Some Enterprises Will Delay New PCs for Vista
|
Enterprises already planning new PC deployments, as part of regular cyclical upgrades, are likely to delay them for 12 months or more because of Windows Vista. |
The finding is one of several from an In-Stat report issued on May 23. In-Stat wouldn't provide a copy of the report, but its author, senior analyst Ian Lao, spoke with Microsoft Watch this afternoon.
While Lao didn't provide specific data, he identified trends. For example, In-Stat surveyed businesses which natural, planned upgrade cycle would fall between late 2006 to early 2007 to see how Vista's release would affect plans.
"Corporations were likely to delay the upgrade cycle a year or more," Lao said of In-Stat's finding. "If planning to buy 1,000 machines, I'm still going to buy them, just a little later."
On one hand, the findings are good for Microsoft, which is assured of Vista deployments on most new PCs in the current upgrade cycle. The situation could be less rosy for some portions of Microsoft's channel. OEMs could see new PC deployment delays among some corporations. For some solutions providers, there would be opportunity to bulk up sales of testing, deployment and training services.
Enterprises are delaying Vista to allow IT organizations more time to prepare for Vista, Lao said.
Preparations would include applications compatibility testing, infrastructure assessments, and IT and end-user employee training.
More good news for Microsoft: Almost no enterprises planned to deploy new PCs with Windows XP. In-Stat found most businesses only planned new XP PC deployments where some special need was required it—and in sparse quantities.
Other findings weren't as favorable for Windows Vista. Microsoft missed a major corporate upgrade cycle starting in mid 2004 and ending about two years later. This larger number of businesses is unlikely to upgrade to Windows Vista right away.
"The PC upgrade cycle dictates the operating system purchase," Lao said of In-Stat's findings.
The In-Stat survey supports my earlier contention that Vista shipped too late. Microsoft needed to get the operating system into the market no later than holiday 2005 to catch the curl.
In-Stat also surveyed consumers about their Vista upgrade intentions. Consistent with other studies, consumers aren't rushing out to buy new PCs because of Vista.
"The average consumer is looking at a second, third or fourth PC purchase," Lao said. Referring to the survey results, he added: "The motivating factor was 'I need another PC for my kid to use,' not Vista."
Still, in the immediate term, In-Stat expects that some buyers held back late 2006 PC purchases and waited for Vista, which will translate into sales over the next two quarters. But the firm sees more anomaly than trend.
If Vista isn't driving PC sales, what is? In-Stat forecasts annual PC sales will reach 300 million in just two years.
Lao said factors are pretty much same as they've been for sometime:
- For the corporate market, obsolescence is the number one factor driving new PC sales
- Similarly, attrition is the main reason for consumers. "My PC is dying and I've got to have new wheels," Lao said.
- Non-technical users buying for the first time is another PC sales driver, but not a major contributor.
The big growth areas are notebooks and PC sales to emerging markets, which Lao likened to non-technical buyers in the United States because they are first-time PC buyers.
"There has been a major shift in notebooks, with notebook sales much closer to parity with desktops," Lao said. For a long time, notebooks hung at a 20 percent to 25 percent ratio of PCs. The ratio is more like "75 percent to 85 percent," he said.
Related Posts:
- IT Organizations: Cautious Vista Testing and Deployment, Microsoft Watch, May 8, 2007
- Uh-Oh, Vista! PC Sales Levels are Normal, Microsoft Watch, April 11, 2007
- Vista Missed Its Cue—Now What?, Microsoft Watch, March 23, 2007
- Snapshot: IT Vista Deployment Plans, Microsoft Watch, March 21, 2007
- CIOs: Vista Will Need Heftier Hardware, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 5, 2006
- How New a Day?, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 30, 2006
Comments (15)
Vista isn't driving PC Sales, it's killing them.
We need to buy several new laptops but we won't be deploying Vista before Service Pack 2.
We've already spoken to Sony who have told us that they are not providing XP drivers for their new laptops so we'll be seeking alternative hardware vendors.
Posted by Gavin Bollard | May 23, 2007 7:52 PM
Well, one way or the other, MS will make their money with Vista. It just might take longer than they had hoped. (And shareholders will not be happy.)
It's just as well that IT organizations take time to prepare for Vista. By the time they're ready to migrate, Service Pack 1 should be out and that's a good thing!
Right now, I don't think anybody should rush to get Vista. Wait for bug fixes. Wait for drivers. Wait for Vista-optimized apps to catch up.
