Survey: Many businesses plan to skip Windows 7
Although plenty of businesses skipped Windows Vista, a significant number of corporations have no plans to quickly move to Windows 7, according to a new survey.
The survey, which received feedback from 1,000 IT administrators, found that nearly 60 percent have no current plan to adopt Windows 7. The survey, conducted by Quest Software's ScriptLogic unit, received the 1,000 responses from 20,000 surveys it distributed.
Just over a third of survey respondents said that they plan to deploy by the end of 2010, while 5.4 percent said they expected to move to Windows 7 this calendar year. Some 59 percent of those that responded said they have "no plans to deploy at this time," although certainly some of those might still move to the OS.
Microsoft is expected to finalize the code for Windows 7 later this month.
"This survey highlights the impact the economy has had on IT, with thirty five percent of respondents saying they've saved money by skipping upgrades and delaying purchases," said Nick Cavalancia, vice president of Windows management at ScriptLogic. "This is likely a reason why IT administrators will put off a Windows 7 migration."
The survey found the top two barriers to adoption were lack of time and resources (offered by 42 percent of respondents) and application compatibility (given by nearly 39 percent of those surveyed).
ScriptLogic helps companies manage their Windows systems and security.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
I expect adoption rates will be sluggish until the first full service patch comes out.
Driver support? All there for anything less than 7 years old, except for VERY specialized equipment..... which the reason for no drivers shouldn't be blamed on Windows, but the equipment manufacturers (i.e. call them up and tell them to GET OFF THEIR ***** and write drivers for these machines for Vista/7).
Application problems? None that I have seen thus far, every single application that I could run on Windows Vista runs on Windows 7. There are a few 'oops' here and there, mainly in disc-burning softwares, but those are going to be fixed almost as soon as Windows 7 is released to consumers with FREE updates in most cases.
They'll get one or two PCs with bundled Win 7 for compatibility and applications testing. That has been the case with every major release of an operating system, whether NT, 2000, XP, and Vista. Unfortunately, many chose not to take the Vista plunge.
I wouldn't expect many companies to *MOVE* to Windows 7 on existing machines because if they already have Vista, there is no *need*, and if they have XP, chances are the machine is so old it'll be replaced at some point anyway.
The headline of the article does not match the content. The survey said that most businesses have no plans, which is true. The survey did not say that 60% of all companies are going to wait for the next version and "skip" the upcoming one. Kinda surprised the fanboy crowd from MSFT didn't notice that...
"The primary goal of this survey was to assess the impact of the weak economy on IT infrastructure projects and we found that, despite its impact on short-term plans, 41% of organizations plan a wholesale migration to Windows 7 by the end of 2010. This is actually a strong adoption rate when compared to the historical adoption rate of Windows XP in its first year which was cited as 12-14%."
So W7 appears to have an adoption rate of about three times that of XP which will make it one of - if not the - most succseful product launch for MS ever.
But don't blame yourself: Ina appears to have missed that part too.
The real reason for Vista lacking drivers is pretty straightforward. Microsoft changed a driver model that had no real problems, killing with it tons and tons of legacy drivers. Vista has fared badly not because it lacks drivers for state of the art newer systems (most laptops come with Vista and those have very special drivers), but because it fails when connected to Legacy systems. Several examples: old HP laserjets (in perfect condition), old plotters, and even some PLC systems.
Another thing that help the Vista demise, was the fact that Microsoft almost killed or fragmented most ISV, so now ten of thousands of companies depend on mostly shell companies, which still give help desk support but have no real software department, just a crew of bug fixers in India. Porting this apps is a nightmarish statement. Also, these apps work perfectly well, being best-of-breed in most cases.
And then again, some others (like IBM's Lotus and Adobe) feast on their hardware and software Vista incompatibility, just to push their alternatives to Vista.
> Microsoft changed a driver model that had no real problems, killing with it tons and tons of legacy drivers.
Actually, the driver model did have problems. Bad drivers were (and are) the main cause of blue screens under XP, and the OS didn't have the ideal level of protection from driver faults, so Microsoft decided to build a safer driver model. There really *was* a good reason, and since they had already switched the driver model a few years before in the switch to Win32, they thought they can do it again with reasonable success.
Of course, we all know what happened to that idea, and you're right that it's the main reason Vista largely failed in the marketplace (the secondary reason is that it doesn't run well on low-memory systems).
