tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22311364.post9214126190257298817..comments2024-03-09T23:22:40.699-08:00Comments on Small Biz Thoughts by Karl W. Palachuk: Is Operating System Push-Back Inevitable?Karl W. Palachukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10854725002875547297noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22311364.post-23047455705095667602009-03-29T06:49:00.000-07:002009-03-29T06:49:00.000-07:00If your primary line of business application was w...If your primary line of business application was written by a lazy bastard who refuses to keep up with his chosen profession ...<BR/><BR/>HEY !!! You know that client too? ROFL!<BR/><BR/>JWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22311364.post-17332748684799247812009-03-28T05:49:00.000-07:002009-03-28T05:49:00.000-07:00The funny thing is, Office 2007 is a LOT harder to...The funny thing is, Office 2007 is a LOT harder to learn for users of older versions.<BR/><BR/>Vista is essentially transparent to the user. Other than the fact that they messed up the windows explorer.<BR/><BR/>You click on start and open your program. Done.<BR/><BR/>My "90%" comes from the fact that virtually every user out there could start using Vista tomorrow and they wouldn't even know the different.<BR/><BR/>It run IE, Word, powerpoint, Excel, InDesign, Outlook, and Quickbooks. That covers 90% of the end users.<BR/><BR/>If they're not dealing with outdated hardware and software, there's no reason to not go with Vista.Karl W. Palachukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10854725002875547297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22311364.post-45989990971024274882009-03-28T01:05:00.000-07:002009-03-28T01:05:00.000-07:00Hey Karl!I couldn't agree more... with 99% of your...Hey Karl!<BR/><BR/>I couldn't agree more... with 99% of your post.<BR/><BR/>The only point I disagree on is this: "For 90% of all clients in the SMB space, it will ALWAYS be cheaper and more cost effective in the long run to use the latest operating system and software from the leading providers. Today (and for the last two years) that means Vista."<BR/><BR/>Now, I don't have a problem with Vista. I've been running it as my primary OS both at home and at work since the first release candidate. It's fine, but as far as end users are concerned Vista Business Edition is just a prettier, bloatier version of Windows XP Pro. The only significant feature it offers to my clients over XP Pro is the UAC - which is a tremendous improvement to the OS's security posture and frankly came years too late.<BR/><BR/>However, I won't go so far as to say that the UAC is *necessary* in an otherwise well secured and managed network environment. <BR/><BR/>Oh, there's also Bitlocker, but since Microsoft bizarrely didn't include it in Business Edition and it therefore requires the added cost of Ultimate, we only recommend it for notebooks containing sensitive data.<BR/><BR/>I also believe that there's value to even a small company maintaining a standardized desktop configuration across their organization: Same OS, same Office version, etc. <BR/><BR/>Now, I do have an occasional client that wants to do a full replacement of all of their desktops at once or over a short period, and of course we get some startups that need all new stuff as well. In those cases, it's usually Vista all the way. But by far the bulk of our PC sales are to companies that already have 5-35 PC's running Windows XP Pro.<BR/><BR/>So the problem is that there's no business case for them to adopt Vista on those existing machines. Heck most of them would have to have their RAM doubled (or more likely quadrupled) just to get somewhere close to the performance the users were used to from XP. Some would have to be replaced entirely, and for what? The UAC? No, I can't look my clients in the eye and make that recommendation.<BR/><BR/>So, if my clients want to maintain that standardized desktop I mentioned above then I of course supply the new machines with XP Pro since they're not really losing anything by downgrading.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and the machines are downgraded from Vista Business to XP Pro at no extra cost by the OEM, so we're not profiting from any extra work there...<BR/><BR/>Anyway, Office 2007 runs fine on XP, all new printers still ship with XP drivers, every new app is XP compatible... In short, Microsoft and the rest of the development community haven't given me a good reason to push Vista - so I don't.<BR/><BR/>And by the way, I've seen that 200 million Vista units stat too, but I think it's extremely misleading. Of course they've *sold* that many licenses, but are there 200 million copies of Vista running? Not likely. I mean, my little company alone has sold a few hundred Vista licenses in the past couple of years, but there are only a few dozen that were NOT downgraded to XP Pro. The same is even more true at the enterprise level. Off the top of my head I can name half a dozen large organizations that have collectively purchased tens of thousands of Vista licenses and immediately exercised their downgrade rights. The only place Vista has truly penetrated new PC sales - and stuck - is at the consumer level. <BR/><BR/>With all of that being said, I think Windows 7 shows some promise. Already about 25% of my staff are running the beta as their primary OS at work - and loving it. One guy is running it on a 5.5 year old laptop and swears it performs as well or better than XP Pro did. Ironically, our only complaint with Windows 7 so far is that they've weakened the UAC, but there's still time for that to change before RTM and I know Microsoft is getting flack about it.<BR/><BR/>So when the time comes, the big question for us will be: Did Microsoft put anything into the RTM of Windows 7 Business Edition that will make it worthwhile for my clients to consider a network-wide upgrade? I hope so. <BR/><BR/>Truly.Jeff Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02232669085581501461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22311364.post-9352210909844469602009-03-27T10:45:00.000-07:002009-03-27T10:45:00.000-07:00Thanks, Amy. As Pascal would say, "I would have ma...Thanks, Amy. <BR/><BR/>As Pascal would say, "I would have made this post shorter, but I didn't have the time."<BR/><BR/>We don't deal with many 100+ clients. <BR/><BR/>But Microsoft has been asking us to sell EBS to the 50+ market. <BR/><BR/>In that 50-100 space, I just don't see any prospects.Karl W. Palachukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10854725002875547297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22311364.post-56800601885825452512009-03-27T10:26:00.000-07:002009-03-27T10:26:00.000-07:00An unusually rambling post for you. I certainly ag...An unusually rambling post for you. I certainly agree with most of it. Microsoft is their own biggest competitor which means that they do alot of things right. We should all be so lucky.<BR/><BR/>You're missing the boat on EBS though. The point of EBS isn't the former SBS customer. It isn't the magical just launched company that needs 3 severs right now. Every product has a sweet spot and EBS's sweet spot is 100+ users. Those companies have 15 or so servers each performing a specific function, probably running on cobbled together hardware. EBS is a consolidation product add virtualization to the mix and it's story just gets better. <BR/><BR/>EBS benefits from the stability of the 2003 product line so it ran out of the gate as a solid product but TA DA! the Internal IT guy working at these companies doesn't want it. (S)He doesn't get that efficiency and a smooth running network won't put them out of a job. But they fear it! <BR/><BR/>Like small business, most of the lower medium business don't work with consultants - yet. They have a glorified desktop guy with the title of NETWORK DIRECTOR running the show and he knows his knowledge is out of date and is afraid to change because it might expose him. <BR/><BR/>EBS has a market in 100+ user range and it is deperately needed. The trick is convincing those companies that what they are doing now, really isn't working for them.Amy - Harbor Computer Serviceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03065149612190868330noreply@blogger.com