Home > Windows > Gartner: Ignore Vista until 2008Gartner: Ignore Vista until 2008 Eugenia Loli 2005-11-11 Windows 25 CommentsThere is no compelling reason to rush into upgrading to the next version of Windows, says Gartner.About The Author Eugenia LoliEx-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 25 Comments 2005-11-11 7:56 pm KrocNor will consumers, they’ll get Vista when they buy a new machine. Microsoft really don’t think that average Joe is going to upgrade windows themselves, that’s really deluded.Vista is very consumer orientated, a lot like OSX Tiger. What confuses me the most is Microsoft advertising Windows XP and discontinuing 2K; If a company upgrades to XP now, then there is no way in hell they will upgrade in 2008, most companies keep their OS for way too long.If MS kept 2000 supported until 2007/8 then it would be around about the right time for businesses to move up to Vista – what Microsoft reall want.I don’t see the benefit of going from 2K – XP now and blowing all your budget for OS upgrades for the next ten years 2005-11-11 8:17 pm ma_dIf they update to XP now, they’ll update to Vista when it EOL’s. If they wait for Vista they’ll just be running on a half-supported Win2K and make Microsoft look bad for not supporting it (not that they really should have to, it’s getting beyond what is a reasonable life for it). 2005-11-11 8:19 pm Kroc“it’s getting beyond what is a reasonable life for it”O_o You are kidding, Windows 2000 is everything Windows XP is, XP has skinning and extra holes. Microsoft are not supporting Windows 2000 not because it’s old and unsupportable, it’s because they want to force people to upgrade. Anybody who codes on the NT platform will know that 2000 is still fully supportable well into Vista and beyond. 2005-11-11 9:13 pm QuietleafHear, hear. Windows 2000 will continue to receive security patches until at least 2010, which is what companies using it really need. If they’re still using 2000, it’s because it already fulfills their needs, and doesn’t suffer from the draconian licensing language that came with XP (forced upgrades, and all that, though that might have changed since). The desire to stick to the old licensing language is one reason why many of the largest companies stuck with 2000 for so long, and as long as it’s guaranteed to be secure until 2010 there is no compelling reson to go through the pain, chaos, and cost of upgrading their installed base. Skinning is nice, but companies don’t need a skinnable OS to keep their businesses running, and if a user really wants it, WindowBlinds does a pretty good job of skinning 2k. 2005-11-11 9:33 pm Tom KSo uhh … what “draconian” language is that? You sound like you’re informed about the issue — care to compare and contrast the licenses? 2005-11-11 9:43 pm QuietleafI cite the following article:http://news.com.com/2100-1001-919097.htmlIt was a well-known controversy when Software Assurance was introduced. 2005-11-11 10:40 pm Tom KInteresting … Microsoft seems to think they can rape companies in both holes at once. Oh wait … they obviously can, since they’re still in business.Such is life. 2005-11-12 12:41 am re_rewell, I have two points here, first, Microsoft dosen’t care if you buy XP or Vista, they just want the sale.Secondly, Microsoft sees it like this, if they discontinue support for 2k and push companies to upgrade to XP, then in a few years they can push compaines to upgrade to Vista when they discontinue support for XP (two sales instead of one)Edited 2005-11-12 00:52 2005-11-13 1:15 pm unoengborgSecondly, Microsoft sees it like this, if they discontinue support for 2k and push companies to upgrade to XP, then in a few years they can push compaines to upgrade to Vista when they discontinue support for XP (two sales instead of one)The problem with this strategy is that MacOS, and Linux is growing and offer better and better products. It seams that current versions of MacOS-X is very close to offer the same thing that Vista will do in a year from now. When XP is end of lifed the market will be different.MacOS-X and Linux will be even better and so will probably Microsofts offerings. However XP/win2k allready offers what 99% of the users need. Innovate new products that are needed, or to develop new needs of the users in this situation is very difficult and expensive.To follow the leader is not near as costly,this means that Linux will catch up very quickly. By the time XP is en of lifed I wouldn’t be surprised if the desktop market was divided in MS 33%, Apple 33%, Linux 33%, and 1% for various other players. In such a market it is not evident that you should go for Microsoft.Microsoft knows this, that is why we probably be see ad financed Microsoft software. This worked for the Opera web browser and it will probably work for Microsoft, bu t it will be a whole new market, and a market where Microsoft havent the monopoly advantage anymore. 2005-11-11 8:00 pm rockwellThere’s no compelling reason to buy hybrid vehicles.There’s no compelling reason to buy a cell phone with built-in music player.Etc. Etc. Early adopters will buy Vista, just as they did XP. 2005-11-11 8:11 pm Tyr.Early adopters will buy Vista, just as they did XP.That’s not exactly the people Gartner is talking to, they target companies. What they’re saying to companies is they don’t need to upgrade their in some cases thousands of pc’s to this new version. MS don’t care if home users upgrade or not the real money is in the selling of licenses to companies. If they get off the upgrade threadmill MS stands to lose a lot of money. And in the meantime competitors get more time to improve their competing products. 