Windows 7 enterprise sales: where it counts

Sure, Windows 7 has been a great success for Microsoft. Many would say that it’s hard not to do well after the epic failure that was Vista. In fact, Windows 7 has done very well in the consumer market, quickly overtaking Vista in market share and banishing it to the land of failed operating systems. However, according to Paul Thurrott at WinSuperSite.com, the real question is not how the “stunning 94% consumer satisfaction rate” will impact OEM sales, but how well the enterprise is adopting Windows 7 as the new de facto Windows business OS. The main reason Vista was such a commercial failure for Microsoft was not because people weren’t buying it; it was still packaged with every Windows PC on the market during its existence. It failed because big enterprises wouldn’t commit to it. When major companies shy away from Vista deployments due to an amalgam of compatibility and stability issues, many other big businesses follow suit. You get a ripple effect that effectively knocks the wind out of an operating system of which 65% of its revenue comes from those businesses.  

According to Microsoft general manager Gavriella Schuster, Windows 7 is already in the process of being deployed in 65% of enterprises. Some of the big hitters in the already-deployed list are Dell and Intel, and many more big partners at the Worldwide partner Conference this year have been expressing general satisfaction with their enterprise rollouts of Windows 7, contrasting with the WPC after the Vista release, at which very few companies had fully committed to a Vista deployment.

Will Windows 7 have the same problem as XP, swallowing up the next iteration of Windows due to business hesitation to leave behind a stable system? According to Schuster, Windows 7 was developed with such deployments in mind. As the Windows platform heads steadily further into the ever-growing world of virtualization and optimization, where data and applications become less dependent on local hardware, large deployments and upgrades become a far less daunting and disruptive proposition. 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Amazon sells out of updated Kindle

Next Story

Google finally enables multiple account sign-in

55 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Vista x64 ran perfectly on both mine and misses main pc's from day 1....in fact I only installed it once and apart from a few minor driver issues in the first month or two of release it never played up and was on here until Win7 came out last year.

I actually found most people who had issues with it were either total clueless twits or b they had OLLLLLDDDDD hardware that even XP didn't run smoothly on then they went and installed vista and wonder why it was running like a dog.

Win7 isn't much more stable or reliable IMO.....vista was just as stable on both our machines.

Baked said,
Vista x64 ran perfectly on both mine and misses main pc's from day 1....in fact I only installed it once and apart from a few minor driver issues in the first month or two of release it never played up and was on here until Win7 came out last year.

I actually found most people who had issues with it were either total clueless twits or b they had OLLLLLDDDDD hardware that even XP didn't run smoothly on then they went and installed vista and wonder why it was running like a dog.

Win7 isn't much more stable or reliable IMO.....vista was just as stable on both our machines.

agreed, ran fine on my HOME PC. However, ran like crap on our domain; which is why we downgraded to XP pro until Windows 7 came out.

Really Neowin, why paint such a bias opinion against Vista? I could of read this article without reading the 'epic failure' bit and would of been happy with it. Vista wasn't a failure, it had the same problems Windows XP did when it was first released. Driver related and compatibility issues.

Disk access usage was caused by Superfetch being too aggressive and wanting to store every single file you've accessed to memory while Windows 7 the Superfetch only caches files that will actually help speed up a particular program etc.

RAM usage increased because the system has more code than Windows XP.. More code equals to more memory being used, and not only that, people were complaining about Superfetch using all that free memory and didn't realise that Windows would release that RAM if it was needed, but again, jumping out of a game was slow because of Vista's aggressive Superfetch feature filling the RAM back up again.

Driver support plagued Vista's problems and caused system instability. But that's because Vista switched over to a new driver model which companies are now familiar with and now we have great drivers for Windows Vista and Windows 7.

Compatibility issues were caused because of Microsoft dumping legacy API's etc again, this is no longer an issue with todays better software.

Now the biggest problem Microsoft had with Windows Vista was stupid OEM vendors filling and selling laptops with like 512MB - 1GB RAM with **** loads of crap programs which caused it to be slow. Blame them, not Microsoft.

Windows Vista isn't a failure in any regards, it gave us Windows 7 which improved on Windows Vista. Windows XP had the same problems with everything, but after one or two service backs (though remember, it had a service pack that actually broke things and made corporations hold back) Windows XP turned out great.

The conclusion to this is that at any point when a new OS is being made, people will like the old one or love the new one better. New software can be buggy but in the long road the product does work.

The same crap I have seen before.

Tony. said,
Really Neowin, why paint such a bias opinion against Vista? I could of read this article without reading the 'epic failure' bit and would of been happy with it. Vista wasn't a failure, it had the same problems Windows XP did when it was first released. Driver related and compatibility issues.

