Slashdot Mirror
Time To Dump XP?
An anonymous reader writes "Gartner is saying it's time to plan your migration now (if you havent already done it). I for one know my company still has loads of users still on XP, citing training costs (time and money) rather than software license fees. Is my company alone in wanting to stay in the 1990s or is Windows 7 the way forward?"
Could have sworn that XP was not available before Windows 2000 -- but what do I know...
XP was released in 2001.
...is my company still using Windows XP SP2, but we are still using IE6. Feh...and they complained that Audacity was a security risk because it was "open source, so anyone could hack it".
Insanity.
Living With a Nerd
I would live to migrate on of my offices to Windows 7, but then they would need to buy all-new hardware, sinc ewhat they have will not support Windows 7.
Also, they use an old version of Navison Axapta (since renamed to Microsoft Dynamics AX) which has issues on newer OS versions.
90's? XP was release in 2001 But I do agree it's time to move on from it for most companies. My company has begun testing for a deployment of Windows 7, migrating from XP.
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
Another example of why companies like Gartner are useless. They're little more another source of advertising for computer companies.
Your decisions on your OS should be driven by your needs first and foremost. If XP is still supported, and it's doing the job well for you... why switch? Switch if YOU need to, not because someone like Gartner says "Hey you, get out of the past and get with the future. All the cool kids are running *insert OS here*"
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
If someone needs to be trained to use Windows 7 then there is something wrong with them.
Start a pilot migration and use it to find the bugs. Once the bugs are worked out you can proceed with the migration. Many places have too many legacy programs that do not work with the new OS. The old stuff is stretched as long as possible mostly for budget reasons in the down market. There it too much investment in the installed base to toss it.
The truth shall set you free!
"Is my company alone in wanting to stay in the 1990s or is Window 7 the way forward?"
Uh... yes? no?
The OR version of "or" that computer scientists creates a question for which the answer provides little relevant information. The XOR version of "or" that is the popular meaning in spoken english has similar problems.
Well MY company adopted it early... and we all are much faster, ever since!
Wait what? 90's I must be missing something. XP was released in 2001. I'm not really seeing the training issue either. There's not that much of a UI difference between XP and Win7.
Om, nomnomnom...
I am at a Fortune 500 and everything is still XP. Most companies I know are not migrating at this time.
Although, if they have to retrain (Citing time and cost) Plus the cost of a new license then why not move to Linux and at least drop one of the costs (Licensing)
FOr business do you really need anything more than XP?
The problem with XP is not that it'snot perfectly satisfactory but that it's not maintained. New software won't be written for it. That's the reason to migrate.
On the other hand one could make a lateral move. Linux is more like XP in feel than even Win 7 is. And software is in production for Linux. So perhaps a lateral move is not so unthinkable in terms of training costs at this particular point in time.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Just to get the ball started... yes, I agree... it is time to dump Windows XP and change to OS X or one of the BSDs or heck, even one of the mature Linux distributions like Ubuntu.
Moderators: start your engines... am I Flamebait, or am I Insightful? Informative or Offtopic?
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
Gartner has been a Microsoft/Intel shill for a long time. Their predictions tend towards the laughable as well. If you want some good laughs check out their Itanium, bing or Windows Mobile predictions.
If you're company was still in the 1990s you'd be using NT 4 or Windows 98... So They are already out of the 90s?
In all seriousness though my university is still exclusively using XP when running Windows (There are some machines with Fedora on them and a few places use iMacs). So obviously you are not alone.
God no, you're not alone. We need stable environments for consistency of software development. We have a dozen home-grown tools, and 2x that from open source type things, and jumping service patches is a holy pain, much less an entire OS. We were still supporting Win2k machines until two years ago.
"Migration" is in Microsoft's interest, not yours.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Seriously this is slashdot, what kind of news reporting is this, I couldn't care less about Windows.
Windows XP came out in late-2001...hardly "the 90s"
At my small office workplace we are down to one remaining Windows 2000 computer, majority XP, no Vista, and one Windows 7. It was a pain to convert our roaming desktops from 2k/XP style to Vista/7 style (samba server). I personally really like Windows 7 though it of course comes with the assortment of upgrading pains and things that make you slap your forehead and say "WHY?!" -- example, out of the box Windows 7 runs a maintenance task that deletes broken shortcuts. Unfortunately for whatever reason it believes shortcuts to documents and programs on our network shares are broken, and so they repeatedly disappeared until we figured that out. Why can't I pin a network share/document/application to the start bar? etc
We also have an OS9 computer that doesn't get used often anymore (though did up until about 3 months ago), OSX 10.4, 10.5, and 10.6.
Why upgrade if it still works? (of course barring any major security vulnerabilities that can't be protected against)
Flamebait, I know. But honestly, having used 7 for a while on my personal machines and having to still use XP at work, it's 7 all the way. I shall pretend that Vista never happened.
You are not alone. I will be very surprised if my company moves from XP any time soon. We only upgraded to Office 2003 about 18 months ago, and yes, we are still stuck on IE 6. We're also using Lotus Notes 6.5 (latest version is 8.5 according to Wikipedia).
Windows XP is still "good enough" for many people out there, and besides, it's still supported by software vendors, and probably will be for quite some time. The technological rift between Windows XP and Windows 7 is not overly large (the base infrastructure is in many places similar to identical), so that incentive is also missing (unlike, say, the jump from Mac OS Classic to Mac OS X, which were completely different, with Mac OS X clearly being the way forward).
As long as people can run their Offices and their Firefoxes and whatnot, XP will stay for those people who do not wish to purchase new computers (or new OS licenses, anyways).
And to think that Vista was supposed to be a quantum leap forward in terms of infrastructure (remember WinFS?). If the largest software company in the world can't get their asses into gear, something is clearly wrong with their modus operandi.
right up until we can get iPads and then everyone gets an iPad. No more desktop computers.
Gartner have a well deserved reputation for authoritative delivery of a mixture of the blatantly wrong and the painfully obvious; but they seem to be veering largely toward the second camp with this one.
Even extended enterprise support for XP isn't going to last forever, and whatever legacy crap people are worried about isn't going to become any more compatible as time passes. As for "training", home users' access to XP has been(barring active effort on their part) largely cut off for some time now, so the ones that aren't mac users at home will be getting exposed anyway.
Unless you have some scheme to drop Microsoft, it seems pretty blatantly obvious that planning for their latest flavor is your only choice at this point.
Windows 7 hasn't been out that long, expecting everyone to jump to it is quite a stretch. It may be an improvement in many areas, but we're still dealing with companies whose internal apps only work on IE 6. Browser upgrade support is hard to get funding for from your corporate overlords, OS upgrades even moreso.
Having Vista happen didn't help anything either. XP needs to have its support extended until people, companies, and software/drivers have a reasonable amount of time to move to Windows 7.
Well, it's a way, but it may not be forward...
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I'd only upgrade as necessary to a Win7 modified to a WinXP look-and-feel so less training is required.
As long as the hardware is supported, what is the reason to upgrade? And what new features of the current release of Office are really needed?
If the business adopts non-platform-specific standards for documents and data interchange, there will be less pressure and haste to upgrade and more flexibility overall.
My company is ready to migrate once our vendor applications are compatible with Win7. Some won't run. Some haven't been verified by the company to work and our company won't move forward till the bendor says it's ok. Some are web apps that won't work with IE8. They will work in compatibility mode but once again, unless the vendor signs off on that and agrees that they won't corrupt our database or lack features doing such, management does not want to move forward. We're also a hospital and healthcare if involved directly so we don't want to beta test anything. We'd like to move forward to 64 bit Win7, but until ALL the applications we use can, we have to stick with WinXP because they are all used together on the same machines.
For the record, nobody ever considered Vista. Not us. Not the vendors.
Windows 7 adds a bunch of stuff that's really nice and convenient. It resolves some XP issues, and introduces it's own little quirks.
So the question really boils down to:
- Do you really need it?
- Do you have the budget for licenses and potential necessary new hardware?
- Do you have the helpdesk staff available to train to answer user questions?
A Helpdesk can cut down quite a bit on OS migration training costs, at the expense of a greater Helpdesk initial call volume.
If you're considering overhauling your enterprise OS version because you want to "keep up with the Joneses," do yourself, your budget, your stockholders, your customers, and your users, all a favor, and wait. XP is still well supported, even if it's not the perceptual cream of the MSFT crop.
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
What's the difference between Windows 7 and being stuck in the 90s? Windows 7 is a useful upgrade if you care about security and have users who MUST run windows apps.
Otherwise install Ubuntu. Your users will complain just as much about the transfer from XP to Windows 7, so it's a great time to make a transition to a lower cost operating system.
some of the companies we sometimes do elearning contracts for. Things like flash player 8 only. I try to explain how many thousand exploits that would leave open but apparently it 'costs too much to upgrade'. I wonder how much it costs them by having machines with Flash 8 going online ..
along with Windows 2003. which means that any new applications you buy next year will probably not support XP and Windows 2003
Things are working fine in our office with XP. Everyone can run all the programs they need. The industry continues to write their apps to also run on it. What can Windows 7 do that our company needs?
Windows 7 has hardware requirements that many, many otherwise capable WinXP boxes can't meet either technically or economically.
It's easy to say well, upgrade your 1 Gig RAM 2 GHz P4 desktop to 2 Gig of RAM, but if you have to pitch 2x 512 Meg sticks and buy 2x 1 Gig PC3200 sticks it can get expensive fast. And that IDE drive will suffice, but it won't be very speedy - an upgrade may be in order, but unless your desktop includes a SATA port, will it really be cost-effective? Oh, and you can toss in a ReadyBoost USB flash drive to improve performance, but this is starting to get expensive...
PC3200 RAM is about $40-50 a Gig, a 4 Gig ReadyBoost USB flash drive will cost another $10 and where does that leave you? With an investment of $100/desktop plus labor in performing the hardware upgrade, or half the price of a new low-end Dell OptiPlex which will blow the socks off the 5-7 year old P4 you are investing in.
OR you could just sit on WinXP boxes for another year and start saving up for a forklift upgrade next year...
Ken
so migrating to Win7 won't help your company. Stay on XP, keep trying to get by with IE6, and UPDATE YOUR RESUME! Oh yeah, have you pulled your money out of the employee stock plan yet?
I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
Train for what? Can people not just figure out where they moved the buttons you click on to?
What the big deal is, is that there are millions of WAY overpaid western nation office workers who don't even come close to being deserving of their pay based on a global economy anymore. That they are incapable of having enough self drive and initiative to be able to transition from one operating system to another without this being some huge hassle is proof enough. Let them go bankrupt and unemployed and watch their jobs go overseas, then they might learn to spend a little entertainment time into learning some new skills..that aren't that much different from their old alleged "office skills".
Upgrading for the sake of upgrading makes absolutely no economic sense.
Going from 1 version of windows to the next is usually only done as a result of needing the new verson of office to 'keep up'. Well Office 2003 or whatever basically fullfills every normal office need. In fact upgrading may mean all your internal scripts and automated excel crap will break or stop working.
It will and does cost a shitload of money to upgrade for a company and really most of them gain nothing tangible.
The only thing that will get a lot of companies to update is when they lose support and due to insane company charters that say they need to run software that is under current support contracts from 3rd party vendors that never give them support anyhow. Why they have this? Who the frack knows, probably the same reason they all run mcaffee and still get infected with 'all the latest virii'.
My current employer and my previous employer still have the technical staff using XP, because most of the software that we rely on to do our work is still a little shaky or unproven under Windows 7. At this point we could migrate to Vista as an interim step, but why bother?
Are just another way of saying they're too cheap/scared to move forward. Especially if the license fees aren't an issue. More likely than not, this same company is still running on P3, P4 CPU's, too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for most people and their day to day activities on their workstation, the changes made from XP to Win7 would take less than 5 minutes to get familiar with and a few days of monotonous 8 to 5 grinding.
