotta luv it.
  • cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If there were Digg a few years ago, one could search and replace an XP upgrade thread with Vista for XP, and you'd almost not know the difference.
  • cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Very few enterprises roll out new a NEW OS today, they roll out new PCs that happen to have the newest OS on them. Buy decisions are put off until the new OS is available, but new OS only roll outs are really quite rare.
  • 8177, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I agree. I don't understand the great need for an upgrade. Even though I use OSX I like using XP. it works fine. They should spend more money on perfecting the os they have instead of recreating it.
  • Eleo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4http://digg.com/users/BobJonesSucks/submitted

    Are you even for real.

    Read his comments for more hilarity.
  • cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I don't think its the device upon which he's typing. Its the 3 bottles of Nyquil.
  • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is not surprising at all, and is actually expected. Don't touch something when there's nothing wrong with it. Companies will not suddenly go out and spend millions on deploying Vista and retraining everyone out of whim.

    For those of you with short memories, the same exact non-reaction happened in 1998, 2000, and 2001 when Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP came out respectively.

    Heck some of the computers I help fix still run Windows 98 an a large chunk still run Windows 2000. Companies don't need to upgrade and likely won't unless it comes with their PC. Besides Vista isn't entirely a business oriented OS such as Windows 2000.

    I won't be surprised when the next version of Windows comes out, that the same reaction will happen, a slow migration to upgrade and no "Apple-rush".

    Windows isn't like OSX/Apple in any way, people don't rush out and upgrade, they do it when they need to (when they get a new PC, etc).
  • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The point is that there is absolutely no reason for companies to use windows vista over 2000. The shiny graphics and new games will only reduce productivity, not improve it. Vista at this point is less stable than windows 2000 and is less familiar to people. It has more security holes and is harder to support. MS spent 6 years developing it(they started even before xp was released) and have failed to make a single feature that would be useful in an office. Instant search is the only exception, but there are plenty of desktop search apps available for windows 2000. Like for example the one MS releases for free.
  • shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5DX10 sounds nice... but I think I'll wait for real-world benchmarks to see how nice it really is...
  • jjgitties, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5snore. i bet you are not using windows 98. and windows 98 worked absolutely fine for many years after XP was released. they only recently killed all support for it. the same reason why you moved from 98 to XP you will move from XP to Vista. better graphics. better sounds. less crashing. blah blah.
  • mufasa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Most companies i know of choose to wait a number of years so that the OS is as stable as possible before installing it on all the computers. i know of many big companies that still use windows 2000.
  • bmeckel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6vista is a little different from xp. xp was hyped and wanted by almost everyone, because at that point, very few people had mac or linux machienes. now that mac has become a competitor, well getting there, vista is important for microsoft to succed with. The reason that people used xp was because come on, be honest, there wasn't a choice. Now that the os's are only really personal preferance, vista will be pushed like no other. (i have already seen many ads, including the whole block on sports center.)
  • et_nyc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I was guessing an abacus.
  • bobcorrigan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Some companies, especially the larger ones, will be able to take their own sweet time. . .but others that buy their PCs pre-built will find Vista machines showing up on their doorstep and will have no choice but to jump into the Vista migration task. At issue isn't just getting IT to understand and support Vista, but to port all of the internal applications and existing infrastructure to Vista.
  • JiggNJive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You're right! What I have read, we're looking at an eventual Vista upgrade as far as 2009 for many corporations currently using Windows XP in their client machine park.
  • FatHed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Does it really matter?

    You will install what games/3D apps require you to install or you won't play/buy them. You don't buy DirectX, and you don't need to install it just to have it.
  • JeffH, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Not true. XP was hyped, but not wanted by everyone. In fact, it's reception was almost exactly the same as Vista's is right now. People said it wasn't very different from Windows 2000, didn't warrant the upgrade, etc. It's not Microsoft that is doing the pushing though, it's the OEMs. The OEMs always switch to the new OS to be on the bleeding edge, and once enough computers sell, everyone now has the new OS. And there defintely was a choice, 99% of programs that work in XP work in 2000. People just choose XP, like they are likely to choose Vista this time around.

    And your comment on OSX and Linux...Linux is still going to have pitiful market share. It always will as long as the factors holding it back exist, and they still do. And with Intel Macs running Windows now, even more people are likely to be using Windows, because the Windows market now encompasses the PC and Mac markets.
  • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1[quote]Maybe if I spent more time doing other things in the past I'd have more of a positive attitude toward vista.[/quote]

    If you tried other OSes, I think you'd realize it's even more of a piece of ***** than you think it is now.

    Other OSes have their problems, but Vista just feels bad. It's a big, mediocre mess. I had hoped it would be an improvement over XP, but it's a bigger mess than ever. Half the new "features" like UAC are so bad that users are turning them off!

    The only thing anyone cares about is DX10, and that's because we don't have a ***** choice.

