Windows 7 Upgrade No Deal for Many Businesses
Posted 28 June 2009 - 12:37 PM
Oh and those so-called businesses that only upgrade once every 10 years. Good luck for your competitive edge survival in the business world...
Those too cheap to be in business, won't be in business for long...
Survival of the fittest!
Leave yesterday alone. Tomorrow's what matters.
~ Jonathan Cainer
Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.
~ John F. Kennedy
Losers live in the past. Winners learn from the past and enjoy working in the present toward the future.
~ Denis Waitley
The past is history; the future is a mystery and today is a gift. The past can?t be allowed to hold you back anymore. Don?t throw away tomorrow by reaching back for yesterday.
~ John Hayes
Don't allow your past to create your present and future.
~ Susie & Otto Collins
The past is a guidepost, not a hitching post.
~ L. Thomas Holcroft
If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future.
~ Winston Churchill
When all else is lost, the future still remains.
~ Christian Nevell Bovee, 1820-1904, American Author and Lawyer
Posted 28 June 2009 - 04:59 PM
> Oh and those so-called businesses that only upgrade once every 10 years. Good luck for your competitive edge survival in the business world...
Those too cheap to be in business, won't be in business for long...
Survival of the fittest!<
Agree and disagree.
I work for an one hundred years plus old company which have world wide offices.
Guess what, I still use Windows NT at the office with boot time around minutes.
Since we ( company ) use it on intranet only and no anti virus software installed.
We ( company ) have saved billions on NOT upgrading.
This is just my opinion.
Posted 28 June 2009 - 05:14 PM
Anyway, how do you know you wouldn't have made extra billions more than you would have spent if you did "expand" to incorporate some IT power.
Posted 28 June 2009 - 08:41 PM
It is easy to find quotes on Bing or Google. Simply type the person or random phrase in your mind with quote such as:
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 192,000 for penny wise quote. (0.20 seconds)
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,810,000 for einstein quotes. (0.40 seconds)
And see what comes back?
Or I get tons of gems and pearls of wisdom everyday from http://selfgrowth.com/ by subscribing to interesting free newsletters.
Please enjoy, and share with us your thoughts!
Everything has its beauty but not everyone sees it.
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.
Posted 28 June 2009 - 08:57 PM
Unless of course your company doesn't use mobile computers and nobody works at home after hours?
Even using VPN from a home computer into the Intranet, could pose infection risks, because obviously, the home computer is using the Internet, of course?
Also if your company doesn't use any form of anti-malware, how is one to know they could potentially be already infected? ?:|
Does your company use USB memory keys? To share and work on documents, spreadsheets, presentations?
So right there you have more than two vectors of infiltration and propagation for malware...
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,680,000 for moore's law definition]. (0.16 seconds)
[Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,410,000 for first rootkit. (0.32 seconds)
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 5,410,000 for unix vulnerabilities. (0.30 seconds)
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 5,120,000 for linux vulnerabilities. (0.23 seconds)
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 750,000 for NT vulnerabilities. (0.27 seconds)
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 3,260,000 for windows vulnerabilities. (0.17 seconds)
Play for more than you can afford to lose and you will learn the game.
~ Winston Churchill, 1874-1965, British Statesman, Prime Minister
If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
~ Isaac Asimov (Russian born American science-fiction Writer and Biochemist. 1920-1992)
Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.
~ Karl Popper
No tool is more beneficial than intelligence. No enemy is more harmful than ignorance.
~ Abu Abdullah Muhammad al-Harithi al-Baghdadi al-Mufid
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge.
~ Daniel J. Boorstin
The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new lands but seeing with new eyes.
~ Marcel Proust
The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand.
~ Frank Herbert
Posted 28 June 2009 - 09:31 PM
Software bloats at a higher rate than the hardware that runs it, or the curve is advanced well ahead of mainstream hardware installation. This is not a 'law', just an observation. Someone else probably has this 'law' named after them already.
So long as you keep using the same software as a year or two BEFORE you bought a new PC, you will have no problems.
IF the NEW OS requires NEW software, then there will be performance problems.
The only thing that makes a computer seem 'obsolete' is new software. Keep running the 'old stuff', and your 'old' computer will keep running as well as it ever did. Upgrade to a new OS version that ends up REQUIRING additional expensive software upgrades to 'be compatible', and even 'new' computers will seem slower, because the 'new' software is typically targeted for systems with specs far outstripping the current generation machines, some of which will be older XP/Shista designed machines which they slapped a Windoze 7 image onto as soon as Windoze 7 became available, as their Micro$oft contracts demand.
