Parsing the nuances of Windows 7 decisions

This was originally posted at ZDNet's Between the Lines.

A new survey reveals that 84 percent of IT pros don't have plans to upgrade to Windows 7 in the next year and that half of respondents are considering alternatives. But it pays to parse a few nuances.

The survey, which was conducted by Dimension Research and commissioned by KACE, a systems management appliance company. The survey had 1,142 respondents and 99 percent of them had a Windows operating system installed at their companies.

(Credit: Dimensional Research/KACE)

The spin here has been that it's somehow bad that most IT professionals won't jump to Windows 7 in the next year.

However, Windows 7 is still in beta and hasn't been released yet. Of course, 84 percent won't upgrade to Windows 7 in a 12-month time frame. If you go April to April and Windows 7 is launched in October-ish, that means IT pros would have just six months to make the leap. In the OS upgrade world, that speed just doesn't happen.

Cast in that light, the figures in the pie chart to the right actually look pretty impressive to me.

So within two years, 59 percent of IT pros plan to upgrade to Windows 7. The good news: that's some pent-up demand. The bad news: Vista is the reason there's pent-up demand.

But what really caught my eye is the secondary headline about Windows alternatives.

(Credit: Dimensional Research/KACE)

The headline: 50 percent of IT pros are considering a move from Windows. Operative word: considering. You'd be dumb not to consider a move. In fact, I'd argue that the other half of IT pros aren't doing their job: you should always assess alternatives.

If you break down the 50 percent considering a move away from Windows, 14 percent are actively making a jump. That's up from 11 percent in 2008 and 9 percent in 2007. You can determine whether the money quote here should be:

• 36 percent are staying, i.e,. Microsoft is still winning.
or
• 14 percent are bolting, i.e., alternative operating systems are gaining steam.

The truth is probably in the middle.

Another nuance to ponder. Apple's OS X is the most likely platform to replace Vista or Windows 7, with 27 percent eyeing the Mac platform. The rub: that percentage is down from 29 percent in 2008.

Perhaps the headline should be that Vista, Windows 7 and OS X are in decline--and that Ubuntu is on the rise.

In any case there's a lot of fun to be had with numbers in this survey.

(Credit: Dimensional Research/KACE)

[The_happy_switcher]

Let's call it what it is: A Vista Service Pack. Throw a little lipstick on, too. Oink.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Let's call AppleRocks1963 what he is: A troll.

Dispute that.

[The_happy_switcher]

Let's call vegadan what he is: A windows apologist in denial.

[Penguinisto]

Let us call you both what you are: blinkered zealots who blindly worship the ground that your respective masters walk on.

Larry's article is dead-on... these will be interesting times. In my own IS department, we're stuck with a conundrum of sorts. We don't want to blindly jump to Windows 7, yet XP is losing support and Vista quite frankly sucks (seriously, who wants to shell out huge sums of capital expenditure just to bring desktops up to speed for Vista?)

To Larry: A large caveat I'm seeing with Windows 7 (and Server 2008) is the Key Management Services. Now you have to have a separate server just to serve CALs and licenses. My question is why? Why do we have to waste resources (and more importantly, money) on what is essentially DRM? If we don't erect a KMS, we have to waste bandwidth on activations and phone-homes. None of this is cheap (even with virtual machinery). Now throw in VDI/VMWare View (or similar virtual desktop technologies), and it becomes a large and ugly (and did I mention expensive?) mess.

Little wonder that IT/IS departments are looking hard at alternatives. Count me among them.

[sanenazok]

Your exchange was completely pointless. Where's Spock to strangely tell us how OS/2 should be the choice operating system?

[gwhiz2K]

A Vista Service Pack?? Have you even looked at Win7? Spending any small amount of time in Win7 beta it becomes apparent to anyone with a brain that it's a major change. Personally, I don't think that there's really anything wrong with Vista anymore (post SP1). Most articles that I have read back that up. Vista is on a par with XP performance-wise (now that it's matured), but also carries a lot of security enhancements (among many other performance enhancements). Some may hate UAC, but for users that are prone to adding all kinds of malware to their machines, UAC prevents some headaches. Yes I turn it off for myself, but when I'm working on someone else's machine, I leave it on. Win7 has improved UAC among other things.

