ie8 fix

Gartner: IT shops moving to Windows 7 need a 20 to 60 percent PC budget increase

By | August 26, 2010, 1:35pm PDT

Summary: The analysts at Gartner Inc. are warning that business migrations from Windows XP and Windows 2000 to Windows 7 in the next couple of years could create budgetary and resource burdens on IT shops.

The analysts at Gartner Inc. are warning that business migrations from Windows XP and Windows 2000 to Windows 7 in the next couple of years could create budgetary and resource burdens on IT shops.

From 2011 to 2012, “(d)emand for highly qualified Windows 7 migration IT personnel will exceed supply, leading to higher service rates,” Gartner representatives said in an August 26 press release.

With most IT shops not really starting their Windows 7 migrations until the fourth quarter of 2010 at the earliest — and with PC hardware replacement cycles running typically at every four to five years — “most organizations will not be able to migrate to Windows 7 through usual planned hardware refresh before support for Windows XP ends” in 2014, Gartner is claiming.

As a result, IT shops need to accelerate their migration plans, Gartner analysts said. And that could prove to be pricey.

“Based on an accelerated upgrade, we expect that the proportion of the budget spent on PCs will need to increase between 20 percent as a best-case scenario and 60 percent at worst in 2011 and 2012,”  Steve Kleynhans, Gartner Research Vice President, is quoted as saying. Assuming that PCs account for 15 percent of a typical IT budget, this means that this percentage will increase to 18 percent (best case) and 24 percent (worst case) which could have a profound effect on IT spending and on funding for associated projects during both those years.”

For organizations that decide to replace all their PCs with Windows 7 ones, Gartner is estimating that for a 10,000-PC enterprise shop, the migration cost per PC will be between $1,205 and $1,999, depending on how well-managed the environment is. For a 10,000-PC shop where existing PCs are upgraded to run Windows 7, the migration cost per PC will be between $1,274 and $2,069, depending on how well-managed the PC environment is, according to Gartner.

Gartner has more Windows 7 migration data in its $195 report entitled ““Prepare for Your Windows 7 Migration Crunch.”

I asked Microsoft officials whether they agreed with these estimates and was told the company had no comment.

Do these estimated migration costs sound right? Should they be balanced against cost savings around security/patching, etc.? And are migrations from XP and Windows 2000 really going to take four-plus years if they aren’t expedited, in your view?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

100
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Gartner: IT shops moving to Windows 7 need a 20 to 60 percent PC budget
fulllizle 29th Mar
MicroSoft needs you to upgrade. They don't make money by providing a better operating system, they make money by forcing http://www.filmizletiriz.com you to buy their new version. I'm an IT pro and MS is my retirement plan.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't see it.
itpro_z 26th Aug 2010
We still have a few Win2K machines in service, although only a handful. I have never understood the need to replace every machine at once just so that every user is on the same platform. Instead, we replace our systems on a regular cycle of about every 4 years. About half of our users are therefore still on XP, but the number is decreasing daily as we roll out this years new systems. In two years, XP will be like 2K is today, only running on a few niche machines.

Just curious, buy who cares about support coming to an end?
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Who cares about support ending?
Mary Jo Foley 26th Aug 2010
Hi. I would guess folks who want security patches might care about the final end of support date.... MJ
0 Votes
+ -
Security patches
itpro_z 26th Aug 2010
@Mary Jo Foley

Mary Jo, security patches are important for front line machines, not so much for niche machines. I still have one Win98SE machine running in our HR dept. All it does is run a training app that they have not upgraded. It does not go on the internet, nor does it have access to any of our servers. Support ended for Win98 many years ago, yet I have no qualms about it still running in a very limited role.

Likewise, our Win2K machines are also used in a limited capacity. In another two years (2012) we will be in the same position with XP, and by 2014 XP will be all but gone. Even the most die hard holdouts will surely have moved on by then, as old hardware does not last forever.
0 Votes
+ -
So.. One down, 9,999 to go???
i8thecat 30th Aug 2010
@itpro_z

Way to go itpro_z.. You made the case for 1 out of 10,000... You go girl!!!!

I think we are talking about 10,000 "end user" PCs... That need internet, MS Office, a few other programs, oh and yes, almost forgot... SECURITY!!!!

Really??? You make the case for a non-network kiosk??? Cus all sorts of companies run 10,000 kiosks??? In thier HR department??? And we all know that none of them need to be upgraded... Sheesh.. What a tool...
@itpro_z Umm, companies who can't afford a expensive operating system.
@Zc456 time everyone will have to upgrade every 4 years at the least IT will become more expensive than ever. I think they are just trying to put small business out of business.
@itpro_z

The real thing driving this migration is the new security features in Windows 7. With that AND the latest version of Symantec (widely used in corporate arenas) antivirus software?

