The cost of having IT go around and upgrade each machine in an office is greater then the free upgrade, this is why they don't upgrade and just purchase new machines instead.

 

 

When I worked for Cummins they used to replace every machine in the global corporation all in one purchase order. This was a six-sigma project that saved money. So everyone got a new computer every 4 years regardless if you needed one or not. The supplier that won the bid was responsible for delivering all of those machines to everyones desk and take the old ones away, so this saved on internal IT costs for Cummins. Every machine was preloaded with the software approved by your manager...etc

How many of us has said to our boss..."man this would be easy if we had Windows 7" I use it at home and it is so easy to network."

 

If your company has 10,000's of pcs with Windows installed on them and a wide range of essential different applications I suggest that argument wouldn't cut much ice with your boss - whether it's free or not.

If your company has 10,000's of pcs with Windows installed on them and a wide range of essential different applications I suggest that argument wouldn't cut much ice with your boss - whether it's free or not.

Sure, it all depends on the company. The more Savy companies are more and more asking for contracts for future upgrades on their software. See YTZpilot's comments above. In most cases that is far more cost effective and keeps your company competitive.

It is also important to remember the the vast percentage of business's are very small. More up to date applications in small business can and do have a lot of effect on the bottom line.

This freebie is not for Corporations and they know it. MS freebie is after us, the noise makers. We never get to know the deals with Corporations.

 

Cheers,

This freebie is not for Corporations and they know it. MS freebie is after us, the noise makers. We never get to know the deals with Corporations.

 

Cheers,

 

Good point. At the risk of sounding like a parrot, I'll say again that if MS can reduce the number of SKUs they have to support; it will allow them to deliver better (for us), more cost effective (for them) support. They don't care if they generate profits through sales or reduced costs. It's all math. Now I'm making an assumption here. That is always dangerous. As far as corporations go, that is a different ball of wax. I don't pretend to understand the business. But it would seem that end of it is more insurance than acquisition. Here MS. This is the software we use. These are our machines. Make sure the OS keeps them running happily.

Good point. At the risk of sounding like a parrot, I'll say again that if MS can reduce the number of SKUs they have to support; it will allow them to deliver better (for us), more cost effective (for them) support.

 

Microsoft has already set out how long they will be supporting each version of Windows. I doubt getting consumers to move to Windows 10 will change their support of 7 and 8.

 

https://support2.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/default.aspx?sort=PNα=windows&Filter=FilterNO

 

Historically most consumers only upgrade when they buy a new computer. Relatively few rush out and buy the upgrade or retail copies off the shelves.