You realize you can download VirtualBox for Mac, and install Win7 Beta on it right? Then maybe you can give a more informed opinion.

I'm not a "windows apologist" either. I own a Mac as well, but don't find it all that useful to me. Personally, if I could work all day in Ubuntu, I would. I find Ubuntu far more useful than any version of OSX. The day that Adobe ports its suite of applications to Linux is the day I switch to Linux as my work OS. Why? Customization mostly. I can tweak the looks/functionality of Ubuntu to my liking, and add tons of free open-source modifications. Something that is next to impossible with OSX and Windows.

I must re-iterate that I have no problems per se with Windows, especially Vista. I would keep my current Vista 64 install (which is problem free), and I would probably put Win7 on any new machine I build, mostly because I like to play games as well. MS DirectX rules the roost... As much as Apple and Linux aficionados like to talk about being able to game on those platforms, OpenGL does not currently hold a candle to DirectX. Possibly in the future, but not now.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Welcome back Penguinsito. Your comments have been missed. I agree the article is dead on. I am not surprised that you would be against your company implementing a new Windows version- you're history as being very closed minded when it comes to Microsoft is well documented. I wish you luck in your position.


AppleSucks1969: Abusive language and personal attacks are not tolerated. Your name for Penguinisto is simply not acceptable behavior and will be reported.

[The_happy_switcher]

"AppleSucks1969"?? So you will be reporting yourself, as well, hypocrite?

[The_happy_switcher]

"Your name for Penguinisto is simply not acceptable behavior and will be reported." That's so sweet. Are you two love birds planning a romantic getaway this week end?

[thelemurking]

AR1963 - you are ever so quick to post on Windows articles. It must really chap your ass that OS X has such a tinsy tiny market share. Check out those bar graphs... Ubuntu is doing almost as well as OS X and with 9.04 just days away, it's only going to get better. I'm currently installing Kubuntu 9.04 beta on a box as an FTP server. Why would I want to pay Apple or Microsoft for an OS, much less an overpriced box just to set up an FTP server? I am throwing it on an old spot server that was just sitting around. Sure I could have went with Windows 7 beta, but (k)Ubuntu meets my needs for this project at this time.

Seriously, every year or so, Apple puts on some lipstick, throws in a new shade or two and charges you $129 for something that should essentially be FREE... A SERVICE PACK!!!!!!!!!!!! Keep on paying that apple tax... I'm going to go back now to installing my FREE OS :)

[The_happy_switcher]

Wow, you are rebel for running Unix. Most people are not big nerds who can spend all their time looking for and designing their own drivers to make sure the hardware will work with Unix flavor number 10,235. Some people just want their to computer to work without the time sink aspect of computing.

[cosuna]

Hey. Was the check Microsoft made billed as "To Any CNET columnist" or was it just to you.
There's no good news in the stats, just your willingness to see it that way. If people said they'll upgrade in 12-36 months it's cause the interview gave them no more choice, cause the other alternative (36 months) would put them in problems with higher management.

The reality shown in the interview is that they are delaying this change until Windows 7 shows it isn't just a Vista remake and truly addresses the problems that emerged with that "up"grade.

Beta people are a wild crowd, similar to Linux enthusiast. They always like an OS, even if it doesn't run their previous software, cause it doesn't need to. It always dual booted and its always run at home. It's like the New Coke, Old Coke challenge, people like the "new" taste but in the end, it won't make them shift if they no see real value.

Tough times ahead for old Microsoft. You have found your ultimate competitor and it has an X in its name, but isn't Mac OS X its called Windows XP. Sorry you chose such a catchy name.

[Vegaman_Dan]

You've made an excellent case for the instability of the IT sector at this point. Nobody in any department can realistically make an accurate prediction of what they will be doing in 12 months, let alone 36. Many of those same people questioned may or may not even have a job by that time.

You can spin things in may different ways.

As for you making accusations of CNET being bought off or bribed to post such a story- that's simply hogwash and irresponsible to even make such claim. If you really believe that, however, then back it up with proof.