Most people and corporations who use Vista now find the driver support to be perfectly adequate, because a whole lot of drivers have been written and polished in the intervening 3 years. There are exceptions, but there was old hardware that never worked on Windows 2000 and XP, either -- it's just that eventually either no one cared, or someone who did care sat down and wrote a driver.
But Windows 7 has a much more refined UI (which it should, since XP is 8 years old now), and any number of significant security features. Plus the 64-bit version is a big step forward (especially if you want to address more than 3 GB of RAM), and on some more recent systems, 7 will actually be faster than XP.
The pent-up demand for these improvements (fed by low demand for Vista) is why a surprisingly large 40% of businesses are going to deploy in the first year of release.
The rate was never that high for Win 95, 98, 2000, or XP, so it seems silly to focus on the downside here. Anyone who makes doom and gloom predictions for Windows 7 is going to look as silly as people who predicted that Microsoft Office sales would collapse in the face of free competition from OpenOffice.
Viruses have a MUCH harder time penetrating a system just by being downloaded, because anything that tries to access the Windows, Program Files, etc. directories or start on startup..... big time warning before they are allowed to do that, and you have to MANUALLY allow them to do that. You aren't likely to if a thing just pops up suddenly when you aren't expecting it.
That ALONE makes it worth the update/upgrade for most businesses.
Windows 'Better Security' often means for business more time changing how to secure the network. Sometimes the old was are the best.
MS is finally becoming a victim of it's own success. It can't compete with XP. The same argument for Windows (everyone uses it) now applies to XP and will continue to make Vista/W7 an easy sell to business.
Users that are not admins, locked down XP PC's where users cant install anything, layers of Anti-malware, and very limited internet access. These same actions would be applied to Vista or 7.
So if XP is working and secure at your corporation there is little need to rush out and spend many, many, many hours migrating. When XP gets close to not receiving security updates (2014) then plan and migrate to whatever at the time.
because it works. Right now there is no reason to switch because current business applications work just fine with XP. There is also training, people already know how to use the XP interface. Security is an issue, but it doesn't trump costs/training/compatibility yet.
Does this mean that businesses are going to skip win7 like they did Vista? no I don't think so... Every smart business always waits and tests a new OS before they roll it out for full production use. Almost all of them will wait until Service pack 1. If Windows 7 works like it should (and right now it looks like it will) then in a couple years most business PC's will be using it.
Try it and you may find a reason to move to it.
@The_Happy_Switcher:
I have both Mac and Windows and have yet to find a reason to move entirely to Mac. In fact, Win7 is all the more reason to move AWAY from OS X. How do you like them beans? :)
IT Administrators are the wrong group to survey- they don't make the purchasing decisions and rarely actually have their input even accepted in a corporation's welfare. They just have to implement whatever they are told they are going to be using. Having been in that position, it's a thankless job. You get blamed for whatever happens when you're given poor management decisions above you. Dilbertism in action.
"This survey highlights the impact the economy has had on IT, with thirty five percent of respondents saying they've saved money by skipping upgrades and delaying purchases,"
This is a very good point. The economy is not such that companies have a lot of money in the IT budget and that's going to put a halt to pretty much any new major system upgrades or OS licenses. That will change within the year from what I see in the news and general economic conditions indicating a recovery is in progress, but it will still take time.
You forgot the word "Incompetent" at the beginning of that sentence.
Dunno about you, but we are only given objectives and goals (e.g. "we need software that can do this, and a that can reach these areas..."), not product names and version numbers.
If your CIO is incompetent enough to have his decisions made for him, he's in the wrong job. If your CIO is making the wrong decisions, you make damned sure he eats the consequences, not you.
"You get blamed for whatever happens when you're given poor management decisions above you."
Again - if you're not competent (or spine-worthy) enough to push back at a poor decision...
Signed,
a Sr. Sysadmin.
"You forgot the word "Incompetent" at the beginning of that sentence. "
Well, your points are a bit... well whimsical at best. It would really be nice if the real world operated as you claim, but we do have to deal with what actually happens in the business world instead. :/
1) push back
2) document your objections, so when it fails, said decision-maker is the one that gets to answer all the uncomfortable questions. It also helps when you take the money out of their cost center, not yours.