2005-11-11 8:15 pm dylansmrjonesCorrect. And some companies will adopt Vista because it fits with their time scheme for renewing their IT environment.And other companies will probably prolong the life of their existing systems, due to the excessive hardware requirements of Vista.But there is nothing new in this. Some companies still use NT4 or older (and a few use DOS before version 7.x).Same old story 2005-11-12 12:48 pm jzieglerAnd some companies will adopt Vista because it fits with their time scheme for renewing their IT environment.Do companies really upgrade “all computers at once”. In my limited experience, some companies are on a rolling basis – new hires get new computers, with the latest standard installation image, get to keep them for the next 2.5 – 3 years. Then they get new ones, with then-current installation image. In my company, people started to use XP computers only a year, year and half ago. It took that much time until IT considered it necessary and prepared an image based on XP.With this math, if Vista comes out in 2007, we might not be using it before 2009-2010. 2005-11-11 8:12 pm dylansmrjonesTime will show if people switch to Vista in a quick manner. I doubt it a bit, but you’ll never know for sure. Personally I won’t be switching until EOL of Win2K3, but that’s because I don’t like changes BTW: There are many compelling reasons to buy hybrid vehicles, considering the fuel prices in Denmark (but we also have some of the highest prices in the world, as usual).Most people buy their OS with the computer, so Vista will probaby get a break-through during 2008/9. Just like most other Windows releases got a break-through in combination with hardware-sales. 2005-11-12 2:03 pm CPUGuyWith hyrbids, they generally cost thousands of dollars more than there standard counterparts.If you do the math, it usually does not add up. You spend that extra money that you save on gas upfront for the car itself. 2005-11-11 8:21 pm rattaroTheir advice is always so meaningless and useless. It reminds me of a teacher of mine who said, “if you are ever unsure of what to do, just do the right thing and you’ll be fine.”To tell people not to buy a new system when what they have is adequate is a no brainer. What’s next, are they going to advise people not to buy 2 OS’s when they need only 1? This is really absurd. 2005-11-11 9:54 pm fretinator“Cause that’s when it’s being released! 2005-11-11 10:29 pm smitty_one_eachThere is no compelling reason to rush into upgrading to the next version of Windows.‘Nuff said. 2005-11-12 12:07 am hhcvThere is no compelling reason to rush into upgrading to the next version of Windows, says Gartner.There is no compelling reason to listen to Gartner the FUDer of consultancy, says I. 2005-11-12 12:51 am re_reGeneral rule, wait till sp1 to upgrade to Vista or any other Windows OS (from a coorporate standpoint), as far as that goes, any os should be on the market for a year to prove itself before a coorporation commits to it.There is no guarantee (literally) that Vista or any other OS will be stable and secure from day one, it is always best to feel things out before upgrading and see if it is worthwhile. 2005-11-12 4:20 am Varg VikernesDoes anyone even remotely care what Gartner says. This is not only related to this news post, but I’ve seen a lot of statements/predictions from these guys. And, boy do they know how to start a flamewar. I guess it’s worth it, I for one wouldn’t know they even exist if it weren’t for every news site posting their mad predictions every month or so.Anyway, isn’t this eactly what Microsoft is doing? I thought the reason for porting Avalon etc to XP was so that companies don’t have to switch to Vista immediately but slow down the process. I think I even read that Microsoft will “slow down” the desktop OS release time, so don’t expect a new OS every 2 years or so (XP is here since 2001). If that’s correct, then this predictions is exactly what Microsoft aims for.edit: of course, desktop users will be the early adopters and most people will get it with a news PC so…Edited 2005-11-12 04:21 2005-11-12 7:35 pm PsychoSidWell I have worked for some of the second largest financial instution in the world and now the first and for some reason they listen to Gartner and take what they say seriously.They don’t really care what people on slashdot or osnews say. 2005-11-12 8:27 am BWhalerI just laugh at all of the stupid companies and their CIO’s who have been paying Microsoft every single year as part of their “Software Assurance” upgrade path. (or whatever double-speak MS calls it nowadays.)Those stupid CIO’s are going to end up paying more than a retain version.As for me, as a consumer, I could care less. When the first virus is out within a month–and it will be–I will remember why I don’t give MS any more money. 2005-11-12 3:52 pm timosaIn other side of the windows apples are ripe, the sun is shining and the penguins are waiting for you… 2005-11-13 1:16 am Mr. DeeShould it really matter to Microsoft what Gartner thinks? They are blowing nothing but hot air, Microsoft has this one tied up with Software Assurance. And many businesses will upgrade by either upgrading existing machines and introducing new machines to networks with Vista pre-loaded on the systems. Plus lets not forget, the consumers, Vista is definitely gonna sell like hot cakes especially if they meet the 2006 holiday Christmas season on time which I believe they will do.Many businesses just finished deploying Windows 2000 Professional on the desktop in 2003 and just started incrementally introducing Windows XP Pro. And look, it has a user base of 350 million users or more, not to mention the pirated installs of it. I am predicting between 2006 and early 2008 Vista will have a user base of 150 to 180 million users or possibly more since they will be introducing news SKUs to target new markets.