What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, “Time for Miracles” view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
128 Comments
- scriptcoder, on 07/13/2009, -5/+80Here are the facts:
1) We are in a recession.
2) Most businesses have applications comfortably setup to run on current hardware and software.
3) IT Departments are lazy to learn new skills and a new OS. - ifruit, on 07/13/2009, -3/+50Windows Vista might piss you the hell off, but it's certainly not "unstable."
- FredFredrickson, on 07/13/2009, -1/+31Most firms don't usually roll out new OS upgrades until at least one or two service packs have been released, so 60% is actually pretty good. Especially considering most of the businesses I know of are still using Win 2000 or Win XP.
- chaos7, on 07/13/2009, -6/+34"Many companies have rejected Windows Vista as unstable."
Vista is more stable than XP. If you don't think so, you've been Mojaved. - suntzusputnik, on 07/13/2009, -3/+29alot of key industry applications are only available on windows or windows and macs.
- Mockylock, on 07/13/2009, -1/+26Where the ***** did you get THAT info? I work for the government and have never heard anything of the such.
- Mockylock, on 07/13/2009, -1/+23Nor does your helpdesk.
- engelb15, on 07/13/2009, -7/+28I'd like to just keep my organization running on WinXP and Server 2003, but looks like Microsoft won't stand for that..... I think that's why they have pushed Win7 and Server2008 R2 so quickly. The whole 'we will only support current and one previous' excuse.
- LMN8R, on 07/13/2009, -1/+2240% of companies is a ***** of companies
- gcnaddict, on 07/13/2009, -0/+21And this means what, exactly?
It just seems to me that most of them don't want to spend money on infrastructure upgrades when that money could be used on, say, paying their employees. - LordSkywalker, on 07/13/2009, -0/+16I'd like business to adopt the new OS, but like others have said, the reality is they're not going to "waste" time, money, resources, etc. to upgrade to Win7, when the advantages of the new OS are negligible at best. I know I wouldn't do the upgrade if I ran a business.
- Mockylock, on 07/13/2009, -1/+17and every year for the past 10.
- FredFredrickson, on 07/13/2009, -0/+15Hey, I hate to see Win XP support go away just as much as the next guy, but be realistic here. Most businesses do not have the staff to support every version of every piece of software they've ever made. It's absurd, especially when you consider how many people actually use Windows.
- dkitch, on 07/13/2009, -0/+14I could write a long response explaining why this is a misleading headline, or I could just link a source more credible than me: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1181
- jrm125, on 07/13/2009, -0/+14Why would the selection of the federal government influence my purchase of an OS?
- Gerz1219, on 07/13/2009, -1/+14For (3), I would have to replace "lazy" with "too ridiculously understaffed". My company's IT department has been stripped to the absolute bone, so that it takes them three months to install a new machine, and it's not out of laziness, it's because there's like three people supporting the entire firm. A massive software rollout like Windows 7 would require lots of new hires with high salaries and expensive health insurance benefits. It's not worth the money for most companies to get a pretty GUI on everyone's machine when most of the security holes in XP have been patched up with third-party software and hacks, and most of the new features don't mean that much to the enterprise user.
Microsoft is a victim of their own success. XP works fine for most conceivable everyday business uses, and Windows 7 does not really represent a significant increase in productivity that would justify its expense. - t0x2c, on 07/13/2009, -1/+14You're absolutely right. These companies are going to get screwed if they stay with XP/2003, the second a 0-day hits, and the patching isn't top priority, I'm sure these companies will switch.
- sfcaptainrob, on 07/13/2009, -2/+15XP doesn't want to let you down...
- birch25, on 07/13/2009, -9/+19Because there's no reason to make people with average computing skills to linux. Even Ubuntu is way over the heads of most people and does not provide nearly enough advantages to make those inevitable headaches worthwhile.
