Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Urges Businesses To Get Off XP
An anonymous reader writes "It's approximately 11 years since Windows XP was unveiled, and this week Microsoft was still at it trying to convince users that it's time to upgrade. A post on the Windows For Your Business Blog calls on businesses to start XP migrations now. Microsoft cites the main reason as being that support for XP ends in April 2014, and 'most new hardware options will likely not support the Windows XP operating system.' If you run Windows Vista, Microsoft argues that it's time to 'start planning' the move to Windows 8. As this article points out, it's not uncommon to hear about people still running XP at work."
Farewell XP. You did good. For all these years XP has been one of the most successful products of Microsoft's family. This can be seen by its huge market share and general popularity. However it's time to update to Windows 8!
On that note, I think it would be good to say goodbyes to Windows Vista too. Windows 7 and 8 are truly better and the only OS we currently need, on top of Mac OS X. That trio is something beautiful and hard for anyone to break.
XP is still common at work because
a) it is fast even on old hardware,
b) it is supported by at least one good, secure Web browser (hint: not MSIE),
c) it supports about 15 years worth of professional applications (some of which are not available anymore), and
d) upgrading == (pain + time) && (upgrading != c)
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
.. really .. stop the presses
Shops like mine will be the very last to completely give up XP, because we cannot do it until ALL of our customers give it up.
Such is the pain of device drivers...
We have a few expensive microscopes with WinXP on the corresponding machine, an expired service contract and in reality cannot upgrade without buying a new microscope (an newer drivers), so what do you do, other than put it behind a firewall and hope for the best.
I work in a hospital setting where most, if not all, computers run XP. In radiology specifically, the PACS software we run is only certified for windows XP and ie 6.
Hospital doesn't want to invest money into upgrading pacs software.
All our research and analysis software works fine with XP, all the office, design (CAE/CAD etc.), editors, image manipulation, diagram plotting etc. etc. etc. works fine. No fucking need to upgrade means no upgrade happens. I know, this is shocking to many people on the MS Windows upgrade treadmill, but sometimes, you know, common sense prevails.
I know, I know, awfully shocking.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
with all those pirated UE out there XP will live forever in third world
Micro$oft has an operating system that is running fairly stable and well and they want to axe it... puzzling!!
In other news, Coca-Cola recommends consumers drink more soda pop.
I'm still running a computer from 2004 that came with XP and I see no advantage in Windows 7 that will cause me to switch, and quite a few disadvantages in Windows 8. Heck I'm still driving a car from 1997 and expect to get another decade out of it.
I'm migrating to Android one computer at a time, when this one dies, in maybe a few more years, it'll be the last Windows PC I have.
This is the real reason MS is pushing trusted bootloaders and UEFI. They know the FOSS community can deal with it, their true motivation is so people cannot continue to run XP on new machines and will be forced to move that marketshare to windows 8.
'most new hardware options will likely not support the Windows XP operating system.'
Not a problem! Most businesses stick with old hardware as well as old software. Even as a developer I have to use outdated equipment for my job, and it's frustrating compared to the monster I built at home. (You try running Visual Studio on a single 1.8GHz core with 2GB of ram, and I got one of the "better" dev machines!)
If enough people stick with XP, then microsoft will extend the support duration again.
Open source Windows XP, then nobody will use it. Its base will become a muddled mess of forks until it eventually fades into nothing.
So good in fact, we might just upgrade some of our Win98 machines to XP.
Alternately, Windows XP will not support new hardware, but that doesn't shift the blame now, does it?
Dear satisfied XP user,
We can't make any money if you insist on using Windows XP. Please upgrade to our new Windows 8. Since software developers also need money, you may notice that you'll have to replace the software that will not work in Windows 8.
While we're at it, the hardware vendors would love some of your money. Your old computer probably won't run Windows 8 anyway. So support our hardware partners. You can save yourself some time by just go ahead and buy the new Computer and it will come with a crippled version of Windows 8 that we'll be glad to upgrade for you at a reasonable cost.
We're happy that your computing needs are being satisfied with what you have, but we would be even happier if you send us money for our new OS.
Thanks for spending!
Microsoft
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
We saw Vista, 7 and now 8 and each generation offers such awesome improvements over the previous... I dare Microsoft to open-source Windows XP on May 1st, 2014. I don't see it happen, but you may want to have a look at ReactOS. If you ask me, OpenXP would be a better name for it.
Well, in VirtualBox on my MacBook Pro. I need IE for access to some services and I can't seem to modify Outlook email groups using the Outlook for the Mac client plus there's one set of old hardware that requires a very specific version of Java for me to be able to get a console on the system.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
Windows 7 is a pretty decent OS, and you can make it look just like XP or earlier if you want. And hopefully by the time they stop supporting Windows 7 they'll have come out with something decent for Windows 9, or the PC will be totally irrelevant.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Sure it would be good for them if all of their customers immediately bought new licenses for whatever the latest version is...in this case, 'windows 8.' But...but...but...for businesses those desktop computers are nothing but office equipment, just like the desks and chairs. Replacing 'old' office equipment with 'new' office equipment is expensive and creates major compatibility problems with software, user training, peripherals, support, etc. There is nothing in 'windows 8' which justifies the expense of conversion from Windows XP other than the threat of Microsoft to stop supporting XP and leave their customers adrift. If Microsoft's strategy for selling to corporate customers is to threaten them with pain if they don't migrate, it will certainly fail. Microsoft (or their successor) will need to eventually find ways to provide their corporate customers with what they want rather than trying to force them to accept what Microsoft wants.
We live in a world where we still have to occasionally deal with users using IE6. This is not gonna happen anytime soon.
We transitioned people from XP->7 at my last company, and in many cases, it was like trying to pull teeth. At my current company, we're going through a slow transition which mostly is happening when people move offices, leave the company, or hardware dies and we tell them we can't put XP on a new machine (a lie, but whatever).
XP is going to be around a looooong time, whether M$ wants to support it or not.
What kind of arm-twisting, exactly, is MS planning against Dell, HP, etc. to get them to stop shipping boring corporate boxes that don't support XP?
Yeah, sure, the odds of having XP run properly without a bit of scrounging on some random machine from Best Buy(this goes double if it's a laptop, triple if it's some wacky touch/hybrid/thing), aren't getting any better; but if your business is shipping pallet-loads of identical machines to assorted volume customers, you damn well better support the OSes they want supported. If you don't, the largely interchangeable shipper of near-identical machines will.
Even if MS plays serious hardball, and just starts refusing to WHQL sign XP drivers, XP doesn't force driver signing very hard, so IT shouldn't have much trouble with that. Now, I'd be totally unsurprised to learn that XP toasts the battery life of newer laptops with super-fancy power saving features, or requires that you turn on the 'legacy bios emulation' switch in whatever UEFI pit the system ships with; but I'd be shocked to see the end of the ability to buy XP boxes(through corporate and volume license channels, not necessarily at retail) before 2020...
Isn't this the same company who urged businesses to get on XP?
Getting off of it might be a good idea, but you ought to think twice about the second half of their advice (switch to Windows 8) since it looks eerily the same as what Microsoft told you to do a decade ago.
Considering Micro$oft will be supporting XP til 2014, that means Security Updates, Patches, IE updates, etc. As long as you have the hardware that still supports XP, and you have no special needs for things like HD Video, or new special hardware, you should be able to hang on for a couple more years. The OS usually dies when no new IE updates are available.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
much better.
I use both XP and 7, and had used Vista before. I use XP on most of my virtuals. I like just about 4 new features.
1.) Pin app to taskbar.
2.) Shift Right click "Copy as Path". (very easy to retrofit).
3.) The improved "Search Programs and Files".
4.) "Real" x64 support. (WinXP x64 is much more of a edited Windows 2003 build and finding drivers for it is hard).
In fact, XP had no feature whatsoever over Win2K, but it did offer some big improvements for the corporate side of things just as (much better) WMI and GPO.
Time and experience are what proves products to be (or not to be) successful.
XP is successful by all accounts - it is relatively stable, productive, makes sense (more or less). The way to move users to a new system is to provide something those users *actually want*, without taking away things they already have. Simple, as soon as Microsoft does that - we'll all switch, voluntarily, and may be even give them some ca$h.
Personally, I won't move simply because I can't be sure binaries I build on Windows 7 will work on XP (yes, they "should" but I don't really care to try). That and XP had the last control panel that had some logic to the way things were laid out and grouped.
I'm shocked to find marketing and advertising going on!
You do seem to have missed the bit about 'new' hardware not being supported by the next round of Trusted Computing and interface redesign. Wouldn't you really rather have a touchscreen w/ your driver and data combo, sir?
Do you need a bigger hint that your OSs have become WORSE in recent years, not better?*
Keep that page as a template -- you'll be saying the same thing about Windows 7 in a decade if you continue in the direction you're going with Windows 8.
* yes, I know -- more stable, more secure. But the parts that people SEE and USE is what's sucking.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Well, I like Win 7 because it has nice 64 bit support, something that XP never really managed well.
Otherwise I haven't seen any other particular benefit, and in fact a lot of pain associated the MS upgrade treadmill and their business model of churning the user base as fast as possible.
So yes they can sod off.
I have told our IT dept that the machine I have had since 2008 is just fine for the work I do, and XP is fine too. So I have asked they keep their upgrades for me until 2014 when XP is no longer supported, unless my machine wakes up one morning and dies. We try to have a 3 year cycle, but I told them to skip me. I have even told them to keep Office 2007 and higher off it, since it is just a pain in the brain to try to figure out where they hid all the services. And the Ribbon is so foul that I want to live without it as long as possible.
So, