Businesses plan to skip Windows 7 upgrade

Same story about MS windows everytime there is a new OS. Businesses said the same thng back in the XP Days too. I'll be getting it ASAP!

You're twisting words Michael. There's a big difference between a company not upgrading to Windows 7 ever and those who do not have any current plans, which is what the survey actually said.

As Dr. Who pointed out, businesses do this every time a new OS comes out. They wait a year or two for things to shake out before doing a mass deployment.

Seems businesses have the same idea I have, wait for the idiots to debug Windows 7 for MS then upgrade maybe later on. There is no reason really to change an OS if your current OS is still supported and works pretty much rock solid. And are the features really worth plopping down 100's of dollars?

1. Make the things you do every day easier with improved desktop navigation.

Ok, so whoopteedo.

2. Start programs faster and more easily, and quickly find the documents you use most often.

My programs start fast already on XP Pro. And if you can't find your documents quickly, that you use most often, then you should really get some help, mentally.

3. Make your web experience faster, easier and safer than ever with Internet Explorer 8

No thanks, I will stick with Firefox.

4. Watch, pause, rewind, and record TV on your PC.

I can do this already on XP Pro with freeware.

5. Easily create a home network and connect your PCs to a printer with HomeGroup

I can do this on XP Pro already.

6. Connect to company networks easily and more securely with Domain Join

Can't you do this in XP Pro?

7. Recover your data easily with automatic backup to your home and business network.
.
Can do this on XP Pro.

8. Help protect data on your PC and portable storage devices against loss or theft with BitLocker.

I can do this on XP Pro with the aid of a program. I bought a USB drive that came with a free file encryption program and you need Windows Ultimate 7 for this?

9 .Work in the language of your choice and switch between any of 35 languages.

Do I need this? Really?

My thoughts on the features listed on MS's website, for a new OS, it doesn't really look like they made a good case for upgrading. To me, it looks like they have changed part of the GUI, which they always do anyways to give it a "new" look when in fact it isn't new really underneath. Making graphical changes to the GUI isn't worth a couple of hundred dollars or more even with the features mentioned on their website. Sorry, I can see why businesses would want to pass.

To bolster your argument on item #8: You can encrypt on the fly with XP as long as you use NTFS. It is built in and no other program is needed. It is seamless to the user, but any intruder would be unable to access the files. You can't encrypt system files of course or even compressed files, but any other folder or whatever, you can protect.

we waited a few years with Vista and that is gone and now Windows 7, wait a couple of years and that will be gone too. XP just keeps being extended

I wonder if the companies interviewed were already on Vista or still XP ? That is a big consideration. A business that moved to Vista already probably isn't ready to change O/S's again so soon. A company still on XP will be more likely. Changing O/S's for an entire business is a big deal with enormous impact in many cases. IT tend to put these things off as long as possible for a few reasons.

I'll stick with XP until it stops working or when I build/upgrade my rig. For now XP flies...

I would say 80% of companies are still on XP. Why? Because they don't want to train people on a new interface. Also, companis are sure to have plenty of applications that are not and never will be "Vista Compatible".

I think this is why MS is offering the XP mode "feature" to enterprise and anyone else that thinks they need it.

According to this article, most businesses downgraded from Vista to XP Pro.

http://vista.blorge.com/2009/07/02/most-businesses-still-downgrading-vista-to-xp/

yes and continue to. Let's see we went from 95 to W2K and now most of the systems are XP although I have a couple of W2K machines too. If we can just make it over the Windows 7 hump looking good with the downgrade program being continued forever?

I will keep XP until my PC likes it. And it likes it now. Doubt it will change any time soon.

Change OS just to get a stupid new GUI? Why do I need that trash? Oh, wait, so that my hardware resources are consumed. Yeah, great.

And what about the beyond stupid tendency of MS to change the place where most settings previously were? It's a nightmare to find common things on Vista/Win 7. Everything is just so easily acessible with XP.

Same thing with Office 2007 and that brain dead interface. Everything was already on well known places. Now we must relearn where the same functions are. That's a really great way to make people more productive. NOT!