[codynews]

I think these studies are stupid. My advice for Windows 7 to people will be the same as vista. If you're buying a new machine, get it with Vista (or Win 7). If you have a machine that's running just fine with XP or Vista, leave it alone.

If I were running a business that's exactaly what I'd do. Win 7 won't be "OMG!" enough to upgrade XP machines but it would be dumb not to get it on NEW machines.

[c4s2k3]

I think your suggestion makes sense in general, but I don't think it's always that simple, especially if you are talking about jumping from XP to Win7. Some of the software an organization is using to run its business in XP may not work in Win7. You need to look at whether or not you can even support your business operations on Win7, and if not, when will updates to the software you need will be available and at what cost.

[pjhenry1216]

You're overlooking the advantages of supporting only one OS at your company. I've run into networking issues with Vista/XP. I'll admit, they've mostly been smoothed over, but the fact that they *did* exist in the past makes me wary. Its best not to push your luck and just have one OS if possible.

[sting7k]

Agree, why fix something that isn't broken. Until XP is totally abandoned and computers are ACTUALLY out dated why replace them? Just stick with it, save some money. By the time things are really going down hill and hardware needs to be replaced Win7 will have been out for a while and more tested. Then you will have even more choices!

[txstubby]

A lot of major multinationals are still running XP because the costs associated with upgrading an OS can be staggering.

No IT professional who wants to keep their job would even propose changing to a new version of an OS until there is a compelling business case for the change. Typical the compelling business case is the end of support/updates for the old OS or the inability to image the old OS onto a new machine.

[pjhenry1216]

I think its Microsoft's responsibility to push people to upgrade. Not immediately upon release of the next version, but I'd say a few years of support should be adequate. If they never did, then hardware manufacturers would have to keep maintaining support indefinitely for various OSes. It makes sense that they'd want to only support the latest version or two and not continually update legacy support.

[SactoGuy018]

The biggest reason why corporations weren't interested in Windows Vista was it very substantial hardware requirements to actually run it.

However, this is not so true of Windows 7--after all, MIcrosoft made it run successfuly on netbook computers, and that means older hardware can run Windows 7 reasonably fast. Since the hardware requirements for Windows 7 are so much less, I expect many more corporate upgrades to Windows 7 from Windows XP, especially since Windows 7 includes most of the security improvements found in Windows Vista corporations want.

[BigGuns149]

I agree. If you look at the number 1 concern about Windows 7 it is software compatibility. Generally speaking most people don't move on to a new version until the hassle of staying with what you are using exceeds the hassle of moving.

[Chapmaniac]

Windows 7 performance gains (as we've seen it running on netbooks in the wild) will be a driving factor in getting it installed as it will be seen as a way to get more mileage out of hardware which was previously considered not robust enough to run Vista.

It is interesting to see Ubuntu making the only progress on a year-to-year alternative OS consideration though. Look at that first chart again. Apple may have higher numbers for 2009 but interest in moving to a Mac OS has been DROPPING every year while interest in moving to Linux (Ubuntu) has been increasing for the past three years.

In reality though, we're naturally going to see IT moving forward with Windows with consumers following suit. And once Windows 7 hits the netbook scene, the game is officially over for any consumer-adopted Linux desktop model.

[brian.lee]

They aren't real gains, they are recovering ground lost from XP to Vista. Vista was a huge colossal failure it brought nothing new to consumers.

[Maclover1]

How many "netbooks" have you seen deployed in a corporation? None for me. This study is pretty much dead on. No on in IT, that is sane, like to make work for themselves. Companies dont spend money on IT stuff for the heck of it, especially now.

[ddhboy]

I think Windows 7 will do well with businesses like XP did and will probably have enough reasons to validate the switch . However, we've come to this time and time again and its hard to argue against free, hence why Ubuntu and other linux distros are really moving up in the world. I think that the fact that development isn't as strong as say Windows or OSX will prevent it from really pushing Microsoft, but at this point its more of an eventuality as computer manufacturers start pushing ubuntu onto end consumers via netbooks and such.