- rkenned, on 07/13/2009, -0/+9The company I work for is using IE6 with XP and office 2003. They budget nearly every penny a year in advance...and virtually no software upgrades are planned in the next fiscal year. However, I can't blame them...Windows XP and Office 2003 simply do what they need to be done. They really have absolutely no reason to upgrade anything.
- DoodleMaster, on 07/13/2009, -2/+11You might say .... We're no strangers to xp.
- SethEllis, on 07/13/2009, -1/+10I don't buy this argument that windows 7 just doesn't bring enough to the table to make companies want to change. I say this because most companies don't want to change their IT no matter what. A lot of these companies would be perfectly happy running dos if they could. Management is usually very shortsighted about such things. All they see is the pricetag for upgrading. They fail to understand how much money is wasted every year supporting out of date technology. They simply won't upgrade until Microsoft makes moves that force them to.
- Adam420, on 07/13/2009, -4/+12So many people skipped Vista and are waiting for 7, this is *****.
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -2/+10Windows 7 is fine and all, but there's no reason for any company to upgrade.
It's not like there are any core OS features that make your typical daily office job any easier or faster.
That's the problem with people - just because the new thing comes out they "need" to use it even though they really don't. Can you do your job now? Yes? Okay, well does Windows 7 offer something that increases your bottom line or helps your employees? No? Do you see any of this changing in the next year or two? No? Then skip it...
So most of these companies are smart. - scriptcoder, on 07/13/2009, -0/+7You had trouble installing Windows 7?
Perhaps you should take your computer to the Geek Squad. They'll get you up and running quickly and easily. - marx2k, on 07/13/2009, -0/+7yes, games is why companies stick to Windows....
- marm0lade, on 07/13/2009, -2/+9I agree with 1 and 2, but not 3. If you have people in your IT department who have not used and are not proficient with Vitsa yet, they do not belong there.
- HarleyQuinn, on 07/14/2009, -0/+6Seriously... Do we really still need that much "Microsoft Support" for XP? The product has been around so long, anything you need to know is Googleable. As far as Zero-Day-- a multi-layered security approach will keep most things at bay. Besides, the AV/Malware companies probably won't abandon XP anytime soon.
Only issue I see, is obtaining new copies for small companies who do not have volume licenses. Those of us with volume licenses can keep using them on the sly when they downgrade a new machine. - Langford, on 07/13/2009, -0/+5It's not like Windows 7 isn't good product, it's that Windows XP is also a good one. Why buy new stuff to do the same thing you are already doing? Yes, it has new features that could improve work flow, but honestly the target consumer will never notice the difference, and it's humans that make places productive. They could use typewriters for all it mattered as long as they have their themselves organized.
- MrFurious2k, on 07/14/2009, -1/+6After running Windows 7 for a while, I'm nothing short of amazed at the improvements over the early Vista releases. The RC has a polished look and feel to it. The wireless and power management functionality for laptops is a huge leap over XP. Mobile users will benefit greatly by having it installed. Honestly, it's been a while since I've been excited about a new release of Windows. This one looks like a winner.
That said, I'll understand if companies pass on it. At the end of the day, you still have to figure out how a new OS is going to pay for itself over the old software you're replacing. I'm not sure that its ROI is immediately obvious. - twiztidsinz, on 07/13/2009, -1/+6I disagree...
I used and liked Windows Vista from the Release Candidate on.
I've also used Windows 7 from the day the RC went live.. and I love it.
There are a lot of similarities between Vista and 7, but there's more changes and improvements. Sure they look the same, but the changes go deeper than the GUI.
Everything feels better and more refined in 7. - Chewie67, on 07/14/2009, -0/+5I really don't care if they upgrade to Windows 7, as long as they upgrade to IE8.
Getting rid of XP or Vista isn't nearly as important as getting rid of IE6. - CoreyFC, on 07/13/2009, -1/+6The company I work for ran windows 98 up until it was not supported anymore, I'm assuming we will see the same with XP.
- gcnaddict, on 07/13/2009, -2/+7Why are you being buried? That's exactly what would happen (though step 4 isn't exactly a mystery). Therefore, this is a perfectly applicable meme.
- gingerboy, on 07/13/2009, -3/+8There is no training needed, XP mode runs seemlessly as though you were running a native application - its about setting the system up and thats where the IT people come in.
For a company to upgrade their computers to win7 or roll out new computers they should have decent IT support, who will be able to roll out win7 business with XP mode and all line of business apps reliant on XP pre configured for end users, the end user simply clicks the shortcut and the app runs, no VM window and no confused user as he/she looks at an OS inside an OS. - FUR10N, on 07/13/2009, -3/+7these are the same companies that still use IE6
- spriggig, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4You're probably getting dugg down for IE6.
- ChileanGoD, on 07/14/2009, -2/+6Because xp know the rules and so do i
- austroLogi, on 07/13/2009, -0/+4and my company is getting vista as 2k sunsets... sigh
- Kazbaeden, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4Um, if I'm reading this right it says that 34% will deploy in the first year. Am I the only one who thinks that's incredible? It beats XP's and Vista's first year numbers by a mile (which were both similar to each other)
What would it take for these people to be happy? Everyone on earth to be in line on launch day? Get real. - TheCheeks, on 07/13/2009, -0/+4Linux will never be a top contender, but there is no way in hell it will become a "dinosaur".
There are still people out there, including me, who like to own and modify ANY part of their system they chose to, rather than getting stuck in a proprietary software lock. You can only modify so much in a 'locked' closed source application. - bradleyland, on 07/14/2009, -1/+4A lot of people mistake application instability for OS instability. You and I may know the two are not interchangeable, but an employee sitting at a desk fighting with their company's order management app has no idea what the difference is. Microsoft is living not only with the demons of their own past, but with the demons of Windows application developers' pasts as well. When you've got slave-wage corporate code zombies writing proprietary apps with dumb ***** like unsupported API calls, string literal file paths (as opposed to env variables), etc, you can't expect major OS transitions to go smoothly.
The task Microsoft faces is monumental. How many corporate apps are written using VB6 runtimes? How about MFC? How well can we expect applications written with frameworks and APIs developed 10-15 years ago to run on a modern OS? - t0x2c, on 07/13/2009, -11/+144) ???
5) Profit - Y0tsuya, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3Syphon9,
That's what I do, except with XP. So I see no advantage in installing Ubuntu. - ChileanGoD, on 07/14/2009, -1/+4^ WoooSH!
- INTERNETMASTER, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3there aren't many new skills to learn in windows 7. from a users perspective it's basically windows with a different skin. there are a handful of new features like direct access to learn about, but those are pretty simple.
they aren't going to upgrade because there is no compelling reason to spend that money. note that pretty transparent windows and directx11 aren't compelling reasons for a business. - poprocksandsoda, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3Funny how this article shows very little knowledge about how businesses buy Microsoft licenses. Typically they use an Open license which means they can use XP, Vista or 7 no problem. There's no upgrade fee.
- marx2k, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3"be happy with your current 1% because it wont last for long"
Well, yes. It will continue to grow.
"some other company like google or another one is going to make a new OS that works that will challenge microsoft, and then linux will become a dinosaur used by 100-200 people in the world at most"
Google' Chrome OS as well as gOS is run on top of Linux. Thinking goes before speaking.
"the entire linux philosphy is "use a command line" and every year lets make that command line a lit bit more ugly and a little more usable. that will last a good 3 more years at most"
So it's been a good 13 years since you've last used Linux, then? - FutureGuy, on 07/14/2009, -3/+6No major commercial software company I can think of supports older versions as much as MS does. Its not just an "excuse" can you imagine MS still supporting Win95? Heard of the new "Browse and Get Owned" active-x bug that was just patched, it generated a ton of bad press for MS, but most don't know that it doesn't affect the latest versions, Vista and 2008 (primarily due to bad and biased reporting). Now imagine if MS were still every version they ever produced, they would need a team as the whole company just to do QA.
- Ev3nt372, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2after raping your wallet.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 130 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is