New insights into Desktop Modernisation

One of the challenges associated with desktop computing is that discussions around needs and value are often complicated by subjective matters.

Even users with relatively routine requirements usually have opinions on what matters about the machine on their desk. There is then the question of image and status that pre-occupies certain types of user, and the tricky job of separating actual business needs from personal interests and desires when it comes to power users.

Layered on top of this are factors such as advocacy and religion, with Mac and Linux fans preaching their alternative way, some in IT looking for an easier life trying to force thin clients on everyone, and even good old fashioned reactionary politics playing a role, as some object to Microsoft’s dominance and what they perceive as a faceless global organisation exploiting its commercial clout.

Against this background, we recently ran an online survey asking respondents (over 1,100 IT pros) about their thoughts and plans on the topic of desktop modernisation, taking the opportunity along the way to figure out where organisations are out there today with their desktop estates.

Some of the findings are pretty much as you would expect – e.g. it’s a Windows world, with XP in particular still dominating the business PC environment. But some of the other stuff that came out was a little more interesting. We found, for example, that the strong positive reception to Windows 7, even before its release, had led to two out of three then current Vista migration initiatives being halted or put on hold.

We also uncovered evidence emphasising the importance of future-proofing desktop estates, and indications that the deferral of investment in many organisations as a result of the downturn and lack of enthusiasm for Vista had elevated the risks here.

Pulling it all together, though, what was clear from the research is the importance of understanding the requirements of different types of user, which can vary significantly, and taking a service delivery view of world rather than getting bogged down in the relative merits of newer and older technology at a feature/function level.

If you are interested in reading more on all this, a full report has been produced which you are welcome to download from here.

Mobile rants and moans

Just read a passionate blog post by Philippe Winthrop pleading for some of the emotive coverage in relation to mobile platforms to be toned down. He starts out by saying:

The Internet has been all a twitter (all puns intended) with the new "Droid" coming from Motorola and Verizon Wireless. In fact an analyst at Citigroup is really excited about it. CNET wonders if Motorola can make a comeback with Android devices. Another analyst downgrades RIM. Then, Gizmodo says Palm "lost". People keep on panning Windows Mobile while saying the iPhone is the greatest thing since sliced bread. These inflammatory titles really need to stop.

He then goes on to run through the six major device platforms around at the moment – Android, BlackBerry, iPhone, Symbian, webOS (Palm) and Windows Mobile – pointing out that none of these is in any danger of disappearing from the scene in the foreseeable future; so why all this adversarial talk about devices among pundits?

I’m inclined to agree with his point and I empathise with his frustration. Rather than silly stories about winning and losing, commentators would do much better to accept that there is currently a very rich landscape, and help to guide people through it, especially those writing for business users.

And while we’re into getting stuff off our chests, I would like to add that from business sector perspective, device/OS manufacturers and operators playing games with exclusivity on new devices is really not helpful. Perhaps in the consumer space subscribers go rushing from one operator to another because the latest hot device has just become available on a particular network, but businesses just can’t behave that way. And with mobile comms and mobile remote access now falling under the IT umbrella in mid-sized and larger organisations, there is good awareness that the device part of the equation is the most volatile, and therefore represents the least suitable pivot point for sensible decision making.

All of this is very front-of-mind for me at the moment as I have been reviewing the options for meeting Freeform Dynamics’ own mobile communication needs, and if you haven’t tried to compare and contrast offerings directly for while, take my word for it, it hasn’t got any easier in recent times.

We are quite aggressive users but have a pretty good handle on our usage patterns and volumes (average minutes and data consumed per month, roaming requirements, etc), so you would think it would just be a case of simply getting a few quotes and looking at what’s included and excluded from the contract. But then things in the small print catch you out such as voicemail access charges, lengthy restrictive agreements, draconian support hours, etc.

On this last point, for example, I was amazed that with one global network, my access to tech support for core business usage on a business contract was actually less than a teenager on the same network looking for help with problem on their pre-pay phone. So much for flexible working any time, any place, anywhere - all well and good from a support perspective, provided you don't stray too much from normal office hours in your home country!

Coming back to where we started, while we all love reviewing and writing about devices, from an enterprise mobility point of view, there really are a lot more important things that matter. As an analyst, I was pulled off onto other areas of coverage for while, but I now feel the need to get back into the whole mobile thing again after recent experiences.

I dunno, you turn your back for a few months..... :-)