Not trying to throw a softball to either camp. It's just that no employee has ever complained that the OS is too old and that we really need Windows 7.
Mods, please explain how a first post can possibly be "Redundant"?
A comment that has been posted repeatedly in stories A, B, C, and D, is probably redundant in story E even if it is the first post.
(Posted without bonus due to meta-discussion.)
Don't fix it.
If everything works fine, you've got everything you need to do your job, and do it well. I don't see the need of change everything every five years or so.
The urge of migrating OS every five years is evil. Windows XP and Office 2003 should be more than enough for anyone whose only work has to do with writing reports, memos, processing spreadsheet data, etc. You are using 10 years old software... so what.
I still use a 20+ years old TV, and the only reason to change it is the technology breakthrough from analog to digital... nothing even compared to that has happened on the windows platform since W2K.
As a .net developer, it would be nice to migrate to win7. There are some very nice debugging tools baked right into win7 that would help in tracking down bugs. Also the UI is much nicer to develop in. Nothing major.
Please note that MS has changed their OS release Cycle. They want to release a new OS about every 2 years or so. Much like the time between Vista and Windows 7 and less like the time between window XP and Vista. So the longer you wait, the further behind you are going to get and the harder the migration is going to be.
It just always seemed to be kind of ridiculous that there would be "training costs" associated with moving between two versions of the same product from the same company, especially when nothing really substantial has changed from a user perspective
Compared to the taskbar of Windows XP, the taskbar of Windows 7 works a bit more like the dock of Mac OS X: Windows 7 has one button per app even when the taskbar isn't full, and Windows 7 unifies quick launch and open windows.
...but we just rebranded them as Virtual Desktop Infrastructure.
-Brought to you by VMWare and Wyse.
I think companies should migrate back to windows 95. That way all the new fangled viruses and trojans won't work and you can feel safe again.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
The main reason, in my mind, to upgrade is being able to effectively use 64-bit machines fully--and have more than 4GB of RAM.
Yes you need new machines to do this, but really, if you are buying NEW machines, you should probably upgrade. The question then becomes a matter of whether or not new machines are worthwhile. Your old machines may be still serviceable, but would newer machines result in getting work done enough faster to offset (even partially) the cost of the upgrade.
In many cases, the answer is no--a LOT of secretaries & folks that mainly do word processing are better off just staying where they are--their machines are fast enough for what they do, and additional RAM & extra cores aren't going to make a difference.
That said, if you are doing statistical analysis, engineering, graphic design, programming (and compiling), and a number of other jobs, then you should ABSOLUTELY be on a very aggressive upgrade schedule. Additionally, 8GB of RAM is more than just a good idea for many of those jobs--some of them should be stuffing as MUCH memory as they can into their machines so that they can do their jobs more efficiently.
In any work setting the bottleneck for employee performance should not be the environment or resources, but rather human capacities. That's the ideal. Obviously cost of achieving that and other considerations prevent most companies from getting to the point where that's true--but it should be the goal.
So either move to Win7-x64 OR move to another 64-bit OS with lots of power & memory in the hardware. Staying where you are only makes sense if you are doing mostly word processing.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
I'll keep my framerate as it is, thank you.
"If it ain't broke, dont fix it".
and a private company wanting to force you to 'fix' it so they can make money off you, doesnt classify as broken.
Read radical news here
Would that same benefit be provided by other operating systems?
Wine runs a surprising number of Windows applications, including Microsoft Office. But it still doesn't run everything, especially intranet web applications that rely on IE 6 and/or ActiveX. It especially doesn't run drivers for specialized peripherals or for some hardware that might be in a company's existing, paid-for PCs.
I'm still on 2000, you insensitive clod! I'm planning to *upgrade* to XP in the next year or so. Provided my hardware can run it, that is. Everyone knows that XP is a resource hog. :)
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Many, many people think they understand security, but don't.
Like, seriously don't.
And sometimes they get jobs where they make very important (and monumentally bad) security decisions.
It sucks.
is Window 7 the way forward?
Correction, Windows 7 is a way forward.
Our organization gives employees a choice on machine refresh--Windows 7 (and I think XP is still available), Mac OSX, or Linux. I'm seeing an increasing number of MacbookPros being used in the office.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
SP1 will be out soon, most everything has been working up until now. 99% of business apps are approved for 7. Corporates need new desktops anyway, as their XP ones are most likely 5+ years old and dying.
Go go go!
-m
http://www.invisik.com/
http://www.invisik.com
Time to fly north for the summer? Nope can't afford it. Can't afford to buy new computers either...
There's 7 and Ubuntu and MAC and BSD .... and... and... new Google OS(?)
and a bunch of other great OS's out there.... some of them FREE.
More like time to dump Micro$oft.
On this particular machine I don't really have an option. The only "upgrade" option for XP available to me is to remove it from the system and go over to 100% Linux. My hardware doesn't deal well with Vista/Win7, and Microsoft doesn't want to give me an usable alternative. So XP/Linux dualboot will be staying intact for at least a couple more years.
Our company has just announced that they will be upgrading all corporate-supported* computers to Windows 7. I am actually excited for this, because Windows 7 is the first version of windows where 64-bit doesn't suck ass. I write data analysis software and I was getting tired of having the memory space available to applications limited to 2GB. Memory is so cheap, but the vast majority of my users couldn't take advantage of it because they were stuck with a 32-bit OS.
* Meaning computers whose support costs are payed out of the IT overhead fund. You can keep XP for computers that need it but your project has to pay IT for any support they provide out of their own budget.
but Vista sure makes me miss XP. Honestly if I had my choice I'd still be using it. This is the difference now between Windows and Mac, I look forward to Mac upgrades where as I tend to dread them with Windows. I do look forward to upgrading to Win 7 but I hate all the "improvements". They trashed the filing system which worked so great in the past. It's worse than Mac now.
If I'm interpreting Microsoft's policy correctly (http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/#ServicePackSupport), they'll stop supporting XP next year. If that happens, would you really want to be running an unpatched Microsoft OS late next year?
Another editor writes an idiotic title??
Let's answer this simply, since the article has a simple title: "Is it finally time to dump XP?" NO. It's 2010. By your own article's admission support ends in 2014!
FTFA: "IT departments need to dump Microsoft's Windows XP operating system (OS) before the software vendor ends support for it in April 2014"
Thanks, Capt. Obvious!
Also FTFA: "the sooner the better as many new versions of applications are not expected to support XP beyond 2012."
What applications? Do these people live in the enterprise? Vendor apps are the slowest to migrate to any new OS. That's one of the major reasons why migrations happen so slowly. The other is money. In a down economy you're simply not going to see wholesale adoption of Windows 7 when there's no funding and companies can pull profits from apps that are working now! This is all fun to sit and talk about and kick up some worry but the reality is when you go back to your CIO or IT manager funding will win out. They're going to wait till they get closer to EOL and hope the economy turns around and frankly that's what they should do.
My reasons for support of this aren't because XP is a bad OS. I still use it for some things. My key reason for being in support of dumping XP off of corporate networks is that I won't have to turn perfectly good websites into abominations of cat's cradle code just so they will render properly in IE6.
Later versions of IE still suck; but they are a ton easier to deal with than IE6.
The game.
Why upgrade if it still works?
Because it won't still work forever. Application developers will start to rely on features introduced in Windows Vista, and web application developers will start to rely on HTML5 features that aren't in IE 8.
(of course barring any major security vulnerabilities that can't be protected against)
What you're barring has already happened to Windows 98: major vulnerabilities published after the announced end of extended support. I see no reason why Windows XP will differ.
XP is last Windows system I'll ever use of my own free will. Sianara Redmond.
However, one part of the problem is also that they are afraid their (custom made) software will not work on a new OS. If more companies would adopt OSS then they could more easily transition between systems while using the same software package (with upgrades of course). Also the architecture of the computers would not be such a big deal as it is these days. The software development companies can then focus on giving support instead of writing some code and releasing specialized patches each time a new support ticket comes up.
Windows is a dying platform. Transition to a modern and stable Open-Source OS if your company is interested in building a long-term platform based on speed, stability, security, usability, and drastically lower support costs.
Time to switch from one MS OS to another, yeah!
No... because XP works perfectly fine for what we do. Hell, we still have workstations on Windows 2000 because we have no need to upgrade them.
There is a war going on for your mind.
I'm still on XP at work but just recently switched to 7 on my home laptop. I really like Windows 7 ... except for the Draconian licensing crap where you have to login to a key server every x number of days (university licensing) ... that's the way M$ seems to be going though so I think I'll be going elsewhere
We're still on XP SP2, IE7, but Office 07 is coming out.
I expect we will see a hardware refresh next year, and that is the right time to go to Win7.
And we changed desktop AND system support from one evil overlord to another evil overlord:
Previous evil overlord was cautious, thorough, and meticulous with image development and provisioning. Stuff worked, but changes took months. Crashes infrequent, BSODs even more infrequent, reimaging events so rare as to be a cause for celebration. Overall well organized and competent.
New evil overlord has a 'cowboy' mentality, slams in changes and has played fast and loose with images, reducing the count from hundreds to perhaps 80. Our team affected as new hires now get an image that that includes *most* of the features we *require* (as in non-negotiable), but they are nonresponsive to requests for the previous image. Despite being quick on the draw to make changes to the corporate images, they have raised customer avoidance to a new level. If you place a call and aren't available to answer their reply call, they mark you off as 'resolved'. Nice. If you knew who this outfit was, you would be somewhat astonished. No, it is not IBM. BSODs not so uncommon, but not an issue. Reimaging is the answer to all sorts of problems, including network privilege problems. Oooh boy. Not yet so competent, but I have faith that they will get it about 3 months before they pass the torch to the next bid winner, who will be the previous evil overlord. Save us from this coming 'in-house', please.
And the customer app I support is not compatible with Win7 - no plans to fix it, and we have not had good luck with Compatability Mode. We will be in an interesting place. Did you know Access 07 cannot convert a database back to Access 97 format? Way fun.
Moving to Win7 presents me with a unique problem - we work in a Lotus Notes email environment, with plans to cave to Microsoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^^H move to Exchange probably still 18 months out, Notes apps being the sticking point. Our dev teams have succeeded in developing web-based replacements that can't tolerate IE8, and have converted maybe 10% of all apps, including all of ours - and all of ours don't work correctly, but are 'working as designed'. Pus.
We should be stuck on XP until 2Q11 if not longer, but I know somewhere there is pressure to move faster. Our current hardware would work, but I suspect they may acclerate a refresh and solve the problems with new machines.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
What type of business you're in that you've used desktops until now, but believe you'll no longer need them at all once you have tablets in the employees' hands.
One of the most important issues that are stopping corporations from moving to Win7 is that a lot of business software is requiring IE 6 in order to function and does not work well in computability mode. So, until software "utilities" providers such as payroll, etc. companies make their software work well in IE8/Firefox/Chrome, adaption of Windows7 will be slipping. On the other hand, there are options, such as VMWare's ThinApps that would allow to still run IE6 on user desktops side-by-side with IE8.
What?! I've just been mulling over whether to upgrade the OS on my main machine to XP.
I know the truth and I know what you're thinking
Nothing* requires Vista or Windows 7.
* - Nothing in this context means "No common business application"
Why would any sane company waste the time and money? They would be better off using older versions of the applications. They run faster anyway. Transparency on UI widgets does not make an employee more productive.
Ever booted up XP in a VM? Takes less than 20 seconds from POST to Desktop, and even faster with an SSD on the Host OS. Try that with Vista or Win7.
I write applications for Symbian (Nokia smartphones). Their SDKs (at least up to s60, 3rd edition) doesn't work on anything but XP on an Administrator account (and a C drive (yeah, I've tried without one :)). Also, Windows 7 does nothing for me, so I'll keep XP SP3 for the forseeable future.
