Gartner: Windows XP A Shaky Bridge To Windows 7

Computer users that pass on Microsoft's new Windows Vista operating system in favor of the company's next OS release could find themselves in the lurch given Microsoft's "poor" track record for shipping new products on time, research firm Gartner is warnings its clients.

In a note, Gartner said it's been told by Microsoft that the software maker is "scoping Windows 7 development to a three-year time frame," confirming earlier new reports about Microsoft's plan for a Windows Vista successor.

But Gartner warns that businesses that decide to stick with Windows XP -- Vista's predecessor -- until Windows 7 is available may be pushing their luck. "If the release date slips, enterprises will find it difficult to fully eliminate Windows XP before ISV and Microsoft support [for Windows XP] ends," Gartner analysts write in the note.

A number of businesses and government agencies have indicated they may forego installing Windows Vista on their enterprise systems due to concerns about price, performance, and application compatibility. Some 30% of the 612 IT pros that responded to a recent InformationWeek survey said they have no plans to upgrade their company's computer systems to Windows Vista.

View: Full Article @ InformationWeek

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

New tool enables loading of unsigned drivers in Vista

Next Story

Wikia Details Plans for Search Rival to Google

41 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Some 30% of the 612 IT pros that responded to a recent InformationWeek survey said they have no plans to upgrade their company's computer systems to Windows Vista.

Yes, and in 2001 when XP came out, how many businesses who were running Windows 2000 said the same about XP. They all do this every time with every operating system Microsoft has put out. It's not viewed as prudent to switch over to a new operating system after it's released. From an IT perspective it looks desperate, and unprofessional. They all say the same thing. XP is working well for us, so we see no reason to upgrade to Vista until many of the bugs get worked out in SP1.

Everybody says the same thing. Every time.

Maybe I'm wrong, though...

devHead said,

Yes, and in 2001 when XP came out, how many businesses who were running Windows 2000 said the same about XP. They all do this every time with every operating system Microsoft has put out. It's not viewed as prudent to switch over to a new operating system after it's released. From an IT perspective it looks desperate, and unprofessional. They all say the same thing. XP is working well for us, so we see no reason to upgrade to Vista until many of the bugs get worked out in SP1.

Everybody says the same thing. Every time.

Maybe I'm wrong, though...

I'd say you would have been right had they not released Windows XP SP2 - the fact that SP2 addressed so many of the security issues - the gap that would have existed between Vista and Windows XP is alot smaller - meaning the cost vs. the difference cannot be justified for an immediate upgrade.

What will define whether people adopt it is whether not customers find that there is a killer application released which takes advantage of Windows Vista only features.

Hi,

This is another classic Neowin Non-News News Item.

MS has been stating that XP SP3 would be released in 2008 for some time. This is nothing new and proves nothing.

There is still no reason to believe that it will ever be released.

If they were going to release it then we should see some signs of a alpha or beta testing program by now.

There are powerful incentives for MS to slow down and stop releasing XP upgrades as soon as possible and get people to upgrade to Vista.

By failing to release a new service pack for XP this would help to encourage everyone to migrate to Vista to help ease support issues.

Basically I will believe it when I see it.

Regards

Simon


Most people here are not currently working in IT in a real companie that is in the busness of making money.

All of you who would JUMP to Vista and think it's so stupid to stay with XP don't have a clue about TCO, upper management or time/money. Think about the trainning, not only for users but for the call center, tech, ....

And if your custom Apps don't work well with Vista? It's not *that* simple to start a new projet to upgrade every apps... Again, time & money.

And WHY would someone that only use Word/Excel would need Vista? How is XP not doing the job?

Grow up and think before posting...

Computer users that pass on Microsoft's new Windows Vista operating system in favor of the company's next OS release could find themselves in the lurch given Microsoft's "poor" track record for shipping new products on time, research firm Gartner is warnings its clients.

If this will be a problem or not will mostly depend on Microsoft's sometimes quite arbitrary lifecycle strategy. Windows XP coupled with a few third party security tools so good that many don't really need Vista. Those will only have trouble if MS stops supporting it with software updates.

My Dads office is still running a few p3 700mhz machines some with xp and some with 2000. For what they do there is no need for vista. The sever is 2003 with server side firewall/AV. Quite frankly with the price of vista business I can see why a lot of business look away from it. Now If they sold an OS where it was one edition for $150 or so and you could pick and choose what you need then maybe there may be a use

You are all noobs, :nuts:

Vista and windows 7 is the start to something new. you people just complain to much.

