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)
Larry Dignan is editor in chief of ZDNet and editorial director of CNET's TechRepublic. He has covered the technology and financial-services industries since 1995. 
Dispute that.
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.
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.
AppleSucks1969: Abusive language and personal attacks are not tolerated. Your name for Penguinisto is simply not acceptable behavior and will be reported.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Have fun recompiling your Linux kernel everytime a new printer is added to your environment...
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.
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).
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.
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!!!
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.
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?
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.
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.
Microsoft hits back at Opera antitrust claims
http://techunits.com/content/list_all/52/internet%20explorer
- by jessiethe3rd April 14, 2009 12:29 PM PDT
- 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.
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (70 Comments)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.