Coffeehouse Thread

40 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Win-7 migration resistance likely ?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    elmer

    http://www.kace.com/about/releases/systems-management-appliance/computer-management-software-alternative/04_14_09.php

    Dodgy stats, from a company who sells stuff ( why didn't you buy that trial you downloaded? ) but still perhaps enough to be a bit of a worry for MS.

  • User profile image
    Heywood_J

    Among businesses, there will always be strong resistance to making any changes to computer systems. The most important reason for avoiding operating system upgrades is one that few people are willing to acknowledge -- my employer doesn't provide me a computer so I can run an operating system, they give me a computer so i can get work done. 

    If I switch to Windows 7, will my existing applications be able to do more?  Will they acquire new features?  Of course not.  So why bother with all the potential problems?

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    Heywood_J said:
    Among businesses, there will always be strong resistance to making any changes to computer systems. The most important reason for avoiding operating system upgrades is one that few people are willing to acknowledge -- my employer doesn't provide me a computer so I can run an operating system, they give me a computer so i can get work done. 

    If I switch to Windows 7, will my existing applications be able to do more?  Will they acquire new features?  Of course not.  So why bother with all the potential problems?
    ++.

    Businesses have always been cautious with respect to new versions of operating systems--  we most recently saw this with Vista, but the same thing happened with XP (migrating from 2000) and with 2000 (migrating from NT 4).  It's generally more beneficial for a business to have a stable, supported environment than to have the latest shiny UI and useless interface tweaks.  Either they'll wait for the first service pack (which usually fixes the big issues people find with each Windows release) or they'll wait until their next major hardware upgrade cycle to upgrade.

  • User profile image
    tfraser

    Heywood_J said:
    Among businesses, there will always be strong resistance to making any changes to computer systems. The most important reason for avoiding operating system upgrades is one that few people are willing to acknowledge -- my employer doesn't provide me a computer so I can run an operating system, they give me a computer so i can get work done. 

    If I switch to Windows 7, will my existing applications be able to do more?  Will they acquire new features?  Of course not.  So why bother with all the potential problems?
    It's like a game of chicken between businesses and developers; the former needs to move to the platform that allows for enhancements to existing applications and the latter needs to go ahead and build them ... except neither will until the other has.

    At least Windows 7 isn't smothered by the same cloud of hate that burdened Vista, so adoption at the home user end of the spectrum should be good.

  • User profile image
    elmer

    Heywood_J said:
    Among businesses, there will always be strong resistance to making any changes to computer systems. The most important reason for avoiding operating system upgrades is one that few people are willing to acknowledge -- my employer doesn't provide me a computer so I can run an operating system, they give me a computer so i can get work done. 

    If I switch to Windows 7, will my existing applications be able to do more?  Will they acquire new features?  Of course not.  So why bother with all the potential problems?

    I don't think anyone doubts any of that, it almost goes without saying (although, having said it, it clearly doesn't).

    The issue is more one of, how reliant is MS on Win7 being a big hit with their primary market - Business ?

    Businesses largely rejected Vista... despite what the dodgy figures from of Vista sales that were downgraded to XP... because it wasn't what they wanted or needed.

    Now, we have a situation where not only is business naturally resistant to change, but they also have the Vista "experience" to add to their sale objections.

    On top of that, we have a financial climate that will see budgets strongly discourage upgrades of all types.

    I recently got out of the computer selling game, having seen sales to "dependable" corporates nose-dive and crash. Business has apparently suddenly realised that the old rule of 3years for hardware no longer applies, and if you don't touch the O/S or apps, you can make them last double that.

    I guess the point the article is making (perhaps too ambitiously if you ask me) is that, having rejected Vista, we might see business jump from XP to elsewhere, rather than XP to Win7.

  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    elmer said:
    Heywood_J said:
    *snip*

    I don't think anyone doubts any of that, it almost goes without saying (although, having said it, it clearly doesn't).

    The issue is more one of, how reliant is MS on Win7 being a big hit with their primary market - Business ?

    Businesses largely rejected Vista... despite what the dodgy figures from of Vista sales that were downgraded to XP... because it wasn't what they wanted or needed.

    Now, we have a situation where not only is business naturally resistant to change, but they also have the Vista "experience" to add to their sale objections.

    On top of that, we have a financial climate that will see budgets strongly discourage upgrades of all types.

    I recently got out of the computer selling game, having seen sales to "dependable" corporates nose-dive and crash. Business has apparently suddenly realised that the old rule of 3years for hardware no longer applies, and if you don't touch the O/S or apps, you can make them last double that.

