Report: One-third of businesses to begin Vista deployments by mid-2008

Report: One-third of businesses to begin Vista deployments by mid-2008

Summary: Forrester Research has issued a new study in which it predicts that at least one-third of enterprises will begin to deploy Windows Vista enterprise-wide by mid-2008. Microsoft is pulling out all the stops -- at least in terms of making corporate deployment tools available -- to get Vista into more business users' hands.

SHARE:

Forrester Research has issued a new study in which it predicts that at least one-third of enterprises will begin to deploy Windows Vista enterprise-wide by mid-2008.

Report: One-third of businesses to begin Vista deployments by mid-2008Driving Vista adoption will be an increase in applications certified as Vista-compatible and new PC form factors which are "ready to run Vista smoothly" and at "price points will make compatible machines more affordable than they are today," the Forrester researchers said in their "How Windows Vista Will Shake Up The State Of The Enterprise Operating System" report, released on November 12.

Forrester acknowledged that a number of businesses are waiting for Vista Service Pack (SP) 1 before starting their Vista deployment rollouts. But according to current schedule, Vista SP1 is set to roll out in the first calendar quarter of next year.

"The era of Windows Vista within enterprises has officially started, with a whimper," the Forrester researchers said. "But think of it as the snowflakes before the storm. Adoption of the newest Windows OS has been cautious at best in the first six to eight months since its initial release, hovering at just 2%, but dipping as low as 0% to 3% across different regions and company sizes."

Forrester's latest research -- based on a survey of 1,001 "hardware decision makers at North American and European enterprises -- concluded that by mid-2008, Windows Vista will be deployed across at least one-quarter of PCs. (Forrester's survey base consisted of 43% of respondents from large enterprises; 35% from "very large" enterprises an 22 percent from Global 2000 enterprises.)

Meanwhile, Microsoft is doing what it can to spur further business deployment of Vista.

When Microsoft rolled out Windows Vista a year ago, company officials were optimistic (but not overly so) about businesses' plans for deploying Vista. One of the main reasons the Redmondians were upbeat about Vista deployment in the enterprise was because of the number of deployment tools it had waiting in the wings.

This week, Microsoft began rolling out final and/or refreshed versions of a number of these corporate Vista deployment tools. Among them:

  • Microsoft Deployment. Microsoft Deployment replaces the company's set of Business Desktop Deployment (BDD) tools. Unlike BDD, the Deployment tool supports Windows Server deployments, not just client ones. Microsoft Consulting Services blogger Richard Smith says the current Microsoft Deployment release is just the first of three planned Microsoft Deployment rollouts between now and summer 2008. This release integrates with deployment features in Configuration Manager 2007. The next releases will add more support for WIndows Server 2008, Windows Vista Service Pack (SP) 1 and System Center Configuration Manager 2007 SP1 deployments.
  • Application Compatibility Toolkit (ACT) 5.0. In its final version, out now, ACT 5.0 adds support for .Net Framework 2.0 and helps users test and fix their line-of-business applications for Vista-compatibility. Microsoft rolled out a release-candidate test version of ACT 5.0 earlier this year.
  • Windows Vista Harware Assessment tool (Known both as WVHA and HAT) 2.1: A "Solution Accelerator" that allows customers and partners to decide which PCs they should upgrade to Vista and Office 2007. Beta registratino is open for the next release of this tool, which will be rnamed the "Microsoft Assessment and Planning Solution Accelerator," or MAP. The new releae will including "assessment and planning scenarios for server migration, server consolidation and virtualization with Windows Server 2008," the Softies say.
  • Microsoft User State Migration Tools 3.0: A remote migration tool that preserves one or multiple users' files and settings.

Each of these deployment tools has been downloaded about 300,000 times since they became available to customers in early 2007, according to Microsoft.

Microsoft also launched this week a new Springboard Series Web site with accompanying documentation and forums for businesses planning and migrating to Vista, with lots of how-to videos and FAQs.

What do you think of Forrester's prediction that one-third of businesses will begin deploying Vista by mid-2008? Too ambitious? Too conservative? On the money?

Topics: Microsoft, Operating Systems, Software, Windows

About

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for 30 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).

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

Talkback

79 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • This is expected

    Large scale migration of business to next release of Windows takes place after SP1. And the fanfare of MS bashers won't go far.
    pa2004
  • RE: Report: One-third of businesses to begin Vista deployments by mid-2008

    forgot the "d"

    Windows Vista Harware
    g_keramidas@...
  • Too optimistic

    .
    Nothing is certain about this. Everyone will make their own decisions for their own reasons. But, I think Forrester's prediction is too optimistic. One third of enterprises will [u]not[/u] begin wide-scale rollout of Vista by mid-2008, just 7 months from now.

    Why?

    ** Vista has been available to enterprises for about a year. A WHOLE YEAR!! They haven't rolled it out because there are serious problems. For a "wide-scale rollout" to occur, the serious problems must be resolved first.

    ** Vista SP1? This is not the only thing holding up a "wide-scale rollout". SP1 will only prod enterprises to take another look at Vista after the initial look and rejection. My prediction: Many will put Vista back on the shelf and wait longer.

    ** Hefty hardware requirements? Hefty hardware is getting cheaper by the day. So, this is not a "serious problem", but it is an issue that will continue to affect the rollout of Vista.

    ** Training on the new UI? That is not a "serious problem" either. However, it is an issue that will continue to affect the rollout of Vista.

    ** Cost vs. benefit: Enterprises will delay upgrading if the cost per seat is too high vs. the benefits gained. The [u]cost[/u] of hefty new computers and expensive application software upgrades is going to continue to delay, but not prevent, the rollout of Vista.

    ** Benefits? Enterprises are going to have to see some benefits before doing a "wide-scale rollout" of Vista. There are precious few benefits right now. This is not going to change over the next 7 months.

    ** The looming U.S. economic recession? The mortgage default mess? Dramatically rising fuel costs? Devaluation of the U.S. Dollar? All of these things will cause U.S. businesses to delay spending money on unnecessary things like Vista, the least necessary upgrade in Windows history.

    ** The "serious problem" with Vista is software in-compatibility. Lots of vendor application software, driver software, and most importantly for a "wide-scale rollout", internally developed software, is not compatible enough with Vista. Microsoft has shown great stupidity by CHOOSING to make Vista so incompatible with Windows-compatible software. Any Softie who wonders why Vista is not getting a better reception need only look in the mirror for the answer.



    To be sure, application software vendors and hardware makers (drivers) will eventually make their software fully compatible with Vista. Modifications to internally-developed software systems to make them compatible with Vista will continue to delay a "wide-scale rollout" of Vista. It's a low priority project that enterprises will allow to drag on for a while.

    The "wide-scale boycott" of Vista by enterprises will continue for the foreseeable future. Enterprises will continue making multi-year deals with Microsoft. Microsoft will continue dishonestly counting them as "Vista sales". But, enterprises will be exercising "downgrade rights" for years to come.

    That's the "TechExec Research" view. ;-)
    TechExec2
    • I think I'll go with Forrester's prediction.

      ** You don't know what you are talking about
      **
      ShadeTree
    • Nothing is ever certain

      We already have Vista running on our network as a test, and it has performed very well, despite the "serious problems" that you keep harping about. Some of our critical apps had to upgrade, which explains the adoption delay, but that has now happened, and we see no reason not to go with Vista on new installs.

      Now, to address some of your points:

      Hefty hardware requirements? I installed a very low end Dell with Vista Business, and it runs beautifully. Yes, you do need 2 GB minimum RAM, but with the price of RAM these days that's no big deal. Dual core processors and decent video are standard on even the low end now.