Put a new Vista Desktop quad core infront of a person thats been slaving away for 5 years on xp. You get great smile and a perfect OS.

Scrap xp off the planet, cant run 4 gig ddr3 so it gonna be useless.

gtxvortex said,
Put a new Vista Desktop quad core infront of a person thats been slaving away for 5 years on xp. You get great smile and a perfect OS.

Yeah, like every office worker needs Quad Core for their daily work. And while the worker smiles, upper management frowns because their profits did not equal forecasts and they have to answer to the stock holders. But the people in the cubicles are all smiles as they type their memo on Word. Computers costs money and that affects the bottom line. Office workers will not be playing Crysis or any big games so big computers are a waste of money to most. Then there is the cost to train on the new OS. Imagine what will happen the first time a UAC alert pops up on the new fancy machine with someone who has never used Vista. You can't just plop a machine in front of someone and productivity instantly increases.

Don't be fooled into thinking that you're "missing the boat". Many smaller companies, currently using XP, could conceivably still be using it in 10 or more years time. When money is the bottom line, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" wins every time.

We have no plans whatsoever of upgrading our PC's any time in the future. Our system works fine just as it is and will continue to do so.

Aren't people just creating a bigger problem down the road by skipping Vista and waiting for Windows 7? I mean, if 7 is going to build off Vista, and if you are going to need to have the training and hardware for more than whats required of Vista, wouldn't it make sense to upgrade now and slowly ease people into a transition, rather than a sudden cliff of XP to 7 hardware and training requirements? What happens when all these computers that can run XP and Vista (with a little RAM upgrade) suddenly enter the higher needs of 7? You're going to have a big problem later. You can take it in little easier to handle steps instead of something huge.

And you'll be spending twice the money. A little easier doesn't necessarily mean any cheaper nor any more productive.

A lot of individuals in this thread don't know anything about Vista to give good responsible reason against upgrading. Features like Bitlocker drive Encryption (remember those stolen laptops with War Veteran social security information), Patch Guard, World Wide Language Support, better deployment and management tools through WIM and Ximage, User Account Control, ability to setup a way more secure bi-directional Firewall through MMC, User Account Protection, Limited User Account, Windows Defender, improved Group Policy Editor, you can lock down desktops and prevent unscrupolous employees from copying information to unauthorized devices such as USB thumb drives for example.

These are features Governments and large institutions are looking for in a modern desktop operating system and easy to use at the same time.

No-one has said there aren't features worth upgrading to, only that the negatives outweight the positives. There is a cost issue, not just from Vista but from replacing unsupported hardware, upgrading lower end computers, rewriting custom software and training. Compatibility is an issue as software and hardware all needs to work together properly. Performance is also a serious issue - it is clear that Vista is a lot slower than XP for the same tasks (I'm speaking from experience, not just from random rants on a forum), so why "upgrade" to something that is slower, less compatible and costs a lot? You can spout out lists of features but that doesn't demonstrate the practical issues. In fact some governments have warned specifically AGAINST upgrading because the benefits are unclear and it could pose some risk to security.

The situation was the same with Office - new collaborative features were added with XP and 2003 but there wasn't that much to really justify the upgrades for a lot of businesses. However, Office 2007 changed that - there is still the disadvantage of training costs but in the medium to long term it should improve productivity considerably.

I own Vista but I still choose to use XP because the performance just isn't good enough - that's pretty worrying when I have an E6750 with 2GB RAM; especially as optimisations for dual-core, ReadyBoost and DX9 graphics acceleration should provide a noticeable INCREASE in performance. I hope things will change with SP1 but I find even browsing folders to be noticeably slower than XP... XP is quite snappy and that's something I didn't really appreciate until Vista came along. I really don't see the appeal for businesses even IF Vista was free under software licencing schemes - the other costs would still make it a hard upgrade to stomach.

Mr. Dee said,
A lot of individuals in this thread don't know anything about Vista to give good responsible reason against upgrading. Features like Bitlocker drive Encryption (remember those stolen laptops with War Veteran social security information), Patch Guard, World Wide Language Support, better deployment and management tools through WIM and Ximage, User Account Control, ability to setup a way more secure bi-directional Firewall through MMC, User Account Protection, Limited User Account, Windows Defender, improved Group Policy Editor, you can lock down desktops and prevent unscrupolous employees from copying information to unauthorized devices such as USB thumb drives for example.