MS really shot themselves in the foot with XP. A fairly stably OS that has been going to strong for nearly 10 years. I don't think in the history of OS's i've seen one last this long. People used to be climatized to the fact a new OS came out every few years, but XP has stopped that. I'll probably get Win7 on my next computer, but I won't upgrade this one. Not unless software isn't created to support XP anymore.

Same here man. My next OS might be Linux. I am about to give Ubuntu a look see. I am really getting sick of MS coming out with OS every few years, changing the GUI a little and saying it is a brand new OS when in fact it is the same rehashed garbage. Here is what I want MS in an OS.

1. A small compact OS
2. Runs very efficient
3. System resources usage is minimal
4. Memory usage is minimal
5. How about less than 100MB memory usage at startup? Now thats an idea

If people can make a protected mode 32/64 bit OS with a GUI and everything else that can fit on a floppy, why can't you MS?

http://www.menuetos.net/index.htm

If a few guys can get together and make an OS like this, imagine what MS could do, with their resources, if they really thought out of the box.

You mean like Google "Chrome"?

That is built off of Linux right? I hope they, google, do succeed in eroding MS's market share.

At least they're not as bad as Apple. They literally come out with a new OS every year. Gotta love that Apple tax.

Well one thing that does piss me off in XP is that it deactivates for unwarranted reasons. I recently installed a driver via Windows Update for my motherboard NIC and Windows freakin deactivated because it thought I had changed hardware too often ! And it did it several other times as I updated my BIOS and other drivers soon after. I was able to reactivate each time but I believe MS has a counter for the activations and will refuse eventually.
Thats what gets me. Its like DRM. MS punishes the honest users with flaky anti-piracy policies & measures that don't work and end up causing us grief !

IT budgets in corporations have been slashed and many simply don't have the time or money to upgrade to a newer Windows infrastructure. A GNU/Linux alternative such as Red Hat Linux Enterprise (RHL) or SLED (Novell SUSE) is a far more cost effective and higher performance option than investing in more overpriced Microsoft garbage.

Don't you just love the way MS treats their costumers?

Anyway, I very much doubt that Vista and 7 will alleviate that problem. Probably it will be even harder on you. You know that, with Ballmer, MS motto is to DRM you to death.

I was planning to get 7 copies of the Ultimate edition to carpet install across my domestic network. Having used the RC for a while, I'm very impressed.

But the European Commission's ruling that MS can't include Internet Explorer has put a huge pale of water on my enthusiasm.

There is NO WAY I'm buying Windows 7 without Internet Explorer. It's like buying a car with no tyres.

Wonder if they'll force Apple to remove Safari from MacOS?

You also need to figure in the cost of educating your users as well as your IT staff so that they can actually be productive on your "high performance" OS. It's hard for a corporation to justify this when their people are doing fine on Windows.

I'll admit that there are cases where free or low cost operating systems are a better choice, but for the average user Windows or (god forbid) OS X is still a better choice.

Really ? IE will be a free download anyway, it just won't be pre-installed. Not a big deal really.

Good point about Apple..

ok I'm now ticked, "(god forbid) OS X"

I’m sorry but I am a dual user and OS X crushes most over all OS’s The only os that comes closes to that reliability is Ubuntu, I use windows primarily but I have my mother on my older Mac and its millions times better then WinXP. I ran a test I use my Xp system and mom uses the Mac, we do most of the same stuff, my Mac ran 30 days straight NO Problems, XP I averagely get 7 ok days of use before I have to reboot the system. A hassle loads for win xp Mac hardly any. I want back on my Mac and I agree fully with the apple tax deal so I am buying an efi-x chip and building a Hackintosh. And running Mac and Ubuntu and virtualizing windows until I find a few app replacements then I can dump windows and never have to look at it AGAIN.

I, gung-ho techie, went to Vista Ultimate. The benefit was that it forced me to try Ubuntu Jaunty (9.04). Been running it for 6 months and love it. Had trouble with 64 bit drivers so reverted to 32 bit. But I am evaluating Win 7 and will move to it on my laptop when it is released. RC1 is solid and what Vista should have been.

