Nearly 80% of business PCs ill-equipped for Vista upgrade?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Four out of five computers within the workplace are not adequately equipped to make the jump to Microsoft's Vista operating system based on the software maker's stated requirements, one study shows.



A report released last week by desktop management firm Everdream exhibits that 79.9 percent of business machines do not match the recommended requirements for "premium-ready PCs" put forth by the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant. The analysis covered 145,000 desktop and notebook PCs at companies witin its installed base -- especially small to mid-sized businesses -- and highlighted the difficulties many face when upgrading their PCs to the latest Windows OS.



Amongst the largest obstacles to a smooth transition, the report states, are memory and had drive space requirements. Microsoft requires at least 512 MB of RAM to run Vista but recommends a full gigabyte. A mere 30 percent of PCs reportedly met 1GB requirement, according to the report. Similarly, 62.4 percent of the machines did not have the recommended 40GB hard drive storage, including over 18 percent that failed to meet the the required "15GB of free hard drive space" necessary to complete the software install.



"Clearly many companies face stark realities as they consider upgrading their IT assets to Windows Vista in the coming months," said Ed Mueller, chief marketing officer for Everdream. "The costs of getting computers into compliance with Microsoft’s requirements will likely be a huge obstacle to Vista adoption, especially for small and mid-sized companies that have limited IT budget, resources and staff."



Consumers should also be cautious of disparities between labels that appear on some systems," said Mark Minasi, author of numerous books on the Windows operating system. He warns that "a system that is Windows Vista capable doesn't necessarily translate to one that is Windows Vista enjoyable.”



Overall, the data shows that more than 93 percent of companies will face difficulties upgrading at least one their computers to Windows Vista. However, it said just 6.7 percent of machines in its sample would be critically limited by lacking the required processor speed.



Still, Microsoft has already managed to sell some 20 million copies of Vista worldwide since its release on January 30th. Those sales best the 17 million copies of Windows XP sold over its first two months on the market back in 2001. However, comparing the raw figures of the launch sales for the two software releases can be misleading, as the worldwide PC installed base grew significantly in the intervening years.



Based on the growth in the number of in-use PCs over the past 6 years, it could be argued that Vista's sales are off to a slower start than that of XP.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 76
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,915member
    Man, what an opportunity for Apple... they need to jump on this like white on rice.
  • Reply 2 of 76
    moochmooch Posts: 112member
    My company just finished upgrading to xp...a process that's taken 3 years to complete. We won't be getting Vista anytime soon.
  • Reply 3 of 76
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,289member
    So what else is new, M$ making another product that sells more hardward, and you wonder why M$ and Intel like each other so much.



    Image what would have happen if Apple released OSX that did not work on 80% of the install base.
  • Reply 4 of 76
    scavangerscavanger Posts: 286member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Man, what an opportunity for Apple... they need to jump on this like white on rice.



    I don't really see how, as I wouldn't recommend anyone running OSX or even Windows XP with less then a gig of RAM. The fact is most vista upgrades will probably come when ever the companies hit their 3 to 5 year upgrade cycles when the new hardware comes in. Just to point out as well that it's still cheaper to upgrade the computers to vista even with new hardware, then it would be to swap out to Macs, since the only option companies would have to keep their moniters keyboards and mice is a Mac Pro ( too expensive) and a Mac Mini (probably not practical) so they are still stuck with huge cash outlays. This may only be practical if it's a very small business with a small amount of IT infrastructure.
  • Reply 5 of 76
    Haha.
  • Reply 6 of 76
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    Eh, it was the same thing when Windows 95 came out. A lot of machines had to have major upgrades to run it.
  • Reply 7 of 76
    deapeajaydeapeajay Posts: 909member
    My company (a fortune 500 company) is definitely ill equipped to handle it at the moment. I'm on a Dell laptop right now with 256MB of ram! It's dog slow. They're preparing for a hardware rollout sometime around Q3 but from what I hear, they're still uncertain if they're going to roll out with Vista. The machines will all have 2GB of ram and a Core 2 Duo, but I've been told that there's some other performance issues that they're still concerned about, not sure what.



