- Jan 26, 2004
- 519
- 0
- 0
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9590_22-5947521.html
2008? Ouch. That's a 12-18 months after Vista is released.
How is this going to affect Microsoft's bottom line if companies adopt Vista as slowly (or more slowly than XP)? I'm not knowledgeable about the price differential between a 2k and XP license... maybe someone can help me out here.
I remember reading on CNET that almost 50% of corporate clients still run 2000. My office just migrated from 2k to XP a couple weeks ago :Q
Would companies hold off on Vista because they are afraid of bugs, or how the OS will interact with their current infrastructure?
<--- Concerned MSFT shareholder.
Companies shouldn't rush to upgrade to Microsoft Windows Vista, according to analysts at Gartner, who believe most could safely hold back until 2008.
The majority of improvements in Vista, the update scheduled to arrive in 2006, will be security-related and most of this functionality "is available via third-party products today," Gartner analysts said in a research note published on Friday.
While Vista will "offer incremental, evolutionary improvements" over its predecessors, Windows XP users should "pursue a strategy of managed diversity," the analysts recommended. That means they should only bring in Vista on new machines and that not until 2008.
2008? Ouch. That's a 12-18 months after Vista is released.
How is this going to affect Microsoft's bottom line if companies adopt Vista as slowly (or more slowly than XP)? I'm not knowledgeable about the price differential between a 2k and XP license... maybe someone can help me out here.
I remember reading on CNET that almost 50% of corporate clients still run 2000. My office just migrated from 2k to XP a couple weeks ago :Q
Would companies hold off on Vista because they are afraid of bugs, or how the OS will interact with their current infrastructure?
<--- Concerned MSFT shareholder.