Many PCs Won't Be Able To Run Vista When It Comes Out, Gartner Advises
About half of corporate PCs won't be equipped to run Microsoft's upcoming operating system and companies need to take a hard look at which are worth replacing.
By <A HREF="mailto:antoneg@pacbell.net">Antone Gonsalves</A>, InformationWeek
April 17, 2006
URL: www.informationweek.com/story/...e.jhtml
About half of corporate PCs aren't equipped to run all the features of Windows Vista, and companies should gradually deploy the upcoming operating system on new computers, rather than take the more costly alternative of upgrading older ones, Gartner said last week.
Desktops or notebooks with less than half of their useful life left when Microsoft ships Vista shouldn't be upgraded, since the cost would exceed replacing it with a new Vista-enabled machine at the end of the older computer's life cycle, according to Gartner. Microsoft is promising the operating system in January, and assuming it doesn't suffer another delay, the cutoff point would be computers bought in 2006 or earlier.
Gartner advises companies to replace notebooks every three years and desktops every four years. Given that most companies will take at least 18 months from the time Vista ships for planning and testing, by the time they're ready to deploy it, the useful life left on 2006 PCs would be about 17% on laptops and 37.5% on notebooks.
Vista's requirements include a graphics card that supports the user interface and visual enhancements, which include translucent window frames and task bar, real-time thumbnail previews and task switching, enhanced transitional effects, and animations. These features won't be important for many companies, but others will be, such as better window stability, smoother screen drawing, and interface scaling.
37.5%
The useful life likely to be left on 2006 notebooks when Vista comes out.
PCs also will need at least 1 Gbyte of RAM and an additional 512 Mbytes if companies plan to use PC virtualization during the migration to run an older operating system and Vista simultaneously, Gartner said. Upgrading RAM on a PC costs from $100 to $200 per machine.
"For most large organizations, it will not be possible to fully justify the cost of a full forklift migration of all PCs," Gartner said in its research note. "This is partially because of the cost of most companies' manual migration process."
In terms of upgrades, Vista is comparable to Windows 2000. Windows XP, which fell between the two, was considered a less radical change.
It's too soon to tell if this move will be a more costly hassle than the one to Windows 2000. "If the applications are more compatible with Vista than 2000, then it might be less costly," says Mike Silver, a Gartner analyst. "Migration techniques have gotten better, but most organizations have not automated their migration process."
About half of corporate PCs won't be equipped to run Microsoft's upcoming operating system and companies need to take a hard look at which are worth replacing.
By <A HREF="mailto:antoneg@pacbell.net">Antone Gonsalves</A>, InformationWeek
April 17, 2006
URL: www.informationweek.com/story/...e.jhtml
About half of corporate PCs aren't equipped to run all the features of Windows Vista, and companies should gradually deploy the upcoming operating system on new computers, rather than take the more costly alternative of upgrading older ones, Gartner said last week.
Desktops or notebooks with less than half of their useful life left when Microsoft ships Vista shouldn't be upgraded, since the cost would exceed replacing it with a new Vista-enabled machine at the end of the older computer's life cycle, according to Gartner. Microsoft is promising the operating system in January, and assuming it doesn't suffer another delay, the cutoff point would be computers bought in 2006 or earlier.
Gartner advises companies to replace notebooks every three years and desktops every four years. Given that most companies will take at least 18 months from the time Vista ships for planning and testing, by the time they're ready to deploy it, the useful life left on 2006 PCs would be about 17% on laptops and 37.5% on notebooks.
Vista's requirements include a graphics card that supports the user interface and visual enhancements, which include translucent window frames and task bar, real-time thumbnail previews and task switching, enhanced transitional effects, and animations. These features won't be important for many companies, but others will be, such as better window stability, smoother screen drawing, and interface scaling.
37.5%
The useful life likely to be left on 2006 notebooks when Vista comes out.
PCs also will need at least 1 Gbyte of RAM and an additional 512 Mbytes if companies plan to use PC virtualization during the migration to run an older operating system and Vista simultaneously, Gartner said. Upgrading RAM on a PC costs from $100 to $200 per machine.
"For most large organizations, it will not be possible to fully justify the cost of a full forklift migration of all PCs," Gartner said in its research note. "This is partially because of the cost of most companies' manual migration process."
In terms of upgrades, Vista is comparable to Windows 2000. Windows XP, which fell between the two, was considered a less radical change.
It's too soon to tell if this move will be a more costly hassle than the one to Windows 2000. "If the applications are more compatible with Vista than 2000, then it might be less costly," says Mike Silver, a Gartner analyst. "Migration techniques have gotten better, but most organizations have not automated their migration process."
