3 ms·
Really? The cost comparison of switching to a mac or linux system vs. windows 7, infrastructure and tech support-wise, must be minimal for a large company. Or a
by rubidium 16y ago
Really? The cost comparison of switching to a mac or linux system vs. windows 7, infrastructure and tech support-wise, must be minimal for a large company. Or am I missing something?
I think it has more to do with the fact that people are going to want to keep XP for a long time, because it works for most business use (spreadsheets, word docs, and the internet).
- angstrom 16y agoIt only makes sense if there's a competitive advantage to the upgrade. For the vast majority of businesses there isn't. In that scenario the cost of sticking with XP is actually a competitive advantage for those companies when the economy is weak and budgets are tight. For tech companies it's not an issue since tech is their business having the best is a competitive edge.
- eli 16y agoThis is exactly it. I think XP is the first desktop OS that was truly "good enough" for typical, everyday business use. Sure, Windows 7 is clearly a better OS... but is that going to make Company X produce widgets any faster? Probably not enough to justify the cost of licensing and upgrading to a new OS (and that's assuming that there are no compatibility issues with e.g. that old timecard app the intern wrote in 2001)
- cageface 16y agoMS is sacrificing a potentially large revenue stream here. You have to ask why. I think it's because they realize that some businesses are going to look at Mac/Linux environment with Google Docs or Zoho and realize that it's not that much harder to switch.