Microsoft: Fast start for Vista in businesses

Microsoft is predicting that Windows Vista will be adopted by companies at twice the speed as its predecessor, Windows XP.

Twelve months after the release of Vista, Microsoft expects that usage share of the oft-delayed operating system in businesses will be double that of XP a year after it shipped, said Brad Goldberg, general manager for Windows product management at the software maker.

"Vista is built for businesses," Goldberg said. "We're giving businesses the tools they need to get out of the gate faster with Vista...Our goal is to have twice as fast deployment of Vista than for any other operating system."

Microsoft declined to give its own figures on Windows XP's usage percentages, and instead referred to research by IDC. According to the analyst company, XP was installed on about 10 percent of enterprise PCs after a year. That would put the goal for Vista at 20 percent.

"For them to do 20 percent in the first 12 months of availability is almost impossible," said Al Gillen, an analyst at IDC. "They have done all the right things, but adoption is going to be driven by corporate adoption and deployment cycles, more so than by whether Microsoft has greased the skids to make the product glide in faster."

IDC expects a healthy adoption of Vista, Gillen said. "But we're not expecting it to be fundamentally different from previous releases of Windows," he said. IDC's projections suggest that 11 percent of business PCs that run Windows will be running Vista at the end of next year, Gillen said.

Rival analyst company Gartner expects the installed base of Vista in large enterprises to be about 10 percent a year and a half after it ships. "We're not hearing companies say they're in a rush to get their users to Vista," said Gartner analyst Michael Silver.

Vista, the first major upgrade to Windows since XP shipped in late 2001, is slated to become available to businesses in November. Broad availability is scheduled for January.

Help and hindrance
Microsoft has said that corporate adoption of Windows XP was slower than it would have liked.

XP was slow to gain traction among enterprise customers, in part because it came on the heels of Windows 2000, Goldberg said. Additionally, Microsoft was late with tools to support its adoption. For example, a kit to test the compatibility of applications with XP was released nine months after the operating system, and documented deployment guidance took two years, he said.

With Vista, those tools, as well as people trained to help businesses move to the Windows update, will be available as soon as it ships or shortly thereafter, Goldberg said.

Furthermore, Vista should make it easier and cheaper for organizations to manage PCs that run the new operating system, Goldberg said. "Vista has business customers at the center of everything we've done," he said. "In some cases, it will be cheaper for an organization to upgrade to Vista than to keep their current configuration."

Microsoft has addressed many of the key adoption blockers, but that alone isn't enough, Silver said. A lot will hinge on the availability of third-party software that supports the update. "That's the biggest inhibitor to deploying a lot of Vista very soon after it ships," he said.

One Microsoft customer plans to upgrade to Vista at a pace even quicker than its maker predicts--but not for the sake of getting a new operating system. Instead, the operating system will come in as part of its upgrade cycle for computers.

"When we replace our PCs, they will run Vista, and we will replace a third of our PCs over the next year," said Thomas Smith, the manager of client services at a large Houston company.

Smith, who is responsible for about 9,000 PCs, doesn't buy Microsoft's argument that Vista is cheaper to run.

"It takes more hardware, the learning curve is costly, the help desk calls are going to escalate, we'll have to manage both XP and Vista, I think you're actually going to increase cost, at least in the short term," he said.

[roger.d.miller]

Back in the early days ...

My fuzzy recollection is that back in 2001, Microsoft was pushing Win 2000 as their business client and XP as a consumer product. I can remember attending a couple of meetings where we were told specifically that XP was not considered an upgrade from 2000 - mostly because of security issues.

I suspect that corporate acceptance of Win 2000 in its first year was higher than XP in its first year.

[daveworld]

Um - Yeah Right!

Why would any business buy Vista when XP is working fine now? Vista will only cause more headaches with compatibility issues.

[JTowner]

Any Windows License purchased is going to be a Vista license anyways

So here's the deal, if you want, you can buy Windows 2000 licenses right now. You pay for Windows XP and 'downgrade' it. So when your company next year buys some XP licenses, they're going to count in the 'Vista' count. Same with purchasing a PC, even though you're corporate standard is XP, your PC will have a CoA that says Vista on it, thus adding to the Vista count.

I'll believe the adoption rates once Netcraft actually registers the traffic.

Personally I've got too many cheap clients who will buy the $300 off lease PC with WinXP. It's cheap, it works, and spending the money for a license of an OS just for "features" they're not going to use isn't going to happen.

[ServedUp]

Unrealistic Figures.

The only companies that will switch to Vista are those who can
afford it. Period. Most companies out there don't have the
machines to support Vista, let alone buy the software and find
the time to learn how to use it.

