Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

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

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 71 comments

A good case for business to jump to the newest Windows.

We know from personal experience that Windows 7 is a faster, smoother, smarter and more capable operating system than it predecessors. But now businesses are finding that there may be a worthwhile investment in stepping up to a more modern operating system.

Microsoft blogged about findings published in an IDC whitepaper (sponsored by Microsoft, mind you) that showed that for businesses that use Windows 7, each user saves an average of about 43 hours, or $1,400 total benefit per PC, annually.

Furthermore, researchers at IDC found the payback to companies started just after seven months and a return on investment of 375 percent.

While such lovely and optimistic numbers were well accepted by Microsoft, the main savings thanks to Windows 7 are due to features that we've experienced as well in our enthusiast purposes. Such features include faster reboots, shorter start-up times and other under-the-hood performance upgrades. IT managers also cited fewer software failures as another time and money-saving feature.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 15 Hide
    bin1127 , July 7, 2010 12:24 PM
    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.
  • 13 Hide
    insider3 , July 7, 2010 12:12 PM
    I've been trying to convince my company to upgrade to windows7 for the longest. Still on XP on computers that can handle windows7. I can't count how many times I had to do reinstalls or use ASR because of glitches etc.
  • 11 Hide
    willgart , July 7, 2010 12:20 PM
    I have started with the Beta version at the office and never get any issue from the day 0. And 7 save a lot of time for me for searching document / application, I never use the shortcuts (except the pinned applications) or the big program list under the "start" menu.
    Now I'm on an XP station, and I see the difference in my daily job, its slower, longer to find applications & documents.
    7 is definitely a winner OS.
Other Comments
    Display all 71 comments.
  • 13 Hide
    insider3 , July 7, 2010 12:12 PM
    I've been trying to convince my company to upgrade to windows7 for the longest. Still on XP on computers that can handle windows7. I can't count how many times I had to do reinstalls or use ASR because of glitches etc.
  • 9 Hide
    dacman61 , July 7, 2010 12:13 PM
    I've avoided Vista like the plague, but Windows 7 runs fantastically for me... I currently run it in a VirtualBox session on top of latest version of Kubuntu.
  • -9 Hide
    nahdogg , July 7, 2010 12:18 PM
    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.
  • 11 Hide
    willgart , July 7, 2010 12:20 PM
    I have started with the Beta version at the office and never get any issue from the day 0. And 7 save a lot of time for me for searching document / application, I never use the shortcuts (except the pinned applications) or the big program list under the "start" menu.
    Now I'm on an XP station, and I see the difference in my daily job, its slower, longer to find applications & documents.
    7 is definitely a winner OS.
  • 0 Hide
    daggs , July 7, 2010 12:21 PM
    sorry, I don't buy it, bring me a non sponsored ms findings and I might believe it.
  • 2 Hide
    ern88 , July 7, 2010 12:24 PM
    Loved windows 7 since it was released. Too bad my Vista Ultimate was such a let down.
  • 15 Hide
    bin1127 , July 7, 2010 12:24 PM
    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.
  • 2 Hide
    Jerky_san , July 7, 2010 12:29 PM
    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.
  • 6 Hide
    unknown_13 , July 7, 2010 12:32 PM
    Windows 7 is absolutely the best OS imo. Faster, lighter, and more stable than both XP and Vista. 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!!!
  • 4 Hide
    jomofro39 , July 7, 2010 12:33 PM
    Whilst I am skeptical of the numbers, I definitely have to admit the faster boot times/smoother operation is noticable, since I switch back and forth a lot, and maybe $1,400 is pushing it, but some savings due to time is feasible.
  • 4 Hide
    huron , July 7, 2010 12:36 PM
    I'd guess these numbers are assuming that people are busy the full 8 hours of the day and wouldn't be doing something else with the time that they "saved."

    I love Windows 7 and try often to convince the boss that we should go to it, but I usually don't like fuzzy statistics either.
  • 2 Hide
    stromm , July 7, 2010 12:37 PM
    nahdoggMaybe 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.


    My guess is it's simply that you're running the 64bit version with 32bit apps/games. Something still not recommended.
  • 1 Hide
    madass , July 7, 2010 12:39 PM
    jomofro39Whilst I am skeptical of the numbers, I definitely have to admit the faster boot times/smoother operation is noticable, since I switch back and forth a lot, and maybe $1,400 is pushing it, but some savings due to time is feasible.


    I agree. It's a company study, so best take it with a pinch of salt.
    But I must admit, 7 is way better than old XP.....I've never run XP on my current rig, but a friend with an AMD triple can barely run two apps simultaneously on XP but on 7 plays CoD, encodes audio and makes a DVD image at the same time- with out even any frame rate drops.
  • -7 Hide
    Anonymous , July 7, 2010 12:45 PM
    Until 7 gets proper driver support (even dual-screen nVidia is buggy) I'm sticking with XP. I always go with the latest fully supported OS version until I'm forced to use the newer, inevitably slower, "latest thing".
  • 2 Hide
    COLGeek , July 7, 2010 12:48 PM
    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!!!
  • 1 Hide
    daggs , July 7, 2010 12:49 PM
    madassI've never run XP on my current rig, but a friend with an AMD triple can barely run two apps simultaneously on XP but on 7 plays CoD, encodes audio and makes a DVD image at the same time- with out even any frame rate drops.

    when was his xp installed? you do know that xp gets slower with time...
  • -2 Hide
    nevertell , July 7, 2010 12:49 PM
    Daggssorry, I don't buy it, bring me a non sponsored ms findings and I might believe it.

    +10000000000000000000000
  • 7 Hide
    itadakimasu , July 7, 2010 12:53 PM
    on the contrary...

    My school of thought is that if I upgraded all the computers in my office to windows 7, it would be a disaster. It may be a big time saver w\ younger computer literate folks... but in my office for example where most of the ladies are in their 40's or past that, it would be a support nightmare.

    I'd be stuck wasting half my time trying to train people, and they in turn would lose time because of their computer illiteracy and inability to see how similar windows 7 is to 2000 or xp.
  • 2 Hide
    extremepcs , July 7, 2010 1:01 PM
    itadakimasubut in my office for example where most of the ladies are in their 40's or past that, it would be a support nightmare.


    I'm in the same boat. The jump from Office 2003 to 2007 was bad enough. Also - Win 7 deployment BLOWS. There is absolutely no good/supported way to set a default profile on the machine. Everyone gets the same (lame) "oobe" when they log in for the first time. About the only thing you can set to default is the theme. Taskbar/Start menu icons are not retained during the sysprep copy profile stage.
  • 4 Hide
    nukemaster , July 7, 2010 1:06 PM
    strommMy guess is it's simply that you're running the 64bit version with 32bit apps/games. Something still not recommended.

    I have never had issues with 32-bit apps/games under Win7 64-bit. Even Vista 64 was fine in that respect.

    With 8 gigs of memory on my Vista system and 12 on my Win7 system, 32 bit was not an option.

    I to this day have had no issues with Win7(other then one system I built that had a bad stick of ram.) or even vista, but I only got that after the first SP was released.
Display more comments