
|
Talk about a deliberate negative spin on a very positive number for Microsoft. Historically adoption rates are substantially lower than the estimated 40% for Win7. Case in point, XP's adoption rate for the first year was 12-15% making this, 300% higher. Perhaps your title should have been more like, POW, another grand slam hit for Microsoft! This isn't helping the tech industry, that you're obviously dependent on, this kind of prejudiced, slanted reporting hurts it. |
|
Well said. I find that few people remember how things were with the last major OS upgrade in businesses, though. I would have thought these were bad numbers too if I hadn't recently discussed it with my IT guy. He went on about how they didn't upgrade to XP for many years. The fact that 40% say they'll upgrade within about a year is pretty incredible. |
|
Maybe I'm reading it differently than you, but 40% is not the number that would adopt it in the first year, it's the number that would consider adopting it at all. Only 34% of *that* group planned to adopt it by the end of 2010. That's 13.6% of the whole, making it the same as XP, not higher. My thought is that those 13.6% are naive or very very small. Any company talking about deploying before SP1 is scheduled has never deployed a Windows update in any large corporation. EDIT: I found the source survey online, and YOU'RE RIGHT! Apparently, 34% of the respondents said they'd likely deploy by the end of 2010. Basically, everyone that is upgrading thinks they'll upgrade in the next 16 months. But, 1.4% of the respondents said they had already deployed Windows 7... and it's not even available until the end of July. So, the survey's numbers are most likely meaningless crap. Actual adoption rates are probably going to vary greatly, depending on how well it's received by the early adopters.
// Riddle of the day: Why does the ver command report Windows 6.1? :p // |
|
Sounds to me like some of these numbers are complete crap. Seriously, if a business is worried about if its software will work with windows 7, then they should have had their IT department running those tests since the beta of windows 7. If you have a business that doesnt have an IT dept that does this sort of thing, then obviously there are more problems in the company than upgrading OSes. |
|
>> if a business is worried about if its software will work with windows 7, then they should have had their IT department running those tests since the beta of windows 7. << Testing against a beta version of Windows would be a horrible waste of the average company's money. Looking for stuff that's broken before the vendor's have even had a chance to finish their own testing and get their software certified for the new OS just makes no sense. Maybe I have a different viewpoint because we have literally a thousand or so packaged applications deployed to 14,000+ internal desktops. Testing/re-testing software through beta cycles would *not* be a productive use of IT time. I can't see why anyone else would be worried about their software running on Windows 7 or have a compelling need to upgrade right now as there is no Win7-only software. Wait for SP1 and you will always save your company a ton of money through problem avoidance (or skipping the OS entirely - as many did for Vista). The foremost goal of a real IT department is reliability, and you don't get that by jumping on the bleeding edge. Even companies in the business of developing new software should use separate development boxes or virtual machines, leaving their office and productivity apps on the stable OS for some period. |