Posted by Richard | May 23, 2007 9:43 PM
Joey, Joey, tsk, tsk. You have to understand, this is not a win-win situation for Microsoft, even if Vista was released in August 2004. Why? The hardware just was not up to standard. Take for instance, my PC, a Dell Dimension 8300, that came with 512 MBs of RAM, 128 MB, 3.2 Ghz (32-bit) Northwood processor. This machine was purchased in March 2004. The Vista beta started in August '05, by BETA 2, May 2006, the machine was so groggy running the OS. I had to purchase 2GBs for the machine and its running Vista a lot better but still not powerful enough.
What I'm trying to say is, the Dell, though state of the art at the time for my department, and part of a PC upgrade recycle at the Company would in most cases be obselete today and still require upgrades either way. This is a win-win for third party manufacturers and MS, because, the Company has probably purchased a Volume License contract and invested money in hardware upgrades. Not to mention the machines that are not as powerful now to run Vista purchased at same period as my machine.
Another thing, if Vista was released then, Microsoft would be concentrating on delivering Windows 7 today, which possibly would be not getting any market share because most businesses would be focusing, trying to get Vista running properly on PC's released in the last year alone.
The factors are just timing and affordable. Vista's requirements would just be too much for a 2004 PC. Unless you are suggesting, Microsoft would do better on Volume License contracts and lifestyle Consumer PCs? Then, thats the case with most Company's, a lot just started deploying XP in early 2005. Our Company got 2000 Pro in early 2000 and didn't start deploying until summer 2003. And I think the cycle continues with Vista. ;P And from the sound of things, its much better, if they are waiting until mid 2008.
Gavin, check Dell, you can still get XP on their systems unless you plan to wipe the machines when you get them.
Posted by Andre Da Costa | May 23, 2007 9:53 PM
Gavin
You seem awfully narrow minded in your choice of hardware mate !
There are plenty of other brands available than just Sony !
And why Service Pack 2 ...Geez !
What went wrong with Vista for you that you that bad ??
Posted by Neil | May 23, 2007 10:26 PM
Vista's problems are deep (deeper that I thought) People are downgrading from the Vista OS to the Windows XP and this trend is a change to the normal attitude.
http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=39833
Posted by Marco | May 24, 2007 11:45 AM
Following the examples of the majority of major 'enterprize corporations', seeing that the Open Source software and applications work so competently on laptops, desktops, having all the necessary drivers and the applications required to conduct business, we'll be following the example
of other Fortune 500's, and will purchase Dells with GNU/Linux on them.
According to IT experts, Vista is purported to run 20% slower than XP, lacks major drivers, blocks some media with DRM and is a no show for efficient computing.
With the history of support issues and intimidation by Microsoft about licenses coupled with upgrade failures, the malware epidemic, we see clearly that the flow by major corporate users is definitely away from that failing mode.
Nothing personal, Microsoft, it's business. We also were starting to hear from our clients about our association with multiple convicted felon criminal Microsoft and "Trusted Partners" in their "Protection Rackets".
Posted by Mr. Blackwell, CIO | May 24, 2007 7:17 PM
I think the column name is a funny play on words.
I don't expect that Microsoft actually markets a watch, but, if they did, it would run on Vista, and lose 12 minutes every hour.
I do think 12 is about 20%, right?
http://www.mepis.org is 99% Ubuntu with 1% really great applications added!
If you have a 3D video card, then Beryl is easy to load and run! Go check it out at youtube, with a search for 'beryl'.
Posted by Nerdwizard | May 24, 2007 7:33 PM
Marco
The original item is full of non specific generalizations like this one.
"Industry observers said at least some of the difficulties are getting ironed out. For example, some employees in Microsoft's global technical support team told some customers initially after Vista's release that they were not allowed to use downgrade rights to XP at all. But that was incorrect."
"Industry observers said" ... it doesn't say who they were ....inotherwords not true !
"some employees" ... who ?
"some customers" .... how many ?
This story reeks of what is called "Poetic Licence" ... in otherwords it's made up !
Mr. Blackwell CIO
Malware is not just on Windows Pc's.
"According to IT experts, Vista is purported to run 20% slower than XP" Now let's look at this statement closly "IT experts" who ?
"purported" which is a fancy word for a RUMOUR, no fact !
The times that Vista has been slower is either "Old Hardware" and yes lack of Drivers, but that is NOT the fault of Vista, drivers are issued by the component manufacturers .. so blame them not Vista.
