Comments on: Survey: Many businesses plan to skip Windows 7
In a new poll, 60 percent of IT administrators said they have no plans to move to Redmond's new operating system.
Most Popular
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 Beyond Binary
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.
Beyond Binary is a look at how technology is changing our lives and the people behind all that life-changing stuff, with an extra emphasis on that which emanates from Redmond, Wash.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Beyond Binary topics
Binary Bits
Follow Ina on Twitter (Twitter name: InaFried)
In two and a half years of Vista use we have had two (2) viruses. With XP it averaged two a month. Our annual cost for security software is about $60.00 retail * 21/2 years = $150.00 (US), nearly the cost of a Windows OS. Over a five year usage of Vista we will pay $300.00+ (US) for security software. Where do you think Corporations and I would like to reduce our costs? BTW, Windows will be giving away security software soon. I'm wondering if it will be exclusively for Windows 7 users?.
Hackers aren't stupid they go where the users are. Window users are 80% of the people using OSs. 10% for Mac and 1% for Linux/other.
The longer a OS stays around the longer the hackers have to find weakness's in it.
On the other hand some businesses may no longer have a choice but to go to Win7. Microsoft plans to drop support by 2011 and many businesses may have no choice but to go to Win7.
Personally I skipped vista and wasn't to impressed with it the first time around. Win7 does everything I need. Yes I have some apps which are no longer going to work but that's the breaks of it. I prefer the new features in Win7 then some of features found in older systems. Don't get me wrong XP will still be running in parallel to Win7 until such a time as I see fit to kill XP support for good.
And this comes from the same person who also ran Win2000 until late 2007/2008.
On the other hand some businesses may no longer have a choice but to go to Win7. Microsoft plans to drop support by 2011 and many businesses may have no choice but to go to Win7.
Personally I skipped vista and wasn't to impressed with it the first time around. Win7 does everything I need. Yes I have some apps which are no longer going to work but that's the breaks of it. I prefer the new features in Win7 then some of features found in older systems. Don't get me wrong XP will still be running in parallel to Win7 until such a time as I see fit to kill XP support for good.
And this comes from the same person who also ran Win2000 until late 2007/2008.
Seriously... being that this community is majorly tilted towards Mac OS and Linux Distribution it would be unreasonable to expect any other banter except a lot of skeptics. Most people in the corporate space I have spoke to (a very large # of companies) are planning and testing Windows 7 against internal applications today. Not only that but Microsoft is stepping up and paying partners to get testing for early adoption.
The reviews are already good so why would people hold off? Because the cost don't justify the means? Hog wash - the reduction in admin costs / operational costs for an unsupported OS alone is reason to move - companies realize this.
Switch to a Non-Windows platform? They cannot as they invested large sums of money to buy or develop the "Legacy Windows Software" that does not have a Mac OSX, Linux, BSD Unix, HaikuOS, AROS, OS/2, or even Java based equivalent. You have to remember that a company does more than just documents, accounting, taxes, etc. Hospitals need a certain type of software that is not general business, Law Firms need a certain type of software that is not general business, most companies need software that is custom made to their business modem and business system, some of the time they develop their own software. Switching to a Non-Windows platform is not as easy for a business as it is for a person. A business not only has to switch to a different OS, but either buy new software written for that OS or pay the cost of developing it themselves, and then pay the money for the data transfer from the Windows platform to the new platform.
That is why Microsoft has the "lock in" for businesses, most of the business software is written for Windows based technologies; however, most of it is written for Windows XP and under. The reason why a company skips Windows Vista or Windows 7 is that it cannot run their "Legacy Windows Software" and they cannot afford to upgrade that software to the new Windows platform so they stick with older versions of Windows.
Why do you think Apple went with Intel Macs that can run Bootcamp to run a version of Microsoft Windows? Because Mac OSX won't run the business aps that a business needs to operate and earn a profit. Why do you think Linux and BSD Unix have the option to dual boot with Windows or run WINE? There almost always has to be an option to run Microsoft Windows or an older version or software like WINE to run older Windows code for the "Legacy Windows Software" that won't run on the Non-Windows platform.
many enterprise programs and webserver applications built today still runs on the trusted windows 2000,2003.
many programmers don't see the need to change OS, other than game programmers who wants to make full use of latest directX.
Many programmers don't see XP as obsolete, and don't see it becoming obsolete for many years to come.
20,000 companies polled - 1,000 responded. That is what 5% response. Based on that 5% a conclusion is reached that 59% have no plans.
My Stats prof was proven right again. Stats lie. Stats are twisted to say what people want them to say. I for one am not comfortable with basing my decisions on such a low percentage of respondents. But some want to make a name for themselves and sensationalize a non-event. Yawn!
Important tidbits.
IE:
"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%."
Hmm that spins this whole article much differently yes?
Also
"Furthermore, in ScriptLogic?s primary market segment it is usual for businesses to upgrade operating systems piecemeal as they purchase new desktop hardware, so the fact that nearly half of organizations surveyed are planning major rollouts during 2009-2010 indicates a high acceptance of Windows 7 among small and medium businesses"
Totally different then the article?
INA I am not sure where you where going with this. In no way did the survey use the phrase "Skip"
That portion of the headline is made up. And really should be changed you are guessing or misleading with that phrase.
The closest thing in the survey to the title is.
"We have no current plans to deploy Windows 7"
That does not say skip, that says no current plans.
You headline could have read.
"The highest new OS adoption rate is predicted with 41% of business expected to embrace Windows 7 by 2010"
At least you could have pointed to a part of the Survey to back that.
Or you could have said
"59% of surveyed IT companies have no current plans to adopt Windows 7"
That you could back
But
"Survey: Many businesses plan to skip Windows 7"
There is nothing in the Survey to back that.
Really really bad reporting
ZDNET did a story about the number of news outlets that chose to misrepresent this survey with their headlines and naturally CNET made the list.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1181
CNET and Ina Fried, you should be ashamed of yourselves for resorting to this kind of tabloid style journalism. Do you get some sort of smug sense of satisfaction by misrepresenting the truth? I guess journalistic credibility doesn't matter anymore.
- by wolivere July 15, 2009 1:08 PM PDT
- I am surprised this headline is still here. I am absolutely amazed at this article. It has no data to back it, and it a complete misinterpretation of the survey. The fact it has been brought to CNET's attention, and that it has not been edited is amazing.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 3 of 3 pages (129 Comments)