RSSGartner: Wait Until 2008 to Adopt Vista
By Ed Oswald | Published November 14, 2005, 10:36 AM
Research firm Gartner made waves Friday by telling clients in a note that there was no compelling reason for most businesses to upgrade to Windows Vista until 2008 -- or even later. However, Microsoft's response to the scathing analysis may shock many: it called the report "balanced."
The research note, entitled "Ten reasons you should and shouldn't care about Microsoft's Windows Vista client," highlighted the problems with Microsoft's strategy for the next-generation operating system.
Most companies will already have security measures in place that would equal the enhancements scheduled for Vista, and many of the new features are already available through third-party products, such as better firewall protection and search, Gartner said.
Vista will "offer incremental, evolutionary improvements" over Windows XP but not much else, the firm writes, poking holes in Microsoft's argument that the update is a major new release of its flagship operating system.
Gartner is recommending that companies "pursue a strategy of managed diversity" and wait up to 18 months after Vista is released to start rolling out systems with the new OS. With Vista scheduled for a holiday 2006 release, Gartner is suggesting a mid-2008 timeframe.
Industry watchers would expect Microsoft to repudiate the analysis, but in a statement to BetaNews, the company did exactly the opposite. "Microsoft feels that Gartner's report is balanced," a spokesperson said. The company seemed to ignore the half of the report that reflected negatively on the release.
"We predict Windows Vista will be the largest and fastest adoption in the history of any OS we've shipped," the Microsoft spokesperson argued. "Microsoft remains on track for shipping Windows Vista in the second half of 2006. We are on schedule and committed to shipping on time and ensuring a high-quality product."
Personally, I will be updating to Vista. As someone going into the IT field, I want to have use and experience of Vista under my belt when it starts gaining usage. I'd be much more of an asset that way if I already have experience. I don't think people are giving Vista a chance really. Try it when it comes out, if you don't like it, take it back, that simple.
Score: 0
|Certainly not good times for Microsoft.
http://labnol.blogspot.c...-office-vista-will.html
Earlier, Gartner warned about ribbons in Office 12.
Score: 0
|Companies may have no choice but to adopt to Vista whether they want to or not. Didn't Microsoft change its corporate licenses from permanent to limited in that when a newer version comes out they have to upgrade?
Score: 0
|Why would they require a company to upgrade?
Score: 0
|Haha I said all along Vista was trojan horse. Insofar as 64 bit processing who needs it ? Can anyone envision corporate america embracing Vista and 64 bit processing in these tough enomic times. Who can afford them ? What about the learning curve ? Most industries and their employees are struggling with XP/2000. Most have not installed SP1 or SP2 and never will. What about software and drivers ? Compatibility issues. Security issues are no problem.Hundreds of software companies are available to offer their services to assist MIcrosoft more efficiently . Stability is the operative term . How Stable is Vista and when will it ship and when it does how many SP's will it require ?
Prediction.. the only individuals who will buy into Vista will be the well-off technophiles who comment on betanews.
Score: 0
|Seriously, a lot of companies are growing and doing quite well.. it's not as "tough" as it seems. Doing IT for several firms, everyone of which is growing, and most of them are quickly waiting on 64-bit OS, primarily for mill & CNC work. 64 bit performance for those operations could be a significant advantage. "Never install SP1 or SP2?" Are you kidding me? What kind of IT staff do they have on hand? If you haven't installed either it's because you're using a cracked copy; I can't think of anyone I know of running a non-SP1 WinXP.
Well-off technophiles. Hmm. Well, I'm not sure I will buy Vista, but I'm not convinced by your argument as far as companies so poor they can't upgrade to a freely available SP.
Score: 0
|Are you retarded? Who needs 64 bit? Its wider, more robust and it has more capabilities, duh!
Evidently you are content with using your abicus and a typewriter, more power to you dude. Why don't you go watch your Jerry Springer, and leave the big boy toys to the big boys, hmmmm?
Run along and play, that's a good boy.
Score: 0
|What about 64 bit processing? don't industries need that in an "appropriate" OS rather than the unstable unreliable WinXP 64? And about security, there will always be millions of overlooked flaws, no matter how hard MS tries, can't you see they cracked WGA within 23 hours of its release?
Score: 0
|If you did your research youd know that they are also making a 64 bit edition.
Score: 0
|Not only that, but I suspect by the time Vista is fully adopted, 64-bit will be the platform everything will be running on.
Score: 0
|There's features in Vista people are overlooking... the main one I'm interested in is that Windows will now force drivers to run in user mode, opposed to kernel mode... that means far more stability, and security.
MS had some hackers come in and demonstrate how easy it was to get into their systems. This demonstration was in front of the developers. If you know developers, they dont like seeing their code getting compromised. The result of this was the coders are more security aware, and that a lot of Vista code was scrapped and they started over.
Score: 0
|That's funny, the original model for Windows ran drivers in user mode and they Purposely made them run in kernel mode..
Not sure what's going on there..
Score: 0
|I think it's going to be a flop.
Any smart organization is going to simply stay with XP/2000. I don't see any good reason to upgrade the 1200 desktops we have here. Why bother? They all run fine on our 2003 AD network, and they don't crash.
Moving from 9x or NT to 2000/XP was a must have. Moving from XP/2000 to Vista is a "why bother".
I mean seriously, what will Vista give me that will help a user work? Nothing but fancy schmancy GUI stuff. Who cares about that? Not me.
Score: 0
|This is where I would argue with you. however I lack sufficient effidence to contradict the claim.
In past years, moving from NT 4.0 to 2000 was a no brainer, even when companies were slow to move. Then 2000 to XP was another "upshift" that warranted moving to XP. 2003 server was yet another one that should be made, even though we have a mixed environment, we have about half 2000 and half 2003 servers.
Windows ME was another matter, which should have been skipped completely because it was poorest Windows so far.
With XP SP2, everyone should be fairly stable. It has good features, usability enhancements, its smooth, fast (relatively) and overall XP gets very high marks from gamers, programmers, and general use.
I have tested Vista (with poor results due to crashing) but I honestly cannot see ANY visible difference (other than asthetic). I cannot see any reason to move to Vista, at all. And I am huge proponent of new technology, but in this case, I see no reason to move to Vista. Therefore I agree with your assessment.
Score: 0
|HELLOOoooo!? Are we all forgetting a little tiny "something"? HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS. And Vista, no matter how much "better" it will be, is most CERTAINLY going to be a f*cking PIG on any and all available resources. Forget it. Everything right now runs on our XP systems perfectly. Why the F upgrade? What, for transparent friggin "cool looking" taskbar and dialog-boxes? Phssst gtfo of here with that crap. Resource hog, and YES, definately wait for Vista SP1 if your brainwashing will simply not allow you to stay with something "old" and "inferior" like XP.
period.
Score: 0
|What? You mean new features require more resources?! OH NO! Vista, as I'm sure you haven't realized, isn't going to be all shiny graphics and stuff. So you don't have a 3+ GHz processor or a decent videocard? Vista has three different GUIs that adjust for your hardware. And it's about time that our Desktop requires some video acceleration. Despite what you might say about it being 'only' the Desktop, every part of the GUI needs some shine to it. But with your argument about it being "a f*cking PIG on any and all available resources", then I guess we should all have stuck with DOS, because jumping to Windows 1.x was a freaking resource hog.
FUN FACT: The computer I'm typing this on is a 300 MHz PII with 192 MB SDRAM running Windows XP Pro. Stories about XP being a resource hog are apparently exaggerated, since it runs quite expediently on this machine. I also have Office 2003 and other modern software on here, so that eliminates the "you probably have nothing on it" argument.
Score: 0
|um NO its not. the glass areo is automatically disabled if the system doesnt meet requirements.
Score: 0
|rofl 300MHz for the win. good arguments.
Score: 0
|Or... just wait until SP1, which is what we do. We don't feel like being G pigs for large conglomerates...
Score: 0
|Thats pointless.
Score: 0
|SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE SAID DON'T TOUCH WIN 64 TILL 2007. PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF MICROSOFT RELEASING NEW OS'S THEY THEMSELVES DON'T SUPPORT OR WRITE DRIVERS FOR (THEIR OWN PRODUCTS).
Score: 0
|SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY, IT HAPPENED TO ME TOO! OH NOOOOO!!
Score: 0
|Exactly, Max. What do you say... "no no, please buy our stuff?" They darn well know that tons of purchases are through site licensing. Begging is the stuff that gets on CNN and such.
Score: 0
|Get lost. I can't wait. I will buy just after its release.
For companys who even hadn't upgraded to WinXP and still using Win2k must upgrade to WinVista because it will be obviously more secure and easier to use.
Score: 0
|Yes it should be easier and more secure but what if the software you NEED more than anything can't run on Vista? The biggest reasons companies wait is to get a longer life from their current software and to ensure compatibility. Compatibility tests along can easily take a year. When XP SP2 came out I spent almost 6 months on compatibilty testing to make sure the applications our business runs on would run on XP SP2. Sounds crazy but thats just how it works.
Score: 0
|Microsoft is getting smarter. Don't feed the trolls.
Score: 0
|Max nails it — Gartner regularly cries wolf even when they don't bother with silly things like "facts." Microsoft is smart to dismiss their faux "analysis" with a nonchalant response. I'll have Vista on my desktop the very next time I upgrade my system, which should be early 2007.
Score: 0
|Maybe...time will tell.
For me, I'm gonna build a new rig early 06, and the build a new vista one (if at all) in 08 or so.
BTW: hi max. LTNS (assuming I'm not mixing you up with another person)
Score: 0
|Na, you must have the wrong wolf, er guy.
Score: 0
|heh....I personally don't see why i SHOULDN'T upgrade, I mean, I've got decent enough hardware to run it (64bit architecture etc. Also, I love having the latest technology, dunno why, just do.
However, I can fully appreciate both sides of the argument. And yeah Zridling, I'll be doing the same too.
Score: 0
|only if you're not from columbus, oh.
otherwise, yea, I think that's you
think FHHS, freshman year.
Score: 0
|Window Vista would probably find more market in Home then business sector, People would buy vista to try it out at home and get a feel for it but companies wont find a need to upgrade to Vista till 2008 or even later mainly because of cost and time. If things work the way its supposed to, why change it?
Score: 0
|