Why not just phase it in gradually as part of the company's regular hardware cycle? 4GB of RAM is going to be considered standard for new systems soon (if it's not already), and you're going to need to switch OS anyway to utilize the RAM (unless you're unfortunate enough to be using XP 64bit).
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The only advantage of XP is that people are dependent on using it, and simply can't handle change. For new hires, my company gives windows 7 machines. For employees that want 7, they can get it. Generally, for older employees who aren't "computer" people, there is no problem letting them keep XP because that's how they've operated for nearly 10 years. However, forcing people entering the workforce now to become dependent on an aging OS is a very bad idea.
My other sig is clever.
If you actually want a solution, you want to start migrating towards platform independence. Our XP machines are moving to OSX for the most part. In doing so, it is making our company more nimble insofar as we are no longer tied into a specific hardware solution. When GoogleOS comes out, maybe we'll move our old machines onto that. Your best play is to make OS choices a lot less relevant to lock in.
Common reasons that so many people/companies will hang onto XP for a very long time: XP works really well for what it does, and it's already there. There are no features in Windows 7 that are business critical other than somewhat pointless assertions about security (i.e. what OS is really 100% secure anyhow).
I think the most compelling reason not to move is that there's a lot more most businesses can do with their XP systems to utilize automation, etc. that have nothing to do with needing a new OS. I'd much rather build out those automations in XP vs. investing in a brand new platform that merely gets me to where I already am.
Finally, I doubt there are that many reasons to "need" 64-bit vs. 32-bit except for special instances where those people probably already have a 64-bit system in place.
stuff |
No, seriously. What killer new features does Windows 7 have that are worth the time and expense of an upgrade from XP? The only one I've heard mentioned, that it sucks less than Vista, doesn't apply to XP users.
When it gets down to it, there are two main reasons to upgrade to Windows 7: Eventually, it will become impossible to get new machines running XP. And Microsoft really wants your money. Neither of these benefits the user.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Yep... time to dump XP and move to OSX.
As a consultant I supply my own hardware. It was time for a laptop upgrade and I decided to take a calculated risk and move to OSX. I made sure I had my old machine still around, and I migrated an image of it to Parallels, just in case.
After 2 weeks, I was using only Mac native applications. No one I work with was the wiser.
I am now more productive than before. My VM is sitting in Parallels just in case. My only OOPS moment was when I was asked to do a demonstration in a meeting. I did not have the VGA converter to hook up to the projector.
I work at a company that every reader of slashdot would know, and we are still using XP in the development environment. I suppose that Microsoft would have to stop supporting Visual Studio 2008 on XP to force this organization off of XP and onto 7.
Vista is loaded on the 'corporate' PC but XP is on the development PC. XP works, it's stable. End of story.
Best regards.
In my organisation we use XP. Until a few weeks ago we used Office 2002. 99% of users use the PC as a glorified typewriter. Windows 3.1 with Word 2 (released before many slashdotters were born) would have all the functions we actually use. Upgrading to latest Windows + Office just means that everything would run slower, unless hardware is upgrades as well. + it confuses all the 45+ computer illiterate secretaries
They removed DirectSOund3D functionality. This means my favorite games now sound like shit. I don't want to have to rely on some software-only implementation that chews up resources. I purchased my EAX hardware for a reason. If the developers/publishers would release the sources to these games, we could adapt them to work better, but we all know corporate goons have no souls and this will never happen.
The operating system is supposed to serve me and do what I want, not be intentionally crippled to sell me more products. (We have to pay for the EAX translator.)
"We know that it is easier to find vulnerabilities in Windows 7 than Windows XP due to the way the new OS is architected and there are other benefits in upgrading," said Kandek.
When XP is no longer getting security updates (and its not that far out) everyone install the latest LTS Ubuntu. Set up an XP theme for users resistant to visual change.
Then, for any business-essential application that requires Windows, use Citrix, RDP or VNC to some secured XP boxes. Or, use VirtualBox or VMware. You can set the VMs to use specfic MAC addrs then set the DHCP server to not assign those an internet gateway, so they can't get on the intERnet, but they can still use the intRAnet. This way your users can still use the internet but not risk infection of XP machines.
OpenOffice is usable, but the .DOC and Access DB base still represents a migration problem.
It may be possible to use CodeWeaver's Crossover office ($40) to get Office to work where you have to. However I expect the reduced support costs to pay dividends, as well as not having to upgrade hardware. It now takes XP 14 minutes to boot on a (3-year-old) dual-core laptop. Ubuntu starts in 60 seconds, and that is to a "usable" desktop.
Other things that Ubtunu beats windows on:
- centralized updater. Only one update service runs for the whole system.
- no viruses
I've really been amazed at the latest Ubuntus - as easy to use as Windows - no - in fact easier.
I'll always keep a copy of XP around, but it will be a virtual machine that I keep between my linux upgrades and it won't have internet access, so I don't have to worry about viruses.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
The rationale behind sticking with XP is simple: it allows us to use our PCs as they are (a mix of laptops and desktops). On our 5-year-old machines WinXP runs ok, whereas Win7 would crawl instead. Also, add the cost of reinstalling ALL our programs and reconfiguring the machines... We simply cannot afford such a cost right now. I hear many smaller companies are in the same situation. There's a double-dip recession out there ya'know?
I assume by migration you mean from XP to Ubuntu, yes?
America, Home of the Brave.
anyone care to point out some aspect of work that cannot be done with xp but can be done with win7 ?
appart from the eye candy and additional resource use there are no areas where windows has evolved
for work environment there really are no good reasons to dump xp atm, 'its old' is no reason, it does all it needs to
you dont trow away a tool just because its old, you throw it away if it breaks, or is somehow inferior to newer tools
Article on Slashdot saying "you should upgrade from WinXP" == preaching to the converted.
Move to Vista or 7? That's just silly unless you NEED 8GB of memory, which it's safe to say most things/people don't. I recently downgraded my XP to 2000 and it's so much better. But my main one runs Windows 98 with no antivirus (most viruses don't support 98), no patches, just programs and, on speed and usability, it beats the pants off anything since then.
there's a single reason to. So far I haven't found anything that 7 can do that XP can't. I tried 7 for a month and eventually the GUI differences just drove me nuts. It worked well enough but there were things that it did that I couldn't stand and I couldn't change them.
Finally I sat down to figure out what 7 gave me that XP didn't - and I couldn't think of a single thing.
I think the current and recent moderator pool is from the newer users who are used to moderation on sites like reddit and digg where people tend to vote emotionally, and unused to slashdot's trend of promoting comments rather than demoting them.
It doesn't help matters any that the new(er) metamoderation system is completely unlike the old (working) system, and that metamoderation seems to do absolutely nothing these days...
I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable
It's gotten to the point where there's no reason to use windows any more aside from in a VM.
Plug a mouse into Windows XP, 7, whatever version and then Windows will tell you, New Hardware Detected, please wait while we install your drivers, Yay! You device is now ready use about 60 seconds later.
Plug a mouse into OSX, it works immediately. done. I don't care what it had to do to make it work, just do it.
Same with flash drives. Same with desktop search. Same with Application installation. Same with damn near everything.
If you want to waste time and worry, use Windows. If you want to use a computer, use OSX.
I upgraded to Windows 7 from XP a few months ago.
So far, everythings been pretty good and fast. I do recommend however, you make sure system restore does have enough space reserved to it however.
My idea of a better OS is not the mainstream one.
On a OS I want a good console, that the OS have a Live CD to repair things from ROM. I want my text editor to be able to open and edit a 4GB text file. I want it to be 1) easy to repair, and to produce enough logs and informations about errors ( see 1 ).
Microsoft is not interested in that. The later OS still have the notepad from Windows 3.1, the console from Windows 3.1 and lots of other programs I use from Windows 3.1 I know, because I am programmer, that these programs are 1 hour away from be decent enough. I don't take a week to add a text editor to the rescue console.
I have tried the latest Windows, like Windows 7, is still more of the same. There are some enhancements on the core, but a horrible and lame interface on top, that make daily task like connecting to wifi incredible frustrating. And It only accelerate the computer as in... 9.8 M/s^2 wen you launch the portatil trought a window. ... I get frustrated because Windows don't have a decent multidesktop or console (If you don't know why I use the console, think scripting).
Is really expensive. I would pay, maybe, 20 for Windows 7, but 100 is a total ripp-off. So I am still using XP for my gaming machine and Ubuntu for my work machine. Wen I try to use my gaming machine to work
It seems my needs don't need even 1 hour of time of 1 programmer at miscrosoft. So I am here, forced to use a OS that I don't want, XP. Ignoring a OS that looks way to expensive, Windows 7. And working on a Linux OS, because the people of Redmon can't get his shit togueter to make a OS that is decent as workstation.
I know the NT kernel is nice, but everything built on top of it seems created by the barbarians. Is like a hut built on top a missile base. Microsoft built way too much things on the user level, and these things are poorly designed, conceived and implemented. Then.. never removed these bits, so browsing a Windows OS gets you Windows 3.1 windows, Windows 95 windows, Windows NT windows... Is like looking trought geological pages. I know Microsoft doest this to support everything old, but theres something illogical wen basic features like the restore console on XP are created soo poor, withouth a text editor.
I rest my case here.
-Woof woof woof!
Sorry, but Gartner always was a shill for Microsoft - I wouldn't believe Gartner if they said the sky was blue....
No surprise about your bank staying on old stuff; Bankers would rather eat their young than let go of a little money. I'll bet the hardware wouldn't support Vista or 7.
Best regards.
That a company should either: 1) Listen to what their customers want: just give us XP and fix its bugs instead of shoveling shiny new crap with stuff changed for no fucking reason other than to change it or 2) Make us *want* to use your new stuff, see: Apple.
I run a small business. Although I much prefer Linux and the like, I am more or less forced to use Windows boxes for accounting and other such packages. Recently I was forced to upgrade my Quickbooks 2007 - seemingly for no reason other than to enhance Intuit's revenue generation (QB 2007 was working fine). In turn, I had to upgrade our accounting box's OS, for QB 2010 doesn't install on Win 2K.
Before you berate me for sticking with Win 2K, it is very stable (after all the patches and upgrades). It simply works. Upgrading machines and OS's and software costs more than just the price of the packages. It costs valuable time. I'm not doing this as a hobby. These upgrades are unnecessary distraction. Worse, they introduce new instabilities.
My $0.02.
I've tried Windies 7. It has *some* good things, but overall it still sucks great big donkey balls. Many of my applications will either not run correctly or simply will not run, and I'm not about to shell out 1,000's of bucks to upgrade my main applications. And then some of them require to run in a mode compatible with older graphics standards, so any of the nice *features* of Windies 7 are lost. I also really don't like the attitude (of Microblot) that they know more about what I want than I do. F**K Bill Gates and the horse he rode in on. GET OFF MY LAWN!! Punk kids. Don't upgrade - what's the point?
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
Windows 7 is not a big enough step forward from Windows XP to justify the costs (and problems) that a migration would cause. As example, Windows 98 to Windows XP is a big step, so worth it to migrate.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
I should have pointed out the source - Gartner Group. They are butt-buddies with MS. If you look back at their forecasts and predictions, you'll see they have always projected scenarios that feature Microsoft. That's probably not a surprise in the MS vs. Linux arena because Microsoft has the money to create presentations and to woo the Gartner people, but the result was a consistently bullish projection of Microsoft success.
Best regards.
My company is still using Windows XP and IE6. I don't expect this to change anytime soon. If what I've heard about Windows 7(never used it) and Visual Basic 6 compatibility is true, we may still be using XP 10+ years from now. It's hard to justify the expense of rewriting 200+ apps that work just fine in XP. Under the new rules, fees associated with OS upgrades sound like an easy thing to cut out of any budget.
Maybe its time to dump Microsoft entirely. Go the Linux route. There is nothing Linux cannot do as good or at times better the XP or win 7. If you really look at what you do you will find you over pay for all there apps and hardly use all of the functions. It is said change is hard and it it true. But in a way you change every time Microsoft updates the OS anyway.
Try it you will find it does work..
()
XP does the same job it did 9 years ago. It will continue to do this job for some time. Does Windows 7 do anything that XP doesn't? If there's something specific you can point to then it's worth upgrading otherwise, why change?
Those two options suck.
Here are some possible reasons to consider the upgrade to win 7 from a hardware perspective...
Do these mean that Win 7 is a no-brainer for businesses? Probably not, as most of these hardware issues aren't relevant for all those old systems.
New purchases however, would definitely merit a look. Give it a year, and Win 7 becomes much more obvious.
The Internet has no garbage collection
The only reason I would upgrade my box is that I can use IE9. But wait, we do not use Netscape anymore.
We've already made the decision to upgrade organically -- as new hardware comes in with 7, we'll run it, but otherwise, we will not upgrade. There's absolutely ZERO benefit that we can see to our company and the potential for immense costs, so it's a no-brainer. It's a good product, there's just no increase in benefit.
I have yet to see a business analysis of Windows 7 citing the points that should make an upgrade appealing for a business -- stability? We have that with XP already. Rarely does it crash or have issues. Security? We're not open to the outside and we have good protection with a low infection rate. Hardware compatibility? Easily navigated for now -- none of the standard issue workstations require fancy hardware anyway. Flashy animated windows and icons? Yes, clearly we missed the ROI on that one.
Pfft. Wake me when there's something significant, hrm?
Blog,Twitter
I'd cite the same reason business will give: "Give me a single business reason to migrate. Tell me what Windows 7 will do for me that Windows XP isn't doing for me today.". Note: "XP's being EOL'd." is a very weak business reason. The primary benefit's to the vendor, my only benefit is ending up exactly where I started. Various features of Windows 7 itself aren't good business reasons either. I don't run Windows for it's own features, I run it for the applications I use every day that need Windows underneath them to run. "But your applications aren't going to support XP anymore, you have to upgrade Windows to run them." also isn't a very good business reason, again it's arguing that I need to spend a lot of money and time and effort getting right where I already am today. It's also circular, because my application vendors are going "Microsoft isn't supporting XP anymore, so you're going to have to upgrade to new versions of the applications that'll run on Windows 7.".
Now, "Windows 7 provides better security and you won't have as many problems with malware." might be a better business reason. Still weak, but better. But it'll get me to thinking: what makes me think Windows 7 really will be any better? Many of the vulnerabilities in Windows come not from Windows but from things like Internet Explorer and Outlook. I can eliminate many of them by just not having those things around, by using Firefox and Thunderbird and the like instead. Except, oh look, I can't because Microsoft doesn't allow me to remove IE. It's always there, it's always active and it's always used for certain things. And Windows 7 doesn't change that. Other vulnerabilities are caused by things like Windows' file-sharing capabilities. Except, why are my desktops even sharing files? They aren't network file servers, they've no business even having the ability to give other machines network access to their filesystems at all. Except that Windows won't let me turn that service off without crippling Windows itself, and Windows 7 doesn't change that. So why am I spending time and effort upgrading to a version of Windows that has the same basic vulnerabilities built into it's design that my existing one does, as opposed to say spending that effort convincing my application vendors to support an OS where I can completely remove the things I don't need and not have to worry about whether there's vulnerabilities in them anymore?
I'll probably have to migrate this year as a purely technical matter, because support won't be there and I can't afford not to have security updates and AV support. But it won't be because I'm deriving any real benefit from the upgrade, it'll be because a vendor needs more upgrade revenue and is in a position to twist my arm. And as a pure business matter I'm going to be looking seriously at ways to get that vendor out of a position where he can twist my arm anymore, because it's just not good business to be at someone else's mercy.
Windows 7 is well worth the upgrade. We're a Mac family with one Windows machine, and my kids love Win7. I keep some old software dev stuff in an XP VM environment that works on either Win7 or the Mac, and I simply keep the TCP/IP ports disabled so virii and other nasties are no problem. There's no reason for me to migrate this crusty, old stuff to Win7, and the VM works dandy.
Is my company alone in wanting to stay in the 1990s or is Windows 7 the way forward?
Am I the only one not eating cheese, or is everyone but me eating cheese?
We have trialed Windows 7 and the only real difference from a user perspective is that someone played roll the dice on the UI elements. Everything is strewn around randomly, obscured by worthless wizards or hidden six levels down into menu hell.
From a admin perspective Windows 7 sucks just as bad as XP. If you get yourself a 100% Microsoft environment it gets better but it still arent much better than XP.
We will cling to XP like there is no tomorrow.
HTTP/1.1 400
If you're going to spend all that money on retraining and migration fees, why not switch to an OS that doesn't radically change every couple years as part of a planned obsolescence strategy, as well as saving you on license fees? Hmm... what other OS could you switch to that would save you money in the long run?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
when you want to play Windows based games.
The question of migration is not about staying in the 90's. Ask yourself this, "If it were your money, what would you do?". Your answer would probably be, if you were a successful business, you would look at the cost-benefit of the switch. So, citing training costs is a factor. Another factor might be whether you develop application that run on Windows, or do you just use Windows as development platform at all, or just a casual Business user? In the end, if the switch will cost you (the company) thousands of dollars and you gain nothing, surely you would not want to switch because Microsoft is forcing the switch. From a training perspective, one would want to push off the switch for as long as possible to allow the market (end users) to get the familiarity with the new Windows and Office on their home PCs so that training is minimal at the work place. If you personally upgrade your home PC, which a lot of people will do, and use it for a year or three, when your Office does the switch it (the new Windows) will be old hat, and that means less training on the company dime.
I am always somewhat mystified by these companies that cite "training" issues when it comes to preparation for upgrading. Sure, some people are a bit thick, but it really isn't that hard to fumble your way around a Windows machine, especially if all you're doing is using a browser and MSOffice.
If one's staff can't cope with such minor changes, they're umemployable in the first place.
NOT Boy Scouts of America.
Trust me, you don't want what the BSA is selling.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Its probably not a time to dump XP, Unless you can afford it for your company. When you do go to windows 7.
For all you people worried who think Vista is crap, Vista is better then XP, Windows 7 blows them both away.
I been using Vista Sure I get the annoying popup are you sure, and please confirm, But its the stupid people who get annoyed and dont understand that its a security reason they are getting those popups.
As far as the Linux and Ubuntus lovers out ther who are to dumb to realize that Windows is BY FAR the most secure system on the market today Heck even Windows ME was more secure then where the opensource is today as far as security.
I boot 4 different OS's everytime I turn on my PC. The Ubuntu, and Linux, I am currently in the process of rewriting the source code to remove the botnet from the open source that you all have and are to dumb to know. Its for the better of the internet guys, Its like everything else thats free in the world Free comes with a price, The guys who wrote it are telling you "oh its secure" why because they can use your pc to do as they please... The third, goes without saying, and its all done inside Windows7 boot.
People need to stop believing what others are telling them about whats cool and whats great, and discover it for themselves. If you did, you would agree Windows7 is the place to be. (No I dont work for microsoft, nor do I make any money from the promotion of them.) Its mearly a FACT that I am stating..
Somebody forgot that if it works, don't mess with it. Windows XP and Windows 2000 are two excellent OS'es. They are more than good enough to host a web browser (remember IE is created for the sole purpose of just downloading FireFox or Chrome), office apps, system utilities & tools. If you really need to reorganize and style the whole GUI there are software for that too. Windows Vista and 7 does not have anything that wasn't possible on the last generation. It is not really a step forward, it's a way for them to try to stay relevant and alive. I would recommend to just step to Linux if training costs are going to be used up anyway! Linux is coming full speed ahead, I've spotted it many times in the wild amongst 'regular' users already. If there is no other reason to your platform shift than the phrase "get out of the 90's", I wouldn't switch.
Can I light a sig ?
Who is Gartner?
Perhaps, you meant Garfield...
Rwe obliged 2 save our future by choosing:O3 hole-greenhouse effect instead of accepting everydays gossip-nonsense chat?
Windows 7 is the way backwards. Linux is the way forwards.
XP works as long as it has antivirus and a firewall installed. It's not worth the time and cost to "upgrade" (which is really a complete reinstall) an old machine to Windows 7.
Unfortunately most users learn by memorizing a series of mouse movements and button clicks. So the time and expense of retraining them to memorize a whole new series of button clicks for things is stupidly high. The slightest change in routine can completely derail most users and turn them into gibbering, panicked lunatics.
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
'cause vista/7 doesn't show me a picture of how fragmented my drive is...so how will I know? Do i just trust the %frag number? I never trusted it before. I just look at how much red is in the picture and try to change it to a pretty blue.
Our migration is probably similar to many other companies. Here's what we're doing in case anyone is curious how this roadmap looks in a reasonably sized company (multilocation, etc, etc):
1. We got our first Win7 system to test a few months ago. We discovered almost everything worked, but our VPN clients should be updated, our AV needed some updating, and really we should be on Office 2010. The nice thing there is we can eradicate Office 2003 once and for all.
2. So, that really prompts some server upgrades that we've been planning for a while anyway. We're going to consolidate a lot of servers onto VM'ed boxes. Most of our stuff (was) running Server 2003, with the exceptions of our domain controllers which we updated to 2008 last year. Exchange 2010 (from 2003) was planned for a while, so we pulled the trigger on that one. That also prompts an upgrade of BES (Blackberry Enterprise Server) from 4.1 to 5.0. Our asset tracking also needed some attention in order to make sure we don't populate it with garbage when new machines arrive. We're hoping to have Exchange completely migrated by the end of July using a slow migration tactic instead of cutting over in the middle of the night. The goal here is to leave some app servers on 2003 until the new version of MS's server platform comes out, then update to that on an application by application basis.
3. So.. that means there's a fair amount of work to do before we want to consider replacing the user machines. I suspect most companies are in that boat. I think most companies are itching to replace XP - it's getting pretty tough to maintain these days and pretty outdated. Plus, no (sane) company actually upgrades machines from XP to Win7 - you transition to Win7 when your leases expire or you need to purchase a new desktop/laptop. Upgrading is in no way cost effective. Therefore, based on a lifecycle of 3 - 4 years per machine, we'll see XP still being used for 2 - 3 years at least for light duty.
Now, the really crazy part? Most suppliers are pushing 32-bit Win7. That means the 32-bit legacy is going to continue to haunt us when we could have transitioned to Win64.
----- obSig
Around the country we probably have about 2000 work stations and SP3 was just rolled out last week. Oh, we are still using IE6 with no plans to upgrade.
Don't get me wrong, I like XP and plan to use it at home for as long as I keep my current computer... but IE6?!? That's just nonsense.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Cost is usually rather low on the reasons for wanting to stay with Windows XP. There is an increasing amount of Microsoft phobia in business lately... at all levels. Moving to a "newer" Microsoft product used to bring cheers from the users. Now it brings groans. Why? Lately, it seems, Microsoft has been dumping far too much change on users and it is a burden. To this day, I STILL don't know how to find my way around Office 2007 and now there is Office 2010?!
And in a business sense, change can be expensive. There is downtime, re-training/re-learning, and the cost of mistakes that happen more often when big changes occur. (Almost no one ever cites the potential cost of mistakes during a migration... they can be quite costly at times.)
Win 7 has had some of its speed issues sorted out. But some of the glaring problems and failures from Vista simply remain and are not going to be fixed. Vista was not a good release, but unlike with ME where MS changed the underpinnings, this time they have kept them.
There has been some movement in terms of applications being recoded and reworked, or simply versioned up to close the hole, and many driver problems have been resolved. But older drivers, programs, applications - all largely the same problems as under Vista. Microsoft threatened to provide shims for none working programs and applications, but these are a sticky plaster over a bigger problem. We don't live in the 1990s any more. The enforced upgrade of hundreds of machines then now equats to thousands of machines (assuming a portion of general growth). The idea people are just going to hand over ever larger bundles of money for beta level PRE SP1 releases is really quite over. Given the state of the economy, and given the pain of trying to move, many will simply hold on until they absolutly have to - and will only change then.
Microsoft made the largest error in their history with 7. They changed the look and feel, moving many items around for no real reason apart from making it'new'. Thus the cost is retraining. They also chose the time to introduce changes at every level, breaking drivers, applications and programs, and the new OS only has partial compatability. They would have been vastly better breaking their OS into 32 bit legacy and brand new 64 bit, with a complete break from the past. They should have continued to fully rework and support XP and 2003 as the end of line 32 bit market supply, and continued to make money out of that. At the same time they should have introduced win 7 (or you may say Vista) as the 64 bit future OS. The infexible approach of saying 'we are ending xp' 'move' has no real reflection in terms of where the world sits on this.
In terms of 7 its still riddled with pathetic bugs (the deletion of a user and inability to create without having to clean registry all the way back to Vista is still there) and application, driver, and program issues are just as bad as they were with Vista. The fact is 7 has been sold across the tech world because some people wanted something new. And they for whatever reason don't see the bugs, or prefer not to talk about them. Or they cite its a new MS release and say its 'always been like this, and it will be sorted by an SP'. However, again, this is not the 1990's and people should not be 'beta' testing full releases for the vendor. Its riddled with issues on SMB/CIFS with older devices, it has numerous problems in terms of WiFi, the entire area of networking including VPN (PPTP is a spectacular screw up, dropped connections, or connections that no longer work as they should) - not to mention retarded control panel and network screens.
The only kudos I can really give it, is that the Vista speed issues and complete sluggishness of that has been turned round. But most of the very core problems remain, and are not going to be fixed. With that as a background, I think many people will simply not move yet, no matter how much Gartner thinks they should. The days of IT being handed money like confetti really died quite some time ago and the reality of this remains today.
We`re all equal
Leave 'em in the dust to die like old dinosaurs that became irrelevant and then toxic. Seriously, if an org can't load a real OS and virtuals of anything they need, want, whatever - let 'em become bones and buried.
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
Hate to say it, but training costs is BS. Most users don't even know the capabilities of their OS. To them, they click on an icon, and go. Do you really need to retrain a user how to do that? Does the end user need to know how to disable User Account Controls, know that the Documents and Settings have now moved to Users folder, or so forth and so on? Simply distribute to the whole company a front and back side color xeroxed sheet of paper explaining a couple of new features with screenshots (the start button is different, snap-view windows, themes, where to adjust screen resolution) and tell them to call the help desk if they have any issues.
The issue should be if your software works on Windows 7, but even that is mostly a crock now. Pretty much, any software that works on Vista works on Windows 7 (I have yet to see the exception, although I am sure there probably are some). If you are still using some legacy software that requires XP, Windows 7 allows you to run programs in a virtual Enviornment (you can actually run an entire virtual machine, but this mode, while it boots a virtual XP enviornment, makes the program run ALMOST like a native app. Its kinda cool. And no, I am not a MS PR rep). The exception seems to be programs that require lots of hard drive activity, such as p2p apps (but you don't want that on your network anyways).
Now, the only real complaint left should be about system specs, but that is mostly crock nowdays as well. Pretty much, any machine built in the past 3 years, and any business-class machine built in, oh, the past 6-7 years, should be able to handle Windows 7 Professional or Enterprise fine, with enough room left over for your apps. (Vista is another matter, but amazingly, Windows 7 seems to have lower system specs than Vista. Would have to look that up). Most companies lease machines in 2-4 year lease cycles (3 seems to be industry standard), so, with probably the exception of a few machines back in your mail room, you should be good for Windows 7,
I think the two biggest things that keep people from upgrading is familiarity with XP (we have been on it for, what, 9 years now?) and the fact tha Vista was just so God-awful. Push Windows 7 out to a test group, and see how they react
I've worked for a major educational publisher (formerly Benjamin Cummings now Pearson Higher Education) for three years now and we've been on XP and IE6 now (or so they tell me) since they were released in the early part of the noughties. It was just last month that a memo circulated that said the corporate desktops would be getting upgraded to IE8. Wow! And this is the same publisher that's supremely wedded to Flash for its Ebook textbooks and made Flash essential for alot of its key educational software platforms. iPad, iPhone? What are they? Seriously, I think hundreds of large corporations won't be moving to Windows 7 until the economics and tools are there, and who is actually investing in infrastructure now? It's a sad state of affairs when the monopoly textbook provider is stuck with Windows Windows Windows and Flash Flash Flash.
Since it's going to be out in a year. There's not much incentive to upgrade knowing they'll just ask for another $150 shortly.
In my experience as an educational technologist, the costs associated with changing the desktop OS of the average office worker is grossly overstated. Perhaps it IS because I'm in the tech industry, as are all my coworkers, that my experience is that most people will transition to Win7 from XP just fine with very little costs associated with training or tech support.
If you're running Windows, it's because you have some app that requires Windows, and you already know that it runs on whatever Windows version that you already have. There's no need to upgrade that virtual machine's OS if that app still runs.
If you're going to migrate then you ought to be looking to get out of jail altogether, not move to a new jail. Windows 7 isn't the answer to anything. If you "upgrade" to Windows 7 then you're just going to have the same problem in a few years.
Just keep on replacing the apps incrementally, replacing the proprietary apps and their proprietary dependencies, with apps that have a future (e.g. can stay reasonably current with an "apt-get upgrade" or something like that). If you think that some apps simply don't have a future (e.g. most people who don't like GImp, say this about Photoshop) then you might need to keep a Windows VM around for a long time, but it can always remain XP.
A far more mainstream 64-bit client than the prior two iterations.
If you have people using XP then probably every function they use is already fully implemented under Linux. The retraining is minimal because they already know how to perform the task so they only need to learn a sightly different interface. If you buy Windows 7 you are making yourself less competitive and more susceptible to mal-ware.
I know, there goes my karma again...however, there was a question and here's *my* answer:
Keep XP and migrate to Ubuntu.
OK, I'm sitting down now - I know the ms puppets are going to waste their horded mod points on me and kill my karma. Go ahead, I can take it.
I say things which affects my Karma negatively. (and I don't care) For instance; All religion is false.
It's out of date, flaky, insecure, and barely compatible with modern apps and hardware. The security model is broken, the memory model is broken (64-bit anybody? It's 2010, not 2001), and the UI is a primitive disaster. Just like Windows 98 during the 2002-2005 timeframe, lots of people are clinging to XP well past its sell-by date. It's time to move forward, deal with the issues, and get on with life. If you get that far behind the upgrade 8-ball, you will have a lot of pain; if you're still on XP, it's time to join the modern era. (Linux is not realistic because of business app support. OSX is not realistic because of the upgrade treadmill that makes Microsoft look downright saintly.)
ERROR: Null
... but you're fooling yourself if you think that Windows 7 is going to be any less broke. Good advice if you want to stick with Windows.
The way forward is Linux.
Pffft. I still have to maintain several PCs running 98 and Win2000. Although I'd love to upgrade them all to XP (they're too old for Vista or 7).
Everyone at my company was still using XP until a few months ago when some management changed to Win7... doesn't look like the rest of us will be getting Win7 licenses anytime soon so I've decided to migrate to Ubuntu. I've been using Linux on my desktop at home since 2000 so I'm quite comfortable with it and I can't think of anything that I would absolutely require that would keep on the Windows platform. Besides, Wine can probably handle whatever issues come up.
Meh.
I work in embedded software (tiny little systems, not something like embedded Linux).
Software systems for some of these chips dates back to Windows 3.1.
There is insufficient support for this software in Vista / Windows 7.
Not to mention direct hardware access to system resources like RS232 ports (USB COMM ports
need not apply).
My migration plan and path is L I N U X.
No more w virus allowed... I already have two brand new machines coming that I have to wipe clean and then put XP back on them (I can reimage them cheaper than the vendor, and they would do it at a cost..almost 50% of one machine, no thanks). .. we don't support any thing else till we migrate over..
LTSP clients off a LTSP server... still working setups out...
We no longer will be supporting anything related to ms... we have already drawn the line with office work products...
Spreadsheets must be in either OO format, or CSV for non formula/formatted ones or data exchange. If you can't handle OO if you need the formulas etc.. your out of luck.
word processing must be in OO format, we don't accept it otherwise.
1311393600 - Back to Black
That snappy window thing that lets you dock 2 documents side-by-side?
Aerosnap: http://www.aerosnap.de/index_eng.htm
Works really well, especially good on my 2 screen setup - windows snap to the sides of the screen at half-screen size, to the top of the screen full-size.
On dual screen XP it's annoying to have to un-maximize a window to move it, even if you can double-click on the top-bar. Aerosnap means never having to maximize windows.
Why change? ;)
If it works don't fix it!!!
Besides Winblows XP works a lot faster on a computer with the new CPU's and 2GB++ of memory than Winblows 7.
Of course you could always just install Linux or BSD, and get your work done!!!
CAD tools, lab tools both shrink wrap and otherwise work with XP and they have no plans of upgrading. Some of it is because there's not enough money in it to do so, some of it is because of signed drivers costing a fortune for these tiny shops to produce.
Then there's inhouse tools which typically require custom device drivers and what not for running low level hardware tests (I work at a large server maker), also which have either API changes at the device level, or which bitch about signed drivers. Yes this can be turned off, but typically we give this stuff off to people who aren't terribly computer literate and it becomes difficult to get things working.
Windows 7 is fine for goofing off with, certainly way better than Vista, but it's still not ready for prime time.
Geez, for all the talk about costs and benefits of going to Win7, they really didn't seem to read the same article I did. What I got out of it was:
- support for XP ends in 4 years
- enterprises tend to refresh equipment every 3-5 years
- enterprise and home grown software tends to get stale
Therefore, if you start planning it now, you can get this all to work out with minimal cost and disruption.
Win7 doesn't cost more nor require more hardware for all the people that need new hardware over the next four years.
The benefit of thinking about Win7 now is less cost and disruption from when you have to do it.
There's still time (barely) to upgrade those VB apps.
Last month, I took on the task of "cleaning off" a pair of computers, used by a friends' teenage kids. One running XP Home, the other Win 7 Home.
OF COURSE I lectured them about security basics, not running as Admin, not installing "candy from strangers", and I burned them an Ubuntu CD too. (if they aren't going to install it, at least they can boot to it to rescue what's left of their data when the next infection hits).
Each computer took about a week of evenings to clear off. Using scan tools, alternately booting back and forth between Ubuntu, safe mode, standard mode, etc.
In the end, both machines were pretty much subject to the same abusive practices, (autologin, run as admin, kids going to porn sites, both of them chat/camwhores, etc.; yeah, these kids were horrified when I told their mom what they had been up to.) - both machines were trojaned and rootkitted to the hilt. I honestly have no idea if I got everything. I deleted a bunch of software that was probably legit, in the process, (hardware vendor (HP) crapware) Probably not.
But I was able to get things functioning to the point where the systems were at least reasonably stable again. Getting the DNS to be able to find Windows Updates was one of the toughest chores - because something had totally ripped out the entire tcpip stack, and replaced it. I had to uninstall networking, and reinstall it, including all the web browsers, and network device drivers (wired and wireless).
At the end of those two weeks - I had learned a lot.
What I already knew. . . you're better off blowing everything away, and reinstalling. Every time.
There was a keylogger.
There was something that was turning the webcam on.
There was something that had replaced the standard windows file-system driver, in the encrypted CAB file that Windows File Protection should *not* allow to be replaced. (atapi.sys).
There was something that had left Symantec AntiVirus in an "installed" but, non-functional state.
