Home : Desktop Software : News

Should you skip Vista and wait for Windows 7?

Some companies are considering skipping Microsoft's current operating system, Vista, in favour of waiting for the already more popular Windows 7 - but is that a wise move?

By Nicole Kobie, 30 Jan 2009 at 17:13

gallery

Do it in your own time

Indeed, don’t let Microsoft’s release cycle decide how your orgnanisation upgrades its desktop estate, said Vile. “We advise not to let Microsoft’s OS release plans dictate when you move,” he said.

“When we’re advising people, we tell them don’t let that be part of the decision,” Vile said. “If you’re going to deploy, there’s no reason to hold off.”

While Vista has its critics, much of the early problems have been fixed, and the system is stable enough for anyone looking to upgrade their desktop estate, he said. “There’s no reason not to move to Vista now,” he said.

Businesses on older systems shouldn’t wait too long to migrate their estate to a new system, Vile advised. “There’s a limit with all tech. How [long] you can put [upgrades] off?” he said, adding that being more than two generations behind will cause trouble.

“The general principal is you can only leave all these things so long,” he said, citing support issues and backwards compatibility of new applications as major issues. “If you’re on Windows 98, that’s pretty painful.”

But he made it clear that a business case must be made for any desktop upgrade, and the decision of what OS to choose should be made based on individual business needs, not Microsoft's plans. “Don’t let Microsoft’s release cycle dictate when you upgrade your desktop estate,” Vile stressed. “Do it on your schedule, not Microsoft’s.”

Email to a friend

Print this page

1 2

< Previous Desktop Software : News Next >

2 comments

You need to Login or Register to comment.

The Likely Answer is - Yes Skip

As an experienced Project Manager on Roll Outs and hardware 'refresh', the reality of most situations is that a decision to "skip Vista" is not quite as simple as that, profitability and available budget will be more important. There are also two other things to consider:

The hardware, I'm running a 64 bit version of the 7 Beta on is over 3 years old, it runs sweetly, Vista didn't. It is true that any Vista drivers seem to run on 7 whereas XP drivers are more hit and miss unless they have done a Vista version.

But there is one other thing which I consider more important, user training. There is a difference in the "user approach" between Vista and 7 so switching to Vista just to get your hardware estate up to speed, then doing what maybe a "free upgrade" to 7, makes little commercial sense.

Finally, if you did go Vista today, you are realistically buying into Vista for 3-5 years and much as I like Vista now they have killed off most of the problems, personally I will wait on 7, it looks like a good product and what Vista should have been.

By Bikey2 on Tuesday Feb 3

Operating system is least important

For most Business, the flagship Aero Glass grapics (not in Vista basic) are of no importance, the under the hood security improvements such as increasing the strength of DEP by address space randomization, are of some importance.

The key thing, is "are your applications supported", from older applications which may have issues with upgrading, to new or upgraded applications which may not be compatible with older operating systems.

One key factor, if the door remains open, however slightly, to deploying new XP installations into the existing pool, rather than the awkward prospect of mixing Vista and XP or upgrading all to Vista, then staying put is the likely choice.

Only a few versions of Windows have shown real staying power.
 1. Windows 3.11/WfWG 3.11, the pinnacle of 3.x development and a major sticking point against Windows 95
 2. Windows 98SE - the peak of the 9X line (WIndows ME broke too many things and added too little)
 3. Windows XP - brought 9x and NT streams together, and they actually made a damn good job of it, instead of turning out another Windows ME level botch job.

Other versions may have their adherents, some would rate Windows 2000 superior to XP, while most agree on the awfulness of 3.0 (fragile), 95 (first attempt at 32 bit) and Windows ME (98 third edition gone wrong).

By Ip_nonsense574f8 on Tuesday Feb 3