Windows 10 in the enterprise? Not for six months, thanks

Calendar delay

According to a new survey from Microsoft System Center specialist Adaptiva, 71 percent of IT leaders plan on waiting six months or more before deploying Windows 10.

In the survey, conducted at Microsoft Ignite 2015, 49 percent said they planned to wait a year or more before updating. Of larger companies 80 percent of those with over 100,000 nodes said they are planning to adopt in a year or more.


Only 11 percent of all respondents' organizations are still running Windows XP. This is down from 53 percent last year in a similar survey Adaptiva conducted at TechEd 2014, indicating that XP is well on the way out in the corporate world.

The biggest barriers to upgrading to Windows 10 were given as application compatibility and time investment (98 percent), followed by user training (35 percent), and product maturity (23 percent). A majority (54 percent) say the cloud has no impact on their ability to upgrade and patch applications or migrate operating systems. However, 40 percent claim the cloud is actually making it harder for them to perform these basic systems management tasks, up from just seven percent who felt that way in 2014.

Other findings are that the vast majority of respondents were running Windows 7 (89 percent) and/or Windows 8 (57 percent). Of those at organizations with more than 10,000 nodes, 99 percent are running Configuration Manager in their enterprise and 62 percent plan to use it to deploy Windows 10.

To move to the new OS, nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of large organizations plan to use side-by-side replacements -- deploying new computers with Windows 10. This compares to 36 percent who plan to perform in-place upgrades to existing hardware.

More information on the survey and on how Adaptiva's OneSite 5.0 can make migration to Windows 10 easier is available on the company's blog.

Image Credit: iQconcept / Shutterstock

65 Responses to Windows 10 in the enterprise? Not for six months, thanks

  1. BoltmanLives says:

    With 99% running configuration manger the transition will go very smooth. 73% buying new hardware is awesome news

    • barely_normal says:

      Enterprises buying hardware will exercise "downgrade rights" to use Windows 7 until such time as Windows 10 either implodes or congeals. Either way, it will be a while, likely 2-3 years.

  2. Billygoat Edna says:

    Will be 3 years before Windows 10 hit's the business community in any significant way. Many have only just gone up from XP to Win 7. And they will wait until the OS is stable enough. As it stands, the previews are flaky, and yet they intend on releasing it in 6 weeks time.

    People will end up buying Windows 10 Beta software from August/September on which will then take 2+ years of patches/service packs to get right.

  3. Jorgie says:

    I work at a university and due to our schedule, we have to have our computing site image _done_ in July. For us June 2016 is the most likely target for Win 10.

  4. skruis says:

    I'll probably upgrade my Win8 clients pretty soon after release and then the Win7 clients a little while after.

    • PC_Tool says:

      Pretty sure we won't see it here for years. Frankly, I'm amazed I don't see more XP on the screens around here.

      Bureaucracy can be so entertaining.

  5. Eric Sleeper says:

    "71 percent of IT leaders plan on waiting six months or more before deploying Windows 10." - As they should. However, that six months should be used for testing and such.

    For us, it's all about Internet Explorer 11. Most of our vendors/client portals are stuck on IE9. However, we know it and have been working to have that resolved by the end of the year. (Chrome isn't an option, breaks lots of related).

    • Richard Saunders says:

      "Chrome isn't an option, breaks lots of related"

      In most cases that says more about the quality of your stuff than it says anything about chrome. Chrome is by a mile the most standards compliant browser. IE on the other hand has a very long history of deliberately breaking w3c standards in order to shut out competitors.

      • illiad says:

        er, "standards compliant" has nothing to do with "works with old stuff"...

        IE 11 and higher may well be "standards compliant" BUT it is different enough to NOT work, unlike IE9...

        Hey, GO PLAY with your own computer, but unfortunately a lot of us have to *work* - and that means less time wasted calling tech support, for why a website or application has stopped working...

      • Richard Saunders says:

        "er, "standards compliant" has nothing to do with "works with old stuff"..."

        No kidding. And that old stuff is usually broken anyways and should have been replaced a long time ago.

      • barely_normal says:

        The idea of "standards compliant" in browsers is laughable. Opera, during the run up to its death, was the MOST standards compliant browser available, yet its market share was not helped by that, or its superior performance, one iota. (Average users were not interested enough, or intelligent enough, to want to use the most compliant and useful browser] Microsoft, with Internet Exploder, and Google, with Chrome, destroyed and sort of desire to use WWW3 standardization years ago, and now it is just a race to see who becomes the next IE6.

      • illiad says:

        being a big user of Opera, I saw the author make stupid mistakes, refuse to do full publicity, even refusing to protect all the addins, so firefox took the ideas and improved them.. Opera just turned a blind eye... anyone complaining on the forum were just removed! :(

      • barely_normal says:

        I know that...I was one of those who had the temerity to complain, and saw my comments removed. When I asked why, since I had attacked no person, nor used vulgarity, that comment was removed, along with any access I had through that account.

      • Richard Saunders says:

        "The idea of "standards compliant" in browsers is laughable."

        It's still something that should be worked towards anyways. Microsoft is entirely to blame for that. They did it entirely because they (correctly) saw the web as a threat to Windows, and they weren't having their baby get thrown out once the world realizes it doesn't need to have everybody run the same OS anymore.

        Imagine for example, a world where Apple had about 50% of the computing market share in the 90's, and instead of using IP like we do now, half of the internet ran Appletalk, so half of the internet couldn't even talk to the other half.

        This is the reality Microsoft almost made for the web with Internet Explorer.

      • Eric Sleeper says:

        "They did it entirely because....."

        The internet was booming, competition all over the place, it was important to be ahead. And of course, try to make it the best so people wouldn't use other browsers.

        Chrome has done it too (article as such),2817,2397158,00.asp

      • Richard Saunders says:

        That article is dead wrong. IE6 mainly took off because everybody was on dialup and nobody wanted to take the time to download another browser. IE6 always sucked at those features. In fact, IE6 was HTML4 in name only, as what fee features it supported were badly broken. The paradigm shift didn't occur until widespread broadband adoption.

        As for chrome, the reason e.g. angry birds only worked in it is because it was the only browser to correctly implement those features. Has nothing to do with Google making a proprietary standard like MS did.

        I don't know if you recall, but IEs broken standards were part of their embrace extend extinguish strategy. They tried the same by writing their own java VM that they diverged from standard java for the express purpose of killing a threat to windows.

      • Eric Sleeper says:

        It's not always about killing the threat to Windows (however, would you blame any company) - Somethings yes, others no. Some times Microsoft does things simply because they thought they had a better solution (sometimes they did...sometimes they didn't).

      • Richard Saunders says:

        Recall during the antitrust trial, several internal Microsoft emails were released. In those emails, Microsoft executives explained the "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy to their developers. IE was indeed part of that strategy. This is (and other things) was a smoking gun for why they were found guilty.

        They used those exact words, too. They also used other ones like "the job isn't done till Novell doesn't run."

      • Eric Sleeper says:

        I'm not sure if you really don't understand running a business and competition. In most cases, the goal is to crush them or a minimum make them irrelevant. Either way, my point stands about, "Some times Microsoft does things simply because they thought they had a better solution (sometimes they did...sometimes they didn't)."

      • Richard Saunders says:

        "I'm not sure if you really don't understand running a business and competition. In most cases, the goal is to crush them or a minimum make them irrelevant."

        That depends on the ethics of your company. Microsoft even went so far as to force OEMs to pay for a Windows license for each computer sold, even if they bundled competing OSes. This was the origin of the term "Microsoft tax."

        It would be like Google telling Samsung or HTC that they aren't allowed to make Windows Phones unless they pay Google money. Google doesn't do that. In fact Google even allows third parties to fork Android and sell it without paying a cent to Google. Namely, Amazon, who you've often said regrets using Android. Except Amazon presently has some of the top selling Android devices, and makes a lot from not only them, but app and content sales as well. Amazon Fire TV in fact is presently the top selling set top box, which runs forked Android, and Amazon doesn't pay Google a cent.

        Anyways Microsoft still does its "tax" to this day in fact. Namely they buy out patent portfolios that they can use against Android and Linux. You probably don't realize this, but Microsoft hasn't invented a single one of the patents that they assert against Android. The vast majority of those patents were purchased from Nortel. The rest were purchased from other companies (including Nokia, who prior to Microsoft taking those patents, Nokia didn't sue anybody over them. Neither did Nortel.)

      • Eric Sleeper says:

        I didn't say I approved of the old Microsoft's Ethics :)

        Last time I checked, companies are allowed to buy patents, in fact really common as a driving factor in buying up companies. So it doesn't matter who invented it, it comes down to who owns it (and smart enough to see value in it). You by it to own it, to make it yours (so other can't use the idea unless they pay you) If a patent system can get abused, it's time to change the patent system (the root of the issue). What Google does or doesn't do with their patents isn't about being ethical, it's a business model plan and simple. They buy up patents (make some) so they can increase the function of their software, generally making it free, so they can monitor and collect data on the users. Google doesn't let everyone just use their own patients.

        However, as Ethics are a big thing, you really need to focus time on the new Google, how it's Ethics are starting to look like the old Microsoft. You seem to put Google on a pedestal - Or avoid articles about Google being investigated, bulling companies behind closed doors.

      • Richard Saunders says:

        The patent system is intended to give inventors (which, again, Microsoft didn't invent these) a while to capitalize on their invention.

        Anyways why does Microsoft go after Amazon for patent infringement but Google does not?

        "Or avoid articles about Google being investigated, bulling companies behind closed doors."

        You actually think this no longer describes Microsoft? Not only that, but what does this have to do with the fact that the whole reason Microsoft created a web browser to begin with is because they felt web browsers were a threat to windows?

      • Richard Saunders says:

        I'm not sure whether or not I should pity you. It's really bad just how little you know about the behavior of your favorite company, and why they even bothered to create Internet Explorer to begin with.

        Microsoft didn't create Internet Explorer because they wanted to compete in that area. They did it because they didn't want to lose their OS monopoly that they even admitted to one another that they had. They created Internet Explorer (along with a number of other middleware applets) with deliberate cross platform incompatibilities because they felt that the web was a threat to Windows, and the proof of that comes in the form of an internal memo

        Because of this perceived threat, Microsoft set back web browser development at least a good 10 years.

        "Chris Jones described in an August 1995 e-mail: “We are so dominant in all other aspects of the market that we can never be displaced by a full frontal assault. However, when we do leave a hole in our strategy, there are many companies eager to move in and try to leverage this hole to grow into our other businesses. And they have: you only have to browse the Web to realize that NetScape, Sun, Apple, Adobe, and MacroMedia are establishing a presence. The real threat to our business is solutions like Java, which present a different programming model than Windows and take developer and content provider mind share. This platform offering is quickly evolving, with two key players moving forward with their offerings and evangelism. In addition to Java, NetScape has announced an interface for plugging in different document types, while in turn Apple is building a programmable browser using OpenDoc. The Result -- People Aren’t Writing to Our Interfaces. The solutions people have implemented today do not benefit Windows uniquely -- they work on all platforms equally well. More importantly, these solutions are being driven by other companies rather than our own -- specifically, NetScape and Sun. Without an alternative to this platform we will lose control of a critical segment of the developer (and customer) market.” GX 523, at MS98 0103658."

      • Eric Sleeper says:

        LOL - Chrome has issues with tons of sites, regardless of who's fault it is.

        I come across a site a couple times a monththat Chrome can't handle, I open IE and it just works. Just last week was Sirius XM Online (to stream online)

        However, you are correct about standards - which was easy for Google to pull off after the big boom and things changing monthly (and people not waiting for standards). Just about as easy as it will be for MS Edge. OMG, just test in there too, just not Chrome.

        Now getting back to the real world, many sites work in IE as they wrote them for IE (as a long time ago, it dominated) - IE (and the internet) was evolving faster than standards got approved. Most know IE6 was the major factor in this, and this is when MS said screw standards we are about to take browsers to the next level...they did, and now we are force into an issue years later. It happens.

      • Richard Saunders says:

        I haven't seen that happen in any websites. However if I happen to open any of my company intranet pages in ie (which I sometimes do on a fresh windows server install) they typically warn that they're not compatible with IE. Even though we're a Microsoft distributor, we still defer to standards compliance.

      • Eric Sleeper says:

        Agree - IE isn't perfect either (at least for non-business sites). That is why it's great to have 2 browsers installed at all times.

        On that - As I'm new to Wells Fargo (they make a Windows Phone app) - I can do most things in Chrome but not all things. problem.

      • torch4x4 says:

        Chrome is a bad idea for enterprise because enterprise works with IE, where I work there's no way to use another browser different than IE even if I don't like IE, for administrators providing support to multiple browsers is more complicated with java updates, default browsing, compatibility isus, etc. etc. few of our web based apps works only with IE and is the same case with the regular applications on Windows and their versions, we are using W7 and visualizing XP for some old systems, there's no way to move to W10 at this time. however I been using W10 Enterprise Tech Preview and IE is not my primary browser, for me is OK because as an admin I have more resources, visualization, full access, etc. etc. but regular users will stay forever with W7 and IE.

      • Richard Saunders says:

        "Chrome is a bad idea for enterprise because enterprise works with IE"

        I've contracted for at least 6 different large companies in the last few years, and all of them use chrome. In fact I've met a few Microsoft employees who don't like IE.

      • torch4x4 says:

        I don't like IE and I don't use IE but as an administrator I don't want to support multiple browsers because some portals of our system providers only works with IE.
        If you worked for 6 large companies using Chrome then probably you worked also in another 30 MORE LARGE companies using IE.
        I don't like either but that's what it is.

      • Richard Saunders says:

        "If you worked for 6 large companies using Chrome then probably you worked also in another 30 MORE LARGE companies using IE.I don't like either but that's what it is."

        This is only true if you're using some kind of information management system that's over 10 years old. Are there companies like that? Yeah, but very few of them are in the IT industry.

    • skruis says:

      I really miss the IE/Windows monopoly. It was like a 'golden age' of peace and prosperity. The calm before the storm. And I'm not trying to say that competition is bad or that IE6 and Windows were 'perfect' ... just that, from a compatibility point of view, it all pretty much worked the same for any given website or application on any computer. Viruses were everywhere but, meh. Even if you exclude the competition from Apple and Google, the amount of frustration we have to deal with when it comes to websites, browser and browser version compatibility today is a nightmare. This employee at this client uses that webapp which requires IE8. The other employee at the same client uses another webapp which requires IE9 and so on and so on. It's a frustrating mess. Then toss in websites oriented towards either IE or WebKit, mobile apps having different functionality on different platforms, mobile web apps not working for a given device, accessories w/ unique platform specific requirements and even though every individual component is 'better' and even though there have been so many improvements in technology, the 'whole' is more jacked up than ever. From a consumer standpoint, it's not so bad because they just have to worry about their stuff but from an IT standpoint, what a mess. I firmly believe in capitalism and democracy but sometimes, it just sounds nice to have a dictator.

      • BoltmanLives says:

        Not to mention developers that think the cloud should provide security for their app to customer interface.

  6. GooneyGooGoo says:

    I read that there are more people running the pre-release version of W10 than running OSX. Just sayin

  7. Dansolo says:

    If you don't wait at least a year for any new OS for enterprise applications, you are not intelligent enough to be working in this industry. Especially with Microsoft, who are known for changing lots of things just because they can, rather than for a tangible improvement in the user experience.

    This is just common sense.

    • V_Dude says:

      That's a ridiculous statement. A smart IT team begins by testing the new OS as soon as its available. There will be employees who get it on their personal systems and in these days of BYOD the IT team has to be knowledgeable enough to support those devices.

    • PC_Tool says:

      That is a ridiculous generalization. It completely depends on the size of the organization, the industry, and the quality of staff (both IT and otherwise).

      Anyone making such generalizations and then using that as an excuse to insult the intelligence of others has only provided a wonderful example of irony in action.

      • Dansolo says:

        Actually, it doesn't depend on any of those things whatsoever. Being insulted by a true statement doesn't actually give you a valid counterargument. Please try again. Software used in the enterprise should ALWAYS be more mature than software you might consider for home use. ALWAYS. Period!

      • PC_Tool says:

        "Software used in the enterprise should ALWAYS be more mature than software you might consider for home use."

        Is a completely different statement than:

        "If you don't wait at least a year ... you are not intelligent"

        One of those is a reasonable statement that can be readily justified. The other is absolute rubbish. I bet even you can figure out which is which.

      • SlapnutzAsshat says:

        Toolie, once again hit it one!
        As an aside I reside in OZ (go Delly) and our most esteemed Federal Govt. have finally finished the roll out of Vista SP3 (I think, perhaps it's only SP2) across all services after all these years.

      • Lazarus98 says:

        "Software used in the enterprise should ALWAYS be more mature", This is a pretty un-enlightened statement. There are many reasons why a corporate environment might want and should use state of the art software. Mature is safe and steady but that does not keep you in the game if your company is trying to be leading edge.

    • barely_normal says:

      In latest news...common sense found to be fairly uncommon.

  8. BoltmanLives says:

    It is critical for Enterprises to move quickly,, Once they do its gravy as they will not have to go through another transition for many years. Azure stack is Huge and so is .NET native, save Enterprises tons of money and makes their options way more flexible.

    Race to the cloud is ON

    • barely_normal says:

      Lemmings to the cliff...

      • BoltmanLives says:

        No a move to the Third computer

      • Bob Grant says:

        Cloud is not some new thing... It's just the simple mainframe/workstation system that was in-use back in the 50's. (albeit with much longer length connections to the server, and significantly more workstations)

      • BoltmanLives says:

        You are correct "the cloud"is just like any server room yet much larger.

        What has changed and why I mention the THIRD AGE of COMPUTING is human minds need to change.

        People thought it was crazy to go beyond business and put a PC on every desktop..then it happened and the world changed

        People though it was crazy to put all of your data, all of your infrastructure and all of your desktops and security as the hugest outsourcing shift in history...until it happens...then the world changes.

        I stand totally behind my notion this year is the step into the third age of computing.. that is driven by change in human perception of what we are doing, witnessing and where we are going.

        So it is different than before.

    • Asok Asus says:

      "they will not have to go through another transition for many years"

      Nope, pretty much just a major transition every couple of months for any Enterprise foolish enough to replace Windows 7 with Windows 8.10 as Microsoft makes continuous "improvements" to a half-baked product every couple of months. After a few years, they might just about get it right. On the other hand, Windows 7 will remain the ultimate stable Windows platform for several more years.

      • BoltmanLives says:

        7 is going to be dumped like a bag of reaking fisheads, companies want to compete and save money

      • Bob Grant says:

        If they want to compete, the OS makes no difference... If they want to save money, they aren't going to spend millions to switch to an OS that their employees don't know, and most likely aren't comfortable using.

  9. markettide says:

    Our department has made the final decision to not install Windows any longer for our corporation.

    After twenty years, our company was 100% Windows OS installations. We plan to reduce this number by next year to less than 25%, remaining would be servers only and eventually phasing out remaining Win servers the following year.

    Clients will be migrated to a hardened operating system with gnu technologies within the year.

    Thank you

  10. Lazarus98 says:

    Waiting 6 months, what's new about this? It's a pretty normal stance for any company. It'll take that long for most companies to learn and test it, properly.

  11. Asok Asus says:

    As Microsoft continuously "updates" their half-baked Windows 8.10 release, Windows 7 will remain the ultimate stable Windows platform for several more years. Almost no sane business enterprise, big or small will be tempted to convert from W7 to W8.10, particularly since there's essentially nothing new in W8.10 that's useful for the enterprise PC user.

  12. BoltmanLives says:

    Blockbuster announcement , I lost track just watch

    Yea Enterprises could not possibly want a replicator.

  13. markettide says:

    maybe its caught in the zipper

  14. LisaMStokes says:

    Reset your job with betanews Find Here

  15. tomasammy says:

    ❁✿❋♣♥♦ Just Access At Free Time And Make Your Life.. .. Catherine `s stori is flabbergasting, I just received a gorgeous Citroën 2CV after earning $5063 this last four weeks and-in excess of, 10k last-munth . it's definitly the best-work Ive had . I started this 3 months ago and right away started bringing in minimum $73, per-hour

    See Here For Maore Information..

    ➽➽➽➽➽➽<<<<.. https://WorldWebGlobalWork44.Com


  16. Shirley K. Lee says:

    I love The Beta News......

    >>>>>>>> -----------Continue Reading>

© 1998-2020 BetaNews, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy - Cookie Policy.