I notice that in the logs for my web site, I see Windows XP clients far
outnumbering Windows Vista clients, especially on corporate
networks. Why would corporate networks be holding back
on upgrading to Vista. I could see home users putting it off
becuase of the price, but why are so many corporate networks
still running XP?
Fritz Owl wrote:
> I notice that in the logs for my web site, I see Windows XP clients far
> outnumbering Windows Vista clients, especially on corporate
> networks. Why would corporate networks be holding back
> on upgrading to Vista. I could see home users putting it off
> becuase of the price, but why are so many corporate networks
> still running XP?
>
>
>
don't be silly.
there is simply no need for it yet.
Wait for at least the first SP - what's the rush?
You finally have XP under control, why open another can of worms?
that's what you have your geeks, "early adopters" and IT people for - let them test it first.
my 2 cents.
M
On 10 Jul, 07:15, "Fritz Owl"
> I notice that in the logs for my web site, I see Windows XP clients far
> outnumbering Windows Vista clients, especially on corporate
> networks. Why would corporate networks be holding back
> on upgrading to Vista. I could see home users putting it off
> becuase of the price, but why are so many corporate networks
> still running XP?
Drivers for business adoption of Vista are different to consumers.
The eye candy isn't going to sell it to the corporate world (and most
existing corporate desktops won't have the video horsepower to run
Aero unless they're new-ish), and for large enterprise they're
probably not really interested in upgrading from XP from a
functionality point of view. XP is still supported till 2010 or so,
so there's no pressing need in terms of security, support and patching
to move.
Enterprise tends to get their Windows install with new hardware, which
tends to be bought on a 3 year cycle. Over the next year or so you'll
see the proportion of Vista clients in enterprise increase sharply,
I'd expect - provided Vista's foibles don't irritate corporations
enough to hold on to XP and move to a Linux-based desktop...
There's also the "always-wait-until-SP1" thing.
Upgrading an enterprises' standard desktop client isn't at all trivial
in terms of testing, rollout, etc and so it's not going to be done
without real business benefits...
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
In article
>
>
> I notice that in the logs for my web site, I see Windows XP clients far
> outnumbering Windows Vista clients, especially on corporate
> networks. Why would corporate networks be holding back
> on upgrading to Vista. I could see home users putting it off
> becuase of the price, but why are so many corporate networks
> still running XP?
There is no ROI for vista in most environments where XP is already in
place.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Fritz Owl wrote:
> I notice that in the logs for my web site, I see Windows XP clients far
> outnumbering Windows Vista clients, especially on corporate
> networks. Why would corporate networks be holding back
> on upgrading to Vista. I could see home users putting it off
> becuase of the price, but why are so many corporate networks
> still running XP?
Because most IT people worth their salt know that you don't put Vista on
hardware designed for XP. And now that laptops have garnered over 50%
market, it is even more true. You buy a state-of-the art laptop with the
current version of Windows. In 4 or 5 years, you throw it away.
My wife's company (Fortune 100), leases (tax BS, I am sure) all of their
laptops. She gets a new one every 3 or 4 years. A year ago or so she
turned in her old laptop (Win2K). When the lease is up on this one (XP
Pro), in a couple of years, she will get a new Vista laptop.
And all of this is due to the MS Office Suite, of course. The OS is
really of no consequence whatsoever. She will be using Office 2003
Professional with XP Pro until she gets a new laptop. As long as
Outlook, Excel and Word are all usable, who cares about the OS? At least
in the corporate world.
Ron :)
Leythos
> In article
> >
> >
> > I notice that in the logs for my web site, I see Windows XP clients far
> > outnumbering Windows Vista clients, especially on corporate
> > networks. Why would corporate networks be holding back
> > on upgrading to Vista. I could see home users putting it off
> > becuase of the price, but why are so many corporate networks
> > still running XP?
>
> There is no ROI for vista in most environments where XP is already in
> place.
Is there ROI on a new environment I wonder?
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
In message
wrote:
>I notice that in the logs for my web site, I see Windows XP clients far
>outnumbering Windows Vista clients, especially on corporate
>networks. Why would corporate networks be holding back
>on upgrading to Vista. I could see home users putting it off
>becuase of the price, but why are so many corporate networks
>still running XP?
Many of the corporations I work with still haven't completed migrating
to XP (or finished the migration after Vista went RTM)
--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?
In article <84odiktft1.fsf@ripco.com>, comphelp@toddh.net says...
> Leythos
> > In article
> > >
> > >
> > > I notice that in the logs for my web site, I see Windows XP clients far
> > > outnumbering Windows Vista clients, especially on corporate
> > > networks. Why would corporate networks be holding back
> > > on upgrading to Vista. I could see home users putting it off
> > > becuase of the price, but why are so many corporate networks
> > > still running XP?
> >
> > There is no ROI for vista in most environments where XP is already in
> > place.
>
> Is there ROI on a new environment I wonder?
If everything was new, servers, workstations, laptops, and Vista
Business came preinstalled, the expense for the added power and memory
and crap that Vista needs over XP would already be counted.
There is no ROI for Vista in a business.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
"ric"
news:1184055405.382060.326750@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.. .
> On 10 Jul, 07:15, "Fritz Owl"
> I'd expect - provided Vista's foibles don't irritate corporations
> enough to hold on to XP and move to a Linux-based desktop...
> There's also the "always-wait-until-SP1" thing.
I dont think very many corporations would move to Linux.
Windows is a MUST for computing existence, for many
businesses.
In the Internet radio business, assuming the looming royalty
rate hike does not shut the industry down, worldwide,
Windows will always be a must. This is becuase many
of the providers of streaming services can only support
Windows. With most services, you transmit your
broadcast to the streaming provider using streaming
MP3 format, and then they convert it into Windows
Media, Real, or other formats. Windows Media,
Real, and MP3 streaming are not available for
Linux. Shoutcast, and similar programs, needed
to transmit to many of the streaming service
providers, ONLY run in WINDOWS.