If you're still being stuck with bad purchasing decisions, then either:
1) your IT management is the one making the bad decisions and is lying about it (not too uncommon), or
2) you have a spineless git running it, in which case it's still your department's fault.
In either case, you may want to update your resume' ;)
The last job I had with a IT admin that had gone against the CIO and "CEO" on the decision was.... let go...
Granted I would have done the same thing, just pointing out that not everyone is ready to put their job on the line for one purchase decision... some CEO and CIOs are tough nuts that believe only in their own decision...
I'm currently an IT administrator for a rather large company, and I must say this. If that survey was aimed at us? the error rate would be extremely high, because only our top brass, aka Chief of Technology Officer, make this decision and they have decided that we won't move to 7 until at least 2 years later. and I can see why...
for Companies that stuck with XP, they are gonna need alot of time to migrate software and test the new platform(internals and all that) to make sure nth explodes...
You're telling me that out of 20000+ surveys sent out and out of the only 1100 that made it back they've been able to conclude that it counts as a majority of businesses affected by the new OS.
I'm not saying anything bad about the article, though the title is a bit misleading, as it did state the facts of the results. I'm just saying that the survey isn't accurate.
I'd wager that alot of companies look forward to making the switch over and are only hampered by situations not related to the OS itself. So the title might be, "Business hampered by economy unable to make the switch to Windows 7". Bit long winded, but more accurate.
Sometimes, it is down as low at 30 BUCKS per computer, though that's if you are buying for 10K computers or more.
No offence, but just to point out... I dont think there are "any" companies (well except for companies that make desktop/laptops) that would buy "10k" copies of windows... a more realistic number would be around 2~300 even though thats abit over estimating too
This isn't exactly shocking.
Getting excited about this is just silly.
@PhaseDMA... exactly. OTOH, the headline implies something completely different than the reality. I'm surprised the Microsoft fanboys didn't notice that and start screaming...
"nearly 60 percent have **no current plan** to adopt Windows 7. "
This is hardly a good survey or good reporting. Of course businesses won't quickly move to Win7. It takes about 2 to 3 years for our company to test and deploy something on that scale (ie 33,000+ workstations).
Of course there's no current plan, we're stretching dollars in this economy. Win7 isn't even fully out. We may be beta testing, but it's a little early to be making plans or tapping the budget.
Businesses will adopt Win7. Eventually, XP support will fall behind, and they'll have to upgrade.
Your computer might not be crashing but are you 100% certain that your computer is not part of a botnet spreading spam for criminals in another country? It is the sort of modern approach to malware that the user may not know that their computer has been hijacked and we all have a responsibility to maintain modern defenses. Any OS earlier than XP SP3 has to be a security worry.
Ah, the good ol' "upgrade or the bogeyman will get you" argument. I tend to feel that if WIndows 2000 still works for a company and they already have sufficient security in place to protect their systems/data then there is little real incentive for the business to upgrade because something "might" happen but yet hasn't happened during the past 10-years. If the company has been under attack then there is an incentive to upgrade.
Win2K, XP Pro, Vista64 Home Premium, Windows 7 RC, NetBSD 4.1 server, Suse WS 10.2, Ubuntu 8.10 server
Wikipedia says that XP came out in 2001. Vista came out in 2007. Six years. And now Windows 7 in 2009. I'll just wait a few more years for a better upgrade, instead of just faster performance and more security. All my devices work and if I wanted my computer to be faster, I can install more RAM.
Windows 98 released June 1998
Windows 2000 released Feb 2000 18 months from 98
Windows XP released October 2001 18 months from 2000
Vista Released November 2006 5 years biggest OS gap
Windows 7 released October 2009 35 months pretty big gap
The Major issue is many IT orgs did not move from 2000 to XP until 2005-2006
For many reason's you site. The move from 98 to 2000 was a no brainier, many companies moved to 2000 quickly. But then XP came out, and its adoption rate was horrific, and never really took hold until 2000 was EOL
We saw about a 5 year gap from 2000 to XP as far as adoption. In 2005 more then 48% of business still ran 2000
XP is hitting EOL, and Vista had a better adoption rate then XP when it came to business. But windows 7 seams to be on coarse to set the record for new OS adoption rate with corp companies.
I find it amazing how many people today love XP, when from its release up untill a few years ago it was one of the most hated MS OS's, at least from the IT world. Pre 2005-06 you would be hard pressed to find any good press about XP in the Corp environment.