Funny though - several local universities will not be moving to Win7. XP works too well for them. It does cause some problems with student support though.

True only for servers. Linux on the desktop is great only for those who use a browser to do all of their work. I evaluated it at a university and all agreed - go back to XP. Besides, most Linux versions are updated every one to 2 years and are supported for no longer than that.

Doesn't Bill Gates have enough money already? As several people have pointed out, each new OS he trots out is hardly worth the time and money it costs to upgrade. I only regret that that I didn't switch to Linux instead of XP. When XP is no longer supported, I intend to switch to a Linux based OS.

To soon old, to late smart.

What we all need is someone needs to come along and eat a big chunk out of MS's OS share of the market, like 35 to 45 percent of it. Then the days of charging $200+ for a OS will be gone. Right now, they can charge anything they want because they have a practical monopoly on the OS market. The bastards, MS, have made enough off people and had their time. It is time to introduce some competition that would help innovate. MS hasn't really had any ground breaking OS's since Windows 95. Everything since then has just been an improvement on top of Windows 95.

The only way Microsoft can continue to exist is to sell us new products since we don't pay them for on-going use. At least not yet. (Not that I want to do that!)

The only leverage they have is improve their products in a meaningful way to force a user to upgrade. The incentive here is to turn out a product that is flawed to justify an upgrade down the road. No wonder businesses want to wait before embracing a new OS.

The only way Microsoft can continue to exist is to sell us new products since we don't pay them for on-going use. At least not yet. (Not that I want to do that!)


The only leverage they have is improve their products in a meaningful way to force a user to upgrade. The incentive here is to turn out a product that is flawed to justify an upgrade down the road. No wonder businesses want to wait before embracing a new OS.

I have used Vista since it's first BETA version. The outcome for my group is the same as you would expect. Xp will remain my choice for 100's of clients for some time to come. Having said that why would I not migrate to Vista? We have a robust inhouse training center so moving to 7 is not that bad. The answer is none of our applications will work on any platform other than XP and that includes 2000. I have tried using the xp button under Vista with no results besides to me this in an of itself tells the story of Vista.
The outcome for MS is a thorny one. The Biz user needs the OS to run existing applications significantly better than XP.
Forget about viewing TV on your desktop.

I will not be wasting time and money on a new os until XP is totally unsupported. Every new OS comes with one thing. They need more resources ,faster processors. It has always been that way with Microsoft os. Some of us don't want to plunk down good money for a new os just to find out that my processor is too slow to run it. I took one of my machines and win95 on it and played with it. It would smoke XP on speed of doing things. It would be nice to buy a new machine with a processor that really can run an os with some speed without having to upgrade everything else to get a decent speed out of the os.

Dinosaurs became extict because they could adapt to changing cilamtic conditions, does this sound famililiar?

If or when I leave XP it will be to Linux. Have to get used to a new OS? Then it will be one without al the bloat, License Agreements & DRM junk.

the perfect OS for you then would be Windows 3.11. Seriously, with the price of memory relatively low, why worry about how much memory is used at startup? FYI, Windows 7 starts up super fast, is rock solid, looks great and has a huge software library. The latter is something Linux cannot lay claim too.

yeah and one with a comparatively tiny software range. Clicking yes to a License Agreement has never been a problem for me, neither has 'DRM junk'. Bloat, well I'd rather have too much choice than too little.Winodws 7 doesnt feel bloated anyway.

"Also, companis are sure to have plenty of applications that are not and never will be "Vista Compatible"."

Right. Because it's just too incredibly easy for the average corporate developer to continue to write the same unsafe, admin privilege requiring drivel that they have for years. Why do many people want to stay with XP? Because there is no enforcement of any type of security protocol. No requirement that you run as a standard user.

It's odd to me that so many people have complained that MS can't write secure OS's. They put mechanisms in place to ensure a higher level of security, and everyone complains that it forces them to do things securely.

