Win-7 migration resistance likely ? | The Coffeehouse

Dovella
Go Microsoft !!!!!!!

Will Windows 7 be Microsoft's biggest business hit ever? - http://tinyurl.com/d3xnmo

ManipUni
Proving QQ for 5 years!

Windows 7 adds more to Vista than Windows XP added to Windows 2000...

Why was Windows XP a success? Marketing. I'm told tons of stuff about "Why XP is better than 2000?" none of which has any truth to it in reality. The truth is that XP added a pretty user friendly UI and very little else. I mean a bunch of stuff behind the scenes but nothing that your average user could even reference.

PS - Windows XP SP2+ is obviously better than 2000. My remarks are about "classic" XP Vs. the latest 2K service pack at the time.

stevo_
Human after all

XP wasn't a 'success' compared to vista.. it had the same audience at launch.. the difference is xp has been around for about 500 years.. give vista or 7 that same lifetime, and you'll have the same 'problem'..

Sabot
My name is Dave Oliver. I'm a Technical Architect.

In reply to stevo_

#Apr 16th @ 10:30 AM

My company has approx 500+ desktops and 10,000 thin clients. Most of the desktops will be going to Windows 7. The older ones won't. The upgrade will happen when they are swapped out for newer models.

Same story for the laptops which we have 4000 of, but the upgrade for all will happpen via swap, it will be up to you to get your data off it and onto a central storage.

My company is lucky, it has an Enterprise Agreement (EA) so we can jump to Windows 7 straight away when it comes out. However our reasons for jumping isn't about better productivity for the users? It's about having the longest period of time on a fully supported platform to keep operation expenditure (OPEX) down.

Having multiple version of OS'es lying around strains support organisations specially when it is big numbers and this all slows down response times, so then the the knock-on effect is that the business slows down.

This is all the real reason why companies don't jump to Linux or have migrated back to Windows because the CAPEX (Capital Expendature) is smaller (i.e. little or no license fee) but the OPEX (Operation Expenditure) is bigger because Windows has mature services such as Active Directory and System Centre (to name just a few) that keep the OPEX down.

Here endth the finance lesson from Uncle Sabot.

ManipUni
Proving QQ for 5 years!

In reply to Sabot

#Apr 16th @ 11:33 AM

TLDR: Microsoft puts a gun to people's heads and forces them to upgrade by ending support for older versions.

Sabot
My name is Dave Oliver. I'm a Technical Architect.

In reply to ManipUni

#Apr 16th @ 1:05 PM

No one is holding a gun to your head to upgrade!

So you don't get support, when was the last time you phoned Microsoft for support?

If you don't want to use any of the new features then stay on the older version.

However technology moves on, IT is an industry still enduring a very high rate of change. New versions of Windows are actually driven by change and take advantage of innovations.

Company's like mine pay for Enterprise Agreements (EA) there is an expectation to have new versions of software every few years to justify the outlay and continually support the demands we are enduring in a world where things aren't perfect yet and the demands of fast paced, constantly changing, business.

So in short, if you don't want change and you want the world to stop moving ... don't upgrade.

ManipUni
Proving QQ for 5 years!

In reply to Sabot

#Apr 16th @ 1:32 PM

By "support" I mean a patch for [insert this weeks latest security exploit].

Windows hasn't added enough additional features for businesses that without the threat of ending support/patches etc then people wouldn't even consider either having an EA and or upgrading.

Bas
It finds lightbulbs.

In reply to ManipUni

#Apr 16th @ 1:41 PM

You still get patches for security exploits, even when support ends.

vesuvius
Das Glasperlenspiel

In reply to ManipUni

#Apr 16th @ 1:41 PM

But typically a business network is isolated from the Internet, hence a lot of Government departments and businesses are still using Windows 2000 even though support was stopped ages ago.

IT departments hate automatic updates, and I'm yet to come across a reputable business that just installs windows updates willy-nilly, however big the security threat is.

It is win-win (no pun intended) because if users want the older OS, then they can just install it using their Volume Licence Key, then update when they like. After the Vista debacle, Dell offered PC's with XP on them so there is a lot of choice, people just assume that there isn't. Microsoft [naturally] won't promulgate choice whilst promoting a new OS - that stands to reason - but nowadays you can get whatever you want.

Sabot
My name is Dave Oliver. I'm a Technical Architect.

In reply to vesuvius

#Apr 16th @ 2:19 PM

Agreed.