Why not move those applications to the browser? Then:
1. a browser upgrade would be the equivalent to an OS upgrade, in the future.
2. you would have additional flexibility at the OS level, since most browsers support multiple OSes.
3. your workforce would be able to access the apps from any device (smartphones, netbooks, notebooks, desktops, eReaders, etc.).
It is.
@ jbcahill : "every PC application that we use in the Enterprise would have to undergo extensive testing and quality control for computability under Windows 7."
That applies to every single operating system upgrade. Nothing new here, Plus for the millions who already use Vista, their applications, device drivers, etc that work with Vista, will almost certainly work with Win 7
@ jbcahill : " So I understand why business's will be skipping Win 7."
Businesses are not skipping Win 7. Even this survey says close to 40% of businesses will deploy Win 7 by the end of 2010, which in itself may be one of the festest deployments of a new operating system ever. The rest of them could still deploy after 2010, after SP1. Nothing new about that either.
"That applies to every single operating system upgrade. Nothing new here, Plus for the millions who already use Vista, their applications, device drivers, etc that work with Vista, will almost certainly work with Win 7"
You see, Kwasiowusu, nobody wants these "almost certainly" phrases. It either works or not. You see, if it's not, it's where we go when we have the "almost certainly" part, you need to spent lots of many to make it work and to be sure it will work as it's suppose to.
That's why you test your applications/devices before deployment. The point being you are going to have very few compatibility issues with a Vista/Win 7 deployment. I have been using Win 7 since beta to RC1, and I am yet to have any problems with my Vista applications/devices on Win 7.
@ SmithJohn5 :"You see, if it's not, it's where we go when we have the "almost certainly" part, you need to spent lots of many to make it work and to be sure it will work as it's suppose to"
Agian, that's why you do extensive testing before you deploy, starting even with Win 7 beta now, if you plan to deploy. No one suggested you just get up and deploy with no preparation here.
Again, all the points you bring about compatibilty apply to every single OS upgrade that anyone does. So what's new about that? it's not like it applies only to Win 7 upgrade does it?
The problem is businesses have tens even hundereds of millions of dollars invested in software. Changes to the platform these applications run on top of costs business more millions to update their software. I have yet to see an OS change since Windows 2000 which is worth it when all of the all the application updates are factored into the cost matrix.
I can't speak for your company, but any company that wants to minimize downtime realizes that downtime is lost money. If you have a solution staring at you in the face that will cost you less on the bottom line to implement for downtime than it does to upgrade, then that is a serious factor to consider.
Their decision was to put a limited use of the OS and see how it performs in both functionality and user comfort. but the questions provided were exactly my concern as well Drivers and business applications that are in-house, or business-specific. it takes software corporate time to issue new and functional software that works with any existing OS on the market. Point in case, we remained in windows 98 until 2002 until company had software built to function with windows XP. Now the question is, since these companies were informed or made aware that windows 7 is up and coming, are they re-building, updating codes to these softwares? I don't know because they haven't said anything to me or my boss. So, our company's decision is to stay with windows XP until such time we receive word that one is avail. for windows 7. This, I believe, may reflect the majority of businesses on taking a "wait-and-see" toward windows 7 and that is a healthy attitude. I know Microsoft knows this. So they are catering to the general public first and businesses later.
We use windows, linux, native novell, and mac in our business and boy that can be a chore lol
Have a good one folks, and do try windows 7 release candidate just to wet ur appetite for what to expect. If not, just relax, what u have now works, right?
Ultimately, it's all about the money and if you can't quantify the benefits of Windows 7 in $s such that it is the most important thing then you can pretty much forget about it. This is something that Microsoft needs to face - at some point their products become "good enough" such that the important problems have been addressed and new versions are no longer attractive (i.e. more hassle than benefits). There already seems to be a consensus that Windows XP is indeed "good enough". This means that it will be increasingly hard for the company to sell new licenses and they are going to need to find new revenue streams, which they do seem to be doing. Desktop Windows and Office are going to become less and less important as companies cease upgrading.
What's that? The new computers are faster, more power efficient and save you time? No, you don't need that, ignore progress. Your buggywhip still works just fine.
