Windows 7 powers 10% of business PCs, growth to explode

By on November 3, 2010, 7:02 PM
Windows XP is still powering 75 percent of business computers in North America and Europe, according to Forrester Research. Compared to the world at large, where Windows XP just fell under 60 percent, this number is quite high.

Windows 7, meanwhile, is running on 10 percent of business PCs in North America and Europe. As businesses refresh their hardware by replacing old PCs and adding new ones, that percentage will grow considerably in the coming year. "Last year when we fielded a similar survey, only 7 percent of firms said they planned to deploy Windows 7 within the next 12 months or that they had already begun," according to the report. "This number has skyrocketed to 46 percent of firms now reporting that they have already begun or will begin deploying Windows 7 within the next 12 months." On top of that, 90 percent of the businesses contacted expect to migrate to Windows 7 eventually.

The data comes from 2,321 IT executives surveyed between June and August in the US, Canada, France, German, and the UK. These individuals represented all sizes of companies: from two employee tag-teams to enterprise juggernauts.

In related Windows 7 news, but on the complete other side of the customer spectrum, Microsoft announced that it is extending its student discount on the upgrade edition of Windows 7 Professional (32-bit or 64-bit) to 11 additional countries: Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, New Zealand, and Taiwan. Some are available this week but students from all these countries will definitely be accepted by end of next week. Students qualify for the limited-time offer if they have a valid e-mail address through a qualifying education institution and a PC that is currently running a genuine copy of Windows XP or Windows Vista.





User Comments: 77

Got something to say? Post a comment
LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

Hey M$, gl getting rid of xp buddy.

blimp01 said:

75% of companies still using XP, I wonder how long that will last

Cueto_99 said:

Xp still holding 75% of the market share? that must mean it keeps being the most stable, and less resource hungry OS..

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Most companies dont want to have to buy all new pc's to use windows 7 since most of them probably have 5 year old computers in there offices that would mean a huge amount of money spent on windows 7 machines.

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Wow, and here I thought Linux was vastly used in IT and in large companies (was I the only one who got this impression?). But in reality, it seems its just as irrelevant as its distros are in the desktop market.

Heck, even Windows 2000 is more used. What's going on here...!

Guest said:

Cueto_99

Windows 7 is by far a more stable operating system compared to XP. When XP was released it had taken some companies over 3-4 years to migrate due to legacy applications etc.. It's a major process in the IT industry to roll out a new operating system without the required training/testing it's not a matter of people saying "Windows 7 is out lets roll it out to all desktops and laptops...."

KG363 KG363 said:

Win 2000 is still used? WOW

IAMTHESTIG said:

There are two primary reasons I think W7 isn't getting adopted as quickly as MS would like. 1, most businesses are poor right now and are trying to save money. Why upgrade something that is for the most part working fine right now (WinXP). And 2, companies are worried about application compatibility and ease of transition for its users.

I for one am upset at the removal of some functions/features in Windows 7. Take the classic start menu for example... personally I got onboard with Win7 since the first public beta, and have switched to Win7 since. I tried for about 8 months to get used to the new Start Menu... and I STILL dislike it, find it clumsy and inefficient. I know several people who feel the same way, and several others who refuse to even try it. I gave it a very, very fair chance with 8 months of use on my work computer, which I use probably 36 hours a week. WHY did MS remove the option to go back to classic start menu??? I KNOW it is still there. It was in Win 2008 server... and you can get it enabled in Win7 with some 3rd party utilities, so i'm betting the data/files/registry or where ever it is still exists, they just removed the option to select it.

Other than the start menu and the removal of free disk space from the Windows Explorer status bar (again, WHY!??!?!)... I absolutely love Windows 7. It is faster and handles resources a lot better than XP, pretty much runs all my applications and games (even ones I thought it wouldn't run or didn't work in Vista), and the default color schemes are not incredibly annoying that I have to change them.