Disk access usage was caused by Superfetch being too aggressive and wanting to store every single file you've accessed to memory while Windows 7 the Superfetch only caches files that will actually help speed up a particular program etc.

RAM usage increased because the system has more code than Windows XP.. More code equals to more memory being used, and not only that, people were complaining about Superfetch using all that free memory and didn't realise that Windows would release that RAM if it was needed, but again, jumping out of a game was slow because of Vista's aggressive Superfetch feature filling the RAM back up again.

Driver support plagued Vista's problems and caused system instability. But that's because Vista switched over to a new driver model which companies are now familiar with and now we have great drivers for Windows Vista and Windows 7.

Compatibility issues were caused because of Microsoft dumping legacy API's etc again, this is no longer an issue with todays better software.

Now the biggest problem Microsoft had with Windows Vista was stupid OEM vendors filling and selling laptops with like 512MB - 1GB RAM with **** loads of crap programs which caused it to be slow. Blame them, not Microsoft.

Windows Vista isn't a failure in any regards, it gave us Windows 7 which improved on Windows Vista. Windows XP had the same problems with everything, but after one or two service backs (though remember, it had a service pack that actually broke things and made corporations hold back) Windows XP turned out great.

The conclusion to this is that at any point when a new OS is being made, people will like the old one or love the new one better. New software can be buggy but in the long road the product does work.

The same crap I have seen before.

retarded times a trillion, face it Vista worked fine for home users and had serious issues when deployed in an enterprise domain. Windows 7 is everything Vista should have been, and when SP1 for 7 releases it will be even better than Vista could ever hope to be. I kinda remember a crappy edition of windows called ME, and Vista was right there with it.

We support multiple vista deployments, on new hardware with 2GB+ ram its fine, SP's made it better - we have very little support calls from the users and they are all perfectly happy with it (although some users are now emailing questions on when 7 will be rolled out), truth is Vista was plagued by low spec hardware on the consumer side, and IT departments upgrading XP to Vista on old hardware in the business world. Vista needed more and I firmly believe the needed RAM helped bring RAM prices down due to larger consumption - while at the same time giving users a bad experience bacause they went and bought the cheapest pile of crap/bloated with crapware/off the shelf/misguided crap they could - this was the fault of retailers and MS for not stipulating more recommended resources.

but and while I completely agree 7 is better I would happily use a Vista PC right now if that was put in front of me, but I dont because I choose to use a better, newer OS that is windows 7.

duddut2 said,
We support multiple vista deployments, on new hardware with 2GB+ ram its fine, SP's made it better - we have very little support calls from the users and they are all perfectly happy with it (although some users are now emailing questions on when 7 will be rolled out), truth is Vista was plagued by low spec hardware on the consumer side, and IT departments upgrading XP to Vista on old hardware in the business world. Vista needed more and I firmly believe the needed RAM helped bring RAM prices down due to larger consumption - while at the same time giving users a bad experience bacause they went and bought the cheapest pile of crap/bloated with crapware/off the shelf/misguided crap they could - this was the fault of retailers and MS for not stipulating more recommended resources.

but and while I completely agree 7 is better I would happily use a Vista PC right now if that was put in front of me, but I dont because I choose to use a better, newer OS that is windows 7.

You had better luck than we did, our 5 Tablet's had Vista Business on them; nothing but a pain to support.

Considering Windows 7 has already surpassed Vista usage, I'd definitely call that an epic failure.

After drivers and software compatibility issues were sorted out, yes, Vista was fine. But it took almost a year for that to happen. I remember even getting a printer to print was a headache.

Blasius said,
Considering Windows 7 has already surpassed Vista usage, I'd definitely call that an epic failure.

After drivers and software compatibility issues were sorted out, yes, Vista was fine. But it took almost a year for that to happen. I remember even getting a printer to print was a headache.


that's like saying an mmo with 300k subs is a an epic failure because it doesn't have 11m subs like wow

treemonster said,

that's like saying an mmo with 300k subs is a an epic failure because it doesn't have 11m subs like wow

Please, people would have rather stayed on an antiquated OS as XP, than upgraded to the "latest and greatest" Vista at the time. Especially in the corp world, they heard of the horror stories of Vista (and no I'm not talking about get a mac ads). PCs that corps purchased with Vista pre-installed were downgraded to XP with almost every client i consulted for. It's only now that since 7 had a basically seamless launch that corps are now keeping or upgrading to 7.

