Businesses stall on Windows 7 upgrade

Businesses stall on Windows 7 upgrade

Summary: Businesses making the switch from Microsoft's Windows XP to Windows 7 operating system has slowed this year, but the potential for upgrade looms


The enterprise upgrade to Windows 7 does not have much momentum so far in 2010, according to new data revealed by Microsoft.

At Microsoft's Worldwide Partner Conference 2010 in Washington, DC, on Monday, Microsoft Windows corporate vice president Tammi Reller said that 74 percent of business computers are still running Windows XP. She also said that the average age of the PC is now 4.4 years old, which is the highest number that Microsoft has seen in over a decade.

Naturally, Microsoft spins this as a huge opportunity for the company to make a lot of money by selling copies of Windows 7 to these slow upgraders. Chief executive Steve Ballmer predicted on Monday that Microsoft would sell 350 million copies of Windows 7 licences by the end of 2010.

For more on this story, see 74% of work PCs still run XP, and they're 4.4 years old on

Topics: Windows, Operating Systems

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


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Microsoft's predictions are meaningless, and are just aimed at hyping up Windows 7. Businesses and individuals are dragging their feet because of cost alone (they bought Windows XP/Vista, and now need to shell out more money to pay for Windows 7), plus the fact that going from Windows XP to Windows 7 is a migration, NOT an upgrade. Windows 7 can only be installed as a clean installation, not as an upgrade. This is forcing companies to look at alternatives that are more cost effective, like Linux.
    • Starts off not bad, last two words make it a death spiral of an argument.

      I don't know about Microsoft's predictions being meaningless. In any sense of logic thats a brutally hard argument to make any sense of. On the other hand, your point about companies dragging their feet on OS upgrading due to cots is about as logical and sensible as possible.

      We are finally seeing some articles describing why PC sales are actually down, and one might notice it has nothing much to do with any kind of post PC era where people are writing their newest novel on their smartphone or doing end of year business taxes on an iPad.

      And, because although apexwm's post started off well but ended on a point of ludicrous fallacy I must point out the problem.

      Simply because people in general do not want to lay out money for new hardware if they do not need it, and simply because people do not want to lay out money for a new OS if they do not need it, does not mean they will go looking for a free but ill suited peice of junk to replace XP if they do not need it. And I suggest nobody needs Linux.

      Lets take a poll and see.
  • Actually, I don't doubt MS's figures much - the rest is spin and can be ignored.

    But according to all the end users and vendors I've spoken to, the end-of-lifeing of XP and the aging nature of enterprises' desktop estate which lacks the functionality they require is forcing them to think seriously about implementing desktop virtualisation, where management of most users' desktop devices can brought into the centre. But you're right that migration not upgrade is what's required, so a big hardware refresh takes time - as does a move to desktop virtualisation, which is hugely complex.

    None of the end users I've spoken to mentioned Linux. Rather, they want to move away from hardware on the desk which adds complexity and cost, and they really don't want a whole new raft of applications to support: quite the reverse.
    Manek Dubash
  • I've never figured out why companies still go for the schemes of Microsoft. Can someone please tell me what is wrong with XP? How about Windows 2000? Office 97,2000,2003,2007? The short answer is nothing that isn't normally wrong with Microsoft software. The real reason there are all these versions of Microsoft software is so that Microsoft can make money. Truly, they are a leech on businesses. Look how much money IT departments (and individuals) have to spend on Microsoft software, and that's before we even get into software audits.

    I'm continually amazed that companies put up with the bull. If everyone refused to upgrade, we wouldn't have to upgrade - see what happened with Vista? XP was no longer going to be supported, but enough companies refused to upgrade that XP got supported a little longer.

    Microsoft is now the only major OS on the planet that isn't UNIX based, and they are also have the biggest security holes. Why is that? It's because Microsoft makes money, not software, and upgrades are vital to making money. They didn't design an OS from scratch, with security at the forefront like UNIX was...In fact, I would submit that they didn't design it at all, it was a sort of metamorphis from DOS to Win 3.1 (remember those good old days), to kludging in Windows 95 on top of DOS, then 98, then we finally hit NT, which 2000 and XP were based on. Security? What's that? Oh, we have a patch for that, and another patch and another patch.... Band aids on top of band aids.

    I really do feel for people that think this is just the way we do things, but I have to say that once you get out of this hellish box called Windows, it's like waking up from a bad dream and realizing that you've been hoodwinked all this time.

    What are the alternatives? Kubuntu, and 100's of other Linux distributions, Free BSD, and Apple to name a few. If you want to pay for support, go with Red Hat or Apple. You want an office suite? Use open Office, or Crossover office. Email client? Thunderbird is excellent and Firefox works well as a web brower, and they all run on multiple OSes - MAC, Windows, and Linux.

    I always tell folks who are interested in getting off Window to start using Open Office, Thunderbird, and Firefox on windows, and truly if you go to another OS, these applications are pretty much the same.