TechRepublic's CIO Jury: Split on deploying Windows 7
Summary: IT departments have largely ignored Windows Vista and stuck with Windows XP as the corporate standard. However, Windows 7 has received a warmer response from IT professionals than Vista did, and TechRepublic’s CIO Jury is split down the middle on whether to deploy Windows 7.
IT departments have largely ignored Windows Vista and stuck with Windows XP as the corporate standard. However, Windows 7 has received a warmer response from IT professionals than Vista did, and TechRepublic’s CIO Jury is split down the middle on whether to deploy Windows 7.
On July 20, TechRepublic asked its pool of U.S. IT leaders if they planned to begin Windows 7 deployments by the end of 2010. The jury, made up of the first 12 respondents from the 90-member group, was split evenly with six “yes” votes and six “no” votes.
TechRepublic’s CIO Jury is based on the original CIO Jury concept developed by Silicon.com, where you can find lively opinions from IT leaders based in the UK.
Our CIO Jury for this issue was:
- Joel C. Robertson, Director of IT, King College
- Brian Stanek, VP of IT, NAMICO
- Kurt Schmidt, IT Director, Capital Credit Union
- Matthew Metcalf, Director of IS, Northwest Exterminating
- David Van Geest, Director of IT, The Orinsi Group
- Ed Sefton, CIO, Commonwealth Financial Network
- Dave Schartel, Director of IT, Home Health Care Management, Inc.
- John Gracyalny, Director of IT, SafeAmerica Credit Union
- Mike Wagner, CIO, Stone & Youngberg
- Edward Beck, VP of IT, Line 6, Inc.
- James Riner, CIO, R and R Images
- Michael Stoyanovich, CIO, BeneSys, Inc
Beyond just the jury members, many of the IT chiefs responded with comments.
Kevin Leypoldt, IS director for Structural Integrity Associates, remarked:
“After struggling with Vista for 6 months, I jumped at the opportunity to try Windows 7 when the beta was released. I have been running 7 for almost 6 months and it has been rock solid (as solid as XP and vastly superior to Vista). Not to mention the inclusion of some very much looked-forward-to management features such as managing power via Group Policy, granular offline files/folder control, software restriction/app locker, not to mention some very nice end user enhancements; wi-fi management upgrade, taskbar overhaul, window snap, user account control, etc.”
Chris Zalegowsk, Director of IT at Deka Research, noted:
We have started testing Windows 7 in our current environment but we generally wait 1-2 years before releasing a new OS to production. We do this for a couple of reasons:
1. We run a lot of high-end engineering applications that will not be compatible with Windows 7 come the end of the year. 2. The general public is very good (and vocal) about identifying the flaws of the OS which will force Microsoft to address in their first service pack.
Starting the first of the year we will start obtaining Windows 7 licenses but will continue to install/use Windows XP until we are confident that the OS is ready for our environment.
Below is an additional selection of comments from the IT leaders, divided into the “yes” and “no” groups.
Yes
- “We will definitely be using Windows 7 by the end of 2010. With such a mobile workforce, we see a lot of value in the feature sets you get when you combine Windows 7 with Server 2008.” (Joshua Grossetti, IT Manager at Triumvirate Environmental)
- “Having completely skipped over Vista, we will slowly bring in Windows 7 in 2010, as mission critical applications are reconfigured to comply with the Win7 standard. You can only hold off for so long and eventually all apps will be made for Win 7. After that, the Cloud? That’s the one I’m worried about.” (Martin Szalay, Director of IT for FWE)
- “Actually, we’ve found 7 to be so reliable with great performance, we will begin in the of Fall 2009 and push as fast as our budgets will allow. Some of our IT staff is already using it productively (including me) and any new system purchase we plan to include the Win 7 OS as a standard item.” (Edward Beck, VP of IT at Line 6, Inc.)
