- Related Stories
-
Microsoft agrees to change Vista desktop search
June 19, 2007 -
How quickly will businesses adopt Vista?
November 13, 2006 -
Microsoft: Fast start for Vista in businesses
September 29, 2006
"IT managers are finding themselves pulling back their initial Windows Vista deployment plans," Forrester analyst Benjamin Gray said in a report issued this week.
That said, Forrester notes in the first line of its report that it's not like most businesses are really going to skip over Vista.
"For the vast majority of businesses, Windows Vista is a matter of when and how, not if," Gray wrote. "This is thanks in large part to Microsoft's dominance in the corporate client operating system market."
While Linux has made considerable inroads in the server world and Apple has been able to substantially boost its market share in the consumer market, the corporate desktop remains solidly in Microsoft's domain.
But Microsoft has made the case that not only will businesses adopt Vista, they will do so quite quickly.
In September, Brad Goldberg, general manager for Windows Client product management, predicted that Vista would be put in use by twice as many businesses in the first year as Windows XP was in the 12 months following its October 2001 release.
Research firm IDC said that Windows XP usage was at 10 percent after a year in release. But IDC analyst Al Gillen said in September, talking about Vista, that "for them to do 20 percent in the first 12 months of availability is almost impossible."
Though slower Vista adoption would be a strategic blow to Microsoft, the financial impact could be muted, so long as businesses and consumers keep buying new PCs and its volume license business remains strong.
Forrester finds that many businesses are focused on issues like making sure they move to Vista before support runs out on older operating systems. Windows 2000 remains in the extended support phase until July 2010, while Windows XP remains in mainstream support through April 2009, and in extended support until 2014.
"When it comes to Windows Vista, Microsoft's biggest competitor isn't Apple, Novell, Red Hat or Ubuntu (just to name a few)--it's Microsoft itself," Gray wrote. "Businesses have, for the most part, been running either Windows 2000 or Windows XP for the past four or five years. These (operating systems) are mature, thoroughly tested and have been proven 'good enough,' making the business case for Windows Vista even harder for a lot of companies."
Another area of concern for businesses is the lack of specificity around the first service pack for Windows Vista. Although Microsoft has been making the case--and Forrester concurs--that SP1 need not be a critical milestone, some businesses are awaiting that release before migrating their machines to Vista.
"Most of the IT managers we spoke with cited SP1 as the reason they have yet to seriously consider deploying Windows Vista into their respective companies," Gray wrote. "Whether right or wrong, experience tells IT managers that the first service pack is Microsoft's official blessing that the new OS is complete."
Microsoft has not said exactly when that release will be available. It did say, as part of an antitrust settlement court filing, that a beta version will be out this year, but it has not said when the final version will be issued.
And, although Microsoft initially touted the ability of older programs to run smoothly on Vista as a strength of the new operating system, Gray notes that "application compatibility doesn't look as good as we had hoped."
"We heard application compatibility success rates that ranged from as low as 60 percent to as high as 90 percent," Gray wrote, noting that the figures have improved over time.
Also, Gray said that many businesses are finding Vista is not a good bet for their older, but still-in-use PCs. "Hardware compatibility is hard to get around with PCs older than 12 to 18 months," Gray wrote.
See more CNET content tagged:
Forrester Research Inc., information technology manager, Microsoft Windows Vista, Microsoft Corp., service pack
However, Vista is HORRIBLE. It truly is bad by any standard. Some people might find it useful, but as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't do anything I want it to do, and won't run my software, so its not worth using for me. I'll stick with my XP SP2 install dual booted with Linux for now. It works well enough for me, which is what matters. I don't care if 60$% of software is compatible if the software I us isn't.
Is it a pain in the ass? Yes, do I use it? No, is it as bad as everyone says it is? No. Most of the BS and misconceptions rose from people who inherently hate Microsoft in the first place. I don't use it because my current PC does not support it and thats probably where MS made their biggest mistake, making system requirements a lot of older and even some new ones can't handle.
This new iMac will replace my PowerMac G5 and I need Windows XP to run IE 7 and WebTrends.
I am glad to hear that XP Home has been successful for you.
And at home, I lose 3 printers, 1 scanner, my external harddrive, 1 external CD burner and an external DVD burner, plus over $1200 in applications software.
Thanks but no thanks. Oh and I already checked with the vender on the three printers and the scanner. They are not going to release new drivers to support those devices. The CD and DVD burner company is out of business, and the external hard drive company I don't trust to give me a valid driver any time soon.
Now, if the situation were different. If this OS was something like say - more efficient and more streamlined. If it wasn't bloated with useless features. If this new OS didn't have a hundred bundled programs I don't want or need. If the OS ran faster and was more responsive on my existing hardware. And if it wasn't way overpriced. Then maybe I'd consider it.
But that's not the case, and MS continues to misunderstand their customers. They spend all their resources in building the UBER OS and manipulating the market consumer to want it, they have no genuine understanding of what informed consumer's really want.
IMHO, Windows users can get everything they need or want with XP. There is no real compelling reason to buck it up for Vista.
Given the increased hardware requirements for Vista, it wouldn't make sense to anyway... it would be far more efficient to just use that bigger, badder machine to run XP if you're settled on Windows.
MSFT of course doesn't see it that way. They need to make money.
Their problem however is two-fold: Users @ home who don't want the teething troubles or bloat, and users @ work who don't want to suddenly see all of their expensive custom apps simply not work anymore, thanks to Vista's attempts at a balancing act.
I could've told you last year (and prolly did) that MSFT was simply dreaming when they asserted 20% adoption of Vista in their market (double the XP adoption rate) by year-end. I hope they weren't betting the bank on that.
Long-term, this will hurt them; they've already spent untold billions on Vista, and it looks like it won't be amortized in time.
Meanwhile, other OSes are not only keeping up in features, but are flying ahead by leaps and bounds.
By the time 'Son of Vista' comes out, I fully expect it to be a full generation behind the capabilities of the (by then) OSX and Linux offerings.
But that's just me.
/P
through your organization.
After a two decades + of Microsoft crap, how can you continue to
support them? If they were a car, you would have sold it off long
ago...
OS X is that fresh air.
...Real world economic response: Fat chance...
They would be better off moving to linux if they had to ditch Windows, mainly because you can grab a windows emulator and still have your programs in a linux environment.
XP Pro. NT still shows up too. The problem is that Vista has
forced more expensive upgrades than any other operating
system I can think of. Even if you get the basic Vista without the
Areo package.
The memory upgrades may not be possible for 4 or 5 year old
computers. Even if some new computers are on the way. Many
have still opted for XP pro rather than Vista. For every one sold
with XP. It will be that much longer before they adapt Vista. I
really think Microsoft should rethink their versions nextime.
Maybe have a home version and a business version that's it.
I think for a lot of businesses their was just too much bling for
their pocketbook.
Oh, it is - but it ain't cheap. 1GB of PC-133 SDRAM is almost twice as expensive as expensive 1GB of DDR PC-2700
[i]"Maybe have a home version and a business version that's it."[/i]
They tried that already: Windows NT Workstation vs. Windows 95/98/ME. They discovered that it was expensive and an overall pain in the butt, so they folded NT into Windows 2000 Professional and sold it for home and work use.
/P
confusion".
Now, with Vista, they have reversed themselves, again. Mulitple
ver$ion$ of the O$ means money.
That's how you become a billionaire.
For home use, however, I have to disagree with most of the comments here. This is my story:
About 6 months ago I managed to get a free copy of Vista Business through some Microsoft academic program and my school. I didn't find it all that different from XP (short of visual themes) but I did manage to have a lot of compatibility issues with drivers and software. I took it off my PC and put it on a shelf.
About a month ago I got a new laptop and it came with Vista Home Premium. I was surprisingly satisfied with it. Every compatibility issue I experienced before had been resolved and I found the Vista experience to be quite enjoyable.
My only complaints about Vista now would be that it does have a bit of a learning curve and that I had to upgrade the RAM on my brand new laptop and my desktop (I re-installed Vista Business).
And for those of you that proclaim Vista is the exact same as OS X, it does still have one unique benifit: an actual selection of software (The whole purpose of a PC?).
The bottom line: I'd recommend that if you are picking up a new system for home use, get one with Windows Vista. Otherwise, it's not worth the price yet.
Eh?
Seriously - I can pretty much do anything on a Mac that you could on Vista. Games I believe is the only serious lag-point.
Now when it comes to running already-purchased software, that's a whole different story. But then, Vista would have a very hard time installing pretty much anything ending in *.dmg or *.rpm or *tar.gz ;)
/P
so...
Macs can run ALL software now, even Vista, so it seems quite
silly that anyone still claims 'Doze boxes have more software
available to purchase.
Macs=all 'doze ware and Mac OS software, 'Doze boxes have
fewer choices.
Got it?
:-)
Windows vista 64bit
Yep when they do move this should be the one or a Mac and vista to do the bits macs don't.
Either way in the long run microsoft win in this piticular development.
Um year everone should know how to program in 64 bit multicore environments and should be well adversed to the possibilities of cell enviroments.
