Business customers told skipping Vista could be bad idea
Microsoft is warning business customers that skipping Vista and going straight to Windows 7 may cause problems (beyond lower revenues for the firm). The warning comes in a new company blog aimed at business users.
Writing the first post in Windows for your Business, Gavriella Schuster gives two reasons why the XP > Windows 7 route may not be ideal. The first is that “You may find your company in situations where applications are no longer supported on Windows XP and not yet supported on Windows 7.”
The second reason given seems an odd argument. Schuster claims many firms will take two years to evaluate Windows 7 after its release (which she hints as early 2010) before they install it, making a long wait. While that may be true, she’s effectively saying, “Don’t wait because it will mean you have to wait”.
Some of the arguments in the piece are more valid though. The essential point is that Vista and Windows 7 are so fundamentally similar that an XP > Windows 7 changeover won’t be any less hassle than an XP > Vista upgrade. It’s therefore a balancing act between the benefits of putting off the headache of upgrading (and saving paying twice) and the risks of XP software becoming outdated in the meantime.
For those still on Windows 2000, there’s a bleak warning that switching to Vista now is essential. The remaining support for the system will cease this spring, long before Windows 7 is a replacement option.
Speaking in several interviews, Schuster insists Microsoft is “agnostic” about which system firms upgrade to and acknowledges that companies will not simply do what Microsoft tells them. She argues that the advice in her blog post is simply meant to encourage firms to think through the consequences of their Vista/Windows 7 decisions.
Related Posts:
February 13th, 2009
microsoft is so full of bullshit its coming out of their ears
February 13th, 2009
agreed, companys didnt want vista because it slows things down, as a pc tech ive had the dubious pleasure of upgrading an lawyers ofice to office 2k7
the upgrade went as planned, thn problems apeared,
this was just office, munich went for linux over vista
more and more companys are considering it, if a tech writing company uses powepoint office and something else why should they spend thousands on vista..
vista and windows 7 are not needed for most companys
February 13th, 2009
Here is how Gavriella introduces herself in the blog:
“Hi, I’m Gavriella; welcome to the new Windows for your Business Blog. Let me introduce myself: I’m a member of the Windows Product Management team and have been at Microsoft for 13 years.”
She is a Microsoft employee, so whatever she has to say is simply following the company line. I am amazed that anyone could consider that she is worth paying attention to, much less writing an article about.
“Writing the first post in Windows for your Business, Gavriella Schuster gives two reasons why the XP > Windows 7 route may not be ideal.”
She doesn’t tell you the *real* reasons that Microsoft is desperate for people not to migrate straight from XP to Windows 7:
1. Microsoft want you to pay for Windows 7 twice: once for Vista, and once for Windows 7 itself. A lot of suckers who bought Vista will end up doing this, but Microsoft wants *everyone* to dig deep and throw good money after bad – after all, how else will MS recoup the six billion dollars they blew developing Vista?
2. Microsoft are slowly bleeding market share to Linux and Mac. After all the time and effort MS put into Vista, his is *very* embarrassing for them. More importantly, the longer Microsoft forces customers to wait for an alternative to XP, the more pronounced their loss of market share will be – and they know that most “switchers” never return to the Redmond fold.
Finally, note that Gavriella is “a member of the management team”; that is to say she is a manageress. I read recently on the Mini-Microsoft blog that MS now has more managers than coders, which helps to explain why they are having trouble shipping decent products. The execrable Vista is a good indication of the fact that Microsoft is mired in bureaucracy and hog-tied by process – in fact, I saw a post by one Windows developer complaining that it takes two weeks to effect a change to four lines of code – that’s right, two weeks! Never mind, though, because Gavriella is justifying her salary by distributing the Kool-Aid via her new blog.
Vista has been a pure and unmitigated disaster for Microsoft. Windows 7 is based on Vista, and is, like its predecessor, a colourful signpost on the road to nowhere.
February 13th, 2009
Good one. It’s not often you find a post full of nothing but hot air and conjecture with zero sources.
Vista competed with XP, not OSX or Linux. They had increased record revenues for three years running. No doubt many companies would hope for such a disaster.
Considering the vast majority of computers sold paid a license fee to Microsoft, with some even willing to pay a $100 premium for XP, it’s fair to say that while Vista adoption rate sucked, unmitigated disaster is wishful thinking.
Neither OSX or Linux has made more than a microscopic dent in the source of their money stream. The business sector. In spite of wishful thinking, 7 will be a success if the final product isn’t markedly different than the Beta. I’m running the Beta on the same laptop I ran the Vista Beta on. The Vista OS was an unusable bog. The 7 Beta runs quick and responsive.