If my current O/S is 2x as efficient as it needs to be and the new O/S is 4x as efficient as it needs to be then upgrading is pointless as I'll see no benefit until the actual bottleneck in the system (probably 3rd party software or human limitation) is no longer an issue. After all, if I'm still not capable of utilising the O/S I have to its full capacity, why do I need more capacity?
if you are talking about desktop and laptops, then yes windows has about 85% market share which is huge, but when it comes to server market... windows overall has just 65% market share and when it comes to the top web hosting servers out there only 20% of them use windows!!
windows 2000 server will still be good for many years to come
new microsoft office UI is confusing, and plenty sticks to 2002 or prior
visual studio 2005/2008 still works even for windows 2000,XP
so, why upgrade?
Why buy a new car? Or a new home? Or new clothes?
Why not simply go live in a cave with the bears and mountain lions or whatever, and grow a long beard and walk about half naked in the wilds?
Windows 7 is 32 bit and NT is 32 bit so there is no difference between them?
Riiight!
Now why don't you go read up something about operating systems(like in the next 4 years or so), then get back to me when you actually have a clue what the heck you are talking about eh?
That's a good boy.
Because a home and a car are tangible and real things contrary to an OS.
You see things tend to get older with time. They wither, lose its color etc.
And what's with an OS? It doesn't wither, nor it loses its color.
What you need from an OS is that it works and does what you need.
I doubt you need to pay kilobucks for upgrading every several years.
The entire upgrading process is aimed at you paying more money. ))
You gotta be kidding me, right?
That's like saying the air we breathe is not "tangible" so therefore it's less valuable to us as human beings than a chair is, because we can touch a chair.Try living without that "intangible" air and see where that gets you. You wouldn't last 10 minutes.
The value of something, is not dependent on how "tangible" it is.
If you think an OS is not valuable because its not "real", why don't you go back to the command entry days of Dos, and leave GUI behind then? That sounds like a nice way to spend one's life doesn't it?
@ SmithJohn5:"You see things tend to get older with time. They wither, lose its color etc.
And what's with an OS? It doesn't wither, nor it loses its color"
You will find out that your Windows 95 PC, will not be able to run most of your current applications, or do most of the cool online stuff that you take for granted today.Operating systems get old with time same as any "tangible" item.
@ SmithJohn5:"What you need from an OS is that it works and does what you need"
Which older operating systems like win 95/98/Me simply DON'T.
Sometimes there are reasons to upgrade, but not all of them always apply to everyone.
>That's like saying the air we breathe is not "tangible" so therefore it's less valuable to us as human beings than a chair
>is, because we can touch a chair.Try living without that "intangible" air and see where that gets you. You wouldn't last
>10 minutes.
You see air is from the material world. It's what your life depends on. You need to see the difference.
You won't die if you don't upgrade you know.
>The value of something, is not dependent on how "tangible" it is.
I said nothing about the value. Actually I was talking about the need.
If you don't need to upgrade, they will persuade/force you through various measures.
>If you think an OS is not valuable because its not "real", why don't you go back to the command entry days of Dos,
>and leave GUI behind then? That sounds like a nice way to spend one's life doesn't it?
You see, we are talking about upgrading in here and not downgrading. You need to be more attentive.
>You will find out that your Windows 95 PC, will not be able to run most of your current applications, or do most of the
>cool online stuff that you take for granted today.Operating systems get old with time same as any "tangible" item.
You see, in terms of common logic, you don't need to upgrade your OS to make things work, unless these things are not meant to be used with your OS. So what you're trying to say to me is to put parts from a Buick into my Ford. You see, parts from a Buick are not meant to work within a Ford. You see? It's what is called business and grouping in some respect. ))
>Which older operating systems like win 95/98/Me simply DON'T.
Maybe. You don't know my needs, do you? But your wording makes me feel you do.
Let's compare what you are saying now, to what you said earlier shall we?
From your earlier post:" Because a home and a car are tangible and real things contrary to an OS.
You see things tend to get older with time. They wither, lose its color etc."
So tell me, does air whither, lose color, get older with time too?
Try and be at least consistent will you?
You are jumping all over the joint.
@ SmithJohn5 :"I said nothing about the value. Actually I was talking about the need."
When you have an old operating system, that cannot run most of your current applications that you need to run your business, a new operating system becomes a need, just as much as getting a newer car to replace your gass guzzler beocmes a need when gas prices are high.
@ SmithJohn5 :"You see, we are talking about upgrading in here and not downgrading"
Nope.
