Forrester Gets Schizophrenic on Windows Vista

 

This week Forrester Research analyst Thomas Mendel published a report that claims that Windows Vista has been "rejected" in the enterprise and suggests to his customers that they should re-evaluate their Windows Vista deployments and consider waiting for Windows 7.  Not surprisingly, this is something that we, our millions of enterprise customers, and a bunch of pesky statistics don't agree with.  Heck, even Forrester doesn't agree with Forrester!  Let me explain:

First, this report doesn't reflect the normal enterprise OS adoption cycle. Enterprise adoption of OSes has always been much slower than consumer adoption.   After all, upgrading the PC in your living room is easy, but upgrading an entire front and back end infrastructure to thousands of users without downtime is much more complex, and that takes time.  Computerworld contributing author (and Microsoft partner) David Feng just wrote an article about this, too.  Mendel's report, however, simply skims over this common knowledge.

What is even more puzzling is that Mr. Mendel's report directly contradicts another Forrester report titled, "Building the Business Case for Windows Vista," which was written by fellow analyst Ben Gray.  This report outlines the five main reasons why enterprises should start their company's migration to Windows Vista now.  You can read it for yourself here.  Mendel's report also goes against other industry analyst reports that show that Windows Vista adoption is progressing faster, or at the very least, just as fast, as Windows XP adoption did when it first launched.

It's also important to note that we've sold 180 million copies of Windows Vista so far, 40 million of which were in the last quarter alone, and that there are thousands of enterprise customers deploying Windows Vista by the thousands of seats on a weekly basis, including heavy hitters like The United States Air Force, PPG Industries, and Cerner. 

Given that there's a mountain of evidence to refute this report - including multiple reports from Forrester and other top-tier analysts - this appears to be more focused on making sensationalist statements, rather than offering a thoughtful industry perspective, based on conversations with IT operations professionals or deep knowledge of enterprise deployment cycles. How is this useful guidance to customers?  It's disappointing to see such a respected organization like Forrester take this approach. 

- Chris


Comments

  1. Posted on: July 25, 2008 at 5:57PM  

    Chris,

    I sure wish I could agree with you about Vista. I'm a one desktop (quad-4, 3-gig mem) user of Vista that came with this machine. I just spent 3 days trying to fix Vista, and finally scrapped it and reinstalled it from scratch, meaning pulling all my backups and 3rd party programs in and reinstalling everything. If this was the first time this has happened I wouldn't be so upset, but this is the 4th time since Febuary that Vista started doing strange things such as files disappearing and reappearing, UAC challenging on a file one time and not the next, UAC locking me out of files I created under the same account etc. etc. etc. I have repeatedly scanned the system for malware and neither Norton nor CounterSpy has found anything. The rebuilds work for awhile and then everything starts to go south gradually. This last time about one third of the system services stopped working and UAC refused to allow my Admin account to start them. It locks me out repeatedly of files I always had access to in XP. I haven't had so many blue screens since W-95 and I just can't believe the problems compared to XP running flawlessly for 3 years! I hope Windows 7 is better, or Microsoft will have a lot less corporate customers. I can't imagine how a shop with thousands of machines can manage to stay afloat with Vista! And yes, all the Microsoft and 3rd party applications are up to date on maintenance. My wife says she's going to chuck the machine if I die! She'll never be able to manage all the problems! Oh also, when Vista gets this bad, System Restores fail no matter how far back I try to go. Never happened with XP!

    Rich B. (dbm1rxb) Retired IBM main frame DBA and System programmer.

  2. Posted on: July 25, 2008 at 6:49PM  

    Vista is great. It's a step up from XP.

    Unfortunately, the anti-Microsoft crowd was ready for this fight. They trotted out the same old arguments that haven't been true since Windows ME, and they won the battle of ideas very quickly. Microsoft hasn't recovered from that.

    Nobody is a big enough monopoly to afford a flop of this magnitude, and it's like Microsoft isn't even trying.

    Engineering hasn't screwed up here. It's marketing that has dropped the ball. It has seriously dropped the ball. People need to get fired.

    Here's what needs to happen:

    1) The only version of Windows Vista is Vista Ultimate.

    2) Vista costs $119. New, not an upgrade. That's $10 less than OS X, which is a better OS. A lot better. Maybe you should charge $99.

    3) The OEMs don't get XP, but anybody who wants a copy can buy it for $19 a pop. Anyone willing to install their own OS can install XP for nearly free.

    4) Polish the hell out of Windows 7. Unless you fix every computer problem in the world, it's going to get the same bad press that Vista did--in other words, it's going to get the same bad press that Vista did. Windows 7 will have to be damn good to survive that.

    Good luck.

  3. Posted on: July 25, 2008 at 6:52PM  

    Chris,

    Look at the reasons YOUR link points out...

    #1 is that you simply don't have a choice. How does that help any business with their solution? Basically, you're saying...Microsoft is taking away your previous choice, so you'd better upgrade because that's all there is. That's a lousy reason.