    If they roll out with XP, they may be stuck with that license for some time and we won't be seeing Vista for quite some time.



    It doesn't concern me though since I'll be leaving in May anyway...
  • Reply 8 of 76
    donebyleedonebylee Posts: 521member
    What I want to know is where did all that money come from that Microsoft was touting to support the successful sales launch of Vista? They showed sales figures that exceeded XP's launch...who bought all of those copies of Vista?



    I don't know how this works, but could it be from companies like Sony and HP? Do they have to pre-pay for all the copies of Vista that they load on the machines that they ship out to stores and warehouses? So maybe we're really not talking about customer adoption of Vista as much as we are about systems shipping to the sales channels with Vista installed on them.



    Just trying to make sense of the conflicting reports.



    And I have to admit the idea of Vista dominating stored-in-a-warehouse market sort of appeals to me.
  • Reply 9 of 76
    AI could at least add an interpretation, perhaps mention that these figures are disputed or debatable?



    This like a copy-paste
  • Reply 10 of 76
    jimdreamworxjimdreamworx Posts: 1,063member
    You mean all those Windows 2000 computers still in use won't be upgrading any time soon? I guess this applies to all the Win 95 ones also still chugging away...



    Unless a killer app comes out for Vista, I doubt any company will be fretting over doing anything this year (or even next).
  • Reply 11 of 76
    camroidv27camroidv27 Posts: 523member
    This does not really surprise me, we are in the era of bloated OS's. Even OS X Tiger has a required 256mb, and recommended 512... but with just 512 mb, my new MBP was too slow, and felt as slow as my 1ghz eMac (768mb).



    Leapord will most likely require 512mb, and recommend 1gb. Also, it'll probably need a 1ghz G4 or better. That excludes machines older than 2003. This excludes many Apples that people own. The Capitol Hill iMac, the original eMacs, the PowerMac G4 towers, and of course, many iBooks, the TiBook series, and what not. I could be wrong, Apple may still include support for these machines, but I somehow doubt it. Someone can prove me wrong, and that'd be fun



    Again, its all bloated software. We get wiz bang graphics, lots of redunant code, and of course our bugs at start. It happens to Vista, and will to Leapord.



    Sorry, just a little sick of the Vista bashing. I spend 50% of my time in OS X, the other 50% in XP. Can't say I'm a true Apple Fan, and definitely not a FanBoi. I am however, a person who uses the tools he needs to get certain tasks done. As long as it works, I don't care.



    Businesses will not want to buy a whole new set of machines, and at this moment, XP is the most stable of the two. As my father's company says: "Use the previous major edition of Windows, cause the hackers, gamers, and programers will have already figured out the holes, and they'll be plugged up. Just wait till the next major OS release to upgrade to Vista". Btw, they are just now upgrading from Win2k and Win98 to XP. Rah.
  • Reply 12 of 76
    zandroszandros Posts: 537member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post


    So what else is new, M$ making another product that sells more hardward, and you wonder why M$ and Intel like each other so much.



    Image what would have happen if Apple released OSX that did not work on 80% of the install base.



    Yeah, if we ignore the fact that the processors are probably more than adequate (it is, contrary to popular belief, possible to upgrade RAM and HDDs without buying a new computer), and that Microsoft collaborates with AMD nowadays.



    And Vista will surely work on more than 80% of the install base. XP can apparently run on a 8MHz Pentium Overdrive with 16 MB RAM.
  • Reply 13 of 76
    Heck...I'd say that number of applications that many businesses are running that are not Vista compatible are pretty near 80%. Not to mention a lack of drivers for numerous peripherals out there that businesses are using. None of my AutoDesk software runs in Vista, (Revit, 3ds Max 9) and AutoDesk is pretty quiet about when it will.