    I guess the point the article is making (perhaps too ambitiously if you ask me) is that, having rejected Vista, we might see business jump from XP to elsewhere, rather than XP to Win7.

    I would extend this to consumers as well. I know of oodles of people still running X,P because they paid £600 (on average) or $1000 at the time. Not an astronomical amount of money, but still appreciable. If your computer still runs firefox, you can get on Facebook, do your homework, watch films and instant message your friends, why throw that away?

    What people need to understand is that XP became the first stable operating system from Microsoft, that could run all your applications and connect to the internet, with decent graphics and sound. For the vast majority of users what XP does is 90% what they need their computer to do. With Windows 98, it was a differrent story, as that couldn't resolve IP addresses in most cases, and who thought to add a password system that you could just press cancel on?

    The developed world has reached a state of saturation point with operating systems, and gone are the days where computers are like an XBox or Playstation where a new version necessitates an upgrade.

    I don't see this as a bad thing, software is not a throwaway commodity anymore, and is being engineered to last. Microsoft will need to still develop the operating system, but look more to emerging markets to maintain profitability.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    A friend of mine bought XP a couple of years ago, and last week he asked me if he should upgrade to Vista or Windows 7. I think both are better than XP, but I couldn't honestly tell him to pay more money when he won't be able to do any more than he's already able to do. I can't think of a single thing I can't do now that a new operating system would fix. I wonder what Microsoft is doing about that, and if they're not doing anything about that, if it worries them.

  • User profile image
    stevo_

    Well foremost Microsoft enables new technologies to be used, as well as general abstractions.. indirectly this will mean better applications and so on- but its hard to pin point any exact reasons.

    Just tell them it looks prettier, seems to work for apple..

  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    Bas said:
    A friend of mine bought XP a couple of years ago, and last week he asked me if he should upgrade to Vista or Windows 7. I think both are better than XP, but I couldn't honestly tell him to pay more money when he won't be able to do any more than he's already able to do. I can't think of a single thing I can't do now that a new operating system would fix. I wonder what Microsoft is doing about that, and if they're not doing anything about that, if it worries them.
    What more is there left in general purpose operating systems?

    Buying my Mum a quad core machine seems wasteful. I think this is the same issue faced by business. If Office was suddenly multi-core or they would get a Silverlight application to utilise 4 cores while the OS uses the other 4 (octocore machine), then it seems to serve some function.

    It isn't just Microsoft's fault, but hardware vendors are making these many-core machines that spend 90% of the time processing email from your boss, and performing CRUD in businesses proprietary software.

    Has anyone tried Live Mail? Unlike outlook, this is lightweight, and performs its task really well. No bloat (that most home users need) so I am finding it increasingly hard to justify why someone needs a many core machine.

    If Microsoft could nail many-core on the head with an OS that used all the cores efficiently and great performance, then most people would upgrade because there are tangible benefits.

    The truth is that the software world is still playing catch-up with hardware, and the fact that there is no Pentium 5 but a Core 2 duo, is only beginning to "rear it's ugly head"

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    As our company is running succesfull on Vista, we will give our employees the choice wether or not to upgrade to seven.

    I will do so no matter what, because I want to be on the forefront of technology.

  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    Maddus Mattus said:

    As our company is running succesfull on Vista, we will give our employees the choice wether or not to upgrade to seven.

    I will do so no matter what, because I want to be on the forefront of technology.

    As will I [upgrade that is], but there is very little forefront in Technology in windows 7. The kernel updates via Arun Kishan are great, but even the new task bar with it's jump lists etc. are still the same Win32 ListView controls all implemented via GDI drawing.

    From a Windows Forms developers, point of view, I have used ComponentFactory's controls for a project and already you have someone who has created a Windows 7 theme so I can create quite a lot of the controls in Win 7.

    What they seem to have done is taken away a lot look at this in Live mail (and Win 7)



    Apart from the new lighter theme, all they have done is remove icons. In previous versions you would have lot of icons indicating actions on the toolbar, which gives a feeling of simplicity to the toolbar now.

    Again, look at the tree view (compare it with Outlook for instance)



    They have just removed all the icons - genius!

    Now I know you guys probably think I have an "icon fetish", but whether this is an improvement is subjective I guess.

    The Glass in Windows 7 is clearer, and I don't need multitouch, especially seeing as there are no multi-touch applications available that are any good, so it all boils down to a return on investment.


