This is correct information, but still quite irrelevant as for now. More than 60% of businesses STILL keep using Win2000 based systems and networks untill today, so what you're talking about is a vastly outnumbered minority of the business-realm. I know if I had a Win2000 based network/system incorporated in my business, I definitely wouldn't switch to Win7 right now, cause of the investments and changes in infrastructure it would invocke. This implies the large companies more then the small ones, but as large companies incorporate the majority of the market, they pave the road for the business-section of win7 marketing. Let us wait a few years, and then see how win7 has blended into (maybe) the majority of business environments.
I don't like the fact that they didn't name any apps and they just happen to produce an app that finds these problems. That being said most of it comes down to lazy coding, if you coded properly using i don't know something other than VS 2005 then it wouldn't be a problem. I haven't found anything that won't run on 7, I think this guy is just trying to spread rumors so people will buy their software.
ya like he said the prblm is not Windows 7 or Microsoft............the prblm lies with the software developers.They are not changing with time but Windows and Microsoft are............They must design compatible software dat works with the latest Operating System nd dey should stop sticking with the old crap software nd complaining dat windows is not compatible.
I know a lot of Health care companies and financial companies use Win2k for compatibility with older legacy apps, that for some reason never get upgraded to work with new stuff. You would be surprised how many places in the medical industry (anything from health care providers to manufacturers of things like pace makers), are using OLD legacy software because of the cost of going to a new system (which is their own fault because you should always evaluate a cost analysis approach to your in house apps, because if you fail to innovate it costs a lot more to upgrade from something made in '94 to now than if it was made in 2001-2002 or beyond), the fact now that most things operate in a web browser and back then everything ran off a central server that was not distributed, load balanced, virtualized, or whatever only brings migration costs higher. This is poor outlook on CIOs parts. Like it or not upgrading your hardware is a cost of doing business. IT doesn't have to be a black hole if you know how to manage your infrastructure accordingly and aggressively. The people in the high positions don't pay attention to developing trends in technology and are only concerned with keeping things running rather than upgrading infrastructure to change with the times eventually saving you money rather than costing it. A good example of this is Direct Access in Server 2008 R2. It is just as secure as a SSL VPN, costs very little to implement provided your infrastructure is current (it requires IPv6 which has been around for over 10 years now just nobody wants to implement it WTF?) and you are running Windows 7. So if you have machines that are fairly recent (for example my laptop is a Dell D630 which is about 2 years old now if not a little older), then you spend the money to roll out 7 and 2008 R2 and you save time and money over your VPN. DA is always on, no need to worry about turning it on. Group Policy works over DA, it doesn't work that well over VPN (especially if it is turned off), access rights and permissions are inherited from AD over DA, which with VPN it isn't. DA gives you the ability to be connected to your office while not in the office, which something VPN does but falls short in many ways. Now I could go more in depth but this is just an example.
I work as a networking infrastructure assistant, and I know for a fact that more then half of businesses aren't eager to switch to a newer os when it isn't really neccesary. It's quite an investment to make, and most will only make the switch when expanding their infrastructure, or when such an investment is justified because of incompatibility/security/... issues. For example, there even are smaller companies that still have a network mixed with WinNT4.0 clients. But luckily most have now allready made the switch to a native win2000/2003 infrastructure, mainly because of security and compatibility reasons. Win2000 has been one of the best OS'es for business environments, and still suffices for a lot of companies. Win2003 Server editions are slowly being implemented because of the expanded/modernized functionality regarding policy implementation and security. But as for clients, Win2000 is still performing very well, so it would be a waste of money to buy licences for all these clients, just to have a new OS. Only when these investments are justified are most companies gonna make that investment. For smaller companies this investment won't be that big an issue, so they will in general have bought win7 for their business a little sooner.
I can say he is probably on the money. The company I work for just upgraded their contact center workstations to XP back in April 09. There are more companies that are behind the times when it comes to technology than being a front runner. A lot of it has to do with the industry and how many legacy applications they have and how willing they are to "upgrade just because a new OS comes out" My company is running XP and Vista on its non-contact center desktops and laptops but when it came to the agents desktops (approx 2000+) they were running a homebrewed application that interfaced with our mainframe to enter orders. We had to pay for a new app to get written since no application on the market did what we wanted it to do. Smart businesses usually leave s**t alone if it is working for what they intended it for. Side note - We had an absolute bitch of a time when we upgrade to Office 2007. Not the deployment (eazy peazy) but the company had to create a 60 minute training module just to get people prepared for the big changes 2007 introduced.
Yep. Personnel training is also quite an investment for any company. You wouldn't believe the ignorance that in general rules the workplace when it comes to using new software. With these manditory trainings comes expences, one more reason why a lot of companies don't want to jump the wagon.