November 13, 2008 10:54 AM PST

Sydney Water skipping Vista

by Liam Tung
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 5 comments

Sydney Water CIO Tim Catley today said the organization, Australia's largest water utility, would likely skip Vista and instead plan ahead to install Windows 7 on its 4,000 desktops, which are currently running Windows XP.

Sydney Water

Catley, who since 2005 has worked to turn around Sydney Water's IT operations, said he would likely skip Vista because the threat of Microsoft putting the screws on hardware vendors to end support for XP had dissipated.

"I think we might skip Vista and wait for 7 to come along," Catley told ZDNet.com.au after delivering a speech at Gartner's 2008 Symposium ITExpo at the Sydney Convention Centre.

"I don't think the threat of hardware vendors pulling support for (XP) is going to eventuate--because now that they've announced (Windows) 7 the heat will go out of it," he said.

Catley's comments echoed industry opinion on Vista revealed in a recent survey showing that most businesses were happy to stay with XP and wait for Windows 7, which was revealed to Microsoft developers last month.

Locally, few businesses have upgraded to Vista. While Microsoft has found a home for the unloved operating system at Australian Customs Service, few others have chosen to migrate to Vista.

Catley's view stands in direct contrast to CEO of the company that has provided Sydney Water's managed desktop service since 2006, Dell. Michael Dell last year predicted 2009 would be the year for Vista.

Liam Tung of ZDNet Australia reported from Sydney.


advertisement
Recent posts from Microsoft
Job ad suggests Xbox Live headed for WinMo phones
Microsoft loses Word patent appeal, will change code
Microsoft CFO heads to new post at GM
Microsoft sued over Bing name
Visual Studio launch delayed by 'a few weeks'
Microsoft to fix Zune HD censoring issue
Plurk holding Microsoft's feet to code-copying fire
Windows 7 leaving Redmond's help desk less busy
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (5 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by Penguinisto November 13, 2008 11:38 AM PST
Heh - this isn't even news anymore :)

I do have some questions, though:

* What will happen when the big corps who are skipping Vista realize that Windows 7 will be equally unable to run their respective plethora of custom apps?

* What will they do when they realize that they'll still have to pretty much buy new desktops all around just to run the thing?

* It's still going to cost a ton of money, time, and headaches to implement it, and if the economy doesn't pick up by the time Windows 7 is released and the budgets are still tight - then what?

* With XP approaching EOL (2010?), is MSFT going to automatically extend the EOL date when/if industry balks at using Vista or Windows 7, or what?

I know that getting honest answers to these questions will be nearly impossible (cue the blinkered MSFT fanboy choir and their repetitive ad hominem hymns), but these are questions that the enterprise will be asking as well... the sooner someone at MSFT can answer them satisfactorily, the sooner they have a chance at not facing a huge loss of marketshare.
Reply to this comment
by thenet411 November 13, 2008 11:51 AM PST
Those of us who have been around long enough to have worked with DOS, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x (or NT), Windows 2K, XP, and Vista know that the questions above are questions we asked ourselves during every major transition. Especially going from Win3.11 to Win95. Then from the 9x systems to 2K (or even skipping 2K and jumping to XP). Eventually these things work out. There is rarely ever a need to move an entire company to a new OS at once. You move those you can as applications catch up to the new OS way of doing things and you leave the die hards on old systems and keep supporting them. EOL does NOT mean EOU (End of Usefullness).
Reply to this comment
by Penguinisto November 14, 2008 10:44 AM PST
That's the problem - this go 'round, there isn't a smoothly-working internal compatibility engine and backwards hardware compatibility to help things along, as there was in everything up to XP and 2k3 Server...

/P
by tobart November 13, 2008 12:18 PM PST
I have a question. Why isn't a corporation with 4,000 desktops running Windows Server? Would that not be cheaper or at least more manageable? Then they'd only have to worry about moving from server 2003 to 2008, and everyone knows there's little real reason to do that.
Reply to this comment
by eBob1 November 13, 2008 2:12 PM PST
Because Windows Server is a Server operating system, not a desktop operating system. It is significantly more expensive than a desktop operating system. I would guess that they might be running Windows Server on their servers, but we are talking about desktops here.
(5 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About Microsoft

Stay up-to-date on news centered in Redmond, Wash., from acquisitions to product updates to leadership developments.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Microsoft topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right