So for a CIO I don't think that you have not done your homework properly, and stop listening to rumours, try the facts ! Do some research of your own ! Your company doesn't market your products on rumour does it ? It markets and sells them on research, if someone spread a rumour that your products were faulty would you believe them, or check it out yourself? Of course you would find out for yourself !
Posted by Neil | May 24, 2007 8:03 PM
I understand you Neil (and I know that it is hard)
but it isn't just the news, I look my family , my neighbours, my friends, my job and it's just happening.
Sorry...
Posted by Marco | May 24, 2007 9:39 PM
Neil, regarding the original article on CRN, before you accuse Paula Rooney of being a liar, you might email her and ask for detailed sources. As a rule, reporters do not list all their sources due to space constraints--they typically distill and summarize the gathered information into the final edit. Just because you don't like the implications of what was reported doesn't automatically mean it was "made up."
As for Vista being slower than XP, I've heard this reported in several places. The latest is from Consumer Reports. Seventeen testers used Vista on a variety of laptops and desktops, and they confirmed that, indeed, Vista is slower than XP. This shouldn't be a surprise because, after all, Vista does demand more system RAM, more graphics memory, and faster processors. In other words, on the same hardware, Vista has to be slower than XP. That's just plain logical.
Posted by Richard | May 24, 2007 9:56 PM
Regarding the blame that Vista gets for bad drivers, it's important to understand that you cannot isolate Windows from the rest of the OEM "ecosystem" that Windows relies on for its success. There is a profound symbiotic relationship between Microsoft and the OEM hardware vendors who must provide the drivers. It is Microsoft's responsibility to ensure that the hardware vendors provide good drivers, especially when these drivers are to be included in the Windows distributed media. MS pulls all the strings. They have to--this is the business model they chose. (I have first-hand information in this regard because I used to work for ATI Technologies developing Windows NT drivers.)
So, yes, you *can* blame Vista for a lack of good drivers. And you should.
Posted by Richard | May 24, 2007 10:11 PM
Richard
The article was too generalised for my liking, surely you must agree ??
No specifics just a lot of generalisations, more rhetoric against Vista and that's all it was, no reasons were given, nothing at all !
As far as drivers are concerned ... having worked for ATI you would know that the drivers that have come out of nvidia so far are not really that good, as can be testified to by the class action against them (refer to windows-now.com).
Drivers can mean the difference between good and BAD performance ...you know that !!
Sure its more graphics intensive and needs more Ram, so do something about it suppliers !
As you would know Richard each successive OS has required more grunt availablity and Vista is no different from when people upgraded to Win95 to Win98 to WinXp.
Each time the hardware requirements jumped either because of the OS itself or the trpe of programs used on it ie GAMES !!!
Posted by Neil | May 25, 2007 12:21 AM
Speaking of games ... here's one "Return to Castle Wolfenstein"
It's system requirements say nothing about Linux or Apple for one thing.
Next the Minimum Processor is a Pentium II 400 Mhz or Athlon Processor.
And the Hard Drive 800 megs. and 300megs windows swap file.
At the time it came out it was hard on the computers resources, not any more !!
There did not used to be games of 1Gb in size ... now there are games that take up 6GB and more, the hardware needed to run these games is faster and more powerful, than anything we had just 5 years ago. Everthing is.
I cannot help if the OEM's provide hardware that is too out of date, just because people don't want to spend more money on a computer upgrade.
Mind you they will if their kids want one though !!
That has been the driving force behind PC Sales ... GAMES !
You look at a business and their computers are old, because they don't upgrade every 3 years, as I saw in one article here business will catch on to Windows Server in about 5 years from now.
Just think how out of date those machines will be then.
Posted by Neil | May 25, 2007 12:41 AM
Sorry it was on a different site http://www.betanews.com/article/Top_10_New_Features_in_Windows_Server_2008/1180045346
Posted by Neil | May 25, 2007 12:43 AM
Now, why the people are downgrading from the Vista OS to the Windows XP?
When you go to an expensive Restaurant you are looking for good environment, good service and good food. Vista gives you good environment (eye candy), if you pay expensive tips (new hardware) , but the service is bad (have you ever called Ms for service?) and the food is worse (lack of drives, DRM, WGA, etc.) . Apparently the common people and the businessmen think is far better their old cheaper restaurant and others are beginning to test new flavours (Linux ,Apple) . What a sensate and wise decision!!
Posted by Marco | May 25, 2007 9:15 AM