Microsoft to businesses: Now is the time to switch to Vista
Microsoft has already made its case for consumer adoption of Vista. Now, it's aiming its PR offensive at business customers.
The company on Wednesday released a white paper paper targeted at the many businesses that have chosen to stick with Windows XP instead of moving to Vista. Microsoft argues that Vista is more secure, reliable, and can save companies money when it comes to management and deployment.
"We have tried to close gaps for consumers, and we're doing the same for enterprises," Mike Nash, vice president of Windows Client Product Management at Microsoft, told CNET News.com.
Why should businesses deploy now? Nash says the release of Vista Service Pack 1 has improved Windows security, improved driver support, and minimized application compatibility issues, for starters.
Compared with Windows XP, Vista has had fewer vulnerabilities (45 for Vista versus 56 for XP); fewer critical vulnerabilities (17 as opposed to 35); and 60 percent fewer malicious software infections than XP SP2, Nash said.
Microsoft's Mike Nash
(Credit: Microsoft)The big bonus for companies may come in cost savings versus XP when it comes to deployment and management of Vista across multiple machines, Nash said.
Tom Norton, the worldwide Microsoft services practice lead for Hewlett-Packard, said that a majority of HP's top 500 customers globally "are looking at this (Vista) as a way to save money on support of client environments."
As for application compatibility, the move from Internet Explorer 6 to Internet Explorer 7 was more traumatic than the Windows upgrade, said Norton.
Still, despite the statistics and reassurances, initial impressions tend to last. And the initial Vista experience for many people was less than stellar, a point which Microsoft concedes. Nash says that, yes, the company made a lot of changes with Vista that have taken time for customers to get used to, and initial driver and application support was lacking. But, "there is a huge gap between what is possible with Vista and the perception that is out there," he said.
Nash, who will soon celebrate his 17th anniversary with Microsoft, said that he has seen similar customer trepidation in the past when it comes to new Windows releases. "There has always been a version of Windows that is new that people don't know what to do with; there has always been the incumbent version; and there is always a new version on the horizon. It's not a new phenomenon," Nash said.
This time around, the X factor is Windows 7. Microsoft has said precious little about the planned Windows release, except that it will come in 2009 and will include a touch interface. Still, with companies just getting around to Vista deployment, does it make sense to wait for 7?
"I have heard that with every release (of Windows)," Nash said. "What I will say: back when I worked on security at Microsoft, a lot of customers said they would never deploy XP. Initially they were waiting for better security, then they were waiting for XP SP2. Then they were waiting for Longhorn (the code name used during Vista's development)."
Microsoft's message to customers is that Vista introduced a fair amount of new code in the operating system kernel and in device-level software. Sure, it's been a rough transition from XP to Vista. But Vista and Windows 7 will be largely compatible in those areas, according to the white paper release on Wednesday, meaning that customers will eventually need to bite the bullet and make the switch.
"There is always some level of evaluation that customers will want to go through. Five minutes for some; 12 to 18 months for others. The question is: what is the right time for you as a customer?" Nash said.
Mike Ricciuti joined CNET in 1996. He is now CNET News' Boston-based executive editor and east coast bureau chief, serving as department editor for business technology and software covered by CNET News, Reviews, and Download.com. E-mail Mike. 
"Yeah, right.... with the numerous problems that they have been having lately with Leopard..... I don't think so."
Like what? (Careful Lerianis, I'm using Leopard right now and have been for months!) No, the reason they'll pick Linux over OSX is simple - Linux will run (very well mind you) on the equipment they currently have.
If you do that, you are stupid, to be quite blunt. Even if my PARENTS were saying that, I would call them that.
Vista has 2x the USERS in a year and an half then Apple has been able to do in 20+ years.
By 2010 ( or I'll assume you meant 2012) you'll still be sitting there telling me Apple will be more then a bit player 'any time now'.
Just like last year, or the years preceding that.
remember you are talking to Jobs fanboys.....
If there are problems, it is because your vendor is causing the problems somehow. I was recently setting up a VPN network for a school system.... took me 10 minutes for 30 computers, all running Vista.
Morons.
I play LOTRO, which supports DirectX, and I am not going to upgrade my perfectly good 5 year old system until early 2009, so I can get a decent Nehalem CPU that can run XP and Vista in a dual boot setup. If I have to buy Vista to run my game, so be it, but I'll be darned if I use it for anything else.
The day they start porting native versions of games to Mac, I'm taking my aged copies of XP, and leaving Microsoft forever, and I know I won't be alone.
I also don't understand why people bash on Vista. Frankly, on my PC's, it runs FASTER than XP does, not slower, but F A S T E R!
Same thing for most people who have tested their systems with Vista and XP both... it actually runs faster with Vista because of some memory management improvements.
"Buy a whole new computer every year!" cycle?
Huh?
I use two Macs at work, one is 6 years old, one is seven. My home Mac is 6 as well, and I have a ten year old Powerbook that needs a wallop every now and then, but it works. I've never heard of anybody ever talk about needing a new computer every year, even among the mac-haters. If anything, I usually hear reasonable people saying the Mac is better value because it has a longer life-span on average, barring the occasional bad bit of hardware, but any manufacturer can turn out a few of those every now and then.
To be fair, alongside our 2-year-old WinXP compositing workstation, we have a Windows2000 Pentium4 that hums away without a hiccup, and one of our edit suites is a rock-solid nine year old Windows NT workstation. Which we will hopefully be replacing soon, but only because the available hardware and the video codecs are getting ahead of us. It works fine otherwise.
