What a Vista Upgrade Will Really Cost You

narramissic writes, "James Gaskin wrote an interesting article this week about what he recons it will really cost organizations to upgrade to Vista. Gaskin estimates that each Vista user will 'cost your company between $3,250 and $5,000. That's each and every Vista user. Money will go to Microsoft for Vista and Office 2007, to hardware vendors for new PCs and components, and possibly a few bucks to Apple for those users jumping to a Mac.'" Any sense of how realistic those figures are?

FUD

[networkBoy]

Most of the hardware costs would be there anyway as part of a normal IT refresh cycle. So I call BS.
-nB

Huh?

[MMC Monster]

Does Windows Vista no longer support Office 2000? Why not update all your networking cable to fiber, while you are at it?

Why the heck do you need to upgrade everything at once?

Re:FUD

[gEvil (beta)]

The hardware itself will be about 1/2 the cost when you factor in both Vista and Office. Not to mention that many typical desktop users are still fine with machines purchased 3-4 (or more) years ago.

Re:FUD

[TrippTDF]

yeah, but do you NEED to do this refresh is the question. Everything I've seen of Vista looks like XP without the usability/stability (I know, still beta). These cotsts would be part of a cycle, but why do the cycle inthe first place?

Re:Huh?

[91degrees]

But if you'ree using Office 2000, you don't need Vista. The OS on its own is useless for a business. In fact, so is the PC. People are spending that much just to run office.

Moo

[Chacham]

Any sense of how realistic those figures are?

Sounds to me as realistic as the numbers in this story [slashdot.org].

OK, some details.

New PCs will cost $1,500-$2,000.

Um, no, they won't. A new computer *without* corporate discounts is 25%-30% of that.

Darn few existing corporate PCs will have the video horsepower needed to run Aero

Methinks this person knows not what he speaks of. My "corporate" computer is more powerful than my (admittedly older) gaming PC.

Vista's primary upgrade inducement.

Is this guy serious? The "primary" upgrade inducment is looks? I bet he doesn't have a girlfriend...

Vista, for better or worse, has quite a bit more to offer than just "looks".

You need 256MB of video RAM to run Aero properly, no matter what Microsoft's marketing says.

So, i should believe this guy more than MS. Granted MS has a stake in saying it needs less, but this guy seems to have it in for MS just the same.

I don't know of any motherboard-based video chip sets that include 256MB of RAM.

Even if that was true, why does that affect corporate PCs, which are usually higher quality.

Upgrade? While in the PC, add memory: Vista needs a minimum of 1GB of RAM. The hardware cost of the RAM may be less than your labor costs getting that installed in every PC.

Actually, if we're talking corporate, upgrades are rarely done for a variety of reasons.

If your exiting PCs can take full advantage of Vista,

I assumed this meant "existing". Exiting is a different word, having nearly the opposite meaning.

I'm happy for you. I don't believe you, but I hope your upgrade goes well.

And sarcasm? *This* is an article?

The rest of the "article" is worse FUD than MS puts out.

Re:FUD

[goldspider]

I think an interesting analysis would be a comparison between the cost of upgrading to Vista and switching the entire office to Linux.

What would be the cost of:

- replacing/training desktop support?
- training the rest of the workforce?
- lost productivity due to the above?

App upgrade cost shouldn't be counted

[davidwr]

The cost needs to be broken down into:

1) Hardware upgrades that would have happened anyways. Apply the "Microsoft Tax" and cost of supporting Vista -or- the manpower cost to install XP to the vista-upgrade cost, leave the rest segregated.
2) Application Software upgradest that would have happened anyways, or that would have happened but for the fact the new software requires Vista
3) The cost of upgrading vista, including supporting Vista, training end-users, license fees, Microsoft Tax on new computers if tax is above license fee for the version of XP you were using, and for companies NOT upgrading, the manpower involved to "downgrade" from Vista to XP.

Yes, that's right, "upgrading" to Microsoft will cost you manpower for every new MS-license-equipped PC even if you stick with XP. Happy Happy Joy Joy.

New PC's to cost $1500-2000?

[ProppaT]

Sign me up for that company! As resident IT guy here, I usually buy boxes for $400 and spend an extra $50-100, depending on current market value, to upgrade the RAM. Depending on the user, another $50 to give them a Geforce 6200 w/ dual monitor outputs. And these systems are nothing to sneeze at. As long as you ensure the hard drive in the computer is up to snuff and it has enough RAM, most people can't tell the difference between processors.