    #2 is that Business need to stay current. Why? XP seems to work great. Why rip out something that's working just to stay current? In fact, I would suspect most people would argue that's a lousy reason to upgrade. Again, it doesn't provide any solution to a business.

    #3 - Microsoft is saying we should upgrade because XP is "uncertain". Huh? Again...Microsoft is giving us no choice, therefore we must upgrade. Another lousy reason that doesn't provide a solution.

    #4 - Even more uncertainty around Windows 7. Yep...but why is that any reason to upgrade to Vista?

    #5 - A vague call to the "feature/function improvements that should make ongoing operations easier". Well, Chris...that's about as vague as you could possibly get. As we've seen...talking about theory and reality are different. Vista "should" do alot of things for businesses...however, the businesses themselves are saying Vista doesn't do them well.

    So, really...after looking over all 5 of those points...four of them are worthless. The last one abo features may be valid...but what features are we talking about that produce such a massive ROI that upgrading every piece of hardware in the company is worth it?

    Really...Microsoft...you've GOT to get a better stance on Vista and present some real, valid ROI here. All you've done in your retort is spell out vague FUD statements with some vagu features that supposedly make businesses function better.

    Really lousy research and presentation on Microosft's part here. Frankly, with this kind of vague, non-ROI evidence to support Vista, I believe Forresters research over Microsoft's at this point.

  4. Posted on: July 25, 2008 at 7:18PM  

    Chris -

    You link: April 16, 2008 - Building Case For Windows Vista

    "By the end of this year, 7% of enterprises will start their deployments. By the end of 2008, 32% will begin, and an

    additional 17% will start to deploy the OS in 2009 or beyond."

    To clarify, is this article stating that only 7% of enterprises will START deployments of Vista in 2008? What is the difference between BEGIN and START in the next sentence? It says "32% will begin" but then also says "17% will start".

    To me that states that in the year 2010, it is expected that only 24% of businesses will have even started rolling out Vista. No completed mind you. Not piloted either. But simply started.

    It goes on to state:

    "just over half the enterprises we surveyed don’t yet have Windows Vista deployment plans."

    A year and a half after launch and 50% of businesses have no plans whatsoever to migrate.

    Chris, I'm not seeing the positive here. Sounds like Vista is in real trouble at the moment.

  5. Posted on: July 25, 2008 at 7:21PM  

    Everyone, including these “research firms”, seem to be ignoring one huge, gigantic factor.  The economy.  Fuel prices are up, food prices have risen, mortgages loans are failing, the dollar is weak, the middle class is starting to struggle.  While it's early to call this a full fledged recession (2 quarters of negative GDP growth are required), times are not the best right now.

    Now if you are a business, the very LAST thing you're going to consider is a software or hardware upgrade.  If there is any one thing holding Vista back, it's simply the fact it is trying to take off at a time when business just isn't very good right now.

    We also live in a time where more people than ever are using the Internet, but they haven't gotten any smarter when it comes to using computers.  It's still popular to blame Microsoft, even when you are a “mainframe” programmer.  The duller masses have a voice and it loves to full the air with garbage, negative feelings, and flat out lies.

  6. Posted on: July 25, 2008 at 8:00PM  
  7. Posted on: July 25, 2008 at 8:28PM  

    ok first thing first,

    dbm1rxb your computer is probably not Vista ready or damaged.What is Vista ready? Having 8GB of RAM and sixteenth cores 80Ghz is not Vista ready necessarily. As noted countless number of times, Vista does not like old technologies. Sadly many motherboard manufacture and computer assembly companies (an example of a computer assembly company: HP), use old technologies within their motherboard such as old SATA (usually nonstandard) controllers or USBs, or even BIOS.

    But wait, it could also be a BIOS bug, and simple BIOS update might fix your problem, or SATA driver update. Make sure you install the correct drivers. For example: do NOT install RAID driver if you don't have RAID. Also ensure that you have the latest drivers from the hardware manufacture website (example: Geforce 6600 GT driver form nVidia and not form Dell, or Windows update). If this doesn't help, try the ones in Windows update. When updating drivers make sure you uninstall the old one first.

    In another note: for UAC thing, you are not locked out. Like previous Windows versions, you have to edit the permissions and allow YOU to access them.

    As for the rest, it sounds like a virus (probably got installed when you installed a program that contain it) OR you are probably using a backup disk of Vista and it was miss-burned so some system files got corrupted.

    I suggest to install Vista 64-bit (as we know that 32-bit Vista is a last minute thing, or it sure seams like it) from the official disk AVOID the use of the backup disk/partition that your computer assembler company gives you. Go official, ask a friend for the disk (any edition, OEM or retail, as all the disk is the same. It is your product key that decide which edition to install. As long as you use YOUR product key, it's 100% legal and follows the EULA). Moreover, you don't have all the crap that comes with it, and bad drivers that could explain all or most of your issues.

