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: August 05, 2008 at 12:06AM  

    I have had vista installed since it was released and have not had any problems.  And this is on a machine that is not considered Vista Ready.  I ran Vista with only 1 MG for almost a year and then upgrade to 2.  But other than that this is really a 3+ year outdated laptop.

    The biggest issue I have has was with the file manager hanging up the whole machine and it was frustrating.  But in the end it was not Vista causing the issue but the application I used to compress files.  The vendor took care of the issue and have not had any issue since.  Lesson that we all should learn, Don't always blame the operating system becuase most of the time it is a bad driver or another program being run that is the issue.

    I do agree that Vista was slow to unzip files and copy files, but if you have downloaded SP! this was one of the big issue addresses and even on my dog of a machine file copies / unziping files are not pretty fast. I know a lot of developer who use Vista on a daily basis and love it and have not had any of the issue mentioned here.  So maybe it is the end-user and the application they are installing that are the issue and not the OS.

    MS just has to live with a big target on their back and that will never change. Most of the time it is because people are just jealous.  Mac might be a better OS, but it also is so proprietary that buying part for it is very expensive and to get a decent MAC cost more than a XP or Vista based machine.

  2. Posted on: August 05, 2008 at 11:38AM  

    Our company has 75 users spread across several continents, almost all on the Mac platform.  With Leopard the biggest concern we had upgrading was that Photoshop 7 (a very old program) no longer worked with it.  Beyond that it's been smooth sailing.  We have a few people (mostly in accounting) who have XP and they do ok... but there's one guy who insisted on having Vista.  Even he's telling us now to buy XP if we're getting new PC laptops.  It's a giant hole of support issues.  Nothing really seems to work 100%, and to boot it has to be the messagiest, dialog-boxiest, annoying OS ever created.  And that's when it's working properly!  

    Oh and for the record, the ROI on Macs is much, much lower than PCs - you need far less support personnel and the applecare warranty is cheap and unencumbered in comparison to most PC warranties we encounter.  Also, generally 3rd party peripherals work on Macs - they use the same hard drive, ram, etc...  Unless you need a wireless broadband card with T-Mobile, you're fine - that's the only case I've had of something not working on a Mac.  Citrix is even supporting it well now.  The OS is 1/3 of the price.  A great deal of the software is free, too, and we need a lot less of it... we have Open Directory with LDAP, everything's centrally managed, and remote administration is a breeze, even across subnets.  We spend at least $1K and 5 hours more on any new PC.

    They really need to switch to a solid, real, UNIX based platform.  Say what you want, the real problem each new version of this Wintel platform is the new security precautions they keep having to build in.  There is a reason the mac works better - I'm not running antivirus or anti-spyware software, and I have no problems.  I downloaded Virex once for sh*ts and giggles and it almost bricked my machine.  Viruses could be written for any platform - but there sure aren't that many of them that affect unix-based platforms, strange for a platform that runs the majority of the web servers in the world.  The simple fact is, it's harder to write viruses for a more stable platform which has more diverse eyes *with access to the source code* looking for problems.

    No one's saying Mac or Linux or whatever is the answer... I'm sure Microsoft could come up with a fine, intelligently laid out UNIX-based OS that does everything Windows does now without  all the hassle (heck, I love Excel.  bring someone over from that design team).  Even if it doesn't eliminate viruses - it will render inert the vast majority of the ones that exist now, and at least for a little while people might remember what it's like to actually *use* their computers again.

  3. Posted on: August 09, 2008 at 5:08AM  

    About time Microsoft started speaking up....

  4. Posted on: August 11, 2008 at 4:32PM  

    @ dovella

    Not 180+ million Vista licenses being used but 180+ million Vista licenses sold which does not nececeraily meam 180 million+ being used.

    P.S: I am the same fiji from istartedsomething.com

  5. Posted on: August 27, 2008 at 10:59AM  

    i use XP daily and the only problems I had in the beginning were - hmmm, I can't think of one thing... an occasional blue screen, but that was it.

    I work for a large state agency as a state  employee in the IT department. Our plans for downgrading to VISTA are not even on the horizon.  It could be light years...

    I have learn a few things about VISTA since I have to help my brother and a co-worker who each bought new laptops (new HP/Dell machines) with it two months ago (07/2008).

    1) it is slow

    2) the menu sucks to high heaven,

    3) they lost many features that were useful and friendly

    4) they curse when they refer to it (and they don't usually curse)

    5) they are ALWAYS asking if I can put XP on the laptops for them (I always say no because I am afriad of a can of worms being opened).  

    6) they express disgust at not having had a choice.

    I am doing the design for a small 100 user network/computers.  My boss tells me NOT to put VISTA on these machines... I really like to stay up to date with technology and I am concerned.  But at the same time I am relieved...

    what are we to do with Microsoft?  Can there be a collective created that will straighten out this mess?  They know they have a mess, we know they have a mess...  can we do more than just expect to see VISTA as a classroom study on major screw-ups by a super power corporation?

    who ever the PM was on VISTA needs to run out of town? where was the user input? if present, how could it have been so far off track?

    'I use XP daily and the only problems I had in the beginning were - hmmm, I can't think of one thing... an occasional blue screen, but that was it.........................'

    THESE USE TO BE TWO STRONG HANDS...

    ;)

  6. Posted on: August 28, 2008 at 12:10PM  

    It rather annoys me how people who "love" Vista seem to label people who don't as Microsoft haters.

    I am no Microsoft hater...but I am an Apple hater, but that's another story. My point is, despite not being a Microsoft hater; I do very much dislike Vista.

    I simply feel it uses way too much of the resources on my machine to perform functions that very often could be performed faster by XP. I still find myself experiencing arbitrary errors, hanging screens and software incompatibilities. Fortunately all my BSOD issues have been resolved, but this does not make it okay.

    I have a question: why is it Microsoft never seems to learn from its past mistakes?

    Vista defenders will often say that XP had the same teething problems as did windows 98 and Windows 95 before it. That may be true, but why?

    Microsoft controls about 90% of the desktop market. That means that just about every hardware manufacturer and software developer is catering to the Microsoft market. Why is Microsoft not getting the big guys onboard and ready with drivers and software updates before they roll out a new OS? Simply releasing an SDK and some documentation and White Papers is not good enough.

    Creative, one of the largest soundcard makers still has no fully Vista compatible drivers. Why? (I may be wrong on this, but the last time I checked this was still true.)

    Vista may be better than XP...a debatable statement at best...but that is all useless if people can't get the most out of their shiny new OS because all the applications and hardware that their OS is supposed to support does not function optimally.

    Let's face it, an OS may have more features than you could ever hope to use but its main function is still to relay communication between your software and your hardware.

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.