    Thanks MS! And ***** you!
  • docjeff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have an acquaintance whose motto is to stay one full OS release behind the rest of the world. He's only now getting into XP. Of course he dual boots with FreeBSD so at least he isn't totally corrupted. :)
  • SanTe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"One thing that has to be remembered is that the most important thing to most companies is not how flashy, or in some cases, even how stable, the OS is. It's whether or not the companies LoB, ERP, or CRM app will run on it."

    Bingo. These are the exact drivers of OS deployment at my company. Our 250 desktops still run Win2K just fine, thanks, and we only recently switched to deploying XP with new laptops, and even then it was only because the Intel PROSet wireless software doesn't like Novell BorderManager VPN client software on Windows 2000.

    "That volume license for XP is going to come in real handy as we need to replace PCs."

    Amen. XP volume license + SysPrep 2.0 + DriverPacks + SysPrep Driver Scanner + Ghost = happy PC support tech. :)

    DriverPacks
    http://www.driverpacks.net

    SysPrep Driver Scanner
    http://www.vernalex.com/tools/spdrvscn/index.shtml
  • InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like my desktop nice and clean, without distracting animations or silly bells and whistles. The only eye candy I have on my desktop is a wallpaper jpg.

    There's an unwritten rule about microsoft products, and this rule has been learned the hard way by a great number of people: Never buy any microsoft product until at least version 3.0.
  • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Windows has steadily gone downhill since 2K.
  • FatHed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I agree, but disagree with "it's probably never going to be a big hit with the businesses".

    The reason I disagree with that part, is sure, the much hyped features are for the consumers, cause you wow the consumers. Business have always, and probably rightfully so, been slow and usually the decision process involves looking at the feature sets, and deciding how those can benefit and hurt the company. Vista does include a lot of features aimed at the enterprise, and if they were properly documented could be used to save business cash by lowering IT and energy costs over using XP/2000. And all of that will happen, well, maybe not the saving cash part, although MS would love you to believe that. Sure, certain things will be easier to accomplish on large scales, but just like all new operating systems, vista will include new problems that will take up that time they saved, possibly even adding time, but it'll "feel" easier on a day to day basis.
  • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1[quote]I want the new prettiness of Vista. its like upgrading my apartment for me.[/quote]

    The new look of Vista doesn't make me think of prettiness. I think it looks like someone vomited on the screen after eating crayons and marbles.

    I'm not being a troll, I honestly don't like the look of the new GUI.
  • Kilraq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The two biggest issue I see here, and the only reason I can see business really not really taking up vista come its release are these. Money, Training.

    Its going to be a huge investment to change all the codes and software and speciality programs that corportations run. That is a huge deal to investors and except for a few bodys with heavy geek "first adapoters" IT's, there will be little push for the change.

    Then the real hurdle, training. XP and its younger cousins are WELL know and VERY documented. There is ton of training and certifcations for people versed in this knowledge. There isn't much that I know of in ready available training for Vista. If there is I remove this comment, but I am not aware of it.
  • thepanzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I work at a university, and they are dreading the upgrade. Most people here do not want to spend the money to upgrade systems when everything is already going great.
  • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1[quote]Not true. XP was hyped, but not wanted by everyone. In fact, it's reception was almost exactly the same as Vista's is right now.[/quote]

    I don't remember that. I remember most Win98 users looking forward to XP. The response to Vista so far has been lukewarm, and even hostile. I don't remember Windows users being upset at XP saying it was WORSE than XP. With Vista, many are questioning just that. Is Vista really better, or just bigger?

    Unlike the Win98-XP switch, Vista requires a significant hardware upgrade and a bigger learning curve. The new Explorer confuses noobs. The new security stuff is annoying and poorly implemented. Much touted features like search were never really popular.

    And then there is the administration of it. The authentication and reinstallation hassles.

    I think that's probably the best word to describe Vista: Hassle. It's a bloated mess that treats you like a prisoner.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've upgraded all the systems I manage to the "latest" version of Windows each time it comes out, including my personal systems.

    This time, for the first time, I've "rolled back" to the previous version (wiping Vista and reformatting with a clean copy of XP).

    The "unsigned driver" issue with 64 bit Vista is a ticking time bomb. Having to press F8 each time you load the OS is unnaceptable, especially with perfectly good 64 bit drivers. Some companies will never get their certificate/approval from MS and their drivers will stay "unsigned". Who is going to press F8 each time they boot an OS? Moreover, MS has no obligation to keep supporting the unsigned bypass - they may deprecate it at any time, leaving you unable to boot.

    There are serious problems ahead for MS regarding their "approved driver" signing plan. I do not support them in this, and for such an ardent Windows user (which I am), I would say they have a problem.
  • cjbowser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One thing that has to be remembered is that the most important thing to most companies is not how flashy, or in some cases, even how stable, the OS is. It's whether or not the companies LoB, ERP, or CRM app will run on it.

    I contacted our current ERP vendor about Vista support, and they said "that's not currently on the agenda." Until that support happens, or we switch ERP vendors, Vista isn't even a possibility.

    That volume license for XP is going to come in real handy as we need to replace PCs.

    I'm also waiting for the article about Vista and it's rollout that tells up something that we don't already know or isn't common sense.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.