  • User profile image
    Bas

    vesuvius said:
    Maddus Mattus said:
    *snip*
    As will I [upgrade that is], but there is very little forefront in Technology in windows 7. The kernel updates via Arun Kishan are great, but even the new task bar with it's jump lists etc. are still the same Win32 ListView controls all implemented via GDI drawing.

    From a Windows Forms developers, point of view, I have used ComponentFactory's controls for a project and already you have someone who has created a Windows 7 theme so I can create quite a lot of the controls in Win 7.

    What they seem to have done is taken away a lot look at this in Live mail (and Win 7)



    Apart from the new lighter theme, all they have done is remove icons. In previous versions you would have lot of icons indicating actions on the toolbar, which gives a feeling of simplicity to the toolbar now.

    Again, look at the tree view (compare it with Outlook for instance)



    They have just removed all the icons - genius!

    Now I know you guys probably think I have an "icon fetish", but whether this is an improvement is subjective I guess.

    The Glass in Windows 7 is clearer, and I don't need multitouch, especially seeing as there are no multi-touch applications available that are any good, so it all boils down to a return on investment.


    I actually find the new WLM toolbar harder to use than the old one, for the precise reason that there are no icons anymore. Now when I want to reply to someone, I have to actually read the toolbar, whereas before I could spot the right icon in the corner of my eye.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    Bas said:
    vesuvius said:
    *snip*
    I actually find the new WLM toolbar harder to use than the old one, for the precise reason that there are no icons anymore. Now when I want to reply to someone, I have to actually read the toolbar, whereas before I could spot the right icon in the corner of my eye.
    Yeah, not a particular good move on the User Experience front.

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    vesuvius said:
    Maddus Mattus said:
    *snip*
    As will I [upgrade that is], but there is very little forefront in Technology in windows 7. The kernel updates via Arun Kishan are great, but even the new task bar with it's jump lists etc. are still the same Win32 ListView controls all implemented via GDI drawing.

    From a Windows Forms developers, point of view, I have used ComponentFactory's controls for a project and already you have someone who has created a Windows 7 theme so I can create quite a lot of the controls in Win 7.

    What they seem to have done is taken away a lot look at this in Live mail (and Win 7)



    Apart from the new lighter theme, all they have done is remove icons. In previous versions you would have lot of icons indicating actions on the toolbar, which gives a feeling of simplicity to the toolbar now.

    Again, look at the tree view (compare it with Outlook for instance)



    They have just removed all the icons - genius!

    Now I know you guys probably think I have an "icon fetish", but whether this is an improvement is subjective I guess.

    The Glass in Windows 7 is clearer, and I don't need multitouch, especially seeing as there are no multi-touch applications available that are any good, so it all boils down to a return on investment.


    I'm also not a fan of the removed icons... I'm very much picture driven and scan first for icons before reading the text. Therefore it's harder for me to scan, and actually read, the buttons - compared to previous versions of Windows.

    I wonder why the icons have been removed...

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    littleguru said:
    vesuvius said:
    *snip*
    I'm also not a fan of the removed icons... I'm very much picture driven and scan first for icons before reading the text. Therefore it's harder for me to scan, and actually read, the buttons - compared to previous versions of Windows.

    I wonder why the icons have been removed...
    Because of the credit crunch,...

  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    littleguru said:
    vesuvius said:
    *snip*
    I'm also not a fan of the removed icons... I'm very much picture driven and scan first for icons before reading the text. Therefore it's harder for me to scan, and actually read, the buttons - compared to previous versions of Windows.

    I wonder why the icons have been removed...
    What, you mean this is easier to use?



    Too late now me thinks. Windows explorer and the Live product range have all used the credit crunch excuse.

    It is inexcusable! Who decided this was a good idea?

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    vesuvius said:
    littleguru said:
    *snip*
    What, you mean this is easier to use?



    Too late now me thinks. Windows explorer and the Live product range have all used the credit crunch excuse.

    It is inexcusable! Who decided this was a good idea?
    Developer:
    Excuse me mr. manager, I would like some time to add icons to the toolbar, can you help me?

    Manager:
    We will have to discuss this at our next project manager meeting.

    1 meeting and 24 hours spent later;

    Manager:
    No, you cannot have 2 hours to implement the icons, there is no budget. And besides; we believe less is more!


    The last application I have written, is a website tuned for a mobile device. I only use icons for actions because of limited screen size.
    The users don't mind because they can guess what the buttons are for. These images for certain actions are imprinted into our brains, it's easier to focus on them instead of the text.

  • User profile image
    joechung

    Windows XP is the biggest threat to Windows 7 adoption.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.