Slow down...you're moving too fast...
The buzz last week was all about how Microsoft has announced a public delay to the next version of Windows, named "Vista". Everyone was crying...vendors for not being able to sell more hardware before Christmas (people will not buy new PCs unless it comes with bling-bling), software authors for not being able to ship their Vista-specific titles, developers for not being able to close their Vista-related projects, and Intel for griping in general.
But before the stock market plummets on this announcement, there are two points of view not heard from -- the IT gurus who will have to roll this 7-year itch out to the end users, and the end users who will have to go through yet another drastic change in their lives. For these two camps, there is nothing but joy at the delay...as this will postpone the drastic loss of productivity time until calendar and budget year 2007.
Let us digress into why they want no part of Vista until it is proverbially jammed down their throats by the media and forced migration gods.
True users care not for bling-bling...they want the machine to start, to work, and to be consistent. They buy cars that will last five years. They will always eat the same foodstuffs. It's not about snazz and glitter...it's about productivity. Managers want eight hours of work out of me per day, they think, so I don't want to be impeded by rebooting three to six times a day, having to constantly hide Office paperclips, worry about the lack of anti-virus updates, and so forth. If the vendors and manufacturers want to roll these sorts of changes out, why not in small, incremental and non-destructive steps? Why every two to three years are we forced to take giant steps and fall behind for three to six months?
There is somewhat of a slowing of this process...Gartner's reports on the overall percentage of Windows XP and Office 2003 non-adoption are significant. And XP is almost seven years old. We still support people with Windows 98 and Office 97 - ones who have no need for the bling-bling, and their problems are being forced to upgrade. Why is that an issue? Oh, many know this answer...in order for Microsoft to be profitable, the world has to buy in to every upgrade and force the issue of upgrading hardware and accessories. A similar process exists in what Detroit and Los Angeles feed the world, but since the IT industry moves at lightspeed, the tremors from this Vista upheaval are more like earthquakes.
Detroit has been forced to re-examine the vox populii as gas prices and usage trends change. Los Angeles is also reworking itself due to advances in Internet delivery methodologies. Perhaps Redmond should be working on more of a relaxed, revisionary approach instead of yearly Office upgrades and quantum-leap Windows versions. Worry more about getting it to work RIGHT instead of bling-bling.
But before the stock market plummets on this announcement, there are two points of view not heard from -- the IT gurus who will have to roll this 7-year itch out to the end users, and the end users who will have to go through yet another drastic change in their lives. For these two camps, there is nothing but joy at the delay...as this will postpone the drastic loss of productivity time until calendar and budget year 2007.
Let us digress into why they want no part of Vista until it is proverbially jammed down their throats by the media and forced migration gods.
True users care not for bling-bling...they want the machine to start, to work, and to be consistent. They buy cars that will last five years. They will always eat the same foodstuffs. It's not about snazz and glitter...it's about productivity. Managers want eight hours of work out of me per day, they think, so I don't want to be impeded by rebooting three to six times a day, having to constantly hide Office paperclips, worry about the lack of anti-virus updates, and so forth. If the vendors and manufacturers want to roll these sorts of changes out, why not in small, incremental and non-destructive steps? Why every two to three years are we forced to take giant steps and fall behind for three to six months?
There is somewhat of a slowing of this process...Gartner's reports on the overall percentage of Windows XP and Office 2003 non-adoption are significant. And XP is almost seven years old. We still support people with Windows 98 and Office 97 - ones who have no need for the bling-bling, and their problems are being forced to upgrade. Why is that an issue? Oh, many know this answer...in order for Microsoft to be profitable, the world has to buy in to every upgrade and force the issue of upgrading hardware and accessories. A similar process exists in what Detroit and Los Angeles feed the world, but since the IT industry moves at lightspeed, the tremors from this Vista upheaval are more like earthquakes.
Detroit has been forced to re-examine the vox populii as gas prices and usage trends change. Los Angeles is also reworking itself due to advances in Internet delivery methodologies. Perhaps Redmond should be working on more of a relaxed, revisionary approach instead of yearly Office upgrades and quantum-leap Windows versions. Worry more about getting it to work RIGHT instead of bling-bling.
posted by Mark Underwood at
10:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home