Version Therapy

In deciding whether to upgrade software, business users must be able to differentiate just what kind of update they are looking at. An "update" upgrade is issued to address a security vulnerability or operational problem, while a "new edition" upgrade typically features new or improved capabilities. Corporate resistance to an upgrade generally varies, depending on the type of upgrade. "With a new edition, the [customer] objection is usually focused on cost," says Steve O'Halloran, managing director of AssetMetrix's research labs and product architect. "With an update, the worry is often that the software will impede or interfere with business-critical applications."

Concerns over upgrade malfunctions are not entirely unfounded. At SP2's release, Microsoft listed more than 50 products that it warned might not work with the new OS. The list included several of its own products, along with various antivirus tools, Web-server software, and games.

When it comes to upgrades for less well-known applications, business users tend to get even more jittery. In fact, many companies conduct their own tests on updated software. Aramark, for example, carefully evaluates all upgrades to make sure the new programs won't interfere with existing hardware and software. "We're investing staff, resources, and tools," says Crane, "because we feel that what we receive from our vendors is not tested well."

Another way a company can help protect itself against unexpected upgrade bombs is to get publishers to commit to a basic level of support and cooperation. Says one IT consultant: "Security-based updates and bug fixes should be part of a contractual agreement in which the product [upgrade] still has to work in context to the environment it's in."

Of course, a software publisher may be willing to guarantee that it will help a business incorporate an upgrade into its existing IT infrastructure. It's not very likely, however, that the publisher will agree to compensate a user for damage caused by a malfunctioning upgrade.

Vendor Intervention
In the future, analysts say companies may have little choice but to accept upgrades from vendors. The reason? More and more, software publishers are delivering their software over the Internet. And software delivered over the Internet affords vendors greater control over customers.

Case in point: Microsoft initially gave its Windows XP users a reprieve from installing SP2 after some business managers protested the company's initial plan to rapidly upgrade its entire customer base. But last April, the software giant followed through on its pledge to disable a blocking tool on its "Automatic Updates" service.

From Microsoft's perspective, disabling the blocking tool made sense. The tool allowed customers to receive incremental software updates, such as critical security fixes. But it also barred SP2 downloads. Indeed, when the blocking tool was lifted, users that had not disengaged "Automatic Updates" got a nasty surprise. The full upgrade was automatically downloaded to all systems that hadn't yet received the software.

Although Microsoft gave its customers advance notice of its intention to force through the upgrade, some industry watchers howled. They contended that, with Microsoft establishing the precedent, future upgrades from other software publishers may arrive with little or no warning.

Mandatory upgrades could backfire, however. The threat of being force-fed software might drive businesses away from automatic-upgrade systems. "I really can't think of a reason why we would choose automatic upgrades," offers Crane. "In all the years I've been in IT, I've never allowed a vendor to automatically upgrade anything."

(Editor's note: See "Windows-watching" for a chart of past Windows upgrades, with our comments.)

John Edwards, author of The Geeks of War, is a regular contributor to CFO.

• « previous
• 1
• 2