Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Businesses Find That Win 7 Saves Time, Money

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 33 comments

Or money and money, if you will.

Windows 7 launches in all mainstream markets tomorrow, but some organizations have been using the new OS for quite some time now. After all, the finalized RTM code has been floating around since July.

Interestingly, early adopters in the enterprise space are already seeing appreciable gains from the new OS, finding that Windows 7 saves both time and money. (Considering the belief that time is money, then does that mean that Windows 7 saves money and money?)

Saving money:
As described in a Computerworld report, Pella Corp., a window and door maker in Des Moines, used the group policy controls in Windows 7 to help better manage power use. By using group policy features, the company noticed significant power savings. In fact, the company's IT director conservatively estimated that the use of Windows 7 will result in about $20,000 in annual power savings once the OS is deployed fully throughout the business.

Saving time:
Energizer, the battery company with that pink bunny, has been running a Windows 7 pilot program. Randy Benz, CIO of Energizer, said Windows 7 boots up about 80 percent faster than XP.

"We're seeing a radical change from what we're experiencing with XP," said Benz. "My pet peeve is boot-up time with XP. It seems the longer you use it, the worse it gets."

Other IT managers pointed out that new screen management capabilities, such as Aero Peek and other taskbar features, could also help call center employees cut down on time spent per call.

Discuss
Display all 33 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 11 Hide
    outacontrolpimp , October 21, 2009 11:28 PM
    Quote:
    "We're seeing a radical change from what we're experiencing with XP," said Benz. "My pet peeve is boot-up time with XP. It seems the longer you use it, the worse it gets."



    the longer you use windows 7 the slower it gets too :( 
Other Comments
  • 0 Hide
    Shnur , October 21, 2009 11:23 PM
    yeah I was actually really looking into our company adopting it... although it's still not awesome to make it run on P4's.... which is what my company uses as computers... interesting to see in the long term though.
  • 11 Hide
    outacontrolpimp , October 21, 2009 11:28 PM
    Quote:
    "We're seeing a radical change from what we're experiencing with XP," said Benz. "My pet peeve is boot-up time with XP. It seems the longer you use it, the worse it gets."



    the longer you use windows 7 the slower it gets too :( 
  • 4 Hide
    skine , October 21, 2009 11:31 PM
    Shnuryeah I was actually really looking into our company adopting it... although it's still not awesome to make it run on P4's.... which is what my company uses as computers... interesting to see in the long term though.

    You could follow IBM's lead and switch to Ubuntu.
  • 4 Hide
    Aoster87 , October 22, 2009 12:06 AM
    I just hope my college's computer labs running Pentium D / Core 2 machines will finally switch out of XP.
  • 5 Hide
    Honis , October 22, 2009 12:08 AM
    If only I could get my company to upgrade...
  • 4 Hide
    ricardok , October 22, 2009 12:16 AM
    I'm on 7 since the beta came out. The boot time does deteriorate just like XP/Vista, but way slower. On XP you would have to do a fresh install every 8 to 12 months. On vista, every 15 to 18 months. On 7? Well, not so sure yet.
    I've been on RTM since it came out (yes, I did use the 180 days trick) and I'm seeing the boot time increasing every time I change something on the software side. The more you play around the slower the system gets.
    Overall? I'm pretty satisfied with Win7 because it's not as bulky as my Vista (notebook), it's as fast as it were when I was on XP (desktop) and 7 kept all the good things Vista had to offer (security wise).

    Win7 will be out tomorrow but I'm still not buying. I need a family pack but we don't have it here in Brazil. :( 
  • 5 Hide
    cryogenic , October 22, 2009 12:35 AM
    I was on Win 7 beta since january, and switched to RTM one month ago, the boot time dind't deteriorate at all, in any kind of way ... although I've picked up the habit of rebooting once about once a month, compared to XP.

    And I do have plenty (a ton) of shit on my PC, ranging from development tools to media authoring tools like Photoshop, games, game utilities and allot more ...



  • 1 Hide
    warmon6 , October 22, 2009 12:40 AM
    apache_livesThis is funny since it looks and works esentially the same as vista

    It's what under the hood that make's windows 7 great compared to vista.
  • 0 Hide
    Drag0nR1der , October 22, 2009 12:44 AM
    "group policy controls in Windows 7 to help better manage power use." our company already does something similar using XP... all the machines remotely shut-off at a certain time after work to ensure no-one leaves it on (which is a pain when you set a render goign and forget about this I can tell you...)
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , October 22, 2009 12:54 AM
    Windows 7 works better than previous windows operating systems.