Your machines are pretty much bulletproof! Add NIS to that to replace Norton Antivirus? Tank-quality armor!
0 Votes
+ -
I agree, to some extent
itpro_z 27th Aug 2010
@Lerianis10

Yes, Windows 7 (and Vista, for that matter) is a huge improvement over XP, not only in security but also in stability and usability. I will withhold my opinion on the new Symantec av, as I have just started testing it and have found a few issues.

Every operation is different, but out budget was flat this year, so we will not be buying as many new machines as we had hoped. The result: Some of our XP systems will need to last a bit longer. Yes, XP is old and tired, but we do know how to support it and can certainly keep it running for awhile longer. My comment above is directed at the belief that everyone should be running the same OS, so every computer needs to be upgraded at the same time. I much prefer to spread out the upgrades, both from a cost and a workload point of view.
@Lerianis10 nt
@Lerianis10 smaller netbook screens. Additionally, users will be able to british urban from it kids is from playing saint only goverment to need online always today from finance and lot of money share
0 Votes
+ -
Gartner is Full of $#!^
GoodThings2Life 26th Aug 2010
I'm sorry, but Gartner is full of it on this one unless they're ONLY considering IT departments that have been XP exclusively for the past 5 years and haven't bought new systems. But for most people, system replacements are inevitable and upgrades desirable for most IT shops.

I'm in the middle of Windows 7 roll-outs right now. All of my mobile users are officially on Windows 7, and my desktop deployments are about 1/4 in progress. For the ones that need replacing, we're going straight to Win7 through OEM licensing, and for the existing XP/Vista licensed systems, we're volume licensing our way to Win7, which really isn't any more expensive than previous versions.

I don't understand why every week there is claimed doom and gloom on the IT side of business deployments. IT departments that want to remain relevant will be upgrading. Those who don't, don't care either way, so no doom or gloom needed.
0 Votes
+ -
Well
Cylon Centurion 26th Aug 2010
@GoodThings2Life

You know how IT departments like to get shafted by management. They want the business, but are afraid to spend money. Lol!
0 Votes
+ -
Apparently Gartner has not seen the memo
fatman65535 27th Aug 2010
@NStalnecker

The one that we must cut the budget even further; we must do more with less; because executive management^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdamagement must deliver stronger results to stockholders, let alone increase their bonus. WE still have to keep the business running; or else they will outsource us.
@NStalnecker There are those shops that do not have people in house that can do the upgrades. I have seen these shops and there are a lot of them.
As the story stated these shops rely on outside help to do things like rol out new OSs. It's the shortage of these outside help that is driving up the cost. For shops who have personel that can do the job themselves the cost does not exist.
Other people who are having problems moving to Windows 7 are those places that have a lot of in-house applications and will have to test them all on Windows 7 and if there are problems update the applications to work with Windows 7.
These places are like our company. We make our own engineering and scientific applications. To move to a new OS we have to test and be sure that the applications work and give the rigth answers on the new OS. But we had the same cost for Windows XP and going to Windows 7 will be no different. (Skipped Vista, so we saved there.)
@sysop-dr
"For shops who have personel that can do the job themselves the cost does not exist."
There is ALWAYS a cost. The cost of those peoples' time when they could be doing somthing else. It is called Opportunity Cost.

The costs cited in the article probably cover all the management and logistics costs associated with the cutover.

However, I do not know whether they include the amortised cost of regression testing and remediation of existing apps.
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
Wolfie2K3 Updated - 31st Aug 2010
@GoodThings2Life

Spot on. We've been doing Vista x64 rollouts since 2008,with a few Virtual/Physical XP left for old 16 bit apps (bought in 2008 - SIGH) and niche software like Integraph (those companie are now only just realizing x64 is going away and there is a new thingie called Windows 7). All laptops are being upgraded to Windows 7, and all new/reimaged machines are being deployed with Windows 7. All x64 bit. All done inhouse over a period of two months by a young new hire. Using MDT. Hello, reality check? Is the corporate world in really such a bad state of attracting some intelligent, capable and eager IT personel who can get the job done? I don't think so. Its' more likely office politics are wasting money and the industry as whole who ha a bit of a quality crisis. Application compatibility? Test, demand that they are written properly. A well written app that worked on Windows 2007 works on Windows 7. There is a lot of crappy software out there try not to buy them and no need to let the in house devs write some more. CIO is doing that anyway? Why do you have a CIO that's burdening the company with an ever increasing technology debt? Get quality people with skills and a vision so they can do quality stuff. You'll notice that it's not that bad.
This doesn't make sense.

