"Of course, Windows 7 does have its much talked about XP Mode, but Silver says that won't help many businesses since their IT departments would still be faced with the added workload resulting from managing a whole new OS."
Ok...If you're in IT - chances are you have tried the Windows 7 beta or RC or at least looked up a lot of the new features. I'd say the majority of people in IT love computing altogether and spend a lot of time outside of work computing/working on computer related project.
If an IT department can't figure out how to manage Windows 7, then you need to find some new IT staff. Vista is not different enough from XP to bitch about. It's a performance hog...OK. Windows 7 fixes that. Businesses still relying on XP need to realize it's time to grow up. Hardware has improved significantly and any new computer runs Windows Vista just fine (Netbooks don't count...). The XP mode of Windows 7 is only good for applications that NEED XP to run...as in Microsoft has not assisted in making them compatible with Vista/7. I really doubt many organization will need this. Any popular program now pretty much has support for Vista/7. If you're using an XP dependent program...you need to bug the software developer. If other software companies can change their code to make things work for Vista/7...then so can that software company. Don't blame Microsoft because software companies are being lazy and don't want to make their products compatible. You'd be pointing the finger in the wrong direction.
This is a great example of people not getting why it's so difficult to upgrade in some organisations. I work for a university and we're currently about halfway through a year-long program to roll out Office 2007 along with a new XP build. Yes, XP not Vista. Why XP? Because we've got a LOT of specalist software that doesn't work on Vista and we have to support it because a) some classes still need that software and b) PHD students typically spend up to five years on their course and you can't switch software mid-stream in case it breaks something.
We're going to start rolling out Vista sometime in 2010 because by that point it will be a proven OS and we'll have had time to test it. Bearing in mind we're already pushed to the limit in terms of supporting several thousand computers that are essentially public access machines in an environment that we simply can't lock down without crippling the ability of students to work, finding time to test Vista builds with ten or more different hardware specs and tens if not hundreds of software packages isn't particularly easy. While it would be great to shift to 7 it's simply too big a risk to do so before there's been at least a year or two of real-world use behind it.
It may only be a university but the operational procedures are the same as that behind ANY business that considers computer access business critical - treat anything new as a potential point of failure and test the crap out of it. If what you've got works only upgrade if there's a DAMN good reason for doing so. Vista never really provided that (we're only starting to move in 2010 as newer software & hardware will start to drop support for XP. That and better security) and even 7 isn't really a must have upgrade functionality wise. It's not a case of being lazy or cheap - it's a case of not changing for the sake of change and ensuring that your computer facilities offer as close to 100% uptime as possible.
@Steve, the University I work for is skipping Windows Vista and will be using Windows 7 on all their main lab machines by 2010. Your IT department sounds to be pretty bad. Although tbh, it did take till a year ago to upgrade all faculty computers to Vista, but that was because faculty only gets new computers every 4 years.
Templarian said: "Your IT department sounds to be pretty bad"
This type of attitude is everywhere in the IT business and I can't stand it. Every IT dept. is full of idiots except for the one you happen to be working for which is dealing with issues that no other dept. deals blah blah blah.
Every IT dept. deals with issues beyond their control and are typically staffed with competent people who do the best they can to work in very challenging environments.
Eh, I just wish the whole "those guys must be idiots" culture in IT would change to something more professional.
@Steve and Templarian. Neither of you mentioned the size of said University. So it's not a fair assumption from Templarian that IT might be bad at Steves college. He does bring up a good point that the software can't just be upgraded in the middle of a program without making changes to said program, thus setting students back. A lot of College/University IT depts are understaffed. I work at a 2 yr college so we don't quite deal with as many computers as you 2 are used to. We have chosen to skip Vista as well, partially due to some people in our department refusing to let go of the bad reviews and such that Vista has. We also will be rolling out by mid 2010.