I had luckily, armed myself with seven USB thumbdrives, loaded with my "standard" set of tools. Those kept getting infected. There were at least three different programs trying to infect those. One of them became non-functional during this job. I don't know why. It just won't mount in any system (Mac, Linux, Windows) now. I'm hoping it was just a hardware failure, and not something nasty trying to change the onboard driver. I did not see any such activity, but I'm wondering if I need a hardware USB bus-protocol analyzer to even see something like that.
There were drivers that would mysteriously reinstall themselves after I deleted them. (typical malware behavior though). Tracking those down with Sysinternals tools was fun. The first few iterations.
The other thing I learned, in this little trip down the rabbit hole, is that, all other things reasonably equal. . . the Windows XP machine was WAY more fubared than the Windows 7 machine. The things that kept on re-appearing in the Run keys and Startup folders on the XP machines, were present on the Windows 7 machine, but for some reason, were unable to re-assert themselves after deletion. I'm guessing it was probably due to the Virtual Storage architecture, that prevents userland stuff from writing to system keys and filesystem areas.
After this experience - I am convinced that Windows XP is simply no longer safe. Period.
Not in the hands of a non-paranoid, non-technical user, that's not behind a separate, NAT device.
(meet those conditions, then maybe you're okay).
Keep it updated.
Run with Antivirus+anticrapware.
Don't install candy from strangers.
Surf with NoScript+FlashBlock+Adblock.
Don't open PDFs with a reader that supports Javascript.
Don't run as Admin.
If you have teenagers, physically de-solder the webcam.
I would also recommend - use a product like nLite to build a preconfigured OS + automated app-install disk. Keep your persistent documents and static data on a separate physical partition. Update the install dis
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
You'll have to pry my Windows NT 4.0 from my cold, dead hands! Still waiting on SP7...
It didn't take me as long as you, but my first sitting with Office 2007 was a question of, apart from ctrl-o, how on earth do I open a document? I found it on my second sitting, but if you do a google on that issue, you'll find you're far from alone. Most unintuitive interface I've ever come across.
Specialty software runs on a dedicated Windows 2003 Server with Terminal Services enabled. Users use Remote Desktop (Win 7), CoRD (OS X), or rdesktop (Linux) to "run" the app. It's pretty amazing, you can share local drives and printers so that it "feels" like the application is running locally.
You can even keep Windows Update from applying security patches that would break your special-snowflake software, while still keeping desktops fully patched and secure.
Centralize the problem, get it away from users' desktops. Highly recommended.
Where MS really failed is in the delay between XP & Vista. XP became an infrastructure piece just like cabling or water pipes. Infrastructure can fail but you generally don't replace it, you fix it. Win 7 represents a totally new infrastructure and most companies don't see the ROI. Imagine if the IEEE came out tomorrow and said we should all replace our CAT 5 cables with CAT 7 as soon as possible? Everyone would ignore them. Real value would have to present to force the change. Win 7 does not represent real value over Win XP.
-Joe
at Microsoft things get relocated in new versions for no apparent reason. The only fathomable reason appears to be so they can sell more training classes and books. Microsoft Press is another money maker for them. The changes in Office 2007 made little or no sense at all with the relocation of print, or other functions. The move away from Toolbars to the Ribbon made no sense to most employees but it did complicate getting the work done. Perfecting and polishing a product makes sense, confusing the users does not. Even at my house I've gone to OS X and Ubuntu. Seems funny that folks who have used Windows for years have made the change to Ubuntu with fewer problems than to Vista or Win7. Go figure.
I design FPGAs for a living and the largest FPGA vendor, Xilinx, has yet to offer support for Windows 7.
In fact, the only OS, Windows or Linux, that can run all of the tools they provide is XP:
http://www.xilinx.com/ise/ossupport/index.htm
I haven't 'upgraded' to XP yet, and am not planning to, either.
MS has actually failed at providing features that people want and rather worry about what a small group of marketing people want. It would be a huge advantage for Windows to boot in seconds, but it has never been a priority for MS. This is what they are failing at, there are almost no new features regular people want so there is no advantage to change, even for corps.
If all goes according to plan and there are no further delays or budget cuts, we should phase out our last Windows XP system in the fall of 2014. This is with the new improved plan (upgrading about 15% of our computers per annum). The old plan (upgrading about 10% per annum) would have had it happening circa 2017, but I made up some color-coded bar charts (blue and green bars are good, yellow and orange are not so good, red and ugly purple are bad...) and managed to convince the board to step things up a little.
I hope nobody's suggesting we should just buy the software licenses and try to run Windows Seven on low-end hardware from 2005. Haha. That would be amusing to read a journal about, but I wouldn't want to be the one trying it. No, we're looking at phasing out the XP-era hardware as well, and that's going to take time.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
"is Windows 7 the way forward?"
no !
Linux is.
For the sake of 100% backward compatibility, Microsoft refuses to throw anything out. So Windows Vista and Windows 7 harbor nearly every API call that came with xp, including the deprecated ones. They want to make sure that all old software still works.
The problem that results is that you can't get rid of awful legacy software by moving on to the new OS and forcing departments to upgrade. Right now the codger departments that refuse to budge control the IT infrastructure in major companies. Microsoft has allied itself with the curmudgeons of the IT industry.
It also makes for a very difficult case to sell the idea that the new OS is actually much more reliable. Windows 7 networking works a lot better than xp, for example. But there's a lot of terrible code that runs on xp that will nevertheless have no chance of working properly on Windows 7 because they were never thoroughly tested during development on Windows 7. There is no chance of any of that software working properly on the new OS without further maintenance work. Remember the curmudgeons? They're not going to fund any of that maintenance work for Windows 7 operability because Windows 7 doesn't automatically make their awful code behave better.
But you only needed a forklift for the mainframe itself, usually the terminals stayed put. Migrating to Win7 from XP pretty much demands a client hardware refresh along with whatever ERP/WMS/CRM bloatware you're upgrading, so you might want to order an extra forklift for moving the pallets of desktops boxes that will be delivered. Of course, any thin-client+VM visionaries are a leg up.
Why is this conversation never about upgrading our phones, or getting new office chairs, or getting a new microwave in the break room? Sometimes it's just time for new stuff, but you never hear anyone denying a new round of phone purchases because, "it costs a lot to train users". If anyone can argue that getting a new phone system, with all of it's functionality, is easier than upgrading to the next MS OS, I'm all ears.
Change happens. We need to deal with it and quit lamenting the (mostly imaginary) productivity losses.
Wait, what?
Employee Of the Month - Cyberdyne Systems Corporation - September 1997
Why? Why is that obviously the only choice? What happens if my small company decides to stick with XP? Does XP have a kill switch I'm not aware of? Does MS cutting off new patches mean that all the old ones stop working? Does my stable and well understood desktop environment crash and burn just because it's old? I don't think so.
My company at least will be on XP until we literally don't have a choice, and that is a long long time from now. We have the advantage over most companies that we can simply freeze our environment and software and continue doing business for the foreseeable future. (5+ years) By then, new and better OS's from different corners will be available and the choices will be wider and maybe more enticing. In the mean time, there is a choice, and I think you are going to be shocked to find that many many companies stick with XP for several more years at least.
use defraggler - I'll let you google it.
Employee Of the Month - Cyberdyne Systems Corporation - September 1997
I work at a Fortune 250 company that many slashdotters would recognize if I put out the name. Our IT department has been planning the rollout of Windows 7 for quite a while now and it's going to take time simply because of the amount of testing that has to be done. They have to make sure all of the applications that we use on a regular basis (some of which are built internally) work fine with the new operating system and work as expected. Then they have to make sure all of our hardware is compatible. When you have tens of thousands of workstations that's a lot of hardware to check. Yes there is desktop standardization to a degree but even then you have those users that have to have a custom piece of hardware for their job that isn't in other configurations. Frankly right now is about the time most companies need to start a migration plan if they haven't already. It won't be too much longer before Microsoft stops supporting XP entirely and no longer issues any security patches. And having an operating system like Windows XP operating unpatched is definitely not a good thing.
It is safer to stay on a know platform with know issues/workarounds, even one that no longer has support from the manufacturer. I still use XP because it works just fine. I did not upgrade to windows Vista because my hardware check told me that some of my stuff might not work in Vista, and I also determined that Vista was going to be a big hit to my computer's performance. Windows 7 is a far sight better than Vista, but still a performance hit compared to Xp, and an unknown commodity.
Similarly, at work we are on an unsupported version of a (not Microsoft) vendor's software and they refuse to do anything about any of the bugs that we find. However, we find it preferable to work around the bugs in this version because we have tried the supported version of their software and it is so buggy and the user interface so bad that the software is unusable. Better a non-supported version than an unusable supported version.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
That's really what it comes down to.
I'm working with Team San Jose who works with promoting and managing the arts and cultural venues and events within the city of San Jose and within the office those who have desks and computers are still on Windows XP. There isn't any budget to upgrade to 7 anytime soon and when we do get funding it's put towards events and the venues and technology and software especially is the very LAST thing to be looked at. With continuing declining city revenue I don't see this changing anytime soon.
Ave Molech Setting
A little background: I work for a large (50k emp) company. We only just (Q2 this year) officially got rid of Win2k as a supported desktop. There is no way we will be ready for Win7 anytime soon. There are many issues an organization like mine faces:
-Training - non-IT people have jobs to do beyond "messing with computers". Computers aren't toys for these people, they are tools. Changing tools requires re-training.
-Training - IT people, frankly, are lazy and don't like to learn new things any more than non-IT people. Yes, there are exceptions, but lets not pretend that all tech folks are super eager to change to the latest and greatest all the time. (I really do wonder why so many geeks still write user level apps in C and like the command line.)
-Interaction - We have a very complex environment where many things are setup to interact "just so". Is this bad? Yes, but it's the way things are. Implementing a large change like WinXP->Win7 requires a HUGE amount of testing of sometimes very subtle differences.
-Legacy - We have mission critical applications (both in house and 3rd party) that are not ready to deploy on Win7 without substantial work. Could they have been developed differently so that this wouldn't be the case? Yes. AND they weren't.
To be fair, this is not a question of WinXP-to-. It a fundamental issue with how IT resources are used. While I would like to lay a lot of the blame at MS' feet, it's really an industry issue. Having (and USING) frameworks to enable forward migration is an issue technology has been facing for 40+ years. There are a handful of solutions that have been proposed and even implemented. They amount to little more than academic curiosities since they are not widely deployed.
Oh well. Here's looking toward the big news of 2020 as we finally start moving away from Win7!
What's the difference between an orange?
I dislike the Fisher Price look of default XP, so I disable all the visual effects ("set to best performance") so it ends up looking a lot like '95, but I do use the XP start menu. I also enable the quick launch but take everything out of it except for the "show desktop" button.
And my favorite screensaver is still "Mystify", which dates back to Windows 3.x or possibly even further...
Knowledge != Intelligence
Ok, so my truck is a 1999. It runs fine, gets 22MPG. The most expensive thing i've replaced on it are the tires (3rd pair). Yet, I can still go to the Toyota dealer, get parts, have it fixed etc. I expect that this will be the case for another 10 years, and then parts will get harder to find. Same with my house (25 years) and nearly everything I own outside of mass produced consumer electronics trash (much of which is also fairly old).
In the past upgrading a PC provided a real advantage. But today, for a very large percentage of the population there isn't a real need to upgrade from XP, especially if they are running in a limited user account (killing the security argument in vista/7). In just about every other industry, it would be possible to just keep using what is working, and if something fails call in the repair man at some outrageous rate, that's cheaper than buying new.
But instead, microsoft holds the reigns of the OS and forces people to upgrade by cutting off the ability to fix problems. How do they hold these reigns? By hiding behind copyright, and enforcing strict licenses. Instead of advancing the public good, they effectively kill the usefulness of a product 80+ years before it goes into the public domain.