Win7 runs better on XP hardware than XP does. Lower end machines can easily run Win7. The standard desktop for an enterprise, which is a pretty basic system, is still going to be in the same pricing sweet spot as usual, but will be more powerful than whatever was purchased in the last upgrade cycle. The cost of the OS + hardware should be right in line with normal replacement costs.

The cost of upgrade is going to be on the application side, as companies have been sticking with older versions of products as long as they run well on XP and get regular patches. Why upgrade if it works and there's no new OS pressure? This leaves a lot of organizations (mine included) having to make big jumps in application versions, or even finding new applications, to move from XP to in7. New licenses, testing to ensure it works, training on new systems, etc. A lot of these systems require beefier backends which also have expensive upgrades.

That time & cost hit is big. Companies still reeling from the recession *want* to upgrade but don't have the fiscal reserves to commit. They'll do incremental roll outs and try to spread the costs out over months. So, yeah, I do see upgrades costing more and taking more time, but not specifically because its Win7. It would happen with any new OS after a long lull and a financial tsunami.
0 Votes
+ -
Ummmm, no.
jasonp@... 26th Aug 2010
A company I've been working for has upgraded 8 machines from XP to Windows 7. Five of the eight lock up 8-10 times per day. We've been able to determine that the problem lies somewhere within Outlook as running Outlook in safe mode or disabling all COM addins seems to correct the problem. None of these machines had any problem with XP. It took around 30 man hours of tinkering to narrow the problem down to Outlook. These are all stock Dell workstations. Given this, I can honestly say that no, Windows 7 does not run better on XP hardware than XP does. If it did, we wouldn't have had problems with more than half of the machines we've upgraded.
0 Votes
+ -
Ummmmm, no, no
chieftom 26th Aug 2010
@jasonp@... Jason, you are still treating the symptom. My site has transitioned 20,000 systems from XP to win 7 and are running outlook and we have not had any problems with machines locking up.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
How is an Outlook problem
Cylon Centurion 27th Aug 2010
the hardware's fault?
@jasonp@...

So how do you explain the probably millions of computers that run Windows 7 with Outlook and tons of other software installed without an issue every day. Based on a sampling of your 5 having issues that makes it a Windows 7/Outlook Issue. Get Real.
  • Flagged
@jasonp@... Upgraded 8 machines from XP to 7?

Hmm..you can't upgrade them, you have to go XP > Vista > 7.

Someone failed the Windows 7 exam.

I have three machines, two were running XP and one Vista, did clean installs on the XP machines and they run 7 just fine.

I call operator error.
  • Flagged
@jasonp@...

Actually I know exactly what it is that you are talking about and I believe the reason others don't understand is possibly because you're not being specific with the issue which isn't required technically.

The issue is when trying to run Office 2003 in Windows 7 x86 or x64 there is an issue with add-in function causing crashing issues but this isn't limited to Outlook. We had the same issue where I am at and the solution until a MS upgrade patch is released if ever is to change some registry keys.

If you go to...
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Office\
You will see Access, Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, Word and possibly some others. You will need to go into each group then Addins then the key is BtOfficeIntegration.1 when selecting that you will notice "LoadBehavior" is set to dword 00000003 which needs to be set to 00000000 or better yet edit the key from 3 to 0. This will tell Office addin "btint" not to load on start. Once these changes were made all crashes stopped. This does NOT limit functionality but for some reason causes crashing in Office applications.

In conclusion this has NOTHING to do with hardware. This has to do with the way Office 2003 was built around Windows XP and not Vista or 7. I would have to say the best way to quickly resolve this is manually apply the fix to one machine and then export the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Office\
sub structure and apply the .reg on the other machines after install and before first run.

FYI this only pertains to Windows 7 and Office 2003, not 2007 or 2010.
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks, @audidiablo
LTV10 Updated - 27th Aug 2010
Finally some constructive feedback in the midst of all this stupid windoze fanbui babble.
@cyberslammer@... As I said, the company has done the upgrades...not me. However they did it, they had Windows XP machines and now they have Windows 7 machines. This problem does seem to be pretty widespread as there are several reports of it on various message boards, including Microsoft support boards. It was on these boards where I ran across the idea that it may be Outlook causing the problem and specifically Outlook Add-In's. I'm a software developer and don't generally get involved in issues like this, but the problem escalated to the point where I was brought in to provide a new set of eyes. The first thing I did was have one of the users run Outlook in safe mode for a day, and they didn't have any lock-ups that day. At this point we've got users running with all COM add-in's disabled and we've been enabling one each day until we start having seeing the problem again. From a quick look at the installed COM add-in's, my guess is we're going to find the problem is related to either a PDF add-in or an anti-virus add-in.
0 Votes
+ -
Not exactly true...
Wolfie2K3 27th Aug 2010
@cyberslammer
You CAN upgrade from XP to 7 - the installer WILL run under XP - however, you will wind up having to do a clean installation of 7. So, while your apps and data aren't preserved, you DO get a clean install - which is generally considered better.
0 Votes
+ -
XP is here to stay for a longer term
xp-client 27th Aug 2010
I feel Gartner and other analysts are underestimating the staying power of XP. Even by 2014, XP won't ever go as low as Windows 2000 is today. MS better add the features they removed in Vista and 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_7 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_Vista) back in Windows 8 or else XP will remain dominant over that OS too. A minority of MS fanboys will keep migrating from Vista to 7 to 8.
@anonymuos

Ah another poster that can cite wikipedia. How cute. Most of those changes are trivial and do not affect the usability of the OS. Some of them are changed for the better and some of them I do not think are even true at all. Like the bit about not being able to adjust the burn speed in Windows Media Player. There is an option to change the speed under tools...options..burn tab.. and burn speed from fastest to medium to slow.

A majority of Anti-MS Trolls will make up crap or cite other websites without verifying the facts.
0 Votes
+ -
And ditto...
jasonp@... 31st Aug 2010
for the NBMers. They'll gladly spout clear FUD about anything that didn't come out of Redmond and denigrate anyone who dares point out weaknesses in Microsoft software. Pro-MS Trolls are no better than Anti-MS Trolls.
@anonymuos

I agree with you that XP will hang on longer than expected but it certainly will NOT be a dominant OS.

XP is a walking dead man...it is HIS-TO-RY...and every IT person knows it.

If you use client applications installed on the PC which get upgraded periodically, then then you have no choice but to ditch XP as those client applications require it.

And if you care about security updates to the OS, then you have no choice.
@spunkybart
"XP is a walking dead man...it is HIS-TO-RY..."
I beg to differ...
0 Votes
+ -
You got a point to make...?
Wolfie2K3 27th Aug 2010
@Zc456
If you're going to 'beg to differ' then please, share that different opinion...
0 Votes
+ -
@spunkybart

It's still holding on, and it won't disappear too quickly. It was the high-tide mark in useability, and people will be using it as the benchmark for years to come. I can imagine programs supporting it until 2016, easily.
0 Votes
+ -
Impossible
Cylon Centurion 27th Aug 2010
@anonymuos

As you upgrade the hardware, it will be impossible to continue using XP, simple as that. 2014 is a long way off, and a lot of users could find themselves with new hardware by then. Count on that hardware running a modern OS.
0 Votes
+ -
@anonymuos
I take it you didn't get the memo - the one about Windows 7 adoption already overtaking Vista and is set to overtake XP in about a year. A "minority" indeed.

As far as that list of stuff removed - Oy... Such a deal breaker... NOT!

Ya know, it's funny. People complain that Windows is bloated. So when Microsoft goes in and trims some of the fat from their OS, people start whining and moaning and gnashing teeth about stuff missing.

I hate to break it to ya, but none of those items on that list are real deal breakers. NONE of them. Nor can you have features without having code to produce those effects.
0 Votes
+ -
assumptions of importance...
shryko 31st Aug 2010
@anonymuos

most of the people I know who like XP? Like it because it doesn't do as much, and they know it already.

...You may note the lack of "features that XP offers that were removed in newer versions" on that list. That is not a mistake, it is intentional. The die-hard users may keep XP because they can tweak it to their will, or because gaming is still slightly more pleasant under XP, but 7, and hopefully 8, will continue to offer gamers a better experience than Vista did (Vista + gaming is not really pleasant, as a gamer whose main system runs Vista...)

XP is already fading, thanks to OS X, Win 7, and Linux all offering functional, useable, and friendly interfaces... And the momentum appears to be that XP will fade mostly into Win 7/8, as people buy new computers which come preloaded with Windows 7 (and when released, 8)
0 Votes
+ -
What about Win7 "ready" PCs?
Roger Ramjet 27th Aug 2010
I am writing this note using a brand new Dell laptop - running XP. It was downgraded in order to have the current company load. Here's the question - how many PCs in the last few years have been purchased with Riska/Win7 preinstalled - and then downgraded to XP? I would guess "MOST of them".