We loaded up Vista and W7 RC on seperate machines with same specs (2.6Ghz P4, 1gig ram, 40gig hdd, the average spec of the computers here), same programs etc, and they both ran just fine and and pretty much the same speed. Vista Business edition is definitely not bad. I have W7 RC at home and love it. Been kinda hard to get used to some things, but any of my really old programs that I sometimes had a difficult time even getting them to work on XP, run just fine on W7. Drop it into compatibility mode and it's been smooth sailing. I haven't had much experience with Vista compatibility mode so I can't say. I would skip Vista myself simply because W7 is much better.
I understand IT wanting to wait for it to be proven, but the excuse that people wouldn't want to upgrade due to hardware is somewhat lacking. As mentioned in the hardware specs above, W7 doesn't need really high end to work fine. I have it installed on a 4yr old laptop at home and I sometimes feel like it's faster than XP was on there. Anywho, my 2 cents.
Some individuals expect to purchase something and have it working forever, relying on competent technicians to fix any problems. Much like a car. I expect a car to last 100k miles and for the mechanics to both maintain and fix the car.
However, when a business is relying on a '98 Buick as the company car, problems arise. The car will need to be taken in more often and the reliability decreases.
I understand the need for a company to withhold upgrades, but it severely impedes progress. Emory Universityhas support for XP, Vista, and OSX 10.5. Every campus computer runs either XP or OSX, as people have different needs and if they were confined to XP or OSX, then their productivity would be affected. It'd be easier for the IT dept to stick with XP or OSX, but the students would suffer. If consumer technology is advancing, why shouldn't research fields follow suit? I work in a lab as well and daily transition from XP, Vista, Mac, and even Windows 95 (we're too cheap to get a modern imager).Yes, every OS has its unique purpose, but why shouldn't we strive for better technology?
If it works, don't fix it? That's the kind of attitude that fosters stagnation. Progress is a goal, not a side-effect.
At the University at Buffalo we have had all of our machines upgraded to Vista Enterprise, except for the art department, which is running OSX 10.5.7, for over a year now. And there are approximately 28,000 students here. Wasn't a big issue to upgrade either. I've talked to IT people here and they said it went very smooth and will probably be upgrading to 7 in a couple of years.
The Triumph proved to be one of the better looking and performing pre-paid handsets we'd had the pleasure of holding in our sweaty mitts, but we had one major hangup: the name.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
"Of course, Windows 7 does have its much talked about XP Mode, but Silver says that won't help many businesses since their IT departments would still be faced with the added workload resulting from managing a whole new OS."
Ok...If you're in IT - chances are you have tried the Windows 7 beta or RC or at least looked up a lot of the new features. I'd say the majority of people in IT love computing altogether and spend a lot of time outside of work computing/working on computer related project.
If an IT department can't figure out how to manage Windows 7, then you need to find some new IT staff. Vista is not different enough from XP to bitch about. It's a performance hog...OK. Windows 7 fixes that. Businesses still relying on XP need to realize it's time to grow up. Hardware has improved significantly and any new computer runs Windows Vista just fine (Netbooks don't count...). The XP mode of Windows 7 is only good for applications that NEED XP to run...as in Microsoft has not assisted in making them compatible with Vista/7. I really doubt many organization will need this. Any popular program now pretty much has support for Vista/7. If you're using an XP dependent program...you need to bug the software developer. If other software companies can change their code to make things work for Vista/7...then so can that software company. Don't blame Microsoft because software companies are being lazy and don't want to make their products compatible. You'd be pointing the finger in the wrong direction.
This is a great example of people not getting why it's so difficult to upgrade in some organisations. I work for a university and we're currently about halfway through a year-long program to roll out Office 2007 along with a new XP build. Yes, XP not Vista. Why XP? Because we've got a LOT of specalist software that doesn't work on Vista and we have to support it because a) some classes still need that software and b) PHD students typically spend up to five years on their course and you can't switch software mid-stream in case it breaks something.
We're going to start rolling out Vista sometime in 2010 because by that point it will be a proven OS and we'll have had time to test it. Bearing in mind we're already pushed to the limit in terms of supporting several thousand computers that are essentially public access machines in an environment that we simply can't lock down without crippling the ability of students to work, finding time to test Vista builds with ten or more different hardware specs and tens if not hundreds of software packages isn't particularly easy. While it would be great to shift to 7 it's simply too big a risk to do so before there's been at least a year or two of real-world use behind it.