Hence this discussion, XP could be used for another ten years, in fact with just slight changes it probably could last another 20. The fundamental state of PC technology hasn't changed, and a stable driver model (aka microkernel style plugins) allows the product to be extended to use technologies that weren't even on the drawing boards in 2001.
This is why Linux saddens me so much. I'm firmly in the open source camp, and long term (at this rate 50+ years) I don't believe that the closed source vendors have a chance against it. But, I'm not sure its going to happen before i'm dead. The politics and stupid decisions can be recovered from but its just going to take longer. The day that the kernel developers get together and conclude that they core kernel is "done", because the all the refactoring and renaming isn't improving the product in any meaningful way is the day that linux starts to take over. That doesn't mean it can't get better, it just means that upgrading the block scheduler can be done from an install disk and it doesn't require replacing the VMM, or reinstalling all my applications.
Basically I want an OS, that is user customizable/extenable without fscking everything up. I want to be able to put bigger tires on my OS without having to buy a new car. That requires an interface that is standard enough that someone can write a block scheduler without having to worry that some change next week is going to render it unable to function in the latest version of the OS.
No, it means you get no security updates. Windows. With. No. Security. Updates. Does this seem smart to you? I wouldn't be comfortable with any OS that wasn't getting security updates, but especially not Windows. All it takes is a one guy discovering some huge security hole a month after updates stop and you're dead in the water. Then you have no choice but either do the world's fastest turnaround update or reinstall XP and hope it doesn't happen again since the hole won't be patched.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
I still ran windows 2000 until Feb of this year on my workstation...I upgraded it to XP, and I still have a few systems that still run 2000 that I will upgrade when they die or I run into something I have to use that does not support it. By the way, auto update is still doing security fixes for windows 2000 and most applications still like it fine. Now as for windows 7, I have two workstations that are windows 7, well one is up for testing only so far...the other is still in the box...had them for 3 weeks and still cannot use them (still working out networking issues, roaming compatibility issues and the like).
The 1990s........ that would be Windows 3, 3.1, 95 and 98.
I had not done any Windows development since Windows 2000 was the latest and greatest. Over the decade since, I've thrown out all my obsolete Windows programming books etc and only have a W2K VirtualBox image to run all the classic MS-DOS software. (W2K is the best DOS emulator!) So... I was researching some ideas for modern Windows and got a Gateway with 64-bit Win7 and put Visual Studio 2010 on it. (Actually I put 2008 on it, but never had time to even start the program!) Here's the deal: All MS does is jumble everything up so you can't find it. To set an environment variable from 1995-2010, all you had to do was click on My Computer, properties, and drill down to the environment tab, if I remember correctly 10+ years later. I can't find anywhere that you can set an environment variable now. Using Win7 is like this, only repeated an infinite number of times. Using a new version of Windows is mostly just trying to find where they hid everything. There's no rhyme or reason to the jumbling, and absolutely no need to keep moving things.
Only MS could take next-generation hardware and make it slower than Windows 95. They have basically put a layer of crud on top of the Windows API. I have been reading Hart, Richter, and those old authors I remembered. Their new books are great, but all MS seems to have done is put a slow runtime system on top of Windows, negating several generations of hardware upgrades. I think the new Win7 box is about as slow as my old Windows 95 Packard Bell. Everything still crawls. I can understand using Java for portability, but the Windows API is the same on every Windows machine! C# with the .NET crudtime system out-COBOLs COBOL. (CLR = crud layer runtime?) There are layers upon layers upon layers of APIs that are bewildering.
That people use .NET is plenty of an explanation why many software projects fail. Even Java isn't as bad.
Don't get me started on Visual Studio. And I once thought it was bloated in the 1990s!
As a gamer, I was hassled at the last big lan for my "ancient and obsolete" operating system, XP pro. So I did a quick study:
Windows 7 users were unable to play about 1/5 of the games that went up due to operating system issues.
Vista users were unable to play about 1/4 of games.
No XP users had any operating system related issues with any of the games we played.
Sure, as games are released and tested for windows 7 those numbers will start to reverse, but it hasn't happened yet.
I'm surprised that nobody has taken note of the WGA aspects of this.
Windows 7 phones home every few months, and if it can't get the answer it likes, your PC is crippled.
With XP, you don't have to worry.
Personally, I can't forsee ever wanting to give up to MS information about my PC, so I will stay on XP.
A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
Consistency is next to godliness.
Personalized menus break consistency. Someone please go bludgeon the idiot that thought them up. We are creatures of habit. We memorize paths to places, and when any part of the path changes on us we get lost. I memorize the keyboard shortcuts after a while. Whose bright idea was it to hide them anyways?
OpenSuSE 11.2 on the desktop, Windows dependent applications runs on Citrix. Nobody is complaining.
I call the classic start menus and such "I fear change" mode. Fitting, I think :D
And I call it the "I like standards" mode.
Microsoft keeps releasing new products that break their own UI guidelines. Microsoft way back released a small book that detailed the WIMP interface, and it's sad that they threw it out just for "oooh shiny". I think it's pretty funny that you think navigating as you describe an improvement. The problem with what you described is that if you add an item to the menu the previous keystroke sequence you memorized to run an application becomes ambiguous. I much prefer hitting a sequence of keystrokes identifying the menu I set up. Part of the problem with the start menu is the lack of standardization of the categorization of applications. Way too many application developers think I care what the name of the company is that created their app. Uhhh, No, sorry, all I want to see is the application name on the start menu.
I would love to go to a Microsoft demo and have them use their fancy new products blindfolded just to show how broken their apps are.
> As for "training", home users' access to XP has been
> (barring active effort on their part) largely cut off
> for some time now
Huh? As best I can tell, more home users run Windows XP than all other versions of Windows combined. The ratio is dropping, but Windows XP still has majority market share at this point.
Perhaps you live in some alternate universe where people run out and buy a new computer every six months?
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
just hit Esc-Meta-Alt-Ctrl-Shift.
Here's a nickle kid, go buy yourself a real computer.
With Quicktime and iTunes (and a much lesser extent, Safari), Apple has one of the largest installed bases of any Windows developer.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
[...] So I did the natural thing. I installed it on the prettiest employee's desktop and within a week [...] there were official requests to install it on every desktop [...]
Hahahah! Ah, it's times like this I wish there was a 'like' button on slashdot! So true! :D
You do realize that defragmenting NTFS partitions is more likely to hurt than it is to help, right?
my humor apparently needs an upgrade
Forget dumping XP, half the machines in my office have yet to migrate from Win2k.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
XP is still getting improved and compared with now it was utter crap before SP1. It's not a fair comparison between current XP and 2001 linux, even if people like me are still using the same desktop theme on linux since 1999 (ganymede on enlightenment).
It's been my experience that hosting 32bit print drivers on a 64bit server is iffy at best. Same goes for hosting 64bit print drivers on a 32bit server. Specifically the Xerox and HP print drivers.
Sometimes, you have no choice but to install the printers locally using an virtual IP printing port.
Life is not for the lazy.
Just upgrade to a decent operating system like Linux or Mac
Yeah - it's going to cost to train on Win7 - then Win8 - than again on Win9 (or whatever other half-assed renaming scheme Microsoft decides to use next).
Why not invest the same money as you're going to spend on Win7 for *nix training, once, and be done with it? Take the licensing, training, and IT costs associated with upgrading to Win7, and they certainly exceed the costs of migrating to *nix. And, you'll have the same costs to look forward to again in 3 years, or 5 years, until hell freezes over. With *nix, there are not licensing fees, the support costs will decrease over time as your users become more proficient, and the training fees are pretty much a one time thing.
It just makes no sense to me, to pay the costs for Windows upgrades. No cents, either!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The licenses we have for various software applications require dongles that will not work
on 64 bit Windows 7.
This is a major problem. The software in question is not something we can simply
change. So, for now we are required to remain in 32 bit windows XP.
I am curious, when Gartner announces that 'Now is the time' , who the hell
is Gartner and how the hell do they know how our business works? Obviously
not at all in the last case.
I understand that most offices just use basic applications and never do anything
more advanced than a spreadsheet and maybe the odd game of mine sweeper.
Well, great for them.
For the most part, changing to new versions of operating systems and new versions
of applications is just nonproductive. Case in point, the transition from MS Office
2000 or 2003 to Office 2007. What a nightmare! The sum was !WEEKS! of
nonproductive office time while people tried to figure out where the frick'n menus went.
We all have to pay for this unproductive crap. The least MS could do is make sure
the U.I. stays the same so real work doesn't slow to a complete standstill.
Does MS really think I, or anyone else gives a damn about bubbly shaped pop-up menus?
I guess so...what a bunch of marketing tools.
Is it any wonder I.T. departments are seriously looking at Ubuntu
and openoffice as alternatives? What does MS expect when they keep
undermining entrenched user behavior in favor of some UI design geek
that doesn't have to USE the apps they design DAILY.
Hey, M.S., In our office Windows 7 is B.R.O.K.E.N. .
32 bit Compatibility mode is B.R.O.K.E.N..
Dongles don't work anymore!!! B.R.O.K.E.N.!!!!!!!!!!!
We don't give a damn about D3D video games, because we're *WORKING*, and now it's B.R.O.K.E.N.!!!!
Where'd I leave that Ubuntu DVD ...........
It's not news, it's just paid for advertising.
all 80 workstations I manage are windows xp and will be windows xp as long as i can keep them there. all my users do is browse the web and might watch the odd instructional video on a file share. my company is saving thousands of dollars by not having to upgrade our P4 2.8 ghz 1gb ram computers to new ( and usless for web apps and web browsing) dual core computers to be able to run windows 7.
You realize that without proper proof no one is likely to believe the crap you're spewing, right?
All you have to do is click on the address bar and it shows you the full path C:\foo\bar
It's not like 7 is 95% identical to Vista. Oh wait, it is.
What's wrong with using something that already works
good enough until it ends 2014. And then see if Windows9
is any good.
I don't like using Windows of any kind, but a system I use at work requires XP because the vendor has not updated their software to use anything newer. I wish they'd chuck the whole Microsoft bag and go over to Linux but they are locked in by the user base, who are to stupid to understand that it doesn't take a genius to use Linux.
As always, just my $0.02 worth.
If you're going to do a costly migration, why do a costly migration to windows 7 which is just more of the same... It makes sense to think long term and migrate away from windows entirely so that you break the cycle of lock-in.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
...
Some of our customers are still running Windows 2000, and not all of them are updated to the latest service pack either. Not too long ago our last Windows NT4 user upgraded the operating system to Windows 2000... Roughly 30% of our customers are still using IE 6 as well.
The thing is, we're selling scientific software, and computers in labs get rarely updated. Often it's an issue with money, often lack of time, and usually there's no incentive to upgrade since it still works. In addition, many of our users are not technically skilled when it comes to computers (but they are certainly highly skilled in non-computer related tasks!), so keeping the operating system that came with the computer is the safest choice. There's also institutional policies that create big inertia when it comes to installing new software, let alone an operating system.
Despite developing for Linux, I do have to say that Microsoft has kept its promise about backwards compatibility. It is much more cumbersome to support a Linux distribution from 2005, say RHEL 4, than to support Windows 2000.
If your dongles wont work on Windows 7 x64, you could always move to Windows 7 32-bit instead
Where I work we are doing embedded system development. When we started we were given nice laptop with windows 7.
After a few month we start to see the limitation. Most software run in windows 7 or linux no problem. But most development kit only have windows XP driver.
So because of the driver issue we are forced to go back to Windows XP and be limited with the ram we can use on our computer.
After using W7 for quite some time I must say it work well enough I don't like everything but I prefer linux with kde. But at least Windows7 did support well multicore setup and more than 3G of ram.
the larger a company, the more intensive going to a new operating system becomes. They have to retrain thousands of unskilled staff just to remain afloat. the more technical staff are fewer but are often more able to acclimate themselves. If you have 1000 sales associates who's average age is 47 years (just below baby boomers) then changing a computer system companywide can bring numbers to a grinding halt. I also remember when a company I did MSP with was trying to upgrade to XP and no vendor software contracts supported it yet. what if your company is using a somewhat customized business app that hasn't been sufficiently tested on the new OS yet to allow the software vendor to support it on windows 7 or XP or the newest flavor.