Your premise of Microsoft as a befuddled and confused dinosaur so steeped in deadwood management and choked by procedural debris is just wrong.
There isn’t a single instance of MS releasing two ME or Vista products in a row. Ever. They listen to customers and change the product. Vista took six years because Gates put his Trustworthy Computing initiative out. You want to think using an MS product after that initiative had no change in security as part of your delirium, fine.
I don’t like the Microsoft book of business practices. I think they stifled competition using antitrust and illegal methods. I prefer OSS for many reasons. That doesn’t mean I’m going to ignore reality.
It isn’t strange that Microsoft has more managers than coders. And tightening up code changes is hardly a negative. You can’t complain about security being porous in one breath and use tightened procedures to change code as a negative with your next.
Likewise wanting to extract money from customers was a pretty important principle if you want a viable business.
There will be no appreciable dent in the river of revenue to Microsoft unless you can come up with replacements for their Server products. The only one that has a shot at doing this is Apple, and they will crash and burn if they attempt to do so. The desktop remains relatively unimportant to Microsoft strategy. “Free” isn’t working to any degree.
We should be ass deep in Linux users because of the “pure and unmitigated disaster” of Vista.
Apple tripled its market share and had to sell some pretty pricey hardware to do so. linux runs on the same hardware as Windows and didn’t even move the needle.
You will not see Microsoft putting out directly targeted ads like the Mac and PC ones seen in one form or another around the world. Microsoft doesn’t care about the desktop, at least to the degree you seem to think.
It cares that Vista was designed for a hand in glove fit to Server 2008 and when it fizzled much of the reason to upgrade the Servers fizzled with it. When you realize it got money for almost every new computer sold, and they were running some version of Windows, the Man of La Mancha chortling is puzzling.
Unless Linux turns back to the early 2002-2004 strategy and renews the assault on the Server room it will remain a technically superior OS with a minuscule share.
Average users can’t realistically find it preinstalled and those users don’t really care about what OS is on it in the first place.
They lack your zealot pursuit of an alternate reality of monstrous subhuman beings smelling of brimstone, cackling with evil glee at the misery they were inflicting on others while fighting to remain upright because they lacked the skill to walk two steps without tripping.
Linux zealots never quote verifiable facts to support their argument because they don’t exist. It’s always sweeping generalities and rhetoric.
7 is going to slam the door on Linux as desktop OS. I will still use it, several of the folks I’ve setup will also use it. But it was never a viable option for most people.
7 will run fine on netbooks and average users will request it.
February 13th, 2009
Some of us are tired of reading your anti-Linux rants Ken. Coming from someone who “claims” to use Linux, but rather from someone who seems to talk up Microsoft quite a bit.
Not only you seem to slam Linux at nearly every opportunity, you also seem to come up with some rather “unique cliches” for people who are Linux users.
So is this the latest Redmond game plan? Pose as a Linux user, than go on to slam the OS and other people who use it?
February 14th, 2009
Nope. And I’m not anti-Linux, I use it, have for years and will continue to use it. You can review all my posts and will never find a line where I speak of Linux in anyway but superior to Windows. If you want to wander back to Jonathan blowing up his laptop and blaming it on Linux while singing the praises of Windows as an OS, you will find ample comment on the technical reasons I use to support my position.
I just find the average rants of Microsoft being a company swirling the drain full of inept people who couldn’t play peek-a-boo without instruction. They didn’t stumble and just luck into their current dominance.
I find Microsoft has done a tremendous job in marketing the brand. Vista wasn’t a mortal blow to the company, despite all the entries you read saying it’s so.
I continue to post my reasons, with links to my sources and challenge people who basically just toss out rhetoric to do the same. I’ll gladly shut up if that ever happens. I would do the same if Linux wasn’t ever mentioned.
I’m not labeling Linux users. I participate in many forums, send bug reports on Alpha versions of Distros I test and have switched dozens of folks over the years. They aren’t zealots
I label people zealots who toss out opinions and spout almost religious dogma of Microsoft as Satan.
You know, people who find it impossible to believe that you can look at financial data and marketshare and come to the conclusion Vista hasn’t seriously hurt MS without being on Redmonds payroll.
I’m not talking up Microsoft, I’m stating facts.
Now show me where I slammed Linux the OS and not the marketing and distribution of same.
Personally, I’m tired of reading anti-Microsoft rants without any facts to back it up. But feel free to refute anything in my previous post.
February 14th, 2009
Are you there George? Did I address your points? Or do you just accuse people of being paid shills and spout off accusations calling people liars without feeling a need to respond?
I’m still waiting for you to show where I slammed Linux and made anti-Linux rants.