Businesses delay Vista plans until 2009

Businesses remain unconvinced about the benefits of moving to Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system and most are delaying any plans to upgrade until 2009 at the earliest.

One year after the business launch of Vista, only one of silicon.com's 12-strong CIO Jury IT user panel said they had plans to move to the new OS in 2008.

Most plan to stick with the stability of Windows XP and implement Service Pack 3 for that OS before they even start thinking about Vista.

Adrian Hughes, head of IS for insurance company Amlin, said: "We are sticking with XP and look to take XP SP3 in 2009. Vista not until 2011, unless there is a good reason to migrate, by which time the next OS may be out so we would then skip a generation."

The Maritime & Coastguard Agency isn't planning to upgrade to Vista for two to three years.

View: Silicon.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows Live Messenger Screens Removed

Next Story

Google service uses cell towers to locate users

24 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

To those asking people to cut it out with the Vista bashing, cut it out!

What is this, really? We're not entitled to say our piece unless we share your opinion on things? I don't think so. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and most importantly, everyone's entitled to have their opinion respected.

I don't like Vista, end of story! Try to prevent me from saying that now!

(in before ad hominem attacks)

as a matter of fact, at the moment there is nothing that vista does that xp doesnt, so why upgrade? you may say dx10 for one thing, but then 1) businesses dont care 2) most probably it will be "haxxored" and somehow available for xp... vista is pointless, keep bashing it

Business plans Vista rollouts in 2008!

So one insurance company is hesitant to rollout Vista, so this is all business? What about the major business and IT companies that have firm plans to roll out Vista in 2008?

Once Windows 2008 Server drops, testing will continue and a lot of businesses have plans to roll out Vista at the same time.

The reason for the wait for 2008 Server is the integration level with Vista, that isn't available with a Vista/2003 Server environment nor a XP/2008 Server environment.

As for people debating the technical reasons business will or won't roll out Vista based on the differences from XP, the posters don't have a very firm understanding of Vista. Vista by nature is designed for business, management, and deployment more than any other previous version of Windows. From the XImage and WinPE to the enhanced roaming, security, and multi-user domain accesses system in Vista. Companies that have multiple users per machine are anxious to move to Vista because of the multi-login and multi-location features of Vista and Server 2008. The combined local/server search features of Vista along with 'restore previous versions' are major issues for IT. The enhanced Vista security model also is a major incentive, as Vista can be deployed with less 3rd party solutions/hacks to protect users.

So I'm sure this guy is very serious that his insurance company doesn't have Vista plans, but I can list several Insurance companies that are already working with Vista and Vista deployments. Our IT company works with many large insurance companies. And they are moving to Vista in 2008, and with regard to field support, companies like ANPAC have already been providing Vista migration support to agents since Feburary of 2007.

Maybe I should write an article saying 'business plans to move to Vista in 2008' for every company we work with that is moving to Vista and Windows 2008 Server? I could do an article a day for the next two months just from our company's client list alone, and these are not mom and pop shops.

Just like when XP was released, everyone hated it, loved Win2k, was certain XP was nothing more than bloat, then a year later people figured out XP was faster in most situations, was more secure, easier to manage, and had some good features for both home users and business, you know little things like System Restore, DLL isolation, etc.

The same things will be realized and said about Vista in a year, and people will blush for pushing the anti-Vista articles in the same fashion the negative XP articles from these same tech rags are being covered up like cat crap, pretending they didn't exist either.

As for Vista's performance for business viability, here read a couple of articles of what 'real' people are saying...

Deployment:
http://www.eds.com/news/features/3495/ (EDS is one of the largest IT companies in the world)
http://searchwinit.techtarget.com/original...1272664,00.html

DX10:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2007/2/14/7060
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/19966.html

Performance:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nv...pdate/page9.asp
http://rainrecording.co.uk/vista/performance
(Notice how just the video drivers from ATI and NVidia from Jan to Sep brought Vista up to XP performance)

Aero Performance:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-...sta/page11.html
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/window...mance/page3.asp

Side Note:
The other thing not mentioned is that people that run 3D apps or games in a Window are seeing even more performance increases with Vista and Aero on, see Aero performance above. Vista allows 3D applicaitons to multi-task because it has a GPU scheduler and users can run several 3D games/applications on the screen at the same time with minimal frames per second loss in each application as Vista cycles the GPU between Aero, and the 3D applications/games. This is also something XP nor any other desktop OS can currently do.

thenetavenger said,
Business plans Vista rollouts in 2008!


Performance:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nv...pdate/page9.asp
http://rainrecording.co.uk/vista/performance
(Notice how just the video drivers from ATI and NVidia from Jan to Sep brought Vista up to XP performance)

Aero Performance:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-...sta/page11.html
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/window...mance/page3.asp

Side Note:
The other thing not mentioned is that people that run 3D apps or games in a Window are seeing even more performance increases with Vista and Aero on, see Aero performance above. Vista allows 3D applicaitons to multi-task because it has a GPU scheduler and users can run several 3D games/applications on the screen at the same time with minimal frames per second loss in each application as Vista cycles the GPU between Aero, and the 3D applications/games. This is also something XP nor any other desktop OS can currently do.