I would be pushing Windows 7 out to my some 150 computers at my work, but i'm afraid a lot of people are going to have a fit over the start menu. I know maybe 25% of my users already have WIndows 7 or Vista machines at home and will adapt fine, but the rest still have XP at home and are not used to the new menu style. But.... MS got their money anyway for our volume licensing so we can go full Win7 anytime we want with the TrueUp method. But everyone is just so used to XP, and it still works fine with the small exception of being a little more susceptible to catching malware.

Anyway... yeah... I do like Windows 7 and I'm confident a lot of businesses will be fully upgrading to it within a year or two.

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

At my workplace, we have a majority of XP machines, some 2000 machines, and a small handful of Vista machines, though the last dozen or so machines (replacing hardware with XP systems) have been Windows 7. Guest has it right; companies generally do not buy new hardware or new software just because it is out; they get it when they have to replace it unless it is mission critical that they have the absolute latest versions of everything (which is rare). Heck, a programming friend of mine upgraded his "work computers" from 2000/XP to Win7 because his programming environment changed and he needed to deal with Sharepoint/Exchange server 2010.

And everyone being Smug about XP: Considering that every Microsoft based computer system comes with Windows 7 as the default operating system (with many OEMs no longer offering XP for new machines) it will happen much faster than you think, if the reported numbers are anywhere near accurate.

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

IAMTHESTIG said:

There are two primary reasons I think W7 isn't getting adopted as quickly as MS would like. 1, most businesses are poor right now and are trying to save money. Why upgrade something that is for the most part working fine right now (WinXP). And 2, companies are worried about application compatibility and ease of transition for its users.

I for one am upset at the removal of some functions/features in Windows 7. Take the classic start menu for example... personally I got onboard with Win7 since the first public beta, and have switched to Win7 since. I tried for about 8 months to get used to the new Start Menu... and I STILL dislike it, find it clumsy and inefficient. I know several people who feel the same way, and several others who refuse to even try it. I gave it a very, very fair chance with 8 months of use on my work computer, which I use probably 36 hours a week. WHY did MS remove the option to go back to classic start menu??? I KNOW it is still there. It was in Win 2008 server... and you can get it enabled in Win7 with some 3rd party utilities, so i'm betting the data/files/registry or where ever it is still exists, they just removed the option to select it.

Other than the start menu and the removal of free disk space from the Windows Explorer status bar (again, WHY!??!?!)... I absolutely love Windows 7. It is faster and handles resources a lot better than XP, pretty much runs all my applications and games (even ones I thought it wouldn't run or didn't work in Vista), and the default color schemes are not incredibly annoying that I have to change them.

I would be pushing Windows 7 out to my some 150 computers at my work, but i'm afraid a lot of people are going to have a fit over the start menu. I know maybe 25% of my users already have WIndows 7 or Vista machines at home and will adapt fine, but the rest still have XP at home and are not used to the new menu style. But.... MS got their money anyway for our volume licensing so we can go full Win7 anytime we want with the TrueUp method. But everyone is just so used to XP, and it still works fine with the small exception of being a little more susceptible to catching malware.

Anyway... yeah... I do like Windows 7 and I'm confident a lot of businesses will be fully upgrading to it within a year or two.

Are you kiding me how freaking hard is it to use the start menu do you need to read that it says start? Its a round windows logo it looks 50 times better than windows XP i don't understand what your problem is you have to adapt to new things or get left in the dust of the ever expanding computer industry. it took me all of 20 seconds to understand windows 7.

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I was also going to mention something similar about the start menu comment. Possibly because I actually organize my program folders in the start menu, turning 50-60 folders at top level to something like 7, I have no problems using the new start menu. Hell, I use the search/run box as much if not moreso. Being able to type "photo" and in about a second and a half being able to choose Adobe Photoshop CS2 is far superior than than going through an exhaustive list of programs, even if they are organized like I have them.

Even some of the older users at said workplace from my previous post have no issues with the new start menu, some coming from said 2000 systems.

Guest said:

back to the Windows XP

Guest said:

one more time: Windows XP works, and works very well.