[Ted Miller]

It has become clear to me that there are alot of smart people out there. People who refuse to be toyed with by large corporations who have lost sight of themselves, the people they serve and the real world around them. Perhaps there is hope after all....

[y2j420]

I'd trust my computing to a publicly traded corporation that has to answer to shareholders than some nerds in Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany...

Have fun recompiling your Linux kernel everytime a new printer is added to your environment...

[lakorai2]

IT professionals should only consider moving to an OSX platform if they intend on going with the EFI-X technology that allows you to run on standard PC hardware AND if their WHOLE operation can completely be run off of Mac os X. Macs are grossly overpriced and provide a poor ROI (hardware, the software ROI is not bad).

The other issue is with enterprise based solutions. Healthcare, Law, Construction, Accounting, manufacturing IT.... Guess what. There is little to no solutions that work correctly on the Mac platform as a native OSX application. You could integrate and run WMware or run both, but that's pointless too; why support TWO environments. Now you would have to integrate Active Directory and Open Directory together. Then you have to buy ADMit Mac to allow macs to correctly integrate into Active Directory. Now you are spending way more money on labor, hardware and software. You are at the mercy of the third party vendors when they decide "oh well, were going to dump the Mac user because we didn't sell 1 million copies of said OSX application". Timeslips for Mac, Quickbooks for Mac, Quicken, Microsoft Office... The list goes on and on. The Mac versions of these applications are severely limited compared to their Windows counterparts. Quickbooks Pro doesn't even completely support Payroll. Timeslips no longer exists on Macs.

There are many issues with running OSX.

The hardware issue is enormous. Macs are very difficult and time consuming to service (Mac minis, Macbook Pros, Macbook Air, iMacs: Mac Pros are decent to service). The main issue is Apple's unwillingness to use industry standard practices, such as ATX power supplies. Oh what, you supply on your iMac broke? That will be $300-$400 from Apple, part is NOT in stock and will take 1-2 weeks to arrive.

You standard PC? Oops, you bought a junk power supply (Cooler Master, APEVIA etc). Go on newegg.com or to MIcroCenter or Frys and get a new GOOD brand, like Fortron/Source or OCZ in less than 24 hours.

[monkeyfun14]

Am I the only one who doesn't see the logic in well our programs don't all work so were going to move to Mac OSX or Linux? As if their is just loads of Windows software compatibility in those operating systems?

[kast5089]

It is kind of silly because switching to Linux or OS X would certainly present more problems for compatibility, but only in the short run. I think many IT pros are thinking about escaping Microsoft lock-in while they still can. By expeirencing some short term pain, they can often save themselves much more pain later.

[Renegade Knight]

Data is the real issue. However even on the windows side changes to software make accessing your old data difficult at times. When they make it difficult enough it's easy to jump ship.

BTW Microsoft is one of the companies that didn't sign the cloud computing manifestor that said in so many words "we think the data should be able to cross platforms".

Lock in can greatly benefit your business (Apple App Store) or backfire and cause you to lose market share (any company with a brain or even dumb companies who have lost data due to upgrade cycles).

[Random_Walk]

Something to ponder: If the applications aren't going to be compatible in any event, then why not use the time to sit down and look hard at which OS will best deliver long-term results for the dying application's replacement?

[Seaspray0]

@random walk. Which operating system has provided the best backwards compatible support for old programs? If I have to spend a fortune having the application redone, I want it useful for a long time. I do know that I can still run programs written for DOS on windows 7. I can't say the same for other operating systems.

[kast5089]

@lakorai2: While I agree about the hardware issues related to Macs, most IT professionals aren't serving small-business machines, but large enterprise deployments, where running Quickbooks Pro is not a priority. Most Windows machines in enterprise deployments could easily be run as thin clients, where the most important pieces of software are the web browser, e-mail client, and word processor. Although Microsoft Office is the de facto standard office application, the vast majority of users probably never use more than 10% of the software's true capabilities and iWork or OpenOffice.org would be an acceptable replacement.

I'm glad to see that the IT industry is maturing. People are finally thinking outside of Microsoft. There are going to be hiccups and challenges, without a doubt, but nothing that can't be resolved. It's an exciting time.