I'm not trying to bash Vista but I have yet to see the above statement be true. My system more than meets the system requirements and games that had great, I mean 100fps greatness, performance under XP ran at half the FPS and with eye candy turned off. And before you jump me for not having my system tuned for it. I have been doing this for a very long time and know how to tune a system. If you're not having the performance issues like that, then please do tell what I'm doing wrong. Yes I know it's driver issues, but haven't the companies had plenty of time to work out a lot of the issues already? I don't remember those same companies taking this long with XP to iron out the issues. Yes I had some major driver issues with XP at first, but not this bad and with companies like nvidia, creative and ati to name a few. I have used Vista for months and it just doesn't feel right at this time. I hope it gets better because I know there will be a DX10 game coming out that I will just have to play.

thenetavenger said,
I'm not trying to bash Vista but I have yet to see the above statement be true. My system more than meets the system requirements and games that had great, I mean 100fps greatness, performance under XP ran at half the FPS and with eye candy turned off. And before you jump me for not having my system tuned for it. I have been doing this for a very long time and know how to tune a system. If you're not having the performance issues like that, then please do tell what I'm doing wrong. Yes I know it's driver issues, but haven't the companies had plenty of time to work out a lot of the issues already? I don't remember those same companies taking this long with XP to iron out the issues. Yes I had some major driver issues with XP at first, but not this bad and with companies like nvidia, creative and ati to name a few. I have used Vista for months and it just doesn't feel right at this time. I hope it gets better because I know there will be a DX10 game coming out that I will just have to play.

as you said, most of the problems resort to either drivers or program incompatibilities. why is the OS itself to blame here? its on the driver and developer companies. That's why MS Vista Certified began so though, to try to avoid all sorts of problems due to bad coding...

As business relate to it, migration will occur eventually, regardless of what people says about the OS itself. Most of the time the lack of migrations occurs because the proprietary software many business run and also the costs of the migration sometimes impose a high hit so companies decide is better to spare money on IT...

I don't understand how these articles keep showing up as news. I don't mean on Neowin's site, I just mean that these articles keep getting written up and it's like, ok, what's the NEWS? This is getting so old. Do these writers need something new to write about or are they so obsessed with Vista that its obviously not half as bad as they are trying to convince us?

We have a very large manufacturing company here and my professor at school is head of the IT department. He has told us that they,and many other businesses they deal with, are not going to migrate to Vista. He noted that in most of their testing with Vista that the problems far outweigh the benefits and they will probably wait until the next version of Windows.

Microsoft could delay the release of Windows 7 to get businesses to first upgrade to Vista but who knows at this point.

Either way Microsoft makes money.

"Businesses remain unconvinced..."

lol, we are talking about a guy called Mr. Business? otherwise i find implausible to determine a specific trend in the market, take note that in home Windows is king but it's unclear in business where in server Linux play a special role.

This is probably the last nail in Vista coffin, unless something dramatic happens with either Vista SP1 or Windows 7 release schedule. Transition to Vista planned for Windows 7 release year does not sound it's going to happen at all, especially since Microsoft representative said that Vista mistakes will not be repeated with Windows 7(we can hope).

Nail in Vista's coffin? Businesses will probably be upgrading to Vista en masse when 7 comes out, and holding off on 7 until a year or two after it.

It's just what they do.

Yogurth said,
This is probably the last nail in Vista coffin

Suuurreee.... Last nail in the coffin. Never mind the fact they sold in excess of 100 million copies so far.

Whoopdie doo. A few companies hold off because they're scared about new technology. The only problems businesses might have is running proprietary software originally written for Windows 3.1 and they never bothered upgrading. Needless to say, jumping to an OS that's 14 years newer than the original development target might cause some issues.

This Vista bashing is really becoming quite sad. Some companies never want to upgrade, they want to keep Windows 95. Fine, who cares? That doesn't make Windows Vista a bad OS, just that those companies have no money to speak of or can't hire decent IT help (probably because they won't pay what they're worth).

Speaking of which, I'll use the example of CNN. There was a major worm that ended up shutting down the CNN newsroom and they were off-the-air for several hours while they recovered (this was about 4 years ago). The worst part, MS released a patch for the problem some 5 months before they were hit. Apparently no one at CNN knew the concept of a *free* WSUS server. If these guys can't deploy a single piece of centralized software to manage their patch-routine, obviously they won't have a clue how to update a few hundred desktops.

We use a variety of Client and Server OS's here (on my site and sister sites). Anything from Windows 98 (for legacy hardware), 2000 - Vista and 2000 - 2003 Server.

I would agree with #2.
My company just upgraded to XP SP2 this year. Before Vista will be rolled out, there will be a few years testing all the 3rd party software, to make sure everything is compatible and working properly. Never mind upgrading all the hardware, so that Vista would even run properly on it.

People don't realise, that big corporations just don't start installing a new OS as soon as it gets out, unlike home users or small companies. If something goes wrong, these can just re-install the previous OS on a couple PC's. But on a wide scale, where thousands of PC's are involved, things work a little differently.

The previous company I worked with was still running 2000 as well.

Most businesses I have seen that don't involve the IT industry just stick to Windows 2000, since the only reason they would upgrade would be if their software was incompatible.

Anyone suprised? Vista is too similar and has too few business advantages for it to be a real world solution to the business problems of today.

Thing is...whatever the shortcomings of XP, business have worked around them now, what with 3rd PArty Software solutions, or bespoke development. In any case, the little that Vista does bring to the table in order to solve issues, the aforementioned development work has already been completed in order to bridge the gap.

I can see home users using Vista more than businesses (except maybe for mobile users).

As an IT consulatant for small/medium business, I've been telling clients that sticking to XP is the way to go for the forseeable future. I can see no advantages for workplaces to upgrade to Vista. In fact, i think most of my clients will probably consider skipping Vista all together, unless there comes a time where there is a solid, tangable advantage in Vista over XP. It makes no sense for companies to speand valuable IT hours on upgrading at this point.

I agree with Wiggz this should'nt be a suprise to anyone.

Too similar?

The main problem with Vista from an IT point of view is actually that it's too different. You've got tons of new managment tools, which IT has to learn. You've got revamped architectures virtually everywhere in the system, which makes old software/hardware support a bit questionable. You might have to retrain a few users...