These are features Governments and large institutions are looking for in a modern desktop operating system and easy to use at the same time.

Companies don't need Vista, they need Linux. XP can run off Linux servers just fine, without the security issues of Windows Server. For that matter, so can Vista, but running Linux servers eliminates the need for Vista's extra expense.

Bitlocker - there are plenty of encryption solutions which are free and not tied to TPM spyware chips. Like Truecrypt.

Patch guard - a Windows problem.

World-wide language support - what doesn't have this for most major langauges? Ok, maybe Vista will be popular amongst some lost South American tribes, I just wonder if they'll be able to afford Vista?

Deployment, management - compared to what? To other barebones built-in Microsoft tools yes, but not to 3rd party tools.

UAC - a Windows problem again.

Defender - doesn't work very well, and yet another Windows-only problem.

Bi-directional Firewall - a bi-directional firewall! Really!?

Group policy editor - what does this have to do with Vista clients?

"Easy to use" - not an issue compared to XP, OS X, and pre-configured Linux systems or thin clients.

Even if some IT Pro's would like to upgrade there organisation to Vista.... (like me, makes my life alot easier in many aspects)... i know we wont for a VERY long time...

I work in UK government and the unofficial motto is "dont fix it, or improve it, unless its crashing and burning"... and in my eyes, XP will plod along for a very long time. There was a big big reason to move from 95\98 to 2000\XP, and thats why it happened. But that urgency just isnt there with XP and vista....

f4af_billy said,
There was a big big reason to move from 9598 to 2000XP, and thats why it happened. But that urgency just isnt there with XP and vista....

Exactly. Vista is a big move forward, but XP is already too advanced for what most businesses use it for. The extra crap we as IT pros woudl have to disable and turn off to make it usable for stupid people who don't want/care to learn a new OS is enough ot put any beancounter off upgrading.

graigchq said,

Exactly. Vista is a big move forward, but XP is already too advanced for what most businesses use it for. The extra crap we as IT pros woudl have to disable and turn off to make it usable for stupid people who don't want/care to learn a new OS is enough ot put any beancounter off upgrading.

Then maybe the best thing to do is look for an alternative and plan a long term transition off Microsoft technology.

Well I know quite a few people in person and from hear say they are looking forward to Vista.

It came, they installed it and then tell me they wish they had stuck to XP.

A lot of schools are sticking to xp and media centre.

I will look forward to windows 7 and bypass Vista.

neufuse said,
Why would schools be using media center edition? They really have no use for it

My daughters school 1st year (year 7) secondary gave the children a laptop with media centre on it for a year to do homework and other activities.


leesmithg said,

My daughters school 1st year (year 7) secondary gave the children a laptop with media centre on it for a year to do homework and other activities.

I assume when you mean as if 'give' it means 'borrow from the school'.

Why would companies need Vista? Better security? Big deal....

How about the TCO, the need to upgrade PC/Laptop to support Vista... We all know that many companies milk their computers for all they offer and many of them could not run Vista.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Most computers just need some more RAM in order to run Vista at a decent speed. So what if they can't run Areo?

As for your "Better security? Big deal..." comment, that just proves you don't have a clue.

Any IT person would be enticed by the things in this list:

Hello. I'm an IT person and have been for some years.

There is nothing that compels me to want to upgrade my PC to Vista in the office as frankly it offers nothing of any real value for my day to day operation.

Security seems to be the big selling point but when you're behind a corporate firewall and you have server side AV and strong policies in place, only ridiculously gross negligence is going to see your workstation being breeched.

I only know of a handful of people in my enterprise dabbling with Vista, and make no mistake.. these aren't Linux or Mac people who have to begrudgingly use Windows machines - these are Microsoft-centric professionals.

Chicane-UK said,

Hello. I'm an IT person and have been for some years.

There is nothing that compels me to want to upgrade my PC to Vista in the office as frankly it offers nothing of any real value for my day to day operation.

Security seems to be the big selling point but when you're behind a corporate firewall and you have server side AV and strong policies in place, only ridiculously gross negligence is going to see your workstation being breeched.

I only know of a handful of people in my enterprise dabbling with Vista, and make no mistake.. these aren't Linux or Mac people who have to begrudgingly use Windows machines - these are Microsoft-centric professionals.