      Training on the new UI? Hasn't been an issue, even for users moving up from Win2K. The new UI is easy and intuitive. My users on Vista rave about it.

      Benefits? Much improved security. That, by itself, is enough.

      Software incompatibility? Minor, according to our testing. Some apps did require updates, but most run well, even older apps. In the enterprise, most apps run on big iron, not on the desktop.

      Wide scale boycott? In your dreams. Vista has already taken over 8% of the installed base, and is growing rapidly. These are not inflated Microsoft shipping numbers, but real computers on people's desks and in their homes. That number, by the way, is larger than all versions of MacOS and Linux combined.

      Tell me, "TechExec", do you ever feel like the world is passing you by?
      itpro_z
      • Your firm's [u]actions[/u] support my argument

        .
        [b][i]"...We already have Vista running on our network as a test, and it has performed very well, despite the "serious problems" that you keep harping about. Some of our critical apps had to upgrade, which explains the adoption delay, but that has now happened, and we see no reason not to go with Vista on new installs...."[/i][/b]

        Your firm's experience with Vista supports my argument, even though all of your doubletalk doesn't. After it has been available to enterprises like yours for a full year, your firm has [u]still[/u] not made a wide-scale rollout of Vista. You merely [i]"...see no reason not to go with Vista on new installs..."[/i].

        You say that [i]"...Some of our critical apps had to upgrade, which explains the adoption delay..."[/i] and this was enough to keep your Vista rollout [u]on hold for a full year[/u]. Then you claim the software compatibility issues have been [i]"...Minor, according to our testing..."[/i]. Doubletalk!

        Well, boy, are you rolling it out now or not? Or, is this just more talk from you? Until you actually do it, it is only talk. Your talk. Your... doubletalk.

        Vista is great! But... we haven't been able to roll it out yet! :^0 :^0 :^0

        I always find it hilarious to watch a "professional fanboy" try explain why his doubletalk doesn't match up with his actions. :^0



        The truth is that Microsoft pushed Vista out the door prematurely to avoid a Wall Street mutiny, all at customer's expense. Vista was released at least a year before the platform was ready (OS, drivers, and application support).
        TechExec2
        • Rollout

          Like most enterprise operations, we don't upgrade, we replace on a regular cycle. If by rollout, you mean will we upgrade all of our users to Vista, then the answer is no. We will, however, replace old machines with new ones running Vista. It would seem to me that a true "TechExec" would understand this.

          Our Vista adoption was not "on hold", but rather "on test" for a year, similar to what it was for XP, 2K, and 98. When you have large numbers of users to support, and critical operations, you don't make a move without extensive testing. Once again, a true "TechExec" would understand.

          Enterprise operations communicate with our critical application providers, and they gave us a timetable for Vista certification of their programs. Once that point was reached, we did our own testing to verify their results. Only then would we consider installing Vista on our desktops. Once again a true "TechExec" would understand.

          By the way, we are also in the same process with Linux, and may replace some of our desktops with Linux installs instead. We will, however, test it thoroughly before proceeding. I guess that by your standards, Linux is also a "spectacular failure" since it has been out far longer than Vista, and we still haven't adopted it yet, either.
          itpro_z
          • More doubletalk

            .
            [b][i]"...Like most enterprise operations, we don't upgrade, we replace on a regular cycle. If by rollout, you mean will we upgrade all of our users to Vista, then the answer is no. We will, however, replace old machines with new ones running Vista..."[/i][/b]

            How could you possibly think I was referring to upgrading all existing desktop computers to Vista? Looks like someone who lost an argument (multiple times) going way out of his way to manufacture an insult to me.

            You "will replace", or you "are replacing now"? Sounds like more doubletalk from you. More "...we see no reason not to..." without saying that you really aren't doing it yet. More "professional fanboy" nonsense.



            [b][i]"...Our Vista adoption was not "on hold", but rather "on test" for a year.."[/i][/b]

            Play semantics all you want. Vista, drivers, and applications were at least a year away from being ready when Vista went RTM. Vista is not being widely rolled out by enterprises even a year later.
            TechExec2
          • Even more doubletalk

            "Will replace" or "are replacing now" is just doubletalk on your part. As I said, we replace systems on a cycle. As machines are due for replacement, they get replaced, not before unless we have a failure. We do not replace perfectly good machines just for the fun of it. We work within our budgets, plan projects months or even years in advance, and proceed at our own pace. Right now, we are where we expected to be with Vista, beginning our conversion. When the next OS hits in 2009 or 2010, we might be half way through. Then, the process will start all over again, and you will be complaining about what a failure it is.
            itpro_z
      • The World Has Already Passed Him Up

        He normally hangs out on Techrepublic.com and hounds me because I defend Microsoft, Windows, Vista, etc.

        Actually, I don't defend anyone. I am OS agnostic with a preference towards Windows. My PC is a triple boot with XP, Vista and Ubuntu.

        I use the right tool for the job.

        But TechExec is the opposite. He hates Microsoft and will slam them every chance he gets.
        rkuhn040172@...
        • Another Microsoft fanboy who has not rolled out Vista

          .
          [u]You[/u] haven't rolled out Vista either! :^0

          Your actions vis-a-vis Vista are just as inconsistent with your doubletalk as "itpro_z". When are [u]you[/u] going to roll out Vista, boy? :^0 If Vista is so great and so ready for the enterprise, then why are you "triple booting"? Doubletalk! Nonsense!

          Furthermore, you can't even make a consistent point in a single post! You say [i]"...He ... hounds me because I defend Microsoft, Windows, Vista, etc..."[/i] then [i]"...I don't defend anyone. I am OS agnostic with a preference towards Windows..."[/i] You cannot defend but not defend. You cannot be agnostic but have a preference. Your nonsense and doubletalk make my head spin. :^0

          BTW: I don't hound you. I mostly ignore you. Don't make me list all of the many provocative troll replies you have made to posts I made to others.
          TechExec2
          • Fence sitters and stump jumpers

            Haven't you learned yet that you can't push
            them fence sitters off the fence and keep
            them from jumping all the stumps Microsoft
            throws at them?

            They like to sit on the fence so they can
            look both ways, and if they ever fall to one
            side, they quickly jump on a Microsoft stump
            and right back up on the fence.
            Ole Man
          • You're an Idiot

            Your name here is TechExec but apparently you aren't an executive of any kind.

            There is alot more in a decision such as upgrade or not upgrade than purely technical merits.

            Things called budgets, asset lifecycle, etc.

            I happen to work in the home construction industry and if you haven't noticed, times ain't good.

            We will upgrade when a number of factors come together.

            1) Budgets loosen up
            2) When our ERP software is compatible
            3) As we replace aging equipment
            4) After testing is complete

            To just name a few.

            Anyways, contrary to your incessant bitching, we will upgrade probably in the time table of this article.

            Come back to me in 10 years and let's see who's still king of the hill. Linux or Windows. I know where I'm wagering my money.
            rkuhn040172@...
          • [i]"...We will upgrade ... when our ERP software is compatible..."[/i]

            .
            Outstanding! Your firm is a PERFECT example that illustrates the "serious problems" with Vista that I cited. Your firm CANNOT upgrade because your key applications are STILL not compatible with Vista even a year after Vista RTM.

            I said:

            [i]"...The "serious problem" with Vista is software in-compatibility. Lots of vendor application software, driver software, and most importantly for a "wide-scale rollout", internally developed software, is not compatible enough with Vista. Microsoft has shown great stupidity by CHOOSING to make Vista so incompatible with Windows-compatible software. Any Softie who wonders why Vista is not getting a better reception need only look in the mirror for the answer..."[/i]

            And also something else I said that applies directly to your firm:

            [i]"...The looming U.S. economic recession? The mortgage default mess? Dramatically rising fuel costs? Devaluation of the U.S. Dollar? All of these things will cause U.S. businesses to delay spending money on unnecessary things like Vista, the least necessary upgrade in Windows history..."[/i]

            Furthermore, I seriously doubt that you will have done a wide-scale rollout of Vista even a year from now, fully 24 months after Vista RTM.