If the above is true, then upgrading to Win7 is just an install away. And that can be handled easily by existing personnel.
@Roger Ramjet

Sure if your IT department wants to install everyone by hand. There is a big difference between the OEM Windows that comes with the computer and Volume Licensed Windows. Most large organizations volume license Windows and other software to make management a bit easier. 1 key to manage, ability to image computers, etc..

Also seeing as Win7 came out in October there has only been 10 months of computers purchased with Win7 pre-installed and maybe a bit more that were eligible for a free upgrade purchased a couple months sooner. So while many may have been downgraded to XP to meet the requirements of the organization that was also most likely done using the organizations volume license of Windows and not on the OEM level. You need to stop thinking on a individual computer or consumer level. How 1 person upgrades to Windows 7 on the 1 or few computers they personally own is much different how an organization does it to thousands.
@bobiroc: ...was downgraded to Windows XP (because that's the current company standard) then upgrading to Windows 7 in the future shouldn't be a problem once the company moves to Windows 7.
0 Votes
+ -
XP = Win7
Roger Ramjet 27th Aug 2010
@bobiroc

Win7 has the same hardware requirements that Vista had. Therefore there has been a few years worth of corporate PC purchases that are capable of running Win7.

I am aware of how large companies upgrade their computers. The process you described is exactly the same process for both XP and Win7 - so why does Gartner say they need 20% more people/money? I'm just not seeing it.
@Roger Ramjet

Well then I misunderstood your post. When you said "last few years have been purchased with Riska/Win7 preinstalled - and then downgraded to XP? I would guess "MOST of them"." I wasn't sure what you meant by Riska but I see now that it was a poor attempt on humor making fun of Vista.

Maybe Gartner's numbers are off but I know with our Windows 7 deployment it took a little time to make the Windows 7 Images and do a bit of testing with new policies and settings and then to deploy all those images and we have not fully rolled out Win7 yet but we have done a few hundred of the computers I manage. Also you could image OEM Windows XP using client management suites like Ghost/Altiris or even the deployment built into some versions of Windows Server. With Windows 7 that is not really the case (at least I cannot find any information on how to do it effectively) so some organizations may have been like mine and purchased the computers with Vista/Win7 OEM downgraded to XP OEM and then used just OEM XP and now find themselves purchasing volume licenses for Windows 7. We offset some of this cost by working with Dell and purchasing the machines with the lowest version of Win7 on them which in most cases was Home Edition but some allowed for Basic since we did not need to use the OEM Windows anymore.
0 Votes
+ -
Numbers At Crunch Time
DannyO_0x98 27th Aug 2010
@bobiroc
Good points about so much of the hardware generally being ready. But, in a discussion about professional topics, we should be using metrics. What is the mix of new computers to old computers in the companies that Gartner is talking to? IT pros making the transition today who are saying Gartner is overestimating (I think that is very likely as that message drives customers to their product), what are you spending per machine to transition?
0 Votes
+ -
@bobiroc You do know that Volume License Windows 7 is actually an upgrade license, which means you need to have a qualifying Windows license installed to use it. This means you cannot use Windows Home Edition, or Home Premium or Home Basic editions or Vista or Windows 7 as qualifying products.

In order to use the Windows 7 Volume License Upgrade (Enterprise or Professional), the machine must be installed with either Windows XP Professional OEM or FPP, Windows Vista Business OEM or FPP, Windows 7 Professional OEM or FPP. If you are using Windows 7 Home Basic as qualifying products you are out of compliance. Volume Licenses are not transferable either.

The purpose of the Volume License upgrade is to simplify upgrades and mass roll out of Windows.
@Mr. Dee

You know I asked the same question Mr. Dee when I had Dell and Microsoft on the phone about purchasing our Volume licenses and they said it was not a problem. In fact I have that in an email as well so if I am out of compliance then I was given incorrect information from Dell and Microsoft because I asked what version of Windows do we need to get on the computer to be eligible for the enterprise. Their response was, and I quote "It just needs any version of Windows XP or Vista preinstalled" and they sent me a link to download both the full install ISOs and upgrade ISOs to make installation media.

But thanks for the info and I will keep that in mind for future purchases. Better safe than sorry.
@bobiroc Sound like they were more desperate to get the contract at any cost.
@Roger Ramjet The last few years?!? Windows 7 has only been out since last fall....
@cyberslammer

I think you missed the part (like I did) when he called Vista Riska. Funny ain't it?
@bobiroc

I think it was great. From now on, I think I'll start calling it that myself.

grin
MicroSoft needs you to upgrade. They don't make money by providing a better operating system, they make money by forcing http://www.filmizletiriz.com you to buy their new version. I'm an IT pro and MS is my retirement plan.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix