Windows 10: Microsoft warns enterprises to upgrade to Windows 10 or be left behind

Corporations, specially large ones but smaller companies too are run by people in the business of making money not products. Investment to profit ratio is all that's needed to know. Unless there is somebody at the very top interested in innovations nobody would lift a finger to move forward as long as that blasted ratio exists at reasonable rate.
Had many a fight with local company bosses but a moderate influence on main corporation engineer that was a wiz for technology. Even after we managed to have one PC controlling production lines my boss would mock me every time I sat at that computer to adjust machines: "Playing with your toy again eh ?" Believe me or not but first "real" PC company bought went to accounting !! Needles to say I was upset as at that time I was using my own Timex Sinclair to help with machine setups and production control. Even new machines had to at least double production to be considered for buying or making.

 

Microsoft could save a lot of money for their clients using the advances in technology.

How about cutting 18 months of testing down to 1 week? That would save $$$ for enterprises.

For small businesses (and you and me) how about glitch-free updates?

For everyone, how about improving the self-healing capabilities of the OS? This alone would make a VERY long list of detail items.

So as not to be lop-sided, Microsoft did a good job on improving Internet security in the past few years. Make it an excellent job, Microsoft!

 

Very few people actually *need* new CPUs. The old ones work just fine for 99%. People who need maximum performance on PCs are basically gamers - let's face it, most heavy computer usage (weather forecasts, etc) are not done on PCs. I built my current desktop in 2012 (with i5-3570K) and it works perfectly, I just added a big SSD at some point and some memory when it was on sale. I see no need whatsoever either to get new hardware or to install W10 on that PC.

On the other hand, I recently got a laptop when my old one died. Acer does not support W7 on the model I got, but I still installed it and it works just fine. Again, there is almost no reason to jump ship there.

 

With more and more portable devices being used that are not going to play nice with older windows and HW, their hand jut might be forced.

 

Well, Microsoft cannot abandon installed base either, they would move to other options so as not to lose their investments. This is a mutual dependency that cuts both ways.

 

I think what's getting lost in this discussion is that if anyone or any company that gets new hardware with the latest high end processors they would likely want to get the most out of that investment and to accomplish that would mean using Win10 and not of the earlier OS's. The key here is that not every new PC purchase is going to be of the high end processors that will require WIn10. My guess is that the majority of new gear will be of later generation processors and not say the sixth generation Intel chips.

In this situation the use of Win10 is optional.

 

Well, that's not quite what Microsoft's own blog post said either https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexp...on-innovation/

 

I wish it wouldn't say the cpu requires windows 10. It should say it requires windows 10 or a Linux operating with kernel 4.3 or higher.

Linux Kernel 4.3 brings Intel Skylake and open source Nvidia support (link)

 

Everytime we buy any new hardware - it's immediately wiped and Windows 7 ENT is placed on it. Does not matter what it shipped with.

Sonic

 

Like buying a new Ferrari and filling it up with standard fuel, makes no sense.

 

You better buy older-than-Skylake though, then your Windows 7 ENT will be supported until January 2020. With Skylake (or subsequent hardware) your Windows 7 ENT support will end July 2017.

Quite a manifesto in that Microsoft blog post.

I would not be surprised at all if right now all computer manufacturers in the Far East are scrambling like hell to buy up all Broadcom and similar old hardware they can get their hands on, and will be selling new computers with old hardware inside, LOL. They may even sell them as replacement PCs without OS and mark/advertise them as 'specially designed for Windows 7/8.1'. Why not? There is a market until 2020/2023 for those who do not want to use Windows 10 *Smile

 

It would if the alternative was watered-down Pemex... standard is better if the alternative is substandard. That's the perception a lot have about 10, self included. I'm still hopeful that it can be made into what I would call a usable OS, but they have a long way to go. Fortunately, they have a long time to get there, too.

The fact that MS is pushing this hard for 10 shows me they have no more confidence in it than many of us do. If it was as good as they say, it should not be a hard sell, but they're going heavy on the "stick" since the "carrot" is lacking. They're even stooping to breaking out the FUD on their own prior product.

When people are on the fence about upgrading a PC, the presence of a more desired version of Windows on the new one will often swing them over to the upgrade... as it stands now, the presence of 10 seems to be doing just the opposite, as 8 did previously. Moore's law has slowed, and newer generations of CPUs are relatively unexciting, offering only incremental performance gains over their predecessors. Older hardware is a lot more relevant and usable now than it has been at any point since I started working on PCs in 1990.

I'm not a business, but if I was thinking of an upgrade to Skylake, I wouldn't be now-- so neither Intel nor MS gets the sale. If that's what Intel thinks will improve anemic PC sales, I guess we will have to just wait and see how that works out.

 

I've always been of the opinion, new hardware=new software. Old hardware = old software. New car new motor, not old motor. I know of a very large chain store, they have very old computers, their share price reflects their ancient computers, the price hasn't risen in years and years.

 

I seriously doubt we will need any "support" whatsoever to run Windows 7 on any specific chipset or CPU. Nobody at the office will care if it's not as fast or "cool" as Windows 10.

And since we just finished our 7 rollout less that a year ago - it's a given that we won't be spending dime one on another complete OS changeout until it makes sense to do it - with respect to our pocketbook.

It;s not our fault that MS has a winner in Windows 7. No one is quaking in their boots bout Windows 10 right now. And I am certain we are not the only large customers thinking this way.

Sonic.

 

I worked in IT for a computer company when Vista was announced by MS. It was the next generation OS that would replace XP . It was more secure and made better use of new hardware innovations. The company manufactured computer hardware and recommended Vista on all the new systems sold. Meanwhile all the internal systems ran XP. When W7 was introduced, the company recommended W7 on all new computers they sold. The company liked W7 and all staff with an XP laptop got a new W7 laptop, however all desktops remained XP. New apps were developed by the company on W7 . Later they also allowed BYOD, as communications diversity had become a necessity. I have since retired from that computer company, but have kept in touch with those who still work there. They tell me that they never installed W8 on a single employee laptop, they remained on W7, even though the company sold systems with W8 as the recommended OS. Today, the investment they have made in W7 apps is extensive and the XP apps are still in production on desktops. The company is not snubbing W10, there is just no business case for it. There has to be a business need, a return on investment and a stable environment. The decision is never technology driven, it is always business driven.