            All of your fanboy bravado about Microsoft and Vista has just been exposed to be the hot air that it is. Even being called an "idiot" by you strengthens the credibility of my argument.

            Vista is [u]still[/u] not ready for the enterprise. It's simply the truth. All of you professional Microsoft fanboys would do well to stop arguing with people who dare say so.
            TechExec2
  • BDD, ACT, WVHA = Bloatfarm Failure

    Who is there who can continue to assert that Vista is not the most recent glaring failure from the Bloatfarm?

    It has been in the wild for more than a year and only now are companies thinking of switching?

    Once again, the fruits of incompetent management are transparently obvious.

    How can Ballmer et al. collect their paychecks with a straight face especially with all the hyperdishonesty of the last year: "The Wow is Now.

    What is now is what was past: failure of management to deliver on promises.
    Jeremy W
    • Comments.

      Three comments.

      1. Did you think, or expect, that companies should immediately replace a desktop OS when it is superceeded by a new version? By the same token, would you expect companies with fleets of vehicles to replace them immediately that new model is available?

      The truth is, PCs are assets to these companies, and they work them through a product lifecyle. No one replaces in-life assets for no reason other than a newer version/model is available.


      2. For all the failure you think Vista is, in the last year it has achieved a higher installed base on the desktop than Mac and Linux combined. Does that make those OS's a failure too?
      I refer to this data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems

      3. When Ballmer et al. cash their paychecks, they are probably reflecting on how much money Microsoft makes, and that profits are UP. Straight faced? I think he's probably grinning ear to ear.
      TheTruthisOutThere@...
    • Your failure to understand new OS rollouts = bloat post.

      Vista is following the same pattern of uptake of XP. And given XP's marketshare, I would have to say that's not a bad thing. Of course businesses are slow to rollout a new OS. Any OS. But the signs they are going to are plentiful, aside from this report which simply verifies it.<br>
      Large numbers of Office 2007 purchases. Large number of tool downloads. And an OS that is coming together with it's 3rd party vendors who really are the main reason this OS didn't fly out of the gate. <br>
      Sorry to give you such bad news but Vista is at almost 9% while XP has dipped almost 9%. It's an even trade for marketshare and shows there have been little to nobody switching to a new OS except new buyers as the market expands. <br>
      Record profits and sales in the last fiscal year show that Microsoft is as relevant as ever and it's only a matter of time before vista is on most desktop machines in the world. <br>
      xuniL_z
    • Read their bank account, they have delivered.

      And if you don't understand that then there is no hope for you.
      No_Ax_to_Grind
      • But they have not deleivered for their owners

        Their stock has performed poorly for years and they have not regularly issued fat dividends, based on those fat profits, to stockholders.
        j.m.galvin
        • What?

          According to Google Finance:

          http://finance.google.com/finance?q=MSFT

          MSFT closed yesterday at $34.46. One year ago it was $29.12.

          That's a 18% return year to year. Not bad in my books.

          The year before that was a 6.3% return.

          Not to mention the 2 for 1 stock split in March 1999 and again a 2 for 1 in Feb 2003. There have been a total of 9 stock splits in its history.

          Stock in Microsoft has risen more than 100-fold over the past 20 years and 30% in the last 5 years.

          Sure, their numbers have dropped significantly recently from historically astronomical feats of greatest, but it is also harder to grow when you're worth $300 billion.

          Add all that to the fact that an investment in Microsoft is substantially safer than most other technology stocks. Investing in Microsoft is like investing in GE or IBM or Exxon.
          rkuhn040172@...