Opps only human
Mind you if over the next few years people do get onboard well it should be quite cool the whole market over.
Collaberation and well understood individutation is a big key here (isn't it always i say looking down).
are already doing what you think "vista" developers could be
doing.
I am a programmer, and I have to tell you, it ain't a pretty
picture on the windows side. Windows users are not the only
ones looking at Macs with jealousy, and envy. Developers feel
the same way. I have a beta version of Leopard (OSX), and use
Tiger on another machine. The code I've written, from what I
started learning, allows me to do far more sophisticated
applications, with less code, than it does for me with even C# in
Visual Studio .Net.
Quality is something Microsoft simply does not understand.
Their entire approach is based solely on market manipulation.
Do you really think they give a crap?
I use 2000 at work, and have XP Pro at home - these are tried and true Operating Systems (which look pretty good too). I agree with most here-some urgent requirement or development will have to happen to make me give these o/systems up-there is no need to change and waste money on something like Vista at this time, which is essentially an unnecessary and repetitive o/s, that is filled with bells and whistles designed to appeal to the frivilous characteristics of the buyer's psyche.
The smartest thing Microsoft can do is reduce the number of Vista versions to just one, (the Ultimate package), with a wizard to allow the end-user or IT person, (using policy controls), to choose which components they want to enable or disable at any time during its lifetime. (At no extra cost!)
Finally, they need to cut the prices at least in half. Four hundred dollars for Vista Ultimate!? Are they nuts!? I thought $200 was steep for XP Pro -- but $400!!! Bad move Microsoft.
I'm convinced that Vista sales would soar if Microsoft did those two things -- hardware and software issues not withstanding.
I betcha!
If any of those items, the mobility center, greatly improved tablet functionality or reduction in overall support costs are deemed to be worth the cost and effort, then enterprises will roll it out as they're refreshing hardware.
The fact of the matter is that Vista does NOT work in the corporate environment at the moment. Too many applications need to be tested (at least where I work) to make it cost-effective to do until at least SP1 is available. Even then, Server 2008 will be upon us. More testing to be done. Why not wait until we have a complete suite (a much more compelling reason to begin testing both sides of the equasion) to even think about an upgrade. Especially when XP and Win2K3 are mature and stable.
I had Vista on my machine for two weeks but the incompatibilities and the cost to fix them ran into the thousands so I went back. Why do I need to spend thousands of dollars on stuff that already worked on the previous OS?!?! Which is more critical to me? The applications that make me money or the glossy windows.
The decision was pretty easy after that.
The real world does not work that way.
You'd be a moron to trust it's so-called security. Microsoft, security, excuse me while I rofl.
We use XP because we must. Are OS X and Linux better operating systems? Of course. But on the desktop level the software we use doesn't run on either system, and performs poorly under emulation.
Servers are a different issue, but Vista isn't relevant to servers. Linux for what we can get away with, Server 2003 for the rest.
Vista on the other hand looks pretty. Sorry that's not enough for me to recommend over $10,000 in OS upgrade costs, not to mention the hardware cost we'd need to invest in, just to get our Autodesk and Bentley products to give comparable performance under such a dog of an OS.
Our security products, that's real security not garbage wrapped up in pretty packaging, doesn't work correctly under Vista because Microsoft have refused to allow any but a handful of companies in on their software.
Not particularly encouraging from my point of view, they're definitely willing to put themselves and their wallets ahead of every customer - corporate or otherwise.
So screw 'em. If Autodesk produce Civil 3D 2008 for OS X or Linux, then we'll be heading that way. Otherwise we'll use XP until they stop issuing patches.
Vista is no more secure than XP, has performance issues all over the place - file copying performance has yet to even be properly acknowledged as a fault. And even if you do get them to admit the problem, they have no idea how to fix it.
Graphics performance is a joke. I'm sorry but CAD products are not trying to watch copied DVDs or HD movies, so if that's the reason the software runs like a dog, explain to me why CAD software sets off DRM tilt factors.
If that isn't the reason then explain to me why I should invest in yet another $10,000 in hardware costs just to operate at the same speed we currently do under XP.
DRM causing CAD problems? Are you running those CAD programs over a HDMI cable into a monitor that has HDMI connections? Does the CAD program use the ID tag to say "hey use DRM"? DRM FUD...such BS.
Here read this http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=673
I know the CAD companies never knew Vista was coming. When they finally found out a year or so before it came out they just figured Microsoft would never sell a PC with Vista to a user her might want to use CAD. I know its Microsofts fault.
So let me ask do you run you XP users as limited users? So they cant install anything? YOu know screw up the PC so you have to waste thousands of dollars on re-loading XP? Of course you dont because a limited user in XP has problems running some MS apps so users have to be an Amdin on the box.