So, UAC isn't perfect. MIC isn't perfect. But it's a sight better than XP if what you want is a more secure OS. So, let's not confuse why some people don't want to move to Windows 7 or didn't move to Vista. It's not easy to be secure. And, PLEASE don't tell me that your copy of Windows XP is fool-proof. Who, then, is the fool?

One step to far....

I'll challenge any other founder/CEO/genius from any of the other technical firms to do what Gates is now. Let's say that the money that you pay for Windows may end up eliminating malaria or some other disease. Plus, his assosciation with Warren Buffet brings in another $36B to fund a foundation that should be the model for all humanitarian foundations.

Bash Windows all you want. Bash Microsoft. Personal attacks are not acceptable - ever.

BTW, sarge - where have you been? Gates has been gone for - what, a year now? Find another whipping boy.

Mac OS X still beats XP and VISTA Just due to ease of Use.

you use wizards to install in XP but in Mac it is Drag an Drop. want to Uninstall then drag the application to the trash. Thats it.

Ultimate in Ease to use.

Mac OS X Rules the roost.

Just waiting for Snow Leopard purely 64 bit os

I've been running duel boot with XP Pro and Win 7 since released for beta testing and you couldn't pay me to run XP Pro over Win 7. Same goes for Vista and XP Pro, i'd still use Vista. I find that Vista is still faster and more responsive than XP Pro. Want to compare bloat from Xp to Vista, what do you call 4gb of ram when you can only use 3gb or so in XP Pro. But all in all there are little bumps with all OSs. But for me, i'll upgrade to Windows 7 as soon as the RC1 expires. I'll get rid of XP Pro asap.

I can get out of this cell where my XP operated desktop is installed if I buy a toprange laptop,and go sit in the sun.
But currently the affordables all come with Vista!
Plan to buy the laptop and migrate the operation when i can buy a laptop with Windows 7 SP2 pre-installed.
In the meantime no program not up to SP2 stage is interesting - I depend on the rest of you to make MS fix the initial bugs.

Agreed. I have purchsed the $49.90 copy and will install in October.

Michael, I have NO plans to upgrade to Windows 7. I'm using Vista 64 on a 64-bit Asus board with an AMD Athlon 2.60G CPU. Vista is EXTREMELY stable. The only downside (for me) is that there are not enough 64-bit drivers extant. I think that is the fault or oversight (or miserliness) of application developers who do not have faith in a system that they have probably given short shrift to begin with. News travels fast and bad news even faster, so the bad-mouthing of Vista, for spurious reasons has contributed greatly to the OS's declination. Why try Windows 7 when I do NOT know if the 64-bit driver situation in THAT OS will be any better?

What I don't understand is those that get a Core 2 Duo or Quad Core or even the new i7's CPU's and install a lacking OS like XP on it. You don't get to use all the cores doing so. Yes it is rock solid but limiting the potential at the same time. If I was sticking with Win XP I would not get anything above a 478 CPU block as then you get the best bang for the buck.

Unfortunately for the most of us that XP mode is a bad joke: if the program will eventually run - and from my experience less than 40% do it acceptably, it will run like a snail. No, thank you, i don't need Vista, either original or the SE version.

In that case you should avoid like hell Vista or 7: in them you can activate it only 5 times if you don't change the hw and only 3 (three) if you do.

In that case get a rolling distro, one in which all upgrades are nothing more than updates. My PCLinuxOS was installed in february of 2007, went thru 4 big updates and now i'm preparing for a major upgrade: switching from KDE 3.5.9 to 4.2

Mac OS X Rules just over a rotten shit
Have you ever heard of portable software ? BTW almost all of my software is portable , or has been converted to one simply by extracting the files from the installer and tweaking the settings a bit.

I agree Vista is stable and fast. I pointed out that I prefer Vista and use it everyday. I use it to trouble shoot WiFi among other issues on the XP Laptops. Our Facility utilizes 5 industry related applications which all remain stuck in XP with promises to change any day. I'll call each vendor tommorrow and report back if there is any change in the sad situation.

I have to admit I was a little hesitant to move to Vista but that said, I moved to Vista Ultimate 64bit and really have grown to like it. Any program worth a salt has 64bit drivers already, if they dont , they will be left behind.