Windows 7 Saves 43 Hours, or $1,400 Per PC

[Manos]

[citation][nom]nahdogg[/nom]Maybe it's my machine but my 4 month old lappy with Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit needs to be rebooted constantly...I'm not sure if it's conflicts with apps or what but going from XP 32 bit to Win7 I'm not impressed thus far...tons of IE hangs, action center hangs, lots of end tasking.[/citation]

I only had for about a month or 2 IE hangs like you say. Was caused I guess after an update and was solved itself the same way after being updating again. If you are using a x64 capable PC then install those, trust me. Whats even more impressive about the browser part is that I even quit using Firefox. On multiple tabs Firefox ( specially with videos etc ) actually takes up more RAM than IE and Firefox if I load up ( for test reasons ) over 5 tabs with HD videos from Gametrailers it crashes... IE on the other hand doesnt even freeze on me at all so I know its even better.

 

[Regulas]

Sorry, I have to raise the BS flag. the researcher was probably hired by the Vole and was bias. Switch to Linux if possible and save a crapload.

 

[hemelskonijn]

If each user saves 43 hours annually any medium or large size company could get rid of yet another employee if not a bunch of them. It is amazing to realize that with all this technology we are killing jobs replacing people for computers and machines!

 

[silentq]

[citation][nom]bin1127[/nom]I'd like to know what kind of avg productivity / worker they are using. Say my employees just twitter and updates their facebook all day then a pen and paper can save me the cost of the computer itself.[/citation]

That's why there's such thing as access control and restrictions to maximize productivity.

 

[superblahman123]

[citation][nom]nahdogg[/nom]Maybe it's my machine but my 4 month old lappy with Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit needs to be rebooted constantly...I'm not sure if it's conflicts with apps or what but going from XP 32 bit to Win7 I'm not impressed thus far...tons of IE hangs, action center hangs, lots of end tasking.[/citation]

If your "lappy" started with XP 32bit and you upgraded to Win7 64bit, then you're problem may lay with the hardware. Seeing as you're going from 32 to 64, your hardware might not have been able to handle it to begin with.

 

[tokenz]

[citation][nom]nahdogg[/nom]Maybe it's my machine but my 4 month old lappy with Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit needs to be rebooted constantly...I'm not sure if it's conflicts with apps or what but going from XP 32 bit to Win7 I'm not impressed thus far...tons of IE hangs, action center hangs, lots of end tasking.[/citation]

Its just you or your laptop. The only problem I have had was from my motherboard going bad.

 

[Dkz]

Runs great at it was intended, it was the last time that Microsoft had to redeem them selfs for even think about Vista.
It even runs better than they thought it would run, even small netbooks can handle windows 7, no problem. Its a gamer friendly OS and really cool multimedia center for the average users. Ouh! and Gosh! the fact that you may not need to install a single driver its great! (for example netbooks don't need any) and even if you do, it might even be found in windows itself via internet.

 

[halcyonnn]

[citation][nom]nahdogg[/nom]Maybe it's my machine but my 4 month old lappy with Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit needs to be rebooted constantly...I'm not sure if it's conflicts with apps or what but going from XP 32 bit to Win7 I'm not impressed thus far...tons of IE hangs, action center hangs, lots of end tasking.[/citation]

Maybe it is just mad at you for calling it a "lappy"

 

[grieve]

[citation][nom]Jerky_san[/nom]I convinced my company to let me build the machines and put windows 7 on it.. We've had a few problems like to old of a print server but other then that the users seem to love it.. The learning curve is a little bit more but after they get used to it they love it.. So we have started putting out 5 new boxes a month with it.[/citation]
I have the same problem with printers when installing on our domain.
Can work around it, but it's a pain.

I install Win7 on all new hardware comming into the environment, so far about 15 machines.

 

[Guest]

Tranlation: "We fixed the bugs and tailored the bloatware to an acceptable level".

Pawning it off as a savings of time is a pathetic, unethical attempt at bs marketing.

 

[aaron92]

You'd get these benefits and more if you ran on an SSD. That will really ramp up your PC.

 

[ram1009]

If anyone here believes this article please contact me ASAP. I have some land on the Gulf coast I need to sell.

 

[dark_lord69]

Yeah but you would spend a lot of time deploying and ensuring software compatibility.

 

[drwho1]

MS propaganda, that's all.

I do use windows 7 64 bit on my laptop/ 32 bit on my tower and I got another tower with
Windows 98/Windows XP for older games that simply do not run under 7.

I always beleive that operating systems as well as hardware are ONLY outdated when they no longer serve YOUR purpose. NOT whenever the media said "it's outdated".

 

[Dirtman73]

Well, I've only seen one droll "Linux is better" comment on this thread. So far, so good.

Face it, Win7 rocks, and there's nothing you can say to change that.

 

[mclaud2000]

Very informative ad! Nothing better than an ad when you expect an article! Way to go TH!

 

[TEAMSWITCHER]

If this 43 hour number is correct, then Windows 7 must still be a complete piece of shit. I just don't feel like I'm saving that much time by running Windows 7 versus XP. Either these numbers are BS, or Windows 7 still is such a small improvement over pervious Windows time waste that I cannot feel the improvement.

Windows XP time waste = 1000 hrs/yr, Windows 7 time waste = 957 hrs/yr. Thanks Microsoft!

 

[ssddx]

The ease in transitioning from windows xp to windows 7 depends on a company's size. In large corporations which can not afford to have any downtime or lost productivity upgrading would be a disaster. There are bound to be conflicts with programs/additions, print servers, storage servers, etc. This doesnt include lost time due to training or any upgrade costs to get systems windows 7 ready.

Windows xp might be on it's last leg... but windows 7 isn't ready for mainstream quite yet.

As for the article's 43 hour estimate: that very well may be true... but most of that is due to the hardware requirements for 7.

 

[mdillenbeck]

I thought Windows 7 would be wonderful... but at my work it has been a bit of a nightmare. It has broken about 10% of our virtualized apps - and, yes, we are using Microsoft Application Virtualization and not a 3rd party product. *sigh*

I like Windows 7 a lot, but I wanted a tablet pc with a decent screen resolution in portrait mode. I couldn't afford a used Motion Computing LE1700 ($1500), so I had to go with a used M200 ($250) which can't handle Windows 7. (Well, it can, but Toshiba doesn't support this 6 year old model anymore *sigh*)

I had 7 on it with 1.5 GHz cpu and 1 GB RAM and it worked okay. With this configuration, the apps I use (flash, painter 11, artrage, windows journal) are a bit snappier in XP. However, if I get a spare $100, I'll upgrade to 2 GB RAM and go to Windows 7 because of better calibration and ink recognition.

 

[MU_Engineer]

[citation][nom]unknown_13[/nom]Windows 7 is absolutely the best OS imo.[/citation]

Maybe it's one of the better MS OSes, but I think a lot of people would disagree when comparing Windows 7 to several of the *nix-based OSes.

Faster, lighter, and more stable than both XP and Vista.

It's not faster or lighter than XP and there's little difference in stability between Vista with an up to date patch set and Windows 7.

But, i know so many people, who have good PC's, that don't want to upgrade to Win 7. C'mon, XP is out from 2001, 9 years old OS, and Vista isn't that stable OS. Upgrade already, it's 2010!!!

"Upgrade already, it's 2010!!!" may be a convincing reason for a tech enthusiast to upgrade, but a CFO will just laugh at you and call you a complete moron if you gave that as a reason to upgrade. Many businesses run Windows XP and Office XP/2003 and they do that on P4-class machines that they only replace when they physically fail. The software and hardware is all paid for and the newer stuff doesn't have enough of an advantage over the older stuff to justify the cost of an upgrade. The MS study here disputes that, but bunches of CIOs and CFOs have crunched the numbers as well and have come down on the side of "let's stick with the old stuff."

 

[Guest]

Has no-one though about the hardware windows 7 needs to run, of course its faster than XO boxes, its all new hardware as well, stick xp on those same boxes and see how fast xp can be on new hardware...
And for the record, win7x64 is my main OS

 

[robles]

[citation][nom]COLGeek[/nom]So....was this calculation made before or after the training required to teach the business users how to use the new interface and navigate around the new configuration? My organization is currently undergoing a transition from XP to Win7. Initial participants in the transition are "power users" like IT folks and other volunteers (screened for tech competency---geekage req'd). It has not been a smooth transition for users or agency applications and a lot of workarounds have had to be developed.I can hardly wait (note sarcasm) until we roll out to the rest of the organization. I expect to spend a lot of time helping my seasoned workforce adapt to Win7 and it won't be pretty.Let the games begin!!![/citation]

Actually, I've just rolled out Win7 to one of our stores and to select individuals at our other store. While I , the IT person, have had to do a bit of work around to get certain programs to run correctly, I have heard no real complaints about working in Win7 from the employees using it.
Except one guy who wanted to watch the World Cup on his break and couldn't install flash because his login was just as a standard user and they can't install without an administrative login. Should I put flash on? What do you think?

 

[wallpaper]

I'm sure businesses can save more money if they don't use microsoft at all.

 

[COLGeek]

Actually, I've just rolled out Win7 to one of our stores and to select individuals at our other store. While I , the IT person, have had to do a bit of work around to get certain programs to run correctly, I have heard no real complaints about working in Win7 from the employees using it.
Except one guy who wanted to watch the World Cup on his break and couldn't install flash because his login was just as a standard user and they can't install without an administrative login. Should I put flash on? What do you think?

Yes, install Flash. Lots of sites use it and it just simplifies your life later. While I am 46 years old and a geek of the highest order (and the org boss), I am the 3rd youngest person in the organization (not including interns). Any and all changes within the workforce come at great cost in terms of training. Not impossible, just takes longer than it would in a younger, more tech savvy environment.

Regarding permissions, it is something to be considered from the very start. Do you trust your users to do the right thing or do you minimize those potential disasters from the very beginning. That, in and of itself, is a painful topic in itself.

 

[techguy378]

[citation][nom]stromm[/nom]My guess is it's simply that you're running the 64bit version with 32bit apps/games. Something still not recommended.[/citation]
64-bit Windows 7 is 100% compatible with all 32-bit consumer software. Maybe you should actually do some research before posting. The only time I've ever seen 64-bit Windows 7 crash is due to a hardware driver bug like the ones found in some of AMD's early Windows 7 graphics drivers, for example. In AMD's case those have all been fixed and I can do everything from watching commercial movie DVD's in Windows Media Player (with full H/W acceleration on my Radeon 4770) to gaming. I can even play high resolution DVD-Audio discs over HDMI, something that Windows Vista SP 1 and 2 had quite a bit of trouble with.