- “Clearly, as newest hardware comes into the enterprise, Windows 7 will be required. Even now, newest hardware does not support earlier “ghost” methods for imaging new systems. All Microsoft-centric networks will need to get on board. I predict Windows 7 adoption will happen quite quickly.” (Donna Trivision, Director of IS at Ursuline College)
- “We are evaluating Windows 7 internally and are very pleased with the initial results. We skipped Vista, but it is looking like Windows 7 will be a viable platform for us going forward.” (Chuck Musciano, CIO at Martin Marietta Materials)
- “Even shops that have avoided Vista, like ours, will have to face the necessity to update.” (Mitchell Herbert, Director of IT at McCormick Barstow)
No
- “For most small to medium sized businesses, Windows 7 migration provides no significant strategic or competitive advantage, either immediately or in the near term. Resources are best applied elsewhere. ” (Jeff Relkin, Director of IT for Quadel)
- “We will likely reduce our Windows exposure any way possible, but not with the adoption of Apple’s OS. Hopefully the Chrome OS will be available by then.” (James Riner, CIO, R and R Images)
- “I used to wait until Service Pack 3 before deployment of new Microsoft operating systems. I need at least SP2 before I look at introducing Windows 7.” (Jay Rollins, VP of IT at Triliogy Health Services)
- “As it is, no one likes to be on the ‘bleeding edge’ when it comes to OS upgrades, but I think there will be more fear than usual due to the fiasco around the prior Windows release. I have never upgraded my offices in the first year though.” (Rick Treese, CTO at TheMarkets.com)
- “Microsoft has not provided a sufficient business case to justify the cost of migration and the associated application compatibility risks. In short, despite its amazing complexity and importance in computing, the OS is a commoditized function and Microsoft can therefore no longer dictate the upgrade path for capable IT departments.” (Mike Wagner, CIO at Stone & Youngberg)
- “With current budget scrutiny and the fact that our current XP deployment works fine, we will wait until after the first wave of adopters work out the initial kinks.” (Michael Woodford, Executive Director of IT at USANA Health Sciences)
- “Application support (for key business applications) is still not solid to move forward from XP.” (Jeff Focke, Director of IT at Electrical Distributors)
- “Microsoft is killing it’s business and open source is starting to look better and better.” (Dave Schartel, Director of IT at Home Health Care Management, Inc.)
- “No compelling business reason.” (Michael Hanken, VP of IT at Multiquip)
Interestingly, last month Silicon.com asked its CIO Jury of UK IT leaders if they planned to roll out Windows 7 in 2010 and only one said “yes” and eleven said “no.”
Would you like to be part of TechRepublic’s CIO Jury and have your say in the hottest issues for IT departments? If you are a CIO, CTO, IT director or equivalent at a large or small company in the private or public sector and you want to be part of TechRepublic’s CIO Jury pool, drop us a line at sanity@techrepublic.com.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
A massive success for Windows 7!
That's a 50% adoption rate in just over a year for W7 if this is representative. That's freakin' HUGE and beats anything released before!
:)
:-)
What massive Windows 7 success? The report? n/t
Yes, this is a great outlook for Win7
XP took 3 years to get 30% of the market and only achieved around 12% in year 1. If 50% of the market go to Win7 in year one, that would be a staggering win.
I say "foolishly" above because this was a pathetically small number of respondents (12) from a microscopically small audience (90).
I am guessing that Win7 will claim around 20-25% of the market in year 1. It'll be interesting to see what happens this next 12 months.
While I think that Win 7 will be widely accepted
1.) this is a recession. Companies are still going to be making their existing hardware and software last as long as possible.
2.) This is such a small sampling of CIO's which means the results mean nothing. If they sampled 2000 CIO's and the results came back 50/50 then there would be some credence. They sampled 90 people and only took in account the first 12 respondents. That means that only 6% of the respondents who were sampled said they would make the move within the 1st year. As de-Void said. XP did 12% year 1. This is probably a more realistic figure than 50%. Most companies and including mine will wait for SP1.
Hold on...
In my opinion those 78 gave their silent vote against Windows 7, so that makes an even loose with 84 vs. 6 that is 93% against, 7% for.
Or is ZDNet hidding the rest of the results to please redmond.