Also, Microsoft office is the standard in office
productivity software, and is ONLY available
for Windows. If you are not running MS Offfice,
then you are not running the world standard in
office productivity. This alone, I think, will keep
many businesses from going to Linux.
In message
>In article <84odiktft1.fsf@ripco.com>, comphelp@toddh.net says...
>> Leythos
>> > In article
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I notice that in the logs for my web site, I see Windows XP clients far
>> > > outnumbering Windows Vista clients, especially on corporate
>> > > networks. Why would corporate networks be holding back
>> > > on upgrading to Vista. I could see home users putting it off
>> > > becuase of the price, but why are so many corporate networks
>> > > still running XP?
>> >
>> > There is no ROI for vista in most environments where XP is already in
>> > place.
>>
>> Is there ROI on a new environment I wonder?
>
>If everything was new, servers, workstations, laptops, and Vista
>Business came preinstalled, the expense for the added power and memory
>and crap that Vista needs over XP would already be counted.
>
>There is no ROI for Vista in a business.
As much as there was for XP, 2000, etc. There is no one single feature
which necessitates the upgrade, but as business critical software begins
to take advantage of new features, as the new security controls are
needed, and as users become more familiar with Vista, it may be
worthwhile to upgrade.
My girlfriend's last $DAYJOB was in the process of migrating from 2000
to XP SP2 due to the fact that some of their business critical software
was requiring XP (and yes, it actually used some APIs that were only
availabilities in XP)
At my $DAYJOB we discontinued support for NT4 because we needed unicode
support. 2000 is on the chopping block on the server side, although
probably not on the client side for a bit longer (Although this is
mostly a guess)
The immediate ROI is that if you phase it in with new hardware, where
the new hardware already is Vista ready, you don't have to deal with an
upgrade down the road.
Whether a homogenous environment is more suitable, or a slow migration
is better will really depend on your user base.
--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?
Fritz Owl wrote:
> I notice that in the logs for my web site, I see Windows XP clients far
> outnumbering Windows Vista clients, especially on corporate
> networks. Why would corporate networks be holding back
> on upgrading to Vista. I could see home users putting it off
> becuase of the price, but why are so many corporate networks
> still running XP?
Rule #1: If it's shit, don't buy it.
Rule #2: If it doesn't offer any real benefit, don't upgrade
Rule #3: Wait till the first service pack, that is until all major bugs have
been found and fixed.
Fritz Owl wrote:
> Windows Media,
> Real, and MP3 streaming are not available for
> Linux. Shoutcast, and similar programs, needed
> to transmit to many of the streaming service
> providers, ONLY run in WINDOWS.
I'm not sure about Windows Media, but I know for a fact that Real and
MP3 streaming, including shoutcast, is available for Linux.
> Also, Microsoft office is the standard in office
> productivity software, and is ONLY available
> for Windows.
Well, MS does still release a Macintosh version every now and then :-)
> If you are not running MS Offfice,
> then you are not running the world standard in
> office productivity. This alone, I think, will keep
> many businesses from going to Linux.
Although some businesses get by using alternatives like OpenOffice, I
tend to agree with this. MS Office pretty much dominates that market.
In article
spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net says...
> In message
>
>
> >In article <84odiktft1.fsf@ripco.com>, comphelp@toddh.net says...
> >> Leythos
> >> > In article
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I notice that in the logs for my web site, I see Windows XP clients far
> >> > > outnumbering Windows Vista clients, especially on corporate
> >> > > networks. Why would corporate networks be holding back
> >> > > on upgrading to Vista. I could see home users putting it off
> >> > > becuase of the price, but why are so many corporate networks
> >> > > still running XP?
> >> >
> >> > There is no ROI for vista in most environments where XP is already in
> >> > place.
> >>
> >> Is there ROI on a new environment I wonder?
> >
> >If everything was new, servers, workstations, laptops, and Vista
> >Business came preinstalled, the expense for the added power and memory
> >and crap that Vista needs over XP would already be counted.
> >
> >There is no ROI for Vista in a business.
>
> As much as there was for XP, 2000, etc. There is no one single feature
> which necessitates the upgrade, but as business critical software begins
> to take advantage of new features, as the new security controls are
> needed, and as users become more familiar with Vista, it may be
> worthwhile to upgrade.
Almost the same situation, except that Moving from 2000 to XP only
required modest upgrades and provided an even more stable platform once
you removed the glitz. With XP to Vista it's much different, even a Dual
Xeon 3Ghz, 4GB RAM, 128MB Video card running Vista BE is slow, and you
can be sure that the same machine running XP or 2000 was a screamer.
> My girlfriend's last $DAYJOB was in the process of migrating from 2000
> to XP SP2 due to the fact that some of their business critical software
> was requiring XP (and yes, it actually used some APIs that were only
> availabilities in XP)
>
> At my $DAYJOB we discontinued support for NT4 because we needed unicode
> support. 2000 is on the chopping block on the server side, although
> probably not on the client side for a bit longer (Although this is
> mostly a guess)
>
> The immediate ROI is that if you phase it in with new hardware, where
> the new hardware already is Vista ready, you don't have to deal with an
> upgrade down the road.
And there is a COST with phasing it in with new hardware, as many
things, like SBS, require changes, to allow Vista to work in that
environment, and lets not think about people with roaming profiles that
move between a Vista machine and an XP machine.
> Whether a homogenous environment is more suitable, or a slow migration
> is better will really depend on your user base.
I would think that one department at a time, one that can tolerate down-
time, one that can tolerate slower operation on the same machines...
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)