Again, how long was Vista out? The fact that 7 has surpassed those numbers in less than a year tells you something. You even have Microsoft referring to it as an "oops"

Edited by shockz, Aug 3 2010, 9:22pm :

Blasius said,

Please, people would have rather stayed on an antiquated OS as XP, than upgraded to the "latest and greatest" Vista at the time. Especially in the corp world, they heard of the horror stories of Vista (and no I'm not talking about get a mac ads). PCs that corps purchased with Vista pre-installed were downgraded to XP with almost every client i consulted for. It's only now that since 7 had a basically seamless launch that corps are now keeping or upgrading to 7.

Again, how long was Vista out? The fact that 7 has surpassed those numbers in less than a year tells you something. You even have Microsoft referring to it as an "oops"


big chance is that when vista came out, barely anyone was using dual core, and if ppl where on dual core, most of them had the first generation, when W7 came out, even quad cores are everywhere ~.~
big difference with vista and w7 aswell.

and the launch of vista on low-end machines didnt help aswell. winxp is a horridly slow OS aswell on its 'requirements' specs

Blasius said,
Considering Windows 7 has already surpassed Vista usage, I'd definitely call that an epic failure.

After drivers and software compatibility issues were sorted out, yes, Vista was fine. But it took almost a year for that to happen. I remember even getting a printer to print was a headache.

+100

Vista Rulez.... and far more than windows 7 in my inspiron 1501... because my mouse stops of responding and my graphics card for some reason has artifacts that with win vista doesn't happen... (and I really liked win 7 but... I just can't upgrade it to my laptop, too bad...)

I can give you a few reasons why Vista was unpopular:
* The OS used a lot of system resources (Win 7 is improved over Vista in a lot of speed related areas)
* The OS was sold on a lot of systems that did not have the performance to run it well (not MS fault of course)
* The OS had major incompatabilities with older programs; many people didn't see the new features as worth it.
* The OS had many problems stability wise up until about when the first service pack was released.
* While it was less likely to get viruses on, viruses would do more damage to the OS and was harder to repair than XP.

Senlis said,
I can give you a few reasons why Vista was unpopular:
* The OS used a lot of system resources (Win 7 is improved over Vista in a lot of speed related areas)
* The OS was sold on a lot of systems that did not have the performance to run it well (not MS fault of course)
* The OS had major incompatabilities with older programs; many people didn't see the new features as worth it.
* The OS had many problems stability wise up until about when the first service pack was released.
* While it was less likely to get viruses on, viruses would do more damage to the OS and was harder to repair than XP.

PURE FUD.

Senlis said,
I can give you a few reasons why Vista was unpopular:
* The OS used a lot of system resources (Win 7 is improved over Vista in a lot of speed related areas)
* The OS was sold on a lot of systems that did not have the performance to run it well (not MS fault of course)
* The OS had major incompatabilities with older programs; many people didn't see the new features as worth it.
* The OS had many problems stability wise up until about when the first service pack was released.
* While it was less likely to get viruses on, viruses would do more damage to the OS and was harder to repair than XP.

+1

Senlis said,
I can give you a few reasons why Vista was unpopular:
* The OS used a lot of system resources (Win 7 is improved over Vista in a lot of speed related areas)
* The OS was sold on a lot of systems that did not have the performance to run it well (not MS fault of course)
* The OS had major incompatabilities with older programs; many people didn't see the new features as worth it.
* The OS had many problems stability wise up until about when the first service pack was released.
* While it was less likely to get viruses on, viruses would do more damage to the OS and was harder to repair than XP.

Let's not forget about UAC.

treemonster said,

PURE FUD.

Mind to elaborate? Are you aware of what MS stated as minimum specs to run Vista? Ever used Vista, before SP1, in a Domain?

Senlis said,
I can give you a few reasons why Vista was unpopular:
* The OS used a lot of system resources (Win 7 is improved over Vista in a lot of speed related areas)

Vista used pretty much the same amount of RAM and CPU % on all 3 of my computers, as 7 now does.

* The OS had many problems stability wise up until about when the first service pack was released.

Nope that was fixed with 2 stability and reliability patches released well well well before sp1.

* While it was less likely to get viruses on, viruses would do more damage to the OS and was harder to repair than XP.

Same thing applies to 7. And no the virus doesn't do more damage, since if you used UAC correctly a lot of the threat would be mitigated. On XP there is no protection and by default everything runs as administrator whether you want it to or not.

/- Razorfold said,

Vista used pretty much the same amount of RAM and CPU % on all 3 of my computers, as 7 now does.


Nope that was fixed with 2 stability and reliability patches released well well well before sp1.


Same thing applies to 7. And no the virus doesn't do more damage, since if you used UAC correctly a lot of the threat would be mitigated. On XP there is no protection and by default everything runs as administrator whether you want it to or not.

First reply: True that it uses the same amount of RAM, but a lot of other things were improves such as start times. That was a big complaint with Vista, and in general Vista was considered slow compared to XP.
Second reply: I guess stability is a relative term.
Third reply: Viruses on Vista would jack up the permissions all the time. There was no way to fix it.

Fritzly said,

Mind to elaborate? Are you aware of what MS stated as minimum specs to run Vista? Ever used Vista, before SP1, in a Domain?

+100

Gotta love the kids that are just users, and have never deployed an OS to hundreds of computers.

/- Razorfold said,

Vista used pretty much the same amount of RAM and CPU % on all 3 of my computers, as 7 now does.


Nope that was fixed with 2 stability and reliability patches released well well well before sp1.


Same thing applies to 7. And no the virus doesn't do more damage, since if you used UAC correctly a lot of the threat would be mitigated. On XP there is no protection and by default everything runs as administrator whether you want it to or not.

Pre SP1 with 2 gigs of ram installed Vista used 1 gig, that was an epic failure. I don't see how you can't see that? I agree it's fixed now, but M$ was a dollar short and day late so it's a mute point; and was one of the reasons people hated Vista out of the box and it got a bad rap. Secondly, disk access read/write/seek was all jacked up on some of the RAID controllers. Not to mention permission issues that could not be solved in domain environment easily. Just to mention a few issues.

Vista was a fantastic OS. It was the lazy IT admins at those corporations who refused to update in-house softwares to work with a new OS. If anything Vista paved the road of success for Windows 7. I'm not saying Vista is better than W7. Vista was the ultimate OS, but turned out as the ultimate sacrifice.

"...due to an amalgam of compatibility and stability issues..."
Oh? What stability issues were these? There were certainly compatibility issues, but you're just pulling stuff out of your ass with "stability issues." Suggesting that XP could be more stable than Vista is just plain rubbish.
As for Vista being a failure, I find it amusing that the same people who don't like Vista think that Windows 7 is the best thing since the Great Pyramids of Giza. Windows 7 is Windows Vista with a few minor changes. People are just mindless sheep.

Skwerl said,
"...due to an amalgam of compatibility and stability issues..."
Oh? What stability issues were these? There were certainly compatibility issues, but you're just pulling stuff out of your ass with "stability issues." Suggesting that XP could be more stable than Vista is just plain rubbish.
As for Vista being a failure, I find it amusing that the same people who don't like Vista think that Windows 7 is the best thing since the Great Pyramids of Giza. Windows 7 is Windows Vista with a few minor changes. People are just mindless sheep.

another +1 internets

Skwerl said,
As for Vista being a failure, I find it amusing that the same people who don't like Vista think that Windows 7 is the best thing since the Great Pyramids of Giza. Windows 7 is Windows Vista with a few minor changes. ...

System requirements were lowered dramatically with the low level architectural changes in 7. The minor changes you speak of had major repercussions to its usability on down level hardware.

dotf said,

System requirements were lowered dramatically with the low level architectural changes in 7. The minor changes you speak of had major repercussions to its usability on down level hardware.


Thank You.

Lets imagine that Windows 7 was released three years ago into the same hardware, driver, software, and user mentality (free RAM, always run as Admin) environment that was faced by Vista. Would it really have done better?

Relativity_17 said,
Lets imagine that Windows 7 was released three years ago into the same hardware, driver, software, and user mentality (free RAM, always run as Admin) environment that was faced by Vista. Would it really have done better?
Exactly. And really, it was the [nVidia] driver problems that gave Vista the complete lack of stability. Honestly, it was worth it as the updated driver model is much better than the old XP approach.

However, by the time SP1 rolled out, they had definitely stomped out the major offenders and nVidia had finally released stable drivers.

I had no issues at all with Vista. Used it on several systems flawlessly. The only issue was driver support and after hardware manufacturers caught up, then it really wasnt an issue.

techbeck said,
I had no issues at all with Vista. Used it on several systems flawlessly. The only issue was driver support and after hardware manufacturers caught up, then it really wasnt an issue.

+1 internets for you.

techbeck said,
I had no issues at all with Vista. Used it on several systems flawlessly. The only issue was driver support and after hardware manufacturers caught up, then it really wasnt an issue.

Did you upgrade an entire organisation 250+ workstations with aging legacy hardware that met the compromised system requirements that Microsoft+Intel agreed upon?