Thank you! And I'm in IT also and I have a clue and Vista does not give anything more than XP when you're in the situation stated above.

As for "add more RAM", it's not simple as that when dealing with older PC. You sir don't seam to deal with TCO....

TruckWEB said,

Thank you! And I'm in IT also and I have a clue and Vista does not give anything more than XP when you're in the situation stated above.

As for "add more RAM", it's not simple as that when dealing with older PC. You sir don't seam to deal with TCO....

True. When it comes to businesses, the question will be asked, what has been added that will contribute to an increase in productivity that will off set the cost of upgrading - thats what Windows fanboys ignore; the reality is that IT is a cost centre in a business. Unless it adds to productivity to such a point in which it can off set the intial cost, its a waste of money.

Like I said to another post - free yourself now from Microsoft technollgy so that when you do/want to make a change, you can do it quickly as all the hard work has be done already.

Some 30% of the 612 IT pros that responded to a recent InformationWeek survey said they have no plans to upgrade their company's computer systems to Windows Vista.

If more IT's would be involved with a survey, I'm pretty sure that 30% would be MUCH HIGHER. There really is no need for companies to upgrade to Vista just to send out emails, and print labels, and common printing of PDF's, Excel, Word Files. Win 2000 & WinXP does all that just fine now.

Optix Illusion said,
If more IT's would be involved with a survey, I'm pretty sure that 30% would be MUCH HIGHER. There really is no need for companies to upgrade to Vista just to send out emails, and print labels, and common printing of PDF's, Excel, Word Files. Win 2000 & WinXP does all that just fine now.

Correct. There's nothing in Vista at the moment that compels people to upgrade. No "killer" feature that makes businesses need that upgrade.

I think the article is good marketing for MS to push Vista, but little else.

My thoughts exactly. Just a simple PR release to show that waning tears do nothing but show anxiety. Businesses thrive well on what works for them...and the bottom line stays healthy when they're not spending top dollar on first, research, then system wide upgrades when it's a proven fact that there's no legitimate reason to use Vista for business purposes. Games for Windows and DirectX 10 is a selling feature for gamers.

Vista: been there, done that..... Next?

I couldn't agree more except to add that many corporations are still trying to upgrade machines from Win2K. I know my company (Fortune 500) is not planning on migrating to Vista anytime soon. Hardware/software compatibility, system bugs, security concerns, training requirements, etc. are all very important issues. Where is the ROI for a company moving to Vista?

Unfortunately I've talk to some previous co-workers in Redmond and even though the MS PR spin doctors are touting the success of Vista, many people behind the scenes are crapping in their pants. The adoption and saturation rates for Vista are no where near what was budgeted. The comparison is down right dismal and memories of BOB & Me are floating around.

On my personal Windows machines, I'm not upgrading any time soon either... and if I'm forced to, those boxes will be moved to Linux if MS gives me no other option.

Optix Illusion said,
Some 30% of the 612 IT pros that responded to a recent InformationWeek survey said they have no plans to upgrade their company's computer systems to Windows Vista.

If more IT's would be involved with a survey, I'm pretty sure that 30% would be MUCH HIGHER.

I'm not sure if they're even going to stick with Windows at all in the next round of major upgrades. They might just keep their old XP licenses and run their stuff on VMWare thin clients off of Linux blade servers. That eliminates the issue of compatibility with the few remaining Windows-exclusive technologies that some companies need for some of their workers while allowing companies to transition to Linux.

lbmouse said,
I couldn't agree more except to add that many corporations are still trying to upgrade machines from Win2K. I know my company (Fortune 500) is not planning on migrating to Vista anytime soon. Hardware/software compatibility, system bugs, security concerns, training requirements, etc. are all very important issues. Where is the ROI for a company moving to Vista?

Unfortunately I've talk to some previous co-workers in Redmond and even though the MS PR spin doctors are touting the success of Vista, many people behind the scenes are crapping in their pants. The adoption and saturation rates for Vista are no where near what was budgeted. The comparison is down right dismal and memories of BOB & Me are floating around.

On my personal Windows machines, I'm not upgrading any time soon either... and if I'm forced to, those boxes will be moved to Linux if MS gives me no other option.

Well said lbmouse. Stick by your guns. It's too bad more companies don't view this like you.