-
Re: Many PCs Won't Be Able To Run Vista When It Comes Out, Gartner Advises (This means Money in our Pockets)
Mon, July 31, 2006 - 5:49 PMSo far I'm not impressed with Beta 2 of Vista and actually plan to remove it...
On my main machine I get a "Vista Experiance Rating" of 3.3...
System specs:
P-4 Dual Core 3.4 Extreme Edition
2gb of Ram
ATI x850
Creative Labs Xi - EtremeMusic
400gb Sata harddrive
Yet even this system seams sluggish and while openning and closing windows does open and shrink away smoothly, if you right click to hit properties or try to move or add a file or change a setting the screen flashes blank then back to the screen you are on for everything you do.
If this is what I can expect for the "Vista Experiance" and it is complaining that my cpu is the reason for the 3.3 rating, I dont see myself upgrading to it anytime in the near future.
It did detect my SageTV server over the network and allowed me to select it under the MediaCenter settings, but the rest of the system is simply annoying.
It constantly asks if you want to do something or constantly warns you that an administrator should do it, even though I am one. It complains about copying files and states to "Move" files should be an administrator, but will do it if you say yes, please do it...
So it might rate my Vista Experiance as 3.3 but so far I am giving it big fat double Goose Eggs. 0.0 -
-
Re: Many PCs Won't Be Able To Run Vista When It Comes Out, Gartner Advises (This means Money in our Pockets)
Mon, July 31, 2006 - 6:00 PMI HATED XP when it came out. It ran DOG SLOW, because there were no PCs on the market with enough resources to make it work properly. It took about a year for the hardware to catch up to the OS. -
-
Re: Many PCs Won't Be Able To Run Vista When It Comes Out, Gartner Advises (This means Money in our Pockets)
Mon, July 31, 2006 - 10:26 PMoh i know, ironically, i have an old Sony p-ii 450 lapto (Z-505 line) with only 192mb of ram that runs XP better than my 1ghz Dell did... Figure that one out...
I talked to a friend of my in the UK today who works as a hardware reviewer and always gets the new hardware (albiet without all the bugs worked out yet) about 3 months before it hits the shelves...
His Dual Processor AMD FX-60 and Twin ATI X1900 Crossfire system with 8gb of ram only got a Vista score of 4.0
After talking to him I found out my screen blanking out and back on during certain operations is caused by Vista's extreme dependency on Pixel Shader 3.0. Which my x850 doesnt support...
But still, even a dual processor (yes, 2 processors, not just dual core) 64bit machine got a low Vista experiance rating... Though he did say many games do run faster, everything else runs a lot slower on it.
-
-
-
Re: Many PCs Won't Be Able To Run Vista When It Comes Out, Gartner Advises (This means Money in our Pockets)
Fri, August 4, 2006 - 11:41 PMSuppose i'll just have to stay with my current commie pinko GNU/Linux install. The licensing is friendlier and so is the spec on which it will run :)
Hell, Paul Thurrot < www.winsupersite.com/ > hates it... That to me speaks volumes. Our shop just recieved a copy of it through the developer network and we don't have anything with enough juice to run it ( well, anything that we are willing to spare ). And i don't think I'll be throwing it on VMWare anytime soon.
As far as enterprise is concerned, don't most big shops stick to the "Wait till SP1" mantra? There is one client we did work for ( rather large AD environment ) that did tell me they will be upgrading, but if I remember right their CTO said it would be a slow move. I just hope "Longhorn" server won't fuck up smb... Excuse me, embrace and extend smb any more.
-
-
Re: Many PCs Won't Be Able To Run Vista When It Comes Out, Gartner Advises (This means Money in our Pockets)
Wed, August 16, 2006 - 4:20 PMWell I do agree Linux is an outstanding OS but, I was talking money here...
-
-
Re: Many PCs Won't Be Able To Run Vista When It Comes Out, Gartner Advises (This means Money in our Pockets)
Sat, September 9, 2006 - 2:35 AMProductivity wise, vista wont amount to anthing than just distract you from what you are doing. If we take the office environment for example, I think windows xp (or even windows 98) will do the job of sending email, print documents, present presentations, and browse the internet. So what purpose does vista bring to the corporate world? NONE!
Now for personal users, well some techy guys might fall for vista. But then....you can do most of the features in vista by using third party apps out there. And when was the time that OS was merely an interface between the user and the computer and not a stand alone all in one product just for the sole purpose of monopolizing the industry?
One thing that worked against bill gates this time is that he made xp too damn good and the fact that vista is such a resource hog. I personaly am very contented with my xp sp2 - no problem watsuever! So vista...buzz off...dont need you just yet.:))