[abcd9009]

I can never believe on these statistics mainly because consumers don't really have a choice in which OS to pick as they do to pick any hardware. You can buy a desktop, a laptop, a netbook, or build your own PC - 4 choices (probably even more than I am not thinking). When it comes to OS, if you buy a PC now you are stuck with Vista, if you buy it next year you will be stuck with Windows 7. You are forced to choose a software which you might not need if all you care about is basic computing like chatting or sending emails or using Office or online Shopping. In fact all these tasks can even be accomplished using Windows 95. But it's the greed that makes us want more and more and more.
What if I don't want an OS at all when I buy a computer? just give me a computer with no software. I have already paid for XP when I bought my last computer and I have the installation CD or DVD. I can use that to install XP on the new computer or what if I want to install Linux???
There is not a single physical Store which will sell you a computer without an OS (at least not from BB, Frys, MicroCenter, Staples, Officemax, Office Depot, Walmart, Target, Costco, Sams Club).
The only alternative is to buy parts and assemble it yourself. How many avg joes can do that or would want to do that?

My point is, the question shouldn't be how many people will be moving from Vista to 7 or XP to 7. The real question that should be asked is, how many people will be buying a new computer when Windows 7 is released because THERE IS NO CHOICE!!!

[monkeyfun14]

A good reason for this is seen with netbooks look at what happens when Linux and Windows are both offered the majority still pick Windows anyways the OEMs see this and figure why bother.

[BigGuns149]

You are correct in saying that generally your choices in prefab hardware are limited if you don't want whatever the most popular OS on the market, but it is inaccurate to say that you can't get a computer that doesn't have Vista. There are plenty of smaller shops that sell XP boxes to say nothing of the fact that 95%+ of netbooks run XP according to a recent study.

Furthermore, there are plenty of stores (eg. Fry's, Microcenter, etc.) that will do all the hard work for you to say nothing of the smaller shops or the fact that many online vendors that sell non-Vista machines.

I disagree with you that people will buy Windows 7 because there is no choice, but I will absolutely agree with you that for those who limit their computer purchases to big box stores don't have much choice, but most people select the latest version of Windows out of either ignorance that they could use an older version or their resistance to look at vendors beyond the local big box store for their computer.

[Seaspray0]

" if you buy it next year you will be stuck with Windows 7." Excellent! But I don't want to have to wait until next year, I want windows 7 now.

[Angmarr]

LOL IT moving to apple! keep hoping, considering yep, im considering to do so many things too.

[mikestatic1]

Consider an education... it will do wonders for you long term.

[JCPayne]

Uhh-oh. Hey Ballmer! Looks like everyone told u they aren't cool enough to be a flying window.

[bburn--2008]

Windows 7, oh boy I hope microsoft can deliver because my IT department are talking of going Mac OS X. Not that I have problem with that ;-)

[berfarah]

Not sure why they'd have issues with software compatibility (pretty much everything can be made to run, one way or another), hardware requirements (I'm running Windows 7 on my NETBOOK for crying out loud), stability (runs better than Vista/XP for me - and it's in beta), performance (see hardware requirements) or security (best yet, with UAC, guest accounts that are sandboxed and additional security options).

I challenge these IT people to play around with new operating systems - no, not just Windows ones. What's so hard about being enthusiastic about software? You can fiddle around, see if things run the way you like it, see if it's easy or usable. If you change to any OS there will be minor retraining - but then, every now and then you have to retrain. No single job remains static nowadays, and whoever thinks otherwise will probably be among the first to be laid off in this recession.

Admittedly I was sceptical with Windows 7, at first, as it is still a beta product, but I think that people shouldn't judge it before they try it. OSX's security is no better than Windows 7's - only the virus count is lower. But then, if you train the computer users to be intelligent when it comes to spam, those can be avoided.

I don't mean to sound like a fanboy. I just think everything deserves a chance. If IT guys are considering Ubuntu, and other Linux distros, why wouldn't they consider Windows 7?

[tayker]

From recent poor/slow support from third-party companies (software & hardware) to gajillion flavors of Windows, I'm looking elsewhere.