It may only be a university but the operational procedures are the same as that behind ANY business that considers computer access business critical - treat anything new as a potential point of failure and test the crap out of it. If what you've got works only upgrade if there's a DAMN good reason for doing so. Vista never really provided that (we're only starting to move in 2010 as newer software & hardware will start to drop support for XP. That and better security) and even 7 isn't really a must have upgrade functionality wise. It's not a case of being lazy or cheap - it's a case of not changing for the sake of change and ensuring that your computer facilities offer as close to 100% uptime as possible.
@Steve, the University I work for is skipping Windows Vista and will be using Windows 7 on all their main lab machines by 2010. Your IT department sounds to be pretty bad. Although tbh, it did take till a year ago to upgrade all faculty computers to Vista, but that was because faculty only gets new computers every 4 years.
Templarian said: "Your IT department sounds to be pretty bad"
This type of attitude is everywhere in the IT business and I can't stand it. Every IT dept. is full of idiots except for the one you happen to be working for which is dealing with issues that no other dept. deals blah blah blah.
Every IT dept. deals with issues beyond their control and are typically staffed with competent people who do the best they can to work in very challenging environments.
Eh, I just wish the whole "those guys must be idiots" culture in IT would change to something more professional.
@Steve and Templarian. Neither of you mentioned the size of said University. So it's not a fair assumption from Templarian that IT might be bad at Steves college. He does bring up a good point that the software can't just be upgraded in the middle of a program without making changes to said program, thus setting students back. A lot of College/University IT depts are understaffed. I work at a 2 yr college so we don't quite deal with as many computers as you 2 are used to. We have chosen to skip Vista as well, partially due to some people in our department refusing to let go of the bad reviews and such that Vista has. We also will be rolling out by mid 2010.
We loaded up Vista and W7 RC on seperate machines with same specs (2.6Ghz P4, 1gig ram, 40gig hdd, the average spec of the computers here), same programs etc, and they both ran just fine and and pretty much the same speed. Vista Business edition is definitely not bad. I have W7 RC at home and love it. Been kinda hard to get used to some things, but any of my really old programs that I sometimes had a difficult time even getting them to work on XP, run just fine on W7. Drop it into compatibility mode and it's been smooth sailing. I haven't had much experience with Vista compatibility mode so I can't say. I would skip Vista myself simply because W7 is much better.
I understand IT wanting to wait for it to be proven, but the excuse that people wouldn't want to upgrade due to hardware is somewhat lacking. As mentioned in the hardware specs above, W7 doesn't need really high end to work fine. I have it installed on a 4yr old laptop at home and I sometimes feel like it's faster than XP was on there. Anywho, my 2 cents.
Some individuals expect to purchase something and have it working forever, relying on competent technicians to fix any problems. Much like a car. I expect a car to last 100k miles and for the mechanics to both maintain and fix the car.
However, when a business is relying on a '98 Buick as the company car, problems arise. The car will need to be taken in more often and the reliability decreases.
I understand the need for a company to withhold upgrades, but it severely impedes progress. Emory Universityhas support for XP, Vista, and OSX 10.5. Every campus computer runs either XP or OSX, as people have different needs and if they were confined to XP or OSX, then their productivity would be affected. It'd be easier for the IT dept to stick with XP or OSX, but the students would suffer. If consumer technology is advancing, why shouldn't research fields follow suit? I work in a lab as well and daily transition from XP, Vista, Mac, and even Windows 95 (we're too cheap to get a modern imager).Yes, every OS has its unique purpose, but why shouldn't we strive for better technology?
If it works, don't fix it? That's the kind of attitude that fosters stagnation. Progress is a goal, not a side-effect.
At the University at Buffalo we have had all of our machines upgraded to Vista Enterprise, except for the art department, which is running OSX 10.5.7, for over a year now. And there are approximately 28,000 students here. Wasn't a big issue to upgrade either. I've talked to IT people here and they said it went very smooth and will probably be upgrading to 7 in a couple of years.