Are You Waiting For Windows 7? You’re Not Alone (MSFT)

I wish my workplace had waited on vista, mostly because I have to support it. What a nightmare.

GM always skips a version of Windows as do most companies. Nothing unusual here.

How is being installed on the same *percentage* of machines as XP, 'lousy' given they have a monopoly? I wouldn't expect it to be any different. Your comment makes no sense. Please explain.

@amy:

I'm not sure most companies actually skip an entire Windows version. Rather, they tend to postpone moving to the most recent version until the "shakeout" service pack(s) have been released into the wild. Some orgs contend that they even perform intensive internal testing for all of the apps they care for. So, often, there are several months to a couple of years after FCS that pass before the Windows version in question makes its way onto corporate PCs.

The problem with Vista is that, this time, a lot of orgs have decided that XP is robust enough and support their apps well enough, and Vista does not provide enough new functionality (in some cases, it removes or worsens previously available functionality, like printing or secured apps or certain frameworks). For these orgs, maintaining their current support contracts, even in legacy mode, is less expensive in terms of cost and effort (especially in this downsizing era) than upgrading a majority of their PCs or even having Vista preinstalled on new PCs.

Umm... not sure what you meant about the "lousy", though. Maybe the post author could clarify, but I'd imagine that if a large customer public declares that they don't want my supposed latest-and-greatest, I'd consider that to be "lousy" news.

From both a developer and an analyst standpoint, I'm not crazy about Nash's spin on the newsbit, but I'd see the mention about mainstream consumer acceptance in the Business Week article as yet another sign that accelerating both consumer device and SMB market efforts is the best way out of its rut for MSFT.

The lousy refers not to the 140 million, but to the companies opting to wait.

I've worked in places where they are still using '98 and 2000. It's scary what goes on out there. Penny-pinching companies that don't want to invest in new software combined with time-strapped IT depts. that know the old OSs inside out and don't want to bother deploying or using XP.

IT dept. of current employer just upgraded to brand-new super-fast computers; they are wonderful to work with - but they run XP. Any business that "upgrades" to Vista is simply throwing money away: XP does everything businesses need it to do: Vista adds no extra functionality and is actually a slower operating system.

So is MS going back to Longhorn to build 7, or is Longhorn officially dead and gone? The way I understand it, Longhorn was going to have all the extra functionality and speed that Vista doesn't, but MS devs were forced to scrap it about 2005-ish to push any "new" OS out ASAP - and were forced to use mere scraps of Longhorn to build Vista.

As a CTO with responsibility for more than 1,000 desktops, I have no plans to move to Vista. I put it on my laptop a year ago precisely to experience any potential pain before my users, and I wouldn't subject this on anyone. It's slow, burns through laptop battery life like no tomorrow, is counterintuitive in many places, yadayadayada. The 140 million figure Microsoft cites is probably accurate, but nearly every company is the US is taking Vista configured machines and burning XP on them instead. Vista is probably the most expensive piece of shelfware in computing history. Steve Balmer should throw his office chairs instead at the Vista team and force them to get to it at least as fast as XP on similar hardware and remove the annoyances that lace the OS.

@Marah Marie:

Funny you should mention the issue of IT asset management... in a previous life, I worked at a small startup that sold IT asset management software (I've been contacted since then by IBM if I remember all of the pieces that I created in that era). One of the goals of my software is to demonstrate to C-level execs how much money is saved by either upgrading hardware and/or software, or by staying with what is currently installed.

It's nice to know that the need for the concept is alive and well... this would indicate that IBM will definitely keep making a tidy sum from IT asset management, along with HPQ and perhaps BMC.

@Garbanzo:

If you're authorizing slicking all of your desktops with XP, you may consider ordering all of the desktop units without any OS. It's a very common practice I recommend to C-level execs responsible for ordering or architecting their internal operating environments. If you're dealing with legal licenses of Windows, you'll be saving a considerable amount of money by skipping the preinstalls, and if you're using a Linux-based droptool, you'll save some time in large scale deployments.

Here's something amusing: In another previous life, I asked the head sales exec of my vendor-of-the-month what the "Steve discount" was on a rush PO for 250 workstation units. She laughed and said it was because I always told them to not preinstall any OS or partitioning. She found out that my reports would direct the IT guys to slick everything they got from the loading dock, regardless of what was on the hard disks. But since it was too much effort to separate the OS preinstall and disk partitioning, and since she knew I would trash everything anyway, she was authorized to just subtract all of the OS, software bundling, and disk partition labor charge as one lump sum.

Well it is not some thing out to mention that Vista was one of the Technology Mishap of the decade..

It seems that Microsoft has got sucked with all this too.. their strategical planning also seems to taking them no where.. unless is it makes a sense that On one front they want to aggressively market for Vista and "they are doing that".

But then what is this XP Sp3 release doing their, is it not making a mess among the community who are already not able to take on the thing.. and isn't going to hamper the Vista...

If they want to take on vista a step further i don't find them to have that release of XP SP3..

What do you have to say on that out here ?

also curious as to the percent of the 140 million units sold that were activated as windows xp, as every unit of vista functions as XP key, and regardless of whether you keep vista or downgrade it to XP it counts as a vista sale so the actual number of vista users is probably significantly lower

also curious as to the percent of the 140 million units sold that were activated as windows xp, as every unit of vista functions as XP key, and regardless of whether you keep vista or downgrade it to XP it counts as a vista sale so the actual number of vista users is probably significantly lower

also curious as to the percent of the 140 million units sold that were activated as windows xp, as every unit of vista functions as XP key, and regardless of whether you keep vista or downgrade it to XP it counts as a vista sale so the actual number of vista users is probably significantly lower

josh M,
Don't forget as well, microsoft sells volume licenses, which cover x amount of computers. They are counting the volume lisences as total installs. Look at how Dell, Lenovo, and third party brands are selling xp still, not even touching their allotment of Vista licenses.

Microsoft planning with their browsers have gone haywired as though they promote Vista on a large scale they keep coming up with XP sevice pack 3 though they plan to phase out XP gradually, i guess they would have a difficult time with Google Chrome the new kid on the block with an eye on Microsft products.