You have been talking about NOT upgrading here.
I have been talking about upgrading. You need to pay attention to what you said before.
@ SmithJohn5 :"You see, in terms of common logic, you don't need to upgrade your OS to make things work, unless these things are not meant to be used with your OS"
A lot of the time, softeware writers simply stop supporting older operating systems after a while, if nothing because they have finite software rescources, and don't have the time or the money to keep supporting older operating systems. Invariably, one eventually has to move forward too, in order to be able to run the new versions of the software one uses for one's business.
@ SmithJohn5 :"Maybe. You don't know my needs, do you? "
Nope.
But I know that most business software needs today, are not going to be satisfied by running Win95/98/Me, which is what this thead is about.
I have a copy of Windows 2.0 for you, then. It's small and runs really fast!
There was a time when I thought that way too. I was afraid of progress and change. I was blind by choice to innovation or the future.
>Let's compare what you are saying now, to what you said earlier shall we?
>From your earlier post:" Because a home and a car are tangible and real things contrary to an OS.
>You see things tend to get older with time. They wither, lose its color etc."
You need to spend more time in parks than in the internet and playing computer games. Maybe then you'll see the difference. You see you have Windows 3.11 and it will always be that. It won't change. You see. Let's take a tree for example it will get older and older and then die and dissolve. You see? And what with the code? Does it change? No! Does it dissolve? No!
>So tell me, does air whither, lose color, get older with time too?
Yes, didn't you know. Everything that is real does.
>Try and be at least consistent will you?
Sure, try putting some air in a closed room for a year, and you'll see the difference.
No? Have you ever tried? )) It's not a computer game it's a reality.
>When you have an old operating system, that cannot run most of your current applications that you need to run your
>business,
Wait a minute, I already have an operation system. How does it come that I can not run what I need when this OS has been running what I need? You're inconsistent. Things doesn't change suddenly. It can't be that that suddenly I become unable to use a program I've been using because there is a new version of my OS out there.
>a new operating system becomes a need, just as much as getting a newer car to replace your gass guzzler
>beocmes a need when gas prices are high.
When there is a need, there is a change. Though, I don't want anyone telling me when to change, you know.
>Nope.
>You have been talking about NOT upgrading here.
How can you say what I'm trying to say when it's not you who's saying it? Huh?
I can tell you what I'm trying to say and it's that you need to be reasonable before doing any changes.
>I have been talking about upgrading. You need to pay attention to what you said before.
Sure, I do pay attention to what you say. Otherwise how could i see the breaches in your reasoning?
>A lot of the time, softeware writers simply stop supporting older operating systems after a while, if nothing because
>they have finite software rescources, and don't have the time or the money to keep supporting older operating
>systems. Invariably, one eventually has to move forward too, in order to be able to run the new versions of the
>software one uses for one's business.
Sure. Though, in case when the newer versions are unable to run on the older system. Don't you agree?
>Nope.
>But I know that most business software needs today, are not going to be satisfied by running Win95/98/Me, which is
>what this thead is about.
Sorry, but you forgot about Windows XP. And this tread as I recall is about Win7. By the way, could you please look up this "Win95/98/Me" in the article. We need to know for sure whether there are such strings there.... Don't you agree? Oops, it seems you didn't find them. Well, it's not my fault.
Slow news day?
If over a third of businesses deploy Windows 7 by the end of 2010, that in itself would be one of the fastest deployments of any new operating system by businesses ever, especially in the middle of the worst reccession we have had in over over years, no?
Not to mention, it's not so much a mattter of " Many businesses plan to skip Windows 7", as a matter of many businesess may not deploy Windows 7 before the end of 2010, which seems normal to me, given that lots of businesses wait till a new OS has had it's first Service Pack before they deploy.
Having said all that, and having used Win7 RC1 since it was launched, I'd say its as ready to be deployed even better than Vista SP1 was, but one can understand businesses being a bit cautious to start off with.
And The same analyst from gartner who said vista was useless is recommending and upgrade without waiting for SP1..
And 40% of IT admins already think that way.. then Windows 7 might as well salvage microsoft's reputation lost with vista..
Personally I have been using windows 7 for about 7 months now and have not faced even a single problem with all my applications...
- by topgunb2 July 13, 2009 4:34 AM PDT
- where are apple fanboys??? just realised, the article is about enterprise OS
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (129 Comments)