Guest said:

Windows XP is the best windows made it.

Guest said:

Yeah, win XP the best of the history!

shortie said:

Hmmmm personally i think W7 is better than XP ... more stable all around ... plus for people that whine about resource hungry W7 ... just try to remember the transition from win98 to winXP ... same things being told back then ... its just that technology changes

IAMTHESTIG said:

klepto12 said:

Are you kiding me how freaking hard is it to use the start menu do you need to read that it says start? Its a round windows logo it looks 50 times better than windows XP i don't understand what your problem is you have to adapt to new things or get left in the dust of the ever expanding computer industry. it took me all of 20 seconds to understand windows 7.

I apologize, you are clearly far my intelligent that I am. A shiny and pretty Start button is far more important than the ease of use. After 8 months of trying to adapt to the new Start menu means I am a failure at adopting the "ever expanding computer industry". The fact that I am fully utilizing and am happy with using the newest operating system from Microsoft does not indicate ones computer savvy-ness. </sarcasm>

My problem is the organization method, the requirement at using text based searches to quickly find what your looking for can be annoying at times, sometimes you just want to browse the menus with your mouse. The fact you have to click each folder when your looking for something visually. You must expand that folder, then click it again to collapse it. If you don't collapse it you end up with multiple folders opened up and the start menu doesn't get any larger, so you end up scrolling in a tiny window. There is far too much clicking and typing required, these are considered extra steps to most, not ease of use. The whole system is just clumsy and annoying as far as I am concerned. I gave it over 8 months to try and get used to it... that is PLENTY of time, and I still utterly dislike it. The question isn't understanding it, it is the question of ease of use; and I do not find it easy to use.

aj_the_kidd said:

XP does what i need it to do, my usage is pretty simple, internet, movies, office and dvd burning, all of which XP does greatly.

mattfrompa mattfrompa said:

I prefer 7 over XP on any machine with a P4 and 1 GB of RAM and above...and I also prefer not to work with a machine that has lower specs.

I am all for Win 7 as a client OS, but you really have to advance your Servers as well. If you roll out Win 7 in a Server 03 environment, you aren't getting a lot of Win 7s benefits. I know it's expensive, time consuming, etc, but when possible I think it would be best to get Server 08 R2 first and then Win 7.

Guest said:

Hmmmm personally i think W7 is better than XP ... more stable all around ... plus for people that whine about resource hungry W7 ... just try to remember the transition from win98 to winXP ... same things being told back then ... its just that technology changes
Agree, well said!

ruzveh said:

This estimate are so unrealistic and fake in nature. First u remove the support from XP and push Win7 forcebly onto users and then come out that Win7 is selling better. It has to do better because there is no alternative left with users like us who still wants to do with XP OS. Do we have choice ?

Wagan8r Wagan8r said:

ruzveh said:

This estimate are so unrealistic and fake in nature. First u remove the support from XP and push Win7 forcebly onto users and then come out that Win7 is selling better. It has to do better because there is no alternative left with users like us who still wants to do with XP OS. Do we have choice ?

First remove XP support?? Buddy, they just officially stopped supporting XP on Oct. 22nd 2010. That's NINE YEARS of support for ONE OS. Simply because they don't "support" it doesn't mean that you can't still use it. Windows 7 wasn't pushed. People skipped the Vista train and hopped on 7, which is why so many copies have been sold. You have no alternative? How about keep using XP? Yep, pretty sure you can keep on using it.

Guest said:

I have 2 pc with windows xp (one with x64), a i do run virtual pc, virtualbox and vmware server to test some virtual machines,... Actually i run 3 or 4 virtual machines at same time, one for openfiler and 2 or 3 for oracle clusterware on a rac config. I did select XP over 7 because works fine on all my tests.

Guest said:

Xp is powerfull yet!

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

This estimate are so unrealistic and fake in nature.

and you know this how?