    But as with previous versions, if you fail to take proper care of your system, then it will slow down due to unwanted infections such as various types of Malware including possible RootKits or even worse, BootKits.

    Take care of your system and you should have no problems with Windows 7.

    It also helps to have plenty of system memory and to make sure you have enough drive space available so you don't run out of room for the page file.
  • -1 Hide
    rippleyhakd , October 22, 2009 12:56 AM
    Lets see.. IF you are a company of just simple means... 3yr rotation of gear is the typical norm. 3 years ago, core 2 was deployed. Win7 is not for the p3, the p4, even the athlon64, it is geared for multi core, 2GB or higher, and 2 years ago, 8gb of ram cost all of $140 (full reteail).. 8GB ram and a 1.866 core2=win7 working very, very nicely. The Aero (screen flipper) was a waste in my opnion, but the new aero, in which you hover over the taskbar icon of said app, just ROCKS..
    The talk we have nowadays is reminiscent of win2000 --> XP days.. Either your company can afford it, OR NOT, boo hoo..
  • 2 Hide
    tektek , October 22, 2009 1:25 AM
    Not true! it cant be true! only Mac's can save time and money!!

    *sarcastic*

  • 3 Hide
    Anonymous , October 22, 2009 1:47 AM
    tektekNot true! it cant be true! only Mac's can save time and money!! *sarcastic*

    OMG! Can it be that the Apple has fallen from the tree? :o 

    Oh well, you work with what ever you need for the job whether it be an Apple or a PC. :) 
  • 4 Hide
    tayb , October 22, 2009 2:21 AM
    Shnuryeah I was actually really looking into our company adopting it... although it's still not awesome to make it run on P4's.... which is what my company uses as computers... interesting to see in the long term though.


    It will run fine on Pentium 4. I've seen it running perfectly fine on a Pentium 4 in an old-ass laptop.
  • -3 Hide
    sciencectn , October 22, 2009 3:17 AM
    If they switched to Ubuntu, they could save even more.

    But heaven forbid we switch to Linux, it doesn't come with our beloved IE.
  • 6 Hide
    Anonymous , October 22, 2009 3:37 AM
    Let me start by saying that I have used Win 7 since the open beta and plan on converting permanently to Win 7 in a couple months.

    That said, the "saving money" example is purely speculative and intentionally misleading. You can easily achieve the same power management in XP or Vista with group policy management. If there was a savings in $20000 in electricity per year, there would be NO WAY to quantify/pinpoint where exactly that savings came from especially across an enterprise environment. This numbers game is frequently played by management and is only lip service as they know they will not be held accountable for this savings if it can even be remembered.

    On to the "saving time" argument. 80% improvement in boot up time over XP? Really? Need details here. Um, was this comparison based on an old computer with XP installed versus a new computer with Win 7 installed. The truth of the matter, on the same computer, XP is slightly faster than Win 7. Only by seconds. Other articles on Tom's support/acknowledge this.

    Let's be clear about something with the Energizer CIO. He isn't seeing any kind of "radical change" different from XP. He's being "told" there's a change so his managers can justify expenditures in hardware they needed. XP installed on these new computers would boot at least, as fast as Win 7.

    Screen management and taskbar whatsits?

    Enegizer CIO, Randy Benz, WAKE UP! STOP LOOKING LIKE A TOOL! Can you even spell IT?

    To the editor that let this "article" land anywhere on this usually reputable website, WAKE UP! People who visit this site actually know something about computers. This is a HACK JOB! You are not doing your regular visitors a service for letting this kind of tripe live here.

    Marcus Yam, there is no relevant factual data contained in this so called article. Was this somehow supposed to inform or educate your readers in something? Was there any kind of purpose to actually writing this article. Rushed to meet a deadline and only had 5 minutes to hack something together?

    Tom's, what's with this filler? Please don't allow Marcus to ever fill space again. I expect better from this site.

  • -5 Hide
    Maxor127 , October 22, 2009 4:42 AM
    I guarantee in 6 months, everyone will be bitching and crying about how much Windows 7 sucks and how they're going to switch back to Vista/XP. It's what most people do whenever an operating system is released. I think this whole Windows 7 thing is overhyped.
  • 0 Hide
    cyberkuberiah , October 22, 2009 4:47 AM
    ridiculous article with lot of broken chains .
  • -1 Hide
    cyberkuberiah , October 22, 2009 4:48 AM
    unless "energiser" reperesents all businesses .
Display more comments