However just one small point ... we have learnt recently that isolated from the Internet does not protect our network and our business from security vulnerabilities.

Security is a problem for everyone not just Microsoft as every OS has security patches now. It's not only Microsoft, Oracle released 48 security fixes for their software for April for example.

A security patch is no longer deemed a sign of weakness but due-diligance in response to a threat that does not care what OS you use or what you believe in just wishes to exploit you for their own gain and has the funding and the resource to come up with even more cunning ways ... so don't make it easy for them.

elmer
I'm on my very last life.

In reply to ManipUni

#Apr 16th @ 9:23 AM

As an ex IT manager, I have my own perspective on why XP had good take-up with business - it solved a problem.

XP was the convergence point between the NT and DOS lines of Windows, and finally allowed the dumping of unstable and costly (in terms of internal support) Win-98/95 without the loss of all the features pesky users demanded.

It's much harder to identify what problem Vista or Win7 solves for business, and pretty easy to identify the ones it creates.

Despite what some might think, Advertising & Promotion (too often incorrectly referred to as marketing) will not sell Win7 to business, there needs to be a strong case to argue about the problems it will solve and the money it will save... otherwise, business will just continue to downgrade to XP while it assesses all options.

magicalclick

For my company, we are using crappy software that only supports XP. So yeah, we are stuck.

Sabot
My name is Dave Oliver. I'm a Technical Architect.

In reply to elmer

#Apr 16th @ 3:44 PM

A new OS gives an IT department a good chance to have clean out and have a mandate to get rid of old stuff that's burning up OPEX.

The main reason why we have have decided to go to Windows 7 is actually one of compliance. All our software has to be supported it's a rule of the industry I work in.

Magicalclick - Do you know it is a perfectly good justification reason to migrate off software because business users don't like it! As this is an indicator that there is something serious wrong such as generate extra processes to cover a short-fall in the software ... or worse still, holding a business group back from what it needs to do.

magicalclick

In reply to Sabot

#Apr 16th @ 11:22 PM

What can I say, the Owner of the company wanted to use that crappy software to begin with. You can't argue with him. After one year of struggle, he finally give up on that crappy software and that crappy integration consultant campany, and the He and Controller/CFO/CIO (he is all in one LOL) are looking for a different software solution. But, you know, they spend like 3 years doing this one. It will take another 3 years for the new one. Anyway, I quit the company because it is just a big mass that I don't want to be part of. Especially, they wanted me to do stuff that is not in my job description, argggg.

The software is made by Manhattan Associate. I think it is actually fairly well known , especially for large distributors. But, the software is mainly for distribution service, not for us. Not only the software is not suitable for our situation, the client software is really buggy. One the server side, it is really unstable as well, random SQL crazy reading with no reason. Since we can't reproduce the random bug, Manhattan doesn't even want to log a case. Talk about bad service attitude. And lastly our integration consultant is just...... sigh.......

elmer
I'm on my very last life.

In reply to Sabot

#Apr 16th @ 11:22 PM

A new OS gives an IT department a good chance to have clean out and have a mandate to get rid of old stuff that's burning up OPEX.

Yeah, that's a classic consultant response that gets trotted out at each iteration... along with the age-old R.O.I. and bla bla bla.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it can't be correct, and I understand the arguments and reasoning as much as the next IT manager... but at the end of the day, the guy holding the purse-strings is going to do a Jerry Maguire... SHOW ME THE MONEY! - lol.

Vista was a bad business case for most (not all) business... not only was it dificult to ague why it will improve the bottom line, it was easy to cite reasons why it may well make it worse.

Win7 has focussed on addressing the second half of this problem... eliminating the reasons NOT to buy... but MS needs to do a *LOT* more work on developing a coherant and strong business case for why bussiness can't afford NOT to upgrade, and why they can't afford to just stay with XP... otherwise, that's exactly what they will do.

Sabot
My name is Dave Oliver. I'm a Technical Architect.

In reply to elmer

#Apr 17th @ 4:34 PM

Hmmm Elmer ping me offline to talk more, I'm guessing (and only a guess mind) that your IT organisation is suffering from a lack of maturity.

By placing in measures of productivity you get to see OPEX buring up and see if changes make an impact seeing ROI in action. When you can see it, it becomes real.

... So show me the money ... disappearing ...

FYI ... I'm more of a scientist than a consultant.