First u remove the support from XP

What Wagan8r said, and

A decade of support for a piece of software is absurd

and push Win7 forcebly onto users

I will assume you meant forcibly. Being a little dramatic...don't you think? Or were there actually armed Microsoftians who dragged you off and put you on the rack until you purchased a Win7 license?

. It has to do better because there is no alternative left with users like us who still wants to do with XP OS.

Again, what Wanan8r said.

How about use your XP?

How about Linux?

Do we have choice ?

yeah uha

Guest said:

i have a question... Actually Windows 7 is the same thing that Windows Vista 6.1 ???

Guest said:

Vista is only 7%! Vista was pretty good, i've never understood the bias and hate directed against it.

Breech said:

Guest said:

Vista is only 7%! Vista was pretty good, i've never understood the bias and hate directed against it.

Vista SP1 was good, prior to that it could be a mess. Win 7 is still very Vista like so I don't see the need for that OS anymore, especially with all the bad press it received. Doesn't seem that MS wants the name to linger either. I really liked Vista but 7 is even better.

Guest said:

Here's the important statistics: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

It is important because it is based on PC-s that go into the internet. Offline stations don't need any upgrade much.

Guest said:

i have a question... Actually Windows 7 is the same thing that Windows Vista 6.1 ???

It goes like this ignoring 1xx-3xx and 9x

NT3.1

NT3.5/3.51

NT4

Windows 2000 = NT5.0

Windows XP = NT5.1

Windows Server 2003 = NT5.2

Windows Vista / Server 2008 = NT6.0

Windows 7 / Server 2008R2 = NT6.1

Archean Archean, TechSpot Paladin, said:

In addition to red's comments, I'd say if it weren't for businesses, I don't think it would make sense to support any OS for say more then 5 years at best. Technological aspects alone would make it necessary to refresh the OS along with user's requirement (feedback) for improvements in e.g. interface / ease of use / security + stability. Anyway, despite the fact that full economic recovery won't be coming any time soon (I've seen some projections which say that things will be like this till 2014) I am noticing businesses 'reducing their headcount, and improving their processes with improvements in technological aspects of their work' so it perfectly make sense to roll out new OS. In fact, I think due vista's monumental failure to impress earlier on, Win7 is being adopted at bit faster rate when you compare it to what happened with earlier OS upgrades.

uttaradhaka said:

I don't understand this. The release cycles of Windows are far too frequent. So, by the time the majority of companies upgrade to Windows 7, it'll be close to the release of Windows 8. So, there is no feasible way of large companies to keep in sync with the release cycle of Windows.

I think this is an issue that is going to come to the fore in future.

Also, some people raised a valid point saying that there are alternatives available to the OS such as Linux ( variants of it). These are far cheaper and more versatile. Yes, you are going to have to let your employees get accustomed to it, but at the end of the day its a better overall investment.

Also, think about the inherent security in Linux and you start to get a very favorable picture.

Archean Archean, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Also, some people raised a valid point saying that there are alternatives available to the OS such as Linux ( variants of it). These are far cheaper and more versatile. Yes, you are going to have to let your employees get accustomed to it, but at the end of the day its a better overall investment.

You are probably only taking into account that 'productivity software like office are being used in business environment' for which your argument make some sense; but factually, that isn't the case, most larger businesses either develop or deploy (3rd party) solutions to run their processes, and these are generally windows based; hence Linux is just not the option; they do however, can choose to use it in their server mix.

A good example which I can quote is, we use AutoCAD extensively in our organization, along with several other engineering software, and NONE of them have Linux/Unix version. So how do you justify jumping the ship and adopting something which is pretty much useless for you? I am sure you can find many examples like this around you as well.

Arris Arris said:

I'll need to get my work to update me to Win7 so I can do testing with IIS6+7 on my local machine, as XP (currently running on this 3 year old machine) only comes with IIS5. Annoying things like no PowerShell scripting snapins for WMI to deploy and configure IIS. Few other advancements would be nice. If they really wanted to force upgrades they should stop rolling out .net updates for XP

I do somewhat agree with klepto12. The top level menu of my "All Programs" in my windows start menu is

Development

Office

Admin tools

Accessories

Startup

I know where everything I need is. Although the old XP list of "recently used" programs is something I've come to like now, but the text based lookup of stuff in the WIn7 menu is still a little messy. I'm starting to think that we'll be forced to use these "quick" methods rather than having a structured menu. It's like instead of storing a phone number in your memory where you can retrieve it as you know where to find it, having to start thinking of it digit by digit. Urm... 5... Urm... 4.

Arris Arris said:

Archean said:

You are probably only taking into account that 'productivity software like office are being used in business environment' for which your argument make some sense; but factually, that isn't the case, most larger businesses either develop or deploy (3rd party) solutions to run their processes, and these are generally windows based; hence Linux is just not the option; they do however, can choose to use it in their server mix.

A good example which I can quote is, we use AutoCAD extensively in our organization, along with several other engineering software, and NONE of them have Linux/Unix version. So how do you justify jumping the ship and adopting something which is pretty much useless for you? I am sure you can find many examples like this around you as well.

If you are in some sort of service capacity you also end up keeping the majority of your systems on the same tech that your clients are running so you can troubleshoot and test things to make sure they will work correctly on your clients systems. Your hands are tied by the business environment in general. My company uses an IBM software suite that is years behind the latest version purely because that is what our clients were using. When working with large companies it takes them a long time to roll out any sort of updates. I still remember the delays from client IT departments in getting clients to update to IE7/8 from 5/6...

Archean Archean, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Exactly, something similar is being done in our Finance/Accounts department as well, despite that their new system is windows based, they still use DOS based database developed in late 1980s, which can't be ported to new systems without breaking it down obviously (ironically they can only print its output on those damned dotmatrix printers). I may be wrong, but I've noticed generally people here tend to base their comments on the fact 'what may or may not be good, today' hence, ignoring the fact which you have pointed out.

dlen said:

I am waiting for an offer for Poland. All the countries have promotions like Win7 Family Pack or students version, but Poland is excluded from that.

Archean Archean, TechSpot Paladin, said:

There are lots of countries which are not in that list dlen, which is pretty stupid thing on part of MS.

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I'm curious to see how companies even consumers will react if Windows 8 starts being pushed in a couple years considering we've kind of grown accustom to a long development time.

sMILEY4ever said:

Cueto_99 said:

Xp still holding 75% of the market share? that must mean it keeps being the most stable, and less resource hungry OS..

Well, it is. I've been using it for some time now and I'll only change when I'll buy a new pc.

Archean Archean, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I think pricing of the product will be detrimental in this respect, if it is right (along with compelling improvements) people may not complain. I don't think people would like the idea of buying 200$ OS every 2-3 years.

kevin1212 said:

Fact is that if XP is doing everythin they want, why do a costly upgrade? No question that 7 is better for us indivuals, but businesses wouln't look at it that way.

Razerblade said:

I'm quite surprised XP is still that high up. I know a lot of businesses that are running Windows 7 now. Our company has been rolling out windows 7 from the start and haven't had any issues with it. I think more businesses will migrate to Windows 7 once SP1 has been released.

theruck said:

windows 7 is the most annoying OS ever built. the so called security features mean, that you are instantly asked by a popup window or bar if you really like to do this or that.if you change something they do not like, they will annoy you so hard that you do it the "right way" bravo microsoft, windows 7 was the reason i moved to mac after 15 years with MS operating systems. and i am happy for that

Leeky Leeky said:

I apologize, you are clearly far my intelligent that I am. A shiny and pretty Start button is far more important than the ease of use. After 8 months of trying to adapt to the new Start menu means I am a failure at adopting the "ever expanding computer industry". The fact that I am fully utilizing and am happy with using the newest operating system from Microsoft does not indicate ones computer savvy-ness. </sarcasm>

My problem is the organization method, the requirement at using text based searches to quickly find what your looking for can be annoying at times, sometimes you just want to browse the menus with your mouse. The fact you have to click each folder when your looking for something visually. You must expand that folder, then click it again to collapse it. If you don't collapse it you end up with multiple folders opened up and the start menu doesn't get any larger, so you end up scrolling in a tiny window. There is far too much clicking and typing required, these are considered extra steps to most, not ease of use. The whole system is just clumsy and annoying as far as I am concerned. I gave it over 8 months to try and get used to it... that is PLENTY of time, and I still utterly dislike it. The question isn't understanding it, it is the question of ease of use; and I do not find it easy to use.

I don't agree with the same degree of frustration, but I do get the points your making about the new start menu.

I've worked around this method by using the text box that appears just above the MS logo when you click it. Just type what you want e.g. Word, Excel, Firefox, even the name of a file, it'll find it immediately.

I barely even touch my start menu now, I just type what app I want and hit return on the keyboard and it starts. It really does work that well, it'll even load unseen settings, like "msconfig" and most likely other commands you'd normally seek access too. Try it, it works wonders and in my experiences makes it so much easier to aid those needing help with W7.

Maybe this would reduce the dis-pleasure your experiencing, and also come in very handy once you roll out W7 and all your help guides need updating thoroughout your company.

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

sMILEY4ever said:

I've been using it for some time now and I'll only change when I'll buy a new pc.

That's generally what businesses do too.

kevin1212 said:

Fact is that if XP is doing everythin they want, why do a costly upgrade? No question that 7 is better for us indivuals, but businesses wouln't look at it that way.

Except Windows 7 has much better group policy control, or rather, expanded group policy control, is slightly easier to deploy en masse and lock down en masse, and in general more secure than XP even without UAC. There are plenty of advantages for businesses too, just that cost for new hardware and software weighs more heavily.

I've worked around this method by using the text box that appears just above the MS logo when you click it. Just type what you want e.g. Word, Excel, Firefox, even the name of a file, it'll find it immediately.

That's what I said I do often. =o

Archean said:

I think pricing of the product will be detrimental in this respect, if it is right (along with compelling improvements) people may not complain. I don't think people would like the idea of buying 200$ OS every 2-3 years.

Large businesses that aren't buying new hardware (in which the operating system comes with) usually purchase volume licenses and pay significantly less than retail. Even smaller businesses can get Software packages for multiple systems for significantly less than retail.

theruck said:

windows 7 is the most annoying OS ever built. the so called security features mean, that you are instantly asked by a popup window or bar if you really like to do this or that.if you change something they do not like, they will annoy you so hard that you do it the "right way" bravo microsoft, windows 7 was the reason i moved to mac after 15 years with MS operating systems. and i am happy for that

... You DO realize that can be turned off with ease, don't you?

Appzalien said:

I like XP Pro for its versatility. I can copy my disk to the hard drive and integrate all the updates to the files and then make a new boot disk. I know my way around the OS so well that when I tried the Win7 beta I was disappointed with the stupid GUI moves they made. Whats wrong with "add/remove programs"? why in the world change its name unless your just being stupid. To me, that's "change for change sake" and I say, "if it ain't broke don't fix it". But MS in its infinite wisdom decided changing the GUI to some power users dream was more likely to sell then leaving things the same for the majority of users. Those ****** are going to push people to Linux faster than any Linux improvements have ever done. They're morons and can't see it.

theruck said:

yes either i lower the security level to custom not to be asked about running programs downloaded from internet which will make the explorer bar asking me for fixing security or i will be asked for pressing "open" button everytime i click on such a program icon.

combine it with company security policies applied through GPO and you have a hell on earth and as a bonus lower productivity and more employees or users pissed off

theruck said:

windowsx 7 is just great. it says "WELCOME" even if you enter wrong password and after 30 seconds it tells you that your password is wrong. so where do i come well?

Acespaces Acespaces said:

Seems like a lot of businesses are now using that line. The other day i was watching tv and noticed that in a SUV commercial they the qouted it was the worlds fastest car. But hey it could of been a joke

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.