With Vista they dont have to be and you lock them down very tight. There is some serious savings right there. Security wise it is more secure, IE7 runs in an isolated mode and under a limited user so its much, much harder for any kind of malware to bust out of that.
Deploying Vista with its new image capabilites, night and day compared to XP. No need for tools like ghost, let that sysmantec contract run out.
There are even more GPO, globaling setting powermanagment features, sleep thousands of PC's that are part of your domain, using a GPO.
Yeah I know Vista offers nothing to the business world.
Overall the dificulties have been few and we are pleased with the deployments so far. Roughly 1/3 of all my client computers are now Vista and I expect that number to reach 65% by next spring.
The unfortunate problem is the inexcusable foul ups by long time hi tech Pros such as Hewlett Packard, Netscreen, and others who failed to have drivers or updated software ready on time. There was no excuse for this as it is not as if Vista was a surprise.
Sure there are hardware & software companies out there that are lagging when it comes to Vista support but whose fault is that?
I have a neighbor with a Mac that's about 5 years old and it still runs pretty good and can run most current software titles out there...at a snails pace.
No software company can innovate and be profitable at it if they are stuck with the pre-requisets most deem fair here:
1. Lots of "well implemented" new features (a.k.a. eye candy)
2. Runs as fast if not faster than the last version with absolutely NO hardware upgrade reqirements.
3. Works with peripherals that are 8 or more years old (and it's the OS manufacturer's resposibility to insure this is true the day the OS is released).
4. Completely exploit free (including software provided by other companies that runs on the OS) And be sure NOT to break compatibility with anything when making the OS more secure!
5. Is free.
Hmmm... I wonder why the iPhone is so expensive? Why can't I just upgrade my Newton with the iPhone software?
Anyway - I was using Vista since beta1 and would not be able to find any reason why would I look back to XP. Even lousy companies that do not want to provide drivers for Vista - would not stop it's adoption.
The developer worked on it for 4 months with no luck and even contacted Microsoft.
Microsoft dug themselves a hole with this OS. Home use is okay but in the corporate setting, Stick with XP or 2000 for now on the clients.
Now that would be "retarded".
It ain't broke, so why should add my P.C. to landfill, so I can have a bit of Aero?
Seems being "retarded" is subjective.
wake-up rituals, the strange and nonreproducible system quirks,
and more. But I won't bore you with the details. The upshot is
that even after nine months, Vista just ain't cutting it. I definitely
gave Microsoft too much of a free pass on this operating system:
I expected it to get the kinks worked out more quickly. Boy, was
I fooled! If Microsoft can't get Vista working, I might just do the
unthinkable: I might move to Linux.[/i]"
- from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2171517,00.asp
(the guy used to be the leading Vista cheerleader at PC
Magazine.)
/P
An upgrade of an operating system should be transparent but this Windows Vista upgrade p!sses all over your face to get attention! If you use anything but Microsoft Office and HP printers, then expect to upgrade half of your stuff.
The bottom line is that it costs way too much to upgrade something that didn't even need fixing!
(512), is slow as a bloodhound in August.
Upgrade to Vista? Are you kidding?
Why? It "looks" nice, but it's not a "real" machine.
- Windows users are the most patient...
- by gudy2choos August 15, 2007 6:57 PM PDT
- I have used Apple computers since 1992. My current Apple is a 2003 model and it can access software from 1994 through 2007. This is in reference to the statement that Windows computers older than 12 to 18 months may not be able to run Vista! Therefore, Windows computers may become obsolete in record time when a new operating system is introduced. So much more waste for our landfills and ecology! More of your dollars spent!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- I am not sure patient is the right word
- by The_Decider August 16, 2007 12:53 AM PDT
- "Low standards"
- Like this
-
- Vista runs DOS
- by ch1200 August 16, 2007 5:04 AM PDT
- The whole beauty of MS is that it will run very old software, on which many enterprises still rely. Like data bases, inventory systems and the like.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (114 Comments)"Ignorance of what other OS's can do"
"Some strange belief that they have to put up with all the crap that comes standard with Vista"
OK, that isn't a word, but more descriptive of the problem. They put up with shoddy OS's after shoddy OS's. They think the Zune is a quality product. They excuse the XBOX debacle, etc, etc.
If patient is the right word, then placing pathologically if front of patient is more descriptive.
Just for fun I downloaded and ran the original VisiCalc program VCdot.com (for those of you not old enough to know, this program changed the world). It runs perfectly in DOS under Vista.
That is the sort of backwards compatibility users need. The operating system is just a necessary evil - only applications matter.