    Ask anyone else with Vista, I am SURE they don't have all those issues, I mean I don't, and I run (not my main machine, as my main machine mobo is broken and being RMA'ed) Vista 32-bit on an AMD Athlon XP 3200+ with 1GB of RAM with a Geforce FX 5900, on an Nforce 2 with XP drivers. Yea, the worst here, and it works somewhat smoothly. Not as smooth as my main computer, but BETTER then it did on XP, thanks to SuperFetch, the lack of need of an Anti-virus and having the whole system more responsive.

    Ok so that is done, now to Vista with companies.

    Vista has a hard time with companies because companies need to update their old computer to dual cores with 2GB of RAM to have the OS runs perfectly smoothly. Now the issue of money is not the problem, the problem is removing every computers in a company and perform the upgrade. This takes A LOT of time, and labor cost is not cheap. They COULD change the computers, but that cost too much, and it's wasting perfectly working computers. Moreover, most computer in a company is used to simple things such as Word, Excel, and so on. They don't need a dual core CPU with 2 GB of RAM.

    What Windows Vista should do, is after the system detection/benchmark thing at first start to set Windows settings and services. Meaning it must go like this: "Ok, so I have here a PIII 800Mhz 512MB of RAM (NOTE: I made Vista run smoothly on that, no joke (it was a real pain to disable everything, but once done it worked fine!)... ok so SmartCard and all these service disable, Media Center.... not a chance, disable, Aero.. now way Vista classic, auto-defrag... nope, Superfetch... not enough RAM to see it an action, so nope..." and so on.

    Then once done, the user will be prompted with a nice easy to understand window that say everything that was disabled, and check boxes to unable them if they decide to. Now people will stop saying that you need a monster computer to run the OS, companies will be happy, it's easy for the user (it could be more technical on the Business, Enterprise and Ultimate edition). This would be truly awesome.

    As for vague Vista features... they are not vague.. it's just miss presented in presentation, a full documentation is usually available. This tactic ONLY works with Apple, as Steve job is not presenting a product, he is selling (salesman) a product. So anything goes.

    Another issue, is the announcement of the next Windows. BIG MISTAKE. It's like if Nintendo went to present the Wii and goes "Here is the Wii! Ok, now look, let me just tell you Nintendo next console. It will be awesomely better! Look at that, more better controllers, better graphics and audio, especially more AAA titles for the machine, oh and less bugs on the firmware."

    I mean with this attitude, you present yourself as if you knew it really sucks, and that you have no hopes for it. I result a lot of people wait.

  8. FMZ
    Posted on: July 25, 2008 at 9:36PM  

    I have been reading all the comments, and I am quite convinced that the team that built Windows Vista is proud of it, but as a user I am absolutely fed up of it. In the last two years have lost more information due to automatic Windows Vista upgrades to "protect" me or "help" me than due to viruses or any hacker attack.

    In this case it is clearly not due to any HW or configuration issue: it works as it was intended- Why does it make me loose information? It just does ask me for permission for the upgrade (although it requests me permission for any SW instalation in the laptop): it just closes all applications and switches off the laptop.

    Great idea! Don't bother users with a pop up message or requesting them permission to restart the computer: just do it! (maybe they just took the idea from a Nike add) Loosing unsaved work will not be so bad after all...

    If this "feature" is part of a campaign to push us all to save all our work every few minutes, I would prefer banners, pop-ups or any other measure less radical than just making us feel the pain of loosing the work done.

    Thanks and keep "improving" to make us love the new and helpful features.

  9. Posted on: July 25, 2008 at 11:44PM  

    @FMZ:

    If it bothers you that much, visit the Windows Update control panel, click "Change settings," and switch it to "Download updates but let me choose when to install them."  Now, updates will still be downloaded automatically and you will get a tray notification when they are ready, but you can install them when you want.  Ta da, problem solved.

    BTW, Vista asks at first startup if you would like to enable automatic updates.  Also, this behavior is not new to Vista, it was actually introduced in Windows XP SP2.

  10. Posted on: July 26, 2008 at 12:35AM  

    Markymark made an interesting note from the article from Ben Gray. The footnotes in the article state, "By the end of this year, 7% of enterprises will start their deployments. By the end of 2008, 32% will begin, and an additional 17% will start to deploy the OS in 2009 or beyond."

    How can that be since the article was written on 4/16/08, we can conclude that the "end of this year" part must equal the 7%. However, if we read on it then states "By the end of 2008, 32% will begin".

    Is it 7% or 32% by the end of this year (2008)?

Trackbacks

  1. Posted by: Microsoft UK Government Blog on July 29, 2008 at 12:35PM

    You may have seen in recent days an analyst assessment from Forrester on Windows Vista as being equivalent

  2. Posted by: Satisfy Me on July 31, 2008 at 10:02PM

    A little news coverage on something called Midori, Forrester's comments/ response on Vista enterprise

  3. Posted by: Linux IT Consultant on August 09, 2008 at 12:32PM

    Is Microsoft in Denial? If you have their version of the story, Vista sales continue to be strong and life is good. Taken from the vantage point of a major OEM, HP, the story is more than a bit different.