Whether it was 64-bit XP or Vista, third-party support sucked, and I don't fault Microsoft for that. However, it does impact my purchase because why would I want to spend money on something that's 3 times the amount of Mac OS X and won't be supported for a year or more after release? It also impacts third-party products I buy as well; I haven't purchased a D-Link or Linksys router in over 5 years, or updated my Windows versions of software, i.e. Photoshop, UltraEdit-32, QuickBooks, etc.

As a technology consultant, having a gabillion versions of Windows keeps me in business. However, it would be nice to have 1 OS that's the same to admin across the board, with the same files. Besides Vista Ultimate not worth the $300 it sells for, why have gpedit on some versions of Vista but not all? XP Home vs XP Pro?! If Microsoft had any clue to the demographic that purchase their products then they'd know that the "Pro" versions are what people want. Create 1 version with 1 price point and people will be less confused. Who want's to buy a $500 PC and then have to spend $250 for a Vista Upgrade? Sure, most IT pros know where to buy cheaper versions, but the "typical" PC user doesn't know anything outside of Best Buy. Mention OEM and eyes start to glaze over. Plus, this will also cut down on piracy - make it cheaper and more people will buy it. 1,000,000 x $129 = $129,000,000 > 100,000 x $300 = 30,000,000 - legal fees for pursuing the 900,000 pirates = ??.

I don't need Windows for gaming anymore because I'm content with my 360 - although the lack of split-screen support in games is making me rethink what games to buy. However, that's an unrelated point. Prior to jumping on Xbox, I only used consoles for sports games (i.e. football, baseball, soccer, etc), so the PC was my goto box for video games. Even though all of my favorite Tom Clancy games are starting to seem similar for easier play on consoles (Rainbow Six & Ghost Recon), there's still a lot of fun to be had. I haven't played anything substantial on a PC in 3 years now.

I really hate to look elsewhere because I don't like the smugness of Mac fanbois who ignore results like pwn2own, and I don't like how most Linux users expect people to understand ./configure, make, make install. Especially when Linux FAQs aren't written for a general user, but more for people who use Linux.

[Magicland]

I'm not looking elsewhere, I've been running Windows 7 on my office machine since the beta came out, but you're dead on about too many versions and ridiculous pricing. At most there should be 2 versions, home and business. Both should be able to scale features for differing hardware requirements, and the business version should be able to support both single authentication/activation and corporate deployment.

There's no way the OS should cost 75% of the price of the computer itself. If a decently featured version of Windows were available for $50, I'd consider paying for every copy that I use (and I personally use 7, between home, the office, and my laptop). Make them $20, and I wouldn't even have to think about it, it'd be a done deal. If I can buy a brand new laptop for $300 (and I can) with a version of Vista Home Premium on it, it shouldn't cost over $220 for a retail version of the same OS (it does). Either I got a $70 laptop or Microsoft's screwing end users on the price, and I'm pretty sure which one it is.

[austin_sabel]

Great look at this survey. There are far to many interpretations for the numbers in this survey. Especially with an undisclosed release date as of the study.

[lilykudrow]

Was reading Microsoft releases IE8, stresses security :
Microsoft hits back at Opera antitrust claims

http://techunits.com/content/list_all/52/internet%20explorer

[samthewill]

A poll at affluence.org indicates that many wealthy people are going to be making the switch.

[jessiethe3rd]

Always considering the switch. I think it's good to keep Microsoft on it's toes but let's be honest here. Any switch to any OTHER OS (outside Windows) is going to be costly and time consuming - if that happens in a downturn market I would really be suprised.

1. Linux - cost to re-write applications for native supportability, issues/challenges with support (dependability is increasingly important - who's going to be there tomorrow....??... Sun's slowly drying up and the rest of the market players are around but even people like Novell are starting to cave into the pressure - just look at their joint work with Microsoft...)

2. Mac - cost to re-write applications for native supportability, hardware support costs, integration with systems in general...

3. Vista - application compatibility is becoming less of an issue - application supportability in Vista has increased significantly - the application compatibility issues have almost disappeared completely. Why move to Vista? It's a bridge to Windows 7 ensuring that very little testing will be necessary to move on and up.