My company has a theory... If it ain't broke don't fix it
We source old IBM thinkpads with XP because they do the job well, we have image files ready to rebuild as necessary, and ALL the software our technicians need works on XP, alot doesn't work on newer systems even in compatibility mode. We still have a few windows 98 systems around too, because they do the job. We just ditcted out SBS2000 server this year, so that killed the IT budget. Next year is the router and switches, to support a VOIP PBX, and new office phones. Changing the desktop setup is nowhere in sight.
We have 1 VISTA system, that everyone hates, and 1 windows7 machine in the confrence room, on which no one can find the configuration settings the want to change. A lot of our internal software has issues, with vista/7 and most of the modifications needed would result in purchasing a newer compiler, which would want a more powerful development machine.
I really don't care if there is no official support for windows XP, I AM the support here. Just because M$ says it's dead doesn't mean that it'll magically stop working.
Now, excuse me while I go track down a punch card reader to reinstall our accounting system.
What's the point of upgrading then....?
And: Windows XP Release date was August 24, 2001
We are launching an inquiry into what role did Windows XP have in the 9-11 WTC terrorist attack that killed thousands of Americans. We're going to smoke 'em out and increase their stock prices. We're not into nation-building, just corporate buildings.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Fortune 500 company I work for still has every computer except US side deskside and other technical users for testing. We'll need to upgrade a pile of software to be able to run Win 7.
Windows XP was VERY buggy until the release of Service Pack 2 in 2004. That is the real date of release.
Studying the reasons users have for/against Linux etc ... There just aren't enough arguments _for_ Linux, unless you add in the open-source arguments, which have no immediate, concrete impact on pc usability. The main arguments are: a) it won't run a few apps -- b) ignorance & fear -- c) tech guys salaries & availability d) training users, apps that are harder to use. e) windows warez are free, so the licenses cost the same. Techs opinions are included- the apps and training. Compared to macOSX, issues are almost the same, except it's easier to use and OSX cost is usually higher, unless some osx86, warez version is used. OSX however has gained more users share than linux it seems, at 5%, vs linux 1%. So I'd conclude linux desktop adoption rates are related to usability, primarily. The clearest indicator to me came when desktops started being sold with Linux preinstalled and working, with warranties covering Linux use only. People go out of their way to get Windows on their PC. They want Windows, they are pleading for it, *paying* me to intall it -- without even knowing what it is, and knowingly voiding the warranty. In many cases they will do no more than Facebook and msn messenger, they really would be better off with Linux. Others tried Linux, but couldn't run one app, or figure out how to do something they always did. Many quit Linux simply because they prefer msn messenger to emesene, amsn, or gaim/pidgin.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
If you think Windows XP is from the 1990s, I think you've seen one too many Apple commercials. Win98 is from the 90s. ME/2000/XP are not.
Also, is XP failing you, or are you simply bored with it? When you move from one OS to another, you're going to see certain programs and devices stop working if you're in a large organization. That's what's holding back my org - we have to test a LOT of user apps and make sure we have a solution in place so we don't make anyone's job impossible with this upgrade.
... and it won't go away so easy, and keeps coming back. You forgot to explain how to migrate all the apps from windows. Thats all people do, run apps, they don't really need any OS. All the apps, not a few. And all the divers and data. The computers aren't all for the techs, the users get to use them too... If someone could convert an xp cd into some sort of low-resource plugin for other OS's, or browsers...
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
I'll be migrating when one of these two happens:
1. Some programs stop being released for XP (Firefox, Photoshop...)
2. Unremovable viruses/malware (happened to Win98)
and it will be to Linux.
Actually I was responding to a specific post asking about how to solve specific problems in a Unix environment. I address your point here, in another comment and I agree with you. Apps are the biggest problem with a mass migration to Unix. You can reduce the impact of this problem by switching to Macs, but though there are Macs versions of many specialist software packages, there are many others without Mac versions. Also switching to macs doesn't really save much money, and in the short term will cost you more. All hardware will have to be replaced rather than maybe needing an upgrade, and some software will have to have a Mac version purchased separately. Stuff like 3Ds Max will simply transfer your licenses, but companies like Microsoft (Office) and Adobe consider their Mac versions completely different software and will make you purchase new copies. As I mention in the linked post I looked into this pretty heavily not long ago.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Yeah, for Windows Vista SP1. Let alone Windows 7
Back when that was happening, I was working for an undisclosed VeryLargeNonProfitOrganization that every user of this website would be able to recognize. At our location, I was working as an assistant to the IT Manager, and on my first day there he discovered that I was just better at Computer rollouts than he was, so he set me on the task of producing new rollouts for the machines we bought in 2008. He insisted that we used XP, and Not Windows Vista citing application compatibility issues, and a lack of drivers. So I built an Image with XP, and in an effort to get fired and prove myself right (because at this point I had 4 jobs, so losing one wasn't a huge deal, although I still work there) I built a second image running Windows Vista SP1.
Some things I found out:
1. Users are stupid, but not nearly as stupid as we would like to say. Nobody that I tried the image on was confused by the "Pretty new interface"
2. Application compatibility is like, there man. We have some pretty obscure shit running that looks like its written by companies that don't understand which end of the compiler executable code comes out of. Even the stuff that expressly relied on a serial port worked fine with no extra steps in getting it to work.
3. It takes WAY less time to install and configure a Windows Vista machine than it does a Windows XP machine. Seriously, if the old formula Time = Money is correct, then you can save about 4 hours of your money when configuring a machine with Vista over XP, and I've installed Windows 7, and its even faster.
4. Windows Vista is hardly the "Resource hog" that everyone says it is when used in a desktop configuration. Only so much can be done to slow down a Core 2 Duo, even if it only has 1gb of ram. Windows Vista simply can't do enough damage to the available resources to make Microsoft Office run any slower.
5. Windows Vista is more secure. While we ended up not rolling out the Windows Vista box, we did an experiment where we subjected it to a bunch of bullshit right next to a Windows XP box, same hardware, same patch dates. Windows Vista took on a lot less crap than XP did. Windows 7 is the same way.
The IT Industry failed to give Windows Vista a chance back when it came out, it was pretty buggy, but by the time 2008 rolled around, Windows Vista was showing its strength and people failed to notice. Rather than give it a chance they ignored it. In 2009, Microsoft added 4 or 5 features, recompiled windows Vista as "Windows 7" and released it. Surprise! Everybody loves it. I already *HAVE* Windows Vista on my laptop and I feel no need to upgrade to 7. Why bother? Its the same OS.
Where I work, we have a clear plan to start rolling out Vista onto boxes with Vista licenses starting this year, and 7 on to the new boxes. If you are JUST NOW deciding its time to dump XP, boy have you got to get a resume together. I wouldn't list the place you work at as a reference though.
Many people go on and on about how user friendly Windows is and about how "expensive" a migration to Linux (or god forbids, the eventually walled garden that OSX may become once the fanboys make renting from Apple the only acceptable mainstream way of doing computing) would be.
But here we have, in justshort example, the reality of the situation: tht you must train people as well if they move from one MS product to the next.
Here you describe 2 behaviours so different that could have been designed by different companies (which in a way they are, MS circa 2001 is completely different from MS now, but that is no excuse, it is still the same company after all).
The user is not to blame. He has invested time and money to master a GUI in order to get things done, and all of the sudden, without being consulted and without being given a choice in the matter, the way things are done are changed, because MS has deemed it should be so and you suck it up and take on the stride (still not as bad as what Apple inflicts on the suckers paying by the nose for their toys, but we are talkinf about degress of badness only).
Anytime I hear somebody blaming the user I can only think about incompetent GUI designers.
This particular machine run Win98-SE, with Firefox, around 300MHz. Its our email machine, which does not seem to get attacked by virus etc.. My working machines are Linux. If this machine was to upgrade it will be to Linux, or maybe XP, if a copy can still be found. Vista is not even considered viable for so many reasons, such as the obnoxious one-sided "agreements". I have one customer that was still using Win3.1 on one machine because it was running custom diagnostic software. I think the upgrade frenzy that some people try to start is for their own benefit, and not yours. I agree with the old folks, if it still works use it. You can never catch up with some of these web sites for more than a short while, then they are pushing for another upgrade. This has more to do with fashion frenzy to have the latest thing than it does in any true advance in solving the owner's problems. It seems to add to the owner's problems instead. So if you can ignore the crazed fashioneers who go on about the latest video codec and how your old software does not left you see their movie of the car jumping up and down, then you will be fine with what you got working.
NIS should have died ages ago: all goes on clear text and there is no authentication of who access what.
NIS+ was an improvement but default security is too lax, only people with a couple years experience with it would understand how to secure it properly. Even then, the encryption is too weak for modern standards and most importantly NIS+ is being discontinued by Sun (the Linux implementation has never been that good, with lots of bad implementation decisions).
The machines I have exist to serve me, do what I want and should have whatever UI I want. I think the new Windows UI sucks. This whole "ditch the menu bar" mentality is a pain in the ass and I learned to read for a reason. I want text, not graphics. Part of the reason is that I'm visually impaired and the magnifiers don't play well with those pop-up descriptions that appear when you hover over a cryptic graphic.
If you want me to upgrade, deliver something that is faster on my current machine, has more useful features (like multiple desktops), and has all of the features I currently enjoy.
I have XP Pro on all of my personal computers, 4 and counting. At work Vista Ultimate, yuk, yuk and tripple yuk. At the Eagles Lodge where I am an Officer, we have Windows 7. All of these computers run 24/7 and of these the one running Vista needs a restart no less than twice a week to combat slowness in operation. My personal computers running XP only need to be restared periodically once every month or so, or after an update. In the six months that my Eagles Lodge has had the new computer with Windows 7, I have only had to restart it once and that was after an update. My only complaint with XP is the ungodly amount of updates after Service Pack 3. I do a lot of reinstalls for other people and it makes it tedious to say the least to install the updates, but I thank the computer gods for softwarepatch.com and my littel command line script that installs these updates for me. I did experiment with slip streaming to make the process easier but decided that it was better to go with the command line script because it was simpler to change the script than it was to redo the slipstreamed cd. I like XP, it's more or less stable and I also like Windows 7 so far. As for Vista it should go the way of Windows ME.
The best all-encompassing, permanent solution I have ever heard of, so far, are stuff like citrix, VERDE, vdi, etc. I used Citrix at a company for a while, we were happy with it. Convert the apps to server-services, off desktops. Unfortunately it's got it's own implementation problems. Serial, USB, parallel, sound in/out, misbehaving apps. But it's still perhaps one of the best solutions.
I administer servers that provide services for hundreds (some thousands) of computers for thousands of users.
I can count with the fingers of my hands the machines that use 8GB (I administer hundreds of them).
Why do people keep using Windows?
It is costing them actual money. Unvelibable.
Most of the stuff you mention in old Linuxes is happening under the hood.
In most distros any upgrades can be handled transparently, the GUi can remain pretty much the same if so you wish.
In Windows you don;t have the options to stay the same.
When Usain Bolt runs 100m it looks effortless. He may be testing his body to the limits, but he has trained so much each one of his muscles for the task a hand that the effort seems, and I am sure feels, less than it actualy is.
A similar thing happes to all of us when using software, or any other thing for that matter, you become a master in doing things in a certain way, and frankly why should anybody come and tell you todo things in a diffrent way?
Why should people accept that a product, for which they are paying, changes the way you get your work done?
A good engineered product should start from a point of view o familiarity and then move the user along to were the manufacturer or designer would things to be.
The onus should be in the manufacturer shaking things up, not on the paying costumer who is being inconvenieced.