Comments on: Gartner: Large businesses shouldn't skip Vista

Companies planning to wait for successor Windows 7 may face support issues and a rushed migration, research firm warns.

[curtegg]

Oh btw

Did you see that performance benchmark between Vista and XP.

MS own office apps run much faster in XP than Vista.

Yep, you definitely downgraded buying Vista.

[Proustian]

The Smart Choices

#1 Stay with Windows XP until 2012 then switch to Vista as SP2/SP3 comes out. Buy only used machines with the XP COA on them for your business and skip new machines.

or

#2 Switch to Vista but buy only new machines with Vista already installed on them and swap out old machines for new. Buy newer versions of your business software that are Vista compatible. Run the free Virtual PC to run XP Pro in a Virtual Machine for legacy software that won't work in Vista.

or

#3 Use both XP and Vista machines, but custom design all your business software in Java so that no matter what platform your business goes to, as long as it has a Java runtime available for it, it can run your custom Java applications. So even if you use Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7.0, Mac OSX, OS/2 eComstation, Linux, or Solaris your Java programs will run under those systems. Switch from MS-Office to Open Office.org because it is mostly Java based and runs on all of those platforms.

or

#4 Switch every system to Linux, get a VMWare license for each Linux workstation to run a copy of XP under it for legacy applications, and use open source software or pay to have customized software written for your business. Run VmWare Server for access to XP and Vista systems, just make sure each workstation has at least 2G of RAM to run half of it for a virtual machine.

#5 Run a Linux System with VMWare Virtual Server, have both XP and Vista virtual machines on it. Every system your company has will have the VMWare Player on it to access the VMWare Server so it doesn't matter what OS your workstations run as long as they got the VMWare Server client on it. Make sure that each workstation has at least 2G of RAM on it, half used for the Virtual Machine.

#6 Run Windows 2003 Server with the Virtual PC server on it, and each Windows client has access to the Virtual PC Server images for XP and Vista systems. Make sure that each workstation has at least 2G of RAM on it, half used for the Virtual Machine.

[Commander_Spock]

Software Choices!

"#1 Stay with Windows XP until 2012 then switch to Vista as SP2/SP3 comes out. Buy only used machines with the XP COA on them for your business and skip new machines". Haven't you ever noticed the features of persons as they get older - they look more and more like their parents; therefore, how do you think XP would look in "2012" if it morphed out of OS/2!

[Schratboy]

If Gartner Speaks.......?

I wonder how large Gartner's consulting contract was? From what I understand, favorable recommendations correspond to the amount of money one spends on their market analytics....

[albertsoler]

Why rush?

There is no reason, whatsoever, for any size business to migrate to Vista *right now*. Really. What is the rush? Why not let Vista mature, as it certainly will, to a point where its stability and compatibility will come close to parity with XP? Let new hardware evolve that can smoothly handle the new, unnecessarily bloated, OS.

There's an endless stream of articles that suspiciously look more like marketing rather than expert advise. Putting conspiracy theories aside, there's an argument to be made against waiting too long, or maybe skipping Vista. But, that must be analyzed on a case by case basis. These types of articles always seem to make blanket statements that could not possibly apply to all.

Here's something that hasn't been touched on: As businesses wait, more and more private consumers will gain experience with their own Vista PCs. Think of the cost savings if you didn't have to train several hundred employees to use an alien interface from scratch.

I see no compelling reason to switch today -- none. It's OK to wait -- but wait intelligently.

[srebelo]

Vendor Support

Well, if the majority of users and business still have XP in 2010-2012, than it would be safe to assume software would still be developed for it. Face the facts, Vista Failed

[Penguinisto]

Well then...

If the following is true...

[i]"But Gartner research vice president Michael Silver has warned that the next version of Windows, code-named "Windows 7," may also suffer from the delays that dogged Vista and be just as difficult to adopt."[/i]

...then the most logical solution is to simply skip Windows altogether, and migrate to an OS that won't stick you on a painful upgrade mill. Funny enough, there are alternatives that are not only enterprise-ready, but cost a whole lot less, have better reliability, run more efficiently, and pretty much do anything and everything a business might want or need.

Of course, cue the MSFT shills and the fearful MCSE's, who will promptly come crying with their ever-diminishing reasons why a business owner would want to stick with Windows.

But let's face it - would you, as a business owner, rather go through a migration pain only once (and that's it), or continue to do so every few years as MSFT jams yet another incompatible and pain-inducing bloat-monster down your throats?

Seems rather simple once you think it through... It's already happening in the server room - why not on the desktops?

/P

[Seaspray0]

Application compatibility

The applications run here are the money maker. Some of them are still DOS based. Surprisingly, they run fine on vista. They won't run on linux.

Other than the applications, linux is capable of running the enterprise. The cost in the long run is about the same, not a whole lot less.

[suyts]

Still, 95%

of the world is running MS. I could make the switch to another OS, but then all the specialized 3rd party software wouldn't work. Or worse yet, I'd be tasked to make them work,(Which I nor anyone else can do.)and then I'd be fired. Not to mention the retraining that would have to occur, or the driver hunting, or the vender shopping ect, ect. I'm not sure what niche company you are supporting, and maybe it is a good fit for your company, but IMHO for most of the business world, it just isn't very realistic. Until the market share in the business world shifts significantly to another OS, it would be irresponsible to switch.

[Commander_Spock]

"let's face it...

... - would you, as a business owner, rather go through a migration pain only once (and that's it), or continue to do so every few years as MSFT jams yet another incompatible and pain-inducing bloat-monster down your throats?

Seems rather simple once you think it through... It's already happening in the server room - why not on the desktops?". Here is "why"/a clue: As history will show - the "migration" of the folks that you trust with all your "cash" (for now, they have a lean/iron grip on your house) was not to the South Pole!

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,83884,00.html

Why not "go through a migration pain only once" by Just Adding Warp!

[Conel Klink]

Skip Vista and get hurt!

is this a threat?
http://****************.blogspot.com
steve agrees

[fred dunn]

Microsoft is one of Gartner's largest clients...

I see Gartner reports since we are a client as well but not to the amount Microsoft pays them.
It has always gotten my goat when they come out with their product an/or service "Quadrant" reports and seldom is there a non-Gartner client listed in the Quadrant.
Also Gartner for the most part puts out reports that anyone in IT would consider IT 101.

Gartner, You are wrong (probability 90%) and simple minded (probability 100%). Your reports are worthless.

Doesn't anybody see that Gartner is "Living" off of the very businesses that they hype in their white-papers, studies, research, and consultations?

Gartner is a perfect case of conflict of interest.

[chuck_whealton]

Re: Microsoft is one of Gartner's largest clients....

And for reasons like this, I view Gartner recommendations with a lot of skepticism.

They should disclose just how big a customer is to them whenever they produce one of these reports recommending their products. To not do so would seem (at least to me) to be conflict of interest.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[Commander_Spock]

Garter (Gartner)Tabs Caution Sign (Predictions)!

Take care as you enter the New Year 2008 (and into international waters and jungles) without "ISO Office Standards": There are Piranhas in the desktop waters Leopards and 800lb Gorillas lurking in the jungles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksFqjI3gyAo

These Are The Conditions Why Small, Medium and Large Businesses Can Afford To Miss "VISTA"; and,
Why 2008 Would Not Be Like 1984!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

Substituting the first 1984 for 2008!

[hawkeyeaz1]

But Microsoft swore it would fix the delay

So either Gartner is mis-informed, or Microsoft can't roll the next version out on time, again.

Oh well, XP works. Who cares if the software is outdated?

[thedreaming]

Not News

This isn't news. A company Microsoft does business with is telling businesses not to skip Vista and to buy it already. How is this news?

[dmbrown123]

Gartner Should be Ashamed

This is a ridiculous piece of 'research' produced by the Gartner group. To say upgrading to Microsoft's latest version of Windows is good for business because the next version will likely be late and just as difficult to adopt is simply fluff research. And, that a Gartner Vice President for research, Mr. Michael Silver, would even put his name to such a piece of fluff is worse.

This fine piece of research goes on to blame Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) for being the greater cause of business problems because they will only support existing operating systems for only so long, maybe through 2010 or 2012. Most ISVs are moving to operating system neutral development platforms, such as Internet browsers and cross-platform development languages, for this very reason. Maybe by 2010, Microsoft can architect a clear development path for providing an operating system that isn't so bloated with unused features that an updated and stable version of Windows can be provided to the marketplace in a timely manner.

Any Fortune company that wants to continue listening to Gartner deserves this type of shoddy recommendation to make their business investments. Following this type of advise is simply foolish and just bad business. Business needs to decide their Return on Investment for a major software upgrade, not simply keeping up with the whim and will of Microsoft's marketing machine.

Gartner and Mr. Silver, you should be ashamed for trying to pass this type of hyperbole off as research. As a thirty-year IT veteran, I turn my back on your firm and its research, if this is what you are willing to submit to the industry.

[Commander_Spock]

To be added....

... "As a thirty-year IT veteran, I turn my back on your firm and its research, if this is what you are willing to submit to the industry". From which educational institution in the world did the people submitting this report get their "Doctoral Degrees (PHDS) in Economics" from!

[ncftech]

a little more...

to add. Being in IT at various levels and for many years, I can say this: ISV, will support and develop software for any platform (XP) that continues to have market share and a huge user base. I agree that this article is just plain garbage.

[fred dunn]

Gartner is slowly becoming irrelevant...

Their so-called proffesional area-specific analysts churn out nothing better than what you can aggregate yourself. On top if that by the time they get the OK to publish it it is out of date.

I used to like Gartner's "Magic Quandrant" reports of vendors products in a specific area but I have found them to be "black magic" at best.
I often wonder if the recommended top tier products are only top tier due to the client fees charged to those companies.

Gartner need to either represent non-IT producing Companies exclusively or continue to be questioned about the conflict of interest given to the highest bidder.