    BTW: Still waiting for that Zune to take the world by storm.......
  • Reply 14 of 76
    domerdeldomerdel Posts: 78member
    Is it me, or does it seem that software is becoming a bit more bloated and less efficient in it's memory usage (most concern towards windows OS/Apps) ? It just seems that the more you want, the more we're having to double up on our resources. In a "perfect world", shouldn't we look towards building software/OS tech. to use less resources? (please note this is my fictious world).



    It seems the hardware technology today surpasses the software of today, but we are made to believe we just need more hardware in order to run Software at barely par stability.



    *Begin vent session* I mean, come on people, we're seeing Doubled-up quad core processors, and videocards worth a downpayment on a car, and yet we THINK we're fast, but we really arent. /vent session
  • Reply 15 of 76
    physguyphysguy Posts: 912member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by donebylee View Post


    What I want to know is where did all that money come from that Microsoft was touting to support the successful sales launch of Vista? They showed sales figures that exceeded XP's launch...who bought all of those copies of Vista?



    I don't know how this works, but could it be from companies like Sony and HP? Do they have to pre-pay for all the copies of Vista that they load on the machines that they ship out to stores and warehouses? So maybe we're really not talking about customer adoption of Vista as much as we are about systems shipping to the sales channels with Vista installed on them.



    Just trying to make sense of the conflicting reports.



    And I have to admit the idea of Vista dominating stored-in-a-warehouse market sort of appeals to me.



    Can you say 'channel stuffing'. We'll see if this is the case in a couple of months.
  • Reply 16 of 76
    donebyleedonebylee Posts: 521member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    Can you say 'channel stuffing'. We'll see if this is the case in a couple of months.



    That's what I wondering exactly. Did they bump them up to produce a successful launch and a happy, happy, joy, joy bon voyage for Billy Boy?
  • Reply 17 of 76
    davebarnesdavebarnes Posts: 264member
    This "Four out of five computers within the workplace are not adequately equipped to make the jump to Microsoft's Vista operating system based on the software maker's stated requirements, one study shows." is not news.



    And, it is irrelevant to Vista's uptake and Microsoft's profits.



    Business do not upgrade their computers. They buy new ones. (By the way, the same is true for 90+% of consumers.)



    When the computers are replaced with new ones, the new ones will be able to run Vista. Some will and some will have XP installed. This is no different from all previous cycles.
  • Reply 18 of 76
    nchianchia Posts: 120member
    But this also means there are a lot of PCs just waiting to be upgraded!
  • Reply 19 of 76
    physguyphysguy Posts: 912member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by davebarnes View Post


    This "Four out of five computers within the workplace are not adequately equipped to make the jump to Microsoft's Vista operating system based on the software maker's stated requirements, one study shows." is not news.



    And, it is irrelevant to Vista's uptake and Microsoft's profits.



    Business do not upgrade their computers. They buy new ones. (By the way, the same is true for 90+% of consumers.)



    When the computers are replaced with new ones, the new ones will be able to run Vista. Some will and some will have XP installed. This is no different from all previous cycles.



    For the operating system that's only true because its been so long between releases. Plenty of business systems I know of, and home users, have upgraded from 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 and will to 10.5 with maybe a memory upgrade. Are these running as fast as new systems??? of course not but they are still very productive, and yet have the latest features that increase usefulness.
  • Reply 20 of 76
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    The problem is, that XP, if configured properly, is fine. There is probably no way to argue productivity gains by switching to Vista in a business setting, and maybe not anywhere else either. Not only is there the hardware upgrade/replacement, there's the software costs, user training time, and technician time as well.



    Heck, I'm not sure if OS X.4 is enough of a productivity enhancement over X.3 to justify the upgrade cost either, with respect to a business environment. Leopard might be with automatic file versioning & backup, Spaces and the upgraded Spotlight might work reasonably well (finally), but there's still a potential hardware upgrade cost, anyone with G3 systems are going to be out of luck, last I heard, and many other low end systems will need more memory to work well.



    There's a point where the gains don't justify the costs. As such, at the moment, I don't think it makes sense to pay for a new operating system except with new computers, and I think that should only happen when the computer needs to be replaced, not just because there's a new operating system available.
Sign In or Register to comment.