But the older Macs need the least maintenance, and from my conversations, that's consistent with other people's experience. So I don't know where you got the "buy a new computer every year" theory from
1. Our accounting software does not work with IE7 under Vista. There's a patch for IE7 under XP though.
2. We still have some Dell Optiplex L150r's and Inspiron 2500's if that rings a bell for people. (Sub-128MB of RAM and 800MHz CPU's, no dedicated GPU)
3. Poor business practice on Microsoft's part by "buying" the corporate world to inflate their figures for who in the corporate world uses Vista.
The ONLY reason they show a large use of Vista is because their numbers being terribly inflated due to OEM's pushing Vista out, but not having figures on how many users replace the OS with XP.
They say there's a lower cost? How so? Training of staff on a entirely new confusing interface? Training of support staff in troubleshooting new Vista "issues"? Productivity lost during the "adjustment phase" to the new operating system?
What a farce. Problem is nothing old supports Vista. I would have to buy entirely new hardware AND software just to keep the shop going beyond that... and with a staff of TWO I.T. guys supporting 14 offices in remote locations in FL and MI... no way.
Pardon my french but Fu@# Vista AND Microsoft.
Obsolescence means a machine that can no longer do the job. Since your computers do the job just fine, they are not obsolete for the task they are performing.
There's no use AT ALL in buying a sports car to make a run to the grocery store.
I'm not even going to get started with the Vista problems. I will however say that, I took two years at a technical institute working with XP half that time, then with Vista, and I still have problems using Vista. It's just VERY difficult to find essential tools that were labeled under other names in XP as they are in Vista.
My advice to Microsoft for Windows 7, make it navigate more like XP than Vista, and MUCH system demanding. (My PC is dual booted with XP and Vista, and Vista uses an entire GB of ram just idling. Whereas, in Xp I can be surfing the web, checking my mail, and have an OCing program running an not even using 500 MB.)
Vista is not for businesses that are doing just fine with XP!!!
Having a business OS isn't about bells and whistles, it's about being able to run company apps efficiently. Many admins spend so much time trimming down the OS, removing things that either use precious resources, or are security risks.
Companies don't adopt the latest and greatest fresh out the door, or even up to two years out the door because their main criteria is reliability and stability (and ability to run their applications--not the OS makers unwanted bundled applications).
I'm a systems administrator for a fairly large company. Microsoft stopped selling XP licenses. We have over 800 Vista licenses and 0 Vista installs - we purchased down-grade rights and reimaged the machines. How much time and money could you save over my 20 minute reimage of an OS everyone of our employees knows how to use?
You couldn't PAY me to push Vista out on our users, and I love it at home. It just would not work in a business environment. The hardware reqs are far too high.
Translation: We made it absolutely DAMN hard to buy a PC/Notebook with XP for consumers. You want XP on your PC? buy a business class machine!
Now they try doing the same on enterprise, only this time it's gonna be harder.. way harder! saving? whats wrong with Pentium 4/onboard graphics/80GB disk with XP + apps that works perfectly well? where's the saving if I need to buy a WHOLE new machine to do the EXACT same job for the same person with the same work at my company? none, no savings!
vista just doesn't work w/ many of the apps we run. IE7 in vista doesn't display many web pages correctly for our web based apps. (IE7 in XP works fine)
i have to run XP in a virtual machine so i can log into my sonicwall appliances because IE7 in vista doesn't display the pages.
vista is also much slower. i run a machine w/ a 10,000 RPM raptor hard disk and 4 gigs of ram running vista 64 bit. my co-worker running half the ram on a 7,200 RPM hard drive runs circles around me. when i type a unc path such as \\server\share it takes vista almost a full half minute to bring it up. XP is less then 1 second.
and why is IPv6 enabled by default. no one will ever use IPv6 for an internal private network. IPv4 will always be sufficent. IPv6 will only be used for public addresses on the internet (IE the public ip of your firewall or router). businesses will always still use IPv4 for their private LANs. The only time IPv6 would be used by vista is when someone plugs directly into the internet. even your average home user is behind a router most times?
Still microsoft insists on flooding your network with un-needed IPv6 broadcast traffic.
i don't get it.
Whoever is running the show over there, business doesn't want Vista. Repeat, business doesn't want Vista. Should we send someone to hit you on the head with a hammer or did you hear us the first time? With Windows 7 (great name, i know it's just code but did we fire the vice president in charge of code names?) around the corner (I'll believe that when I see it), business has every incentive to wait. Move on, light speed to Windows 7.
- by Mergatroid Mania June 4, 2008 6:39 PM PDT
- For me the issue is the DRM that has been built in. I've heard horror stories of people almost losing operability of all their movies and music because of a problem with Vista.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by TheSmellyMoa June 4, 2008 7:20 PM PDT
- On the contrary, MSFT is as contemptuous of the recorded music and film industries as it is consumers. It wants to tax the RIAA, MPAA and the consumers through it's DRM. It'll never work. The entertainment industry lawyers are much nastier than MSFT's.
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (56 Comments)I honestly don't believe my computers operating system should be policing me, nor keeping track of what I have purchased.
Obviously MS cares more about the movie studios and record companies than they do about their customers or they wouldn't build crap like this into the os.
And, considering the cost, no I don't think I'll be buying it. I think the most expensive piece of my computer should be hardware, not the os.
Oh ya, will Mike Nash come to my home or business and pay to resolve any issues we have if we did switch? Pay to replace any software that doesn't work? I doubt it...