In fact it will be quite the opposite. Vista will sell, but not at the
unrealistic goals Microsoft proposes. It might sell well initially,
but as Vista reaches 2.0 and then Microsoft lags (which I predict
they will) again in development as they've done with 3.1, 98, ME,
and XP. People will eventually lose interest in Vista. Not to
mention the problems they'lll have with security which has
always been Microsoft's achilles heel. The interface and icons are
prettier than XP's fisher price toy look (with the exception of the
useless Gadget toolbar), but what's under the hood is no
different than XP.. which is a bastardized version of NT. Vista
really is just a minor upgrade from XP. A hint for all the clueless.

Microsoft's core people, Ballmer and his confidents really have
no true foresight & knowledge on how to move this industry
foward, other than reaping another supposed cash crop through
its misleading marketing campaigns and advertorials. Thats
actually the true hindrance for Microsoft in creating anything
seamless. Their investors need to rollout the pink slip list and I
think it should start from the very top.

I've used Vista for sometime and at its true core lies a sleeping-
angry-greedy-giant-bald-man waiting to spread havok and
chaos on the world's computers.

Ok maybe I went a little bit overboard with that assessment but I
do foresee very big usage and security issues.

[rahuldj]

with all that vista includes...

The major selling point of Vista is its security and stability......but

If a company manages to miss a critical security flaw in a piece of software called IE 6 after continued release of monthly patches for 5 years, that in itself is a big achievement.
But if a company realizes the existence of security flaw in a software after 5 years, issues a patch, finds that it is causing more problems, reissues the patch (still having problems), re-reissues the patch (STILL HAVING PROBLEMS), re-re-reissues the patch just to solve a problem.......

The same company develops one of the most complex piece of software ever built on planet earth.
It is supposed to manage all computer resources and precious data.
It is obvious that it will be secure. (the extreme example is not the isolated one)

1. Windows XP went through 5 years of continuous patching and re-patching and is now believed stable enough to keep useful data on it. (Still not secure)
2. Vista is not built over XP, it is a system almost from scratch. So it does not exactly guarantee AT LEAST the level of stability that XP provides.
3. Most of the security issues of windows xp are not the problems of the core operating system itself but of the softwares like IE and WMP and office.
4. Vista goes ahead of XP by providing "useful" tools like Windows OneCare, RSS feed reader, a sidebar with optional plugins and many similar utilities which have excellent potential for providing better usability and/or stability and/or security (and even superior security issues with longer patch cycles)
5. If Vista really wants to be a secure OS, it should strip down each and every scrap of tool, utility, software that doesn't come under the core Operating System, concentrate on the core and provide all these utilities externally as optional installs. (all major companies already own a decent firewall, antivirus, antispyware, popup blocker, mail filter and other security tools rendering most of the security upgrades useless).

I'm not saying that they should not include those softwares at all, just that they should not be hardwired.
they may -
1. Put all these softwares in a folder called "add-ons" and provide a flashy utility in the core OS which would give easy access to user to install them.
2. Release a separate CD and sell them at a better price (199.99$ for core, 299.99$ for utilities, 1.99$ for logo sticker with serial key on it) with the compulsion that both CDs and logo have to be bought.

Microsoft already exercises near-monopoly status in OS market. When will they understand that these cheap attempts to lauch inferior products using their OS are only managing to attract more lawsuits and a shamefully long stream of patch cycles?

[techned]

It's time for Open Source to step up.

I have not seen any build of Vista but I have no doubt that migration of current apps on XP will work on it - what I do have concerns about is security.

From what I understand the many security issues that affected XP, seperate from IE, have been addressed - which is great but considering that M$ is going to use Vista to help push its own security software - this is where the problem is.

The betas of M$ Defender have been terrible, even worse than NAV - my POV, any corporation that entrusts their IT Security to M$ OneCare, especially antivirus and anti-spyware, would be making a serious mistake.
Already Security software vendors are basically screaming they will not have products ready for Vista within 6 months after launch because of needed API access that M$ is delaying access to; existing XP security software will probably be incompatible with Vista's new security features - unlike the Win98 to Win2K to XP migration of security software, there appears to be no clear transition for third party security software for XP to Vista.

The numbers and resaons that M$ and IDC has stated of corporate adoption of Vista is definately just as exagerated and M$ reasons for supporting HD-DVD over Blu-Ray.

This is the time for software publishers to start seriously considering supporting Linux and to work with the Linux community to help creating a much more robust standarization of the OS regarding hardware drivers, XML/OpenDoc embedded item standard API, GUI specs, and security features.

It is time that IT again works with a stable independent OS environment, which can be easily customized by either vendor or corporate IT, using specialized software and module from software publishers independent of the OS manufacturer. I believe that this is not only a cheaper alternative to Vista it also give more options for corporate infrastructure in what direction they want to go and how to support it than to be stuck in the M$ mold.