One needs to wonder.
My company can't wait to spend millions to upgrade to a new OS
have a nifty 30" monitor with touch capability. In todays
economic climate, we have so much money sitting around we
need something to spend it on, and a new version of
Windows and a $500 Office is just the thing.
Your company
Leave your sarcasm at the door tyvm. You aren't the market. You are a tiny, miniscule and ultimately insignificant part of it and the weight of your buying power is directly proportional to your size.
So Size counts does it?
Actually no.....
We work for big companies and although my work isn't involved with acquisition, I have noticed that all CTO's run their hardware & software for as long as possible. When Windows 2k rolled out, most large organizations hung out and watched for at least two years before upgrading from NT. Same thing with the desktop.... Windows98SE was on the desktop for a long time before XP was deemed stable enough for the upgrade. I'll bet there are still some 98 computers still going strong.
What's the point?
give me the pay raise they have been promising me for the
last couple of years, instead of spending it on this
awesome new OS that'll sit on top of my heavy, hot and
very unreliable Dell laptop. That sure was a spiffy machine
two years ago before the motherboard broke and it was
loaded down with all kinds of security software that
ensured all I could do with dual cores and 2 gigs of RAM is
browse the few web sites that are allowed through
Websense. I'll take one of those netbooks running XP next
time around and a 30" thin client for the desktop--it'll be
far cheaper and just as effective. IT rarely ever consults us
end users, so I doubt that'll happen.
Negative...
install it on your sick Dell with a dual boot and it will fire
up and run in 3 seconds flat. Your web apps and
browsing will run 10 times faster than your current IE
setup. And, no viruses...
ROFL :) I agree ... ChromeOS FTW - NOT!
I suggest that we all chip in and buy James a new bong because he's clearly over-using his current one!
Sell your stick in R & R - they're run by a nutter!
Chrome isn't the answer
Congradulations
/end sarcasm
Thanks.
I have only felt the need to boot over to 7 twice in the last month or so to get work done. That tells me there isn't a pressing need. I also don't want to manually move the 30 or so other software tools that I have installed on XP. If I have to depend on our IT group to do it, it'll take a month and I am sure some things won't work the way I want them to. Finally, I stopped using the company laptop to get work done. My machine of choice is my MacBook Pro running OS X and XP that I lug to work every day.
Fair enough
I've been using 7 for some time now and it has made me, personally, much more productive since I don't have to spend the extra 5-10 seconds here and there to do things that happen instantly in 7. 5-10 seconds at a time isn't alot, but you add that up to maybe 15-30 instances throughout the day, 240 or so days a year, and you are saving anywhere from 5-20 hours per employee, per year. Even at 5 hours per year improvement, assuming a $10/hour wage (costs to employer are higher due to wage+benefits+misc costs of keeping employees, so even at such a low wage, the real cost is probably closer to $15/hr to the employer), youve already recouped your costs for 7 within the FIRST year. That's for a $10/hour employee. What if that person is being paid $30/hr? Or $50/hr? You see what I'm getting at here.
Hence, all the talk of business saving money by skipping or waitin on 7 is absolutely bogus. I'm sure they'll wait till 2010 sometime since any good IT dept will do extensive testing of existing systems on the new platform before migrating the company. This is bound to take a few months at LEAST so, at earliest, businesses will begin to adopt 7 in Q1 of 2010. The larger and more complex the business, the longer this testing will take, so Q3 or Q4 of 2010 is an entirely logical and reasonable time-frame.
A more legitimate argument is that few businesses actually upgrade an OS on existing hardware. More then likely they will migrate to 7 with a hardware refresh. More then likely, many of these may have skipped a hardware refresh due to Vista's reputation and general economic woes. Hence there is a built up demand for hardware/software refreshes. With the economic climate the way it is, businesses will happily spend a few thousand dollars on productivity improvements instead of hiring new employees (this is why unemployment always is last to rebound in economic recovery). I expect to see huge revenue boosts to major hardware manufacturers which will get a ride with Windows 7 to a very large portion of the market. It is, in effect, almost a perfect storm of built-up demand scenario for Microsoft.
