Lawrence Dignan
Upgrade now
or
Not so fast
Christopher Dawson
Best Argument: Not so fast
Audience Favored: Not so fast (69%)
The moderater has delivered his final verdict.
Opening Statements
Enterprise plays catch-up
Larry Dignan: There are still many enterprises stuck on Windows XP that have delayed desktop refreshes for a long time, using large numbers of end-of-life systems. In these cases, I think that rather than go to Windows 7 on their replacements, it makes sense for them to go with what is on the OEM preloads -- which will be Windows 8.And enterprises that have Windows 7 can easily assimilate new PCs with Windows 8 into their existing environments without a whole lot of fuss, since the new OS runs all of Windows 7's applications.
No reason to rush
Chris Dawson: When Windows 7 was launched, businesses that had inexplicably deployed Vista flocked to their nearest Microsoft VAR and upgraded. Vista was a sad little OS and it had to go.Windows 7 now has widespread enterprise adoption and has proven stable, reliable, relatively secure and generally well-liked by users. Which means that businesses have the luxury of time to hold off on Windows 8 upgrades.
Like Windows 7, Microsoft’s latest OS has met with positive initial reviews and early tests of the release candidate have gone well. But it doesn’t look like Windows 7 and few businesses have a compelling reason (like Windows Vista) to rush into the expense, challenges, and potential pitfalls of a hasty upgrade. Users deserve time for training and pilots and IT departments deserve time for testing and the inevitable first service pack before jumping in to an iconified, touch-centric, very new-feeling OS.
Talkback
Now this will be interesting...
Personally, I'm for a more hybrid approach, as Larry hints at the end of his opening statement. I think that some new Windows 8 machines could be added to a Windows 7 environment without many complications. This would especially be true for hybrid PCs for those in the field. Rather than pay for a $1000 daily-driver laptop, why not pay for a $1000 iCore hybrid PC with a dock? I don't know that I would go Atom in the enterprise (though Dell's Latitude tablet is compelling with its replaceable battery).
As for XP houses skipping Windows 7 for 8, I'm undecided. I could argue this, but I think you'd need to do extra prep work due to the new interface. Win 7 is less of a jump for sure, but there will still be moaning and complaining with that. Why not deal with all the problems at once? I could make the arguement either way, and really it depends on the organization and the competency of the people. If you are dealing with an organization where not many of the employees are tech-savvy, then no. Go with 7. But if the organization has more of a technical aptitude or is used to changing software, etc., then maybe go with 8.
This will be an interesting argument for sure.
Win 8 Hybrids can help.
customer service
Opps. Meant argument
Windows 8 or W8 ~ [Wait]
Worrying however to hear that HP has stated that they will not (always?) support downgrading PC's. I am sure customers will be looking for PC's that do support downgrading to Windows 7 and prefer those than support this over the Windows 8 only choices.
Not necessarily. I work for a university and we are movimg to Windows 8
And not all of us have finished
with you
Incompatiblities?
As for legacy software, besides a switch from 32 to 64 bits or switching from IE 9 to 10 I don't see where things would work in 7 and not in 8.
Unless you were referring to XP, but then the same issues would pop in both Windows 7 and 8.
Besides the missing start menu and the removal of Aero glass, nothing's different on the desktop sides of 7 and 8, Windows 8 being even a little faster.
8 is not just 7 with touch support
At first I thought it was great, but it's turned into a nightmare. What no one is mentioning is MS went absolutely crazy with security. Users who just do wordprocessing, spreadsheets, email, etc., won't know the difference. But power users who edit scripts, etc., quickly find out 8 keeps refusing edit/run permissions. Even running something as administrator isn't high enough.
Of course, like most power users, I may not use a script every few days. So I didn't notice at first.
Also, older machines that run 7 fine may not even install 8. 8 REQUIRES a processor that supports PAE and the NX/XD bit. My "built from spare parts" computer (2005-era mobo & socket 478 Celeraon) runs 7 but after the install spent 90 minutes copying files, etc., just as it was about to finish it gave me an error code indicating "processor not supported". Turns out the socket 478-series processors don't support the NX(AMD)/XD(Intel) bit.