So even if Windoze 7 lives up to the promises and hype of being leaner and meaner, the software you'll HAVE TO upgrade WITH Windoze 7 will most likely be nasty bloatware that your computer can't keep up with.
Posted 28 June 2009 - 09:50 PM
And what you say does make "literal sense" in a way...but lacks "common" sense. How does using obsolete software on obsolete hardware by not upgrading it make the "performance" better? By an extrapolation, how does using obsolete software on new hardware make "performance" desirable? By your twisted logic, you might as well use DOS on a Cori7. It will be lighting fast when you type DIR! Woot!
You can install Linux on whatever you want and I'm sure it will fly when you run some special calculation. However, it will lack many of the features that people use in real life.
And you are forgetting the "speed" performance capability offered by SuperFetch and 64-bit....which you can't get with XP / 32-bit systems
Posted 28 June 2009 - 11:00 PM
Counter-intuitive as it may be, if your 'ancient' OS and software still do the job you need it for, 'upgrading' them is a waste. Stuff them in a VM, and they'll be phenomenally fast on ANY new machine, no matter what OS you run. Adapting to the latest trends and fads is an endless time sink. Besides, you'll keep your employees busy doing boring REAL WORK with software that does what they NEED TO do, instead of playing with the latest colorful toys that ship with a new OS.
The perceived speed is better. Sure, the 'old' computer will not crunch numbers like a new one, or render 'Shrek' in 3D in a timely manner, or even run many kinds of common scripted internet content. But the apps from the time it was made will work just as well as an app made RIGHT NOW for a new computer. They load in an acceptable time, run acceptably well, edit the same documents as at the time it was made, etc.
The apps from a couple of years before it was made work even better, just as the apps from a couple of years ago work pretty well on a new machine, now.
If you look at, say Adobe Premiere CS3 vs. Adobe Premiere CS4, you see an obvious and profound difference in performance (i.e. Premiere CS4, which has been out for over half a year now won't run well on anything but a brand-new computer). They added new 'features' to search audio tracks for keywords, and all manner of stuff. All really 'valuable' features, to be sure, but not something you want to try on a two year old PC at all. It can't even play the simplest movie possible with ONE track in it.
For another obvious example, boot Win98 on a modern computer in a virtual machine. It boots in seconds. The apps from the same period also load nearly instantly. Sure, it will only support 512MB of RAM, and the FAT32 support has many limitations, but everything from that time, that worked within those limitations, works SUPER FAST on a new machine. To a lesser degree, a VM of Windoze 2000 with 'only' 512MB of RAM assigned to it will perform admirably in a virtual environment. Visual C/C 6, Adobe CS2 and Flash 8 all work very well in a Windoze 2000 VM.
For another obvious example, if you were DUMB and 'upgraded' the OS on a Win98 machine to Windoze 2000, or even worse, XP, you suffered for it. And naturally you had to 'upgrade' the other software that was incompatible. And naturally all of that software far exceeds the capabilities of that crappy old system. Maybe the motherboard wouldn't even accept more memory than 512MB for the XP install that you thought you needed.
The biggest threat is that the businesses will have to buy new software along with Windoze 7 (especially XP/2000 users). If the machine SHIPPED with 2000/XP, or even $hista, chances are good that the machine won't run the 'newest' software that you need to upgrade to with 7, or even $hista very smoothly compared to the software that you already use on your 'antiquated' machine.
With virtual alternatives, you can run the 'old' OS (like Windoze 2000) that the business built all of its infrastructure on and can't afford to change under Shista home or even Windoze 7 'light'. That way the software works just fine (even faster than ever before), has support from the latest networking hardware (even Win98 can have a 'wireless 802.11N' network connection), and run the software that's compatible with the irreplaceable assets that were developed at great expense, long ago. Many businesses have adopted this approach. It's smart. VirtualBox is free. You could even run your Windoze apps under Linux OS in this manner.
Sure, the 'old' software is missing a few 'new' features, but it certainly works with your 'old' servers, and even the 'old' servers can be virtualized and clustered into fewer (faster) machines.
If you need a non-computer example, there are millions of them. If your washing machine still works and it's 10 years old, is it obsolete because it goes 'buzz' instead of playing a digital chime? The evolutionary design for sharks and crocodiles are millions of years old. Are they 'obsolete'? NO! They still exist because they still WORK. Heck, a beat-up 1974 pickup truck that costs $800 will do all of the same things as a 2010 pickup truck that costs $30,000. And you can park it ANYWHERE and nobody will mess with it.
Posted 29 June 2009 - 06:56 AM
I'm an average user using XP on a four year old computer. I edit video, burn CDs and DVDs, produce a ten page newsletter among a lot of other tasks. All with no problems. I can't remember the last time XP crashed.
Is there something I'm missing here?
Even if I upgrade to a faster computer, I assume that all of the above tasks will run faster ... but probably only seconds faster.
Posted 29 June 2009 - 01:36 PM
Last time I check ( 6/26/2009 3AM ), I was using a Pentium 3 with Windows 2000 at work.
It has no USB, no CD ROM, slow like hell, but it works.
I can not tell you in details. ( not that I don't want to, I am not their IT )
All I can tell you is .... they better have very good IT.
Thats why, I agree and disagree with you. ]:)
Posted 29 June 2009 - 04:01 PM
Here are some of a few to ponder on...
* Use 64-bit editing software.
* burn blu-ray, DL, RAM
* Use more advanced software in general.
* If you want to use suspend to RAM sleep (2 watts), you can restart in like 5 seconds right where you left off yesterday.
* Auto S3 sleep can save some power in situations.
* If you want multitask a lot (more newsletters and graphics open), more than 4GB RAM.
* If you launch and close apps a lot, it will be faster because of SuperFetch. To most people who never experienced SuperFetch, it seems like a far off concept that is hard to visualize the benefits. But it works and the small bits of times add up.
EDIT: Keep in mind that charts like below test ONE SINGLE application at a time, just to demonstrate an idea. In real life, you can use many applications at once and that's where the extra RAM counts.
Posted 29 June 2009 - 11:43 PM
".....Moore's Law, states that the number of transistors on a chip will double about every two years."
I agree with pretty much everything you posted.
Don't upgrade unless you NEED to. If everything is working fine.....stay with it. If you have an opportunity to be more productive on a new machine, by all means, take the opportunity.
Posted 30 June 2009 - 04:04 AM
Leave yesterday alone. Tomorrow's what matters.
~ Jonathan Cainer
Posted 01 July 2009 - 08:45 AM
Personally you need a reason to upgrade, and just because it is the latest shiny thing from Redmond does not do it for me. We will probably upgrade only because we will have to work on it anyway, the more experience the better.
But just like any upgrade whether hardware or software, do you really need it?
Does it have ROI, Vista is a black hole for business and obviously most businesses felt that way. I would never recommend a customer upgrade their XP box to 7. I would however strongly recommend the upgrade to Vista users, for XP you want 7, buy a new box, it is a total wipe anyway, so there is no "upgrade" to 7 from XP, maybe they will change that between now and October 22nd.
Posted 01 July 2009 - 04:12 PM
bq. Initially it was thought that the adoption of Vista has been generally low, due to largely poor reviews and harsh criticism, but a later Gartner research report predicted that Vista business adoption in 2008 will actually beat that of XP during the same time frame (21.3% vs. 16.9%)^|#citenote-78]^ while [IDC had indicated that the launch of Windows Server 2008 served as a catalyst for the stronger adoption rates.^|#citenote-79]^^[|#citenote-80]^ As of January 2009, Forrester Research had indicated that almost one third of North American and European corporations have started deploying Vista.^[|#citenote-81]^ On a May 2009 conference, the Microsoft Vice President said for big businesses, "Adoption and deployment of Windows Vista has been slightly ahead of where we had been with XP".^[|#citenote-82]^^[|#citenote-83]^ In its first year of availability, [PC World rated it as the biggest tech disappointment of 2007,^|#citenote-84]^ and it was rated by [InfoWorld as #2 of Tech's all-time 25 flops.^[|#citenote-85]^ The internet-usage market share for Windows Vista after two years of availability (as of January 2009) was 22.48%.^[|#citenote-86]^ This figure combined with World Internet Users and Population Stats yielded a user base of roughly 350 million^[|#citenote-internet1-10]^, which exceeded Microsoft's two-year post launch expectations by 150 million.^[|#cite_note-windowsitpro2006-8]^ The present user base is roughly 390 million by the same statistical sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vista]
Here's a "big" company...
US Army to adopt Vista and Office 2007 by end of 2009
As it currently stands now, estimates are that half of the army's computers are currently using Office 2007 and 13 percent are powered by Vista.
Hey, if the only place you get your "reliable info" from is Web 2.0 news forums (whose sole purpose to to create controversy and generate web traffic) like PC World....hmm....maybe it's time to change your sources research.