WHat this all means is that all the pundits and ABMers frothing at the mouth is actually meaningless. They did it for 2000. They did it for XP. They did it for Vista. And now theya re doing it for 7. Some people are afraid of change. Others have their own agenda to push and will use any excuse, no matter how thin or unrelated, to push their own agenda. Luckily, MOST businesses aren't swayed by the FUD perpetuated on forums such as these. Win 7 will get adopted in record numbers, more then likely out-stripping XP's adoption rates significantly. You can give yourself a heart-attack trying to convince people that 7 is not worth it, but in reality, its just not worth it to YOU. The market is huge and if Windows 7 pre-sale order numbers are any indication, the market is viewing 7 in a very positive way. You don't need to get on board this train, but its leaving the station with or without you and those that ARE on board really don't care if you get on or not. REALLY.
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
mostly true
The machines came with Vista SP2 and I asked him whether they were going to stay with Vista or maybe use Windows 7. His answer was they are not going to upgrade until all of our apps test on the new OS. That is the reality.
Testing will involve giving up a huge amount of hours. It's already stressful being a developer. I suspect it'll be done over time, as usual, but it'll be a lot more time than usual. We have a growing suite of custom apps that are tied in to everything and require specific .NET versions.
The developers--some are still using Visual Studio 2003 and Sql Server 2000--don't want to move for fear of breaking things, our designers don't want to move, our AutoCAD people don't want to move. A lot of those folks are still getting along fine with Windows 2000 boxes!
I suspect that's the case for a lot of organizations who have invested in custom apps.
It's hard enough moving from one .NET environment to the next if you've paid for expensive modules.
Moving an entire stack is really hard. It's fine if your people just use Microsoft Office, but even Office is getting a lot more connected through .NET and Sharepoint services.
I agree that a percentage of people will eventually get with the program, but a lot of businesses are running fragile software stacks at the moment and it'll take longer to test and unravel everything.
That same administrator mentioned that some of our servers were recently consolidated in big VMware ESX boxes and most of the non-developer machines will eventually be converted to sophisticated thin client systems. That'll make the choice of OS irrelevant on the front end and it'll also simply administration.
Aww come on gnesterenko!
Let us say for argument's sake that I would only use the ultimate version which is MRSP at $319.99 US.
Even an investment into a better, faster, coffee machine would result in more than a minute a day's productivity.
I would rather invest the money into better ergonomics or a 2nd or 5th monitor.
When you are talking time saving through technology are you considering the time it is going to take a worker to figure out HOW to use the new features? If it is anything like going for office 2k3 to 2k7 it is going to be much more than the savings..
Reg
Win 7 GUI tweaks ARE more productive
With XP and Vista I used to have to fiddle around with getting multiple windows into optimal positions just so I could get on with what I was doing with them all. Every session is different so I would spend that little bit of extra time each session.
With the Win 7 Window key shortcuts, it is just real quick to place a window in half the screen. No dragging window edges.
Plus the much, much, much better organisation of the settings dialogs makes configuring things a lot quicker. Under XP, I found that setting anything up used to involved making adjustments on two or more dialog on different menus or buried somewhere else. The number of times I struggled to find settings that I remembered changing but were in some obscure place.
Win 7 places common settings on easy to read dialogs, but also includes links to the dialogs with the deeper settings (mostly old familar ones).
Vista's sidebar, which was a resource guzzler, has reincarnated as a very efficiant gadget manager app, but without borders. Makes gadgets worthwhile.
Remote desktop works well with only a little delay with controlling a 30" system on another 30" monitor across a wireless G network connection.
My wife who has been using XP on a 10" laptop for three years had no trouble adapting to a Win 7 on a 30" monitor, even though everything looks different.
These may seem like small things, but there are SO MANY of them that they make it mch easier to manage Windows to get the real, paying work done.
Now, if the Win 7 policy management has been given the same makeover the GUI has, Win 7 will be far more enterprise manageable than XP. That will save money and time = $$$.