[Sumatra-Bosch]

VISTAPOCALYPSE NOW: Vista Will Implode Upon Release

Within hours of its release, hackers will tear into Vista to find hooks for stealing home users and businesses' bank account credentials. Billions will be lost within hours and Microsoft will call the publicity of the thefts "gross exaggerations by the company's infinite enemies in the press."

The scandals will completely devastate the release of Vista and most businesses will refuse to deploy Vista when their IT staffs tell them the new OS will only attract even more attacks than patched XP systems. MS will be reduced to issuing press releases about victorious deployments in "a bakery in Ottawa" and "a car wash in Sierra Leone" which the press will reveals were bought by MS a week before the software was installed.

Ballmer, always regarded as completely insane and emotionally immature, will disappear without a trace. Psychics will lead police to his final resting place, his station wagon, parked behind the Piggly Wiggly supermarket in Spokane where police will determine he had shot himself 9 times in the face, a story that will briefly provoke skeptical reactions from the press.

[t8]

The Web is the real deal

The Internet is the computing platform of the future. All you need is a browser to access weblications and services. That future favours Google and Yahoo.

The Web doesn't need a lot of maintenance. The services are piped on demand to any browser. No installations etc.

At that point Windows is but one, and might I add "very expensive" way to access the Internet.

Most will access the Net through mobile handhelds like Cellphones.

In that world, MS Office is a dead duck.

A small and mobile device, docking stations for your device, a browser on the device, and the services of Google and other Internet companies.

That is all you will need.

Vista is an expensive waste of crap that is only trying to emulate what you can already do on the Web with a browser like Firefox.

Lets see, on Vista you can write a doc, blog, play music, ... You can do that on the Web too.

[bluemist9999]

Not Very Likely

Vista may have better features, but I feel most business customers don't upgrade their OS until they are sure all of their applications work well on it.

I know of a customer who is still using MS-DOS with (I think) a Foxpro database that hasn't yet filled up a 5 MB hard drive.

Granted, that is an extreme case, but I don't see a compelling business reason to upgrade to Vista. Most of the features seem to be consumer-focused (i.e. different UI), and the other are promising but untested (security enhancements), and the resource requirements will be steeper than for XP.

I expect more Vista upgrades 2 years after its release.

[_dietrich]

Wishful Thinking

Home markets? Maybe, maybe not.

Large Enterprises, SMBs?, For what it's worth, no CIO is going to touch Vista with a 'barge pole' for quite a while until a service pack arrives.

I worked for 6 years for a large org (5000+ employees) and they had even gotten started with XP--still on Windows 2000 Professional and for good reasons--legacy apps which don't run on XP.

Get it? OK, I hit oil, I'll stop drilling.

Later.

My company PCs not ready

I manage an all-windows platform organization. I would like to migrate to Vista but I'll have to wait for an hardware migration first. All PCs lack the hardware (graphics card on top of list) needed to get a smooth operation. It won't be acceptable for my users to slow down their work because of an OS upgrade. I don't think that will be possible before 2008.

[fred dunn]

Dream on Redmond. It's not that easy...

Vista is a bloated Windows XP with less enhancements than obstacles. Those with smartcard logon are going to have to wait for their middleware providers to provide new middleware. AV and security software also has to catch up.
This is not to mention the ENORMOUS hardware requirements for Vista which means that the only systems that will have Vista on them here are those purchased with it.
We will probably wait for this codebase's new security flaws to shake out AND at least the first service pack. If Microsoft pulls a fast one and relasess a first service pack early then we will probably wait for the second service pack.
I see ABSOLUTELY no need for Vista at this time or anytime soon.

[umbrae]

Of course, this is true...

Any company that got hit with Multi-million dollar "contract violations" with MS' new license scheme is going to be very anxious to upgrade.

For those that don't know... If you have an enterprise license (as of XP release), you basically promise MS that you will upgrade in a "MS-defined" reasonable period, or be tagged with fines.

My company is a slow adopter. When XP rolled out, over 60% of the company was still using NT workstation or 2000. MS fined my company for almost 10-12 million for "out of license" products. Let me tell you, after that I have NEVER seen the "motivation" to upgrade all the PCs to XP. A migration path to Vista was also created.

Afterall, is it worth a few million to hold on to an old OS. Or would you rather just blindly upgrade and sue MS if anything goes wrong?

[cnutsucks]

More CNUT / M$ Propaganda

How much did M$ pay CNUT for this promo piece?

[rcrusoe]

IMO, MS is dreaming

1. Most business computers in use today can't run Vista.

2. Most I.T. departments know it would be foolhardy to deploy Vista until (at least) Vista SP1 is released.

What, if anything, does Vista bring to the table for businesses? Almost every XP security problem announced in the past six months has also affected Vista, and the potential of it breaking a lot of existing commercial and custom apps appears high.

I think Silver is probably correct.

[open-mind]

Just now going to XP

The Fortune-100 I work for is just now migrating from 2000 to XP.
I think it will be years before they even consider Vista.