Even if I wasn't a budget oriented IT guy, I sure couldn't justify spending $1500-2000 on a system. For that everyone better be getting hotrod laptops w/ 17" widescreen displays.

No reason to upgrade

[AK76]

Why on earth would companies upgrade all of their systems to Vista if it requires them to upgrade the hardware? Vista in itself has no real advantage over XP for corporate use, so the only machines running Vista in the workplace will be the ones that came with it pre-installed.

Vista will cost me nothing

[EtherAlchemist]

I switched to Mac in March, and after a few Windows-only tool withdrawls, I must say I am doing fine and will never switch back. I'm tired of the weak security and exploits. Using Windows started to feel like walking down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood at night. When you feel like you have to continually watch your OS to make sure it's doing the right thing, in my op it's time to get a new OS. So I did.

That's not to say Mac is perfect and I'm sure the time will come when security will become a more focused concern for Mac users, but I have faith (oddly) that Apple will see this coming, remember what mistakes MS made (and will no doubt continue to make), and adjust accordingly.

And if I'm wrong, there's always Linux ;)

XP will stick around

[ArbitraryConstant]

Remember how long it took to get rid of NT4/98? Lots of people are still using 2k, and XP has been out longer than other desktop releases. XP is going to be around for a long time.

If the move to Vista is stretched out over a number of years, much of the cost will be absorbed by normal new hardware spending, and I don't see XP becomming rare until the next decade.

heh

[Phantom of the Opera]

good point, but I'd say that current word processing, email, web browsing and spreadsheeting technologies are at a point where tossing more hardware at them makes no discernable difference after about a gig of ram and a one gigaherz processor. Number crunching, Image and movie manipulation is an other matter. Most offices don't do those things.

Aero in the workplace?

[enkafan]

The main problem is that the author assumes that to upgrade to Vista means you have to use Aero. Microsoft has made it very, very clear that Vista is supposed to scale up as new hardware is released, but it will still run fine on most PC purchased recently. I'm running it fine on a PC and a laptop that are both 2+ years old here in office. Plus, if a company is going to be running 3+ year old PCs, well, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they aren't the type of company that upgrades operating systems on their desktops all that frequently either.

Hooked on drugs

[MECC]

FTA:"Why get Office 2007 if not new SharePoint and Exchange servers? Can you run both on one box? Didn't think so."

MS and the MS-kateers really pushed Sharepoint at work like it was the greatest thing since the wheel. It did nothing for me, and I really didn't see the point (a few small end-user hand-holding convieniences and the usual glazed-over security problems, but that really seemed to be the extent of it), but it was *FREE* . Just like that first hit of crack, sans the high, but complete with the addiction and heavy hidden future costs. The curious thing is the MSkateers, when asked about security, just say "Its secure", after they give you the usual nasty attitude.

*sigh*

I'm almost to the point of keel-hauling vendor reps on a parking lot who give you free stuff to get you hooked. Dell gave us a blade server with one blade, in the hopes of us filling the rest of the slots. We won't put anything on that box, because of Dell's disasterous server track record (100% rate of failiure of some component withing the first three months, 0% for everybody else). Its hard to tell a CFO you have to say 'no' to this new free thing that looks to have some kind of value, and then get money for important projects in the future.

Keeps IT employed - No joke

[Danathar]

For all that Microsoft does to make our life harder, they create more jobs for everybody supporting windows. In a strange way, windoze sucking as bad over the years has spawned whole industries that would not be around probably if we had a rock solid OS.

Here's what I see happening

[logicassasin]

Here's what I see happening:

Small businesses will delay their upgrades until they absolutely have to get off XP/2000 server/2003 server. The small businesses that I've done contract work all own their machines, they don't lease. They upgrade as much as possible until it no longer makes sense. Many are still using P2's and P3's loaded with as much RAM as possible to be able to run XP smoothly. Because their current environment simply works, there's no rush to upgrade.

Medium sized businesses may test the waters, but will ultimately delay upgrades until their leases are up on the current batch of PC's. As lease refreshes begin, Vista will roll in, creating a support headache as techs now have another platform to learn and keep track of. They'll eventually get over to Vista, but it'll take a couple of years.

Large businesses may follow the same pattern as medium sized business clients and upgrade with lease refreshes. Having two platforms to support isn't much of a problem as they can usually afford to get their techs up to speed quickly and some may even dedicate a group to Vista support.

I don't see many businesses running out to buy new machines just for Vista. In fact, I see the opposite; very few will. They'll just get Vista with new PCs during lease refresh cycles.

It was hugely expensive to move to XP...

[csoto]

from 2000. Then again, it was totally worth it. We basically did the same as we did moving people to Mac OS X - hunt down groups of users and spend a lot of time migrating. But the increase in stability and capability it added really made up for a lot of this.

Now, this isn't to say I agree with the figures. I haven't seen them, yet. With 2000->XP and OS9->OSX, there typically weren't hardware upgrades required. It was mostly technician time. But there was a cost, and it's not inconsequential.

Re:FUD

[networkBoy]

"Of course if you can properly lock down your software"

I guess you missed the part about the volume of PCs that are notebooks?
Physical abuse takes it's toll far more than software issues. All one needs do is refresh with the latest and greatest image for that notebook build and you've fixed any software issues. The hardware takes a pounding, that pounding increases the rate of parts wear out on the notebooks, that's life.

Really, not to flame, but I don't get your point.
-nB

Re:FUD

[AviLazar]

How will the hardware cost be 1/2 the cost when you factor in vista/office. At 3-5k...50% of that is 1.5-2.5k. Vista/office for business is not going to cost that much.
While many desktop users "are still fine with machines purchased 3-4 (or more) years ago" that does not make it a good thing to do. I know desktop users who are fine with win95/98....do you recommend they stay on those platforms? I sure don't. While users who are using winXP are going to be fine for the next few years, they will eventually need to upgrade. Nobody is saying run to the store the moment vista hits the shelves (well except MS and people who will reap some benefits from those sales) - most people will say wait until SP-1 (/. people will say wait until SP-3552352).

The cost to upgrade will be there, but for organizations who have been using XP for a number of years, they have gotten their use out of it. They can stay on XP, but it will not cost 1.5 to 2.5k to upgrade.

Re:Try Telling That to the Coders

[pixelpusher220]

There you go applying 'logic' to 'business decisions' ;-) Some people just never learn! (the others go into mgmt!)

My biggest peeve is a lack of development focused PCs, we're saddled with the 'standard' footprint that everybody gets. I don't want email, or office or anything else non development related on my dev box. All developers should get 2 machines - 1 cookie-cutter footprint for mundane office stuff, and one completely unshackled and free dev box (on a separate dirty LAN).

The amount of productivity lost to such 'decisions' boggles the mind....

Re:FUD

[RAMMS+EIN]

I'm sure some people somewhere will be running pilots with both Vista and some Linux distro. I hope they'll post their findings; they will be interesting at least.

Re:FUD with sprinkles

[goldspider]

Microsoft keeps users because (among many reasons) their software's interface is consistent and familiar. I can't imagine they break that with Vista.

I really hope you aren't suggesting that the differences between Vista vs. XP are similar to Vista vs. Linux.

Re:FUD with sprinkles

[nasch]

vista is dramatically different. just like how XP was dramatically different.

You're saying XP is dramatically different from Windows 2000? I didn't need any training to make the switch, and I've never heard of anybody else ever needing any training either. I'm not familiar with Linux so I can't comment there, but I can say that the differences between XP and previous versions of Windows, even back to 95, are trivial compared to the differences between XP and OSX. Just my opinion, but I don't buy your argument that XP is just as different from other Windows as other OSes are.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

well I guess keeping your clients on an OS that you are the sole supporter for is one way of keepinmg that client. And lining your pockets with extra charges. Win2k should be gone both in server and pro. It has holes that are being exploited and MS has said they are no longer supporting it.

so good move, keeping your client on an OS that is not support by anyone but you. Then again your solution is to wipe and reinstall everytime.

Re:FUD

[notnAP]

Not really true; the hardware will come with a Vista license when you buy it.

So the requried hardware for Vista didn't really cost me anything extra because it was I was going to buy it anyway as part of my system upgrade cycle (I have a system upgrade cycle?!?), and Vista didn't cost me anything because it came "free" with the hardware.

Well that's a relief. I thought that money I was going to spend was real. I can't wait to tell the CFO the money I'm telling he's spending doesn't really cost him anything.

And I guess the good news is that I'm no longer paying this same nothing twice, too.

Re:VISTA requires ALL new hardware

[Foofoobar]

In which case, you don't even NEED to upgrade to VISTA, In fact, you don't even need to be on XP and could still be on 2000. This was an article for companies that ARE upgrading. If you are upgrading when you don't even need to and your needs are so minimal, you are just throwing money away at features you will never use.

Re:heh

[HiThere]

Tax packages are tricky, and require constant updating. And they need to be timely. They aren't good candidates for a FOSS project. This doesn't mean it couldn't work, but it would definitely require subsidy, the provision of time from tax attorneys, etc.

There may also be legal issues particular to the preparation of taxes. That I'm not certain about, but governments may be touchy about limiting the liability of ANYONE involved in the process. Or they may want to certify the programs (and charge for the certification).

I'm not saying it can't be done...just that I suspect that tax programs are one of the last services that will transition to FOSS.

Re:Try Telling That to the Coders

[E-Rock]

Why are you buying models that change that often? The models we buy change maybe every year. We've got 5 years of stuff out there any maybe have 4-6 images for all of it (including the laptops).

Of course if you need to reimage your machines every 6 months, then you're obviously doing some other things wrong too.

Re:Yup.® FUD

[Ravenseye]

You are so right. We're in a bank. 85% of the people here run one application...the teller app. Absolutely no need for Aero and all the other stuff. They log in to the network, crank up their teller app and stay in it until they go home. They use e-mail...but not Outlook. Our company doesn't do Word. Our XP PC's are streamlined....no funky Toys 'R Us interface...no balloon help...no shadow cursors...no animated menus. ZIP support is shut off...USB is shut off. These are basic terminals.

We need Vista like we need a delivery of counterfeit money.

Laugh

[dlhm]

I can see by this article this guy must be an "I love me, I have all the certs, but no pratical knowledge guy" This article is a waste of time, I think he has no clue what he's talking about, and would probably need to read a book it install any RAM or Video Card. How do people like this get in a postition where their opinion is actually wanted? The good thing is that any Tech worth his pay will immediatly recongnize this article is biased and inherintly fabricated. His numbers don't add up and, I think he needs to factor softcost into them. A tech adding RAM and a video card only takes 2 maybe 4 minutes, spending the same amount of time sitting at his desk on /. cost the company the same.

Re:Exactly...

[ajs318]

So just get two or more spares ready for deployment in an emergency! If you need 50 identical desktops, buy enough bits for 55 machines. If one goes down, you bung in a spare while you fix it -- substituting parts from another, known good machine. The original spare stays put and the fixed machine then becomes another spare.

Installing identical software on many machines is easy too. Either use dd to copy an entire drive (BTW, this even works with Windows: boot from a USB device if possible, otherwise a DVD+RW drive [DMA-capable, won't slow down the bus] on hdb and have hard drives on hda and hdc); or set up your own local mirror of your favourite distro, and install over the LAN via http or ftp.

Re:FUD

[manno]

Let's be honest that's just MS FUD. You're telling me MS actualy "supports" its software? Dell actualy "supports" MS's software? They're going to have to get support from some 3rd party anyway. I can't think of an IT guy worth his salt that could get around XP, and then get lost working on 2k... They're 99% the same OS. 2K just requires less memory HD space, and processor cycles, by no small amount I might add. Window dressing != new, and better OS.

I'm working on a 2k machine right now that's up 24/7 and when I do the math on up time, it's 9 9's. Our security is nothing extravagant just a NAT firewall, and antivirus software. Our server is a 2k pro machine too, just simple file serving, openVPN, and VNC for maintenance. Outside of shutting it down for hurricanes it has been up continuously for 5 years straight. I mean literally 0 minutes of unscheduled downtime. 2k pro is a rock solid OS. If you install "weatherbug" yes you're going to get spyware, but that goes for XP as well. He's talking business machines here I see absolutely nothing wrong, morally or ethically with what he did. Why sling mud at a guy you know nothing about? That's just rude.

Re:FUD

[Bing Tsher E]

And if you don't fix it, you better quarantine it. No internet, ever.

So in your mind, any 'vulnerability' at all is essentially the same as any other.

People are obviously 'quarantining' their systems already. It's called a firewall.

Firewalls can be used to separate subnets, too, ya know. Judiciously used, they can provide a lot of protection. Also, locking a W2K machine down by skillfully rolling it out with non-admin user accounts makes a hell of a lot of difference, too.

You're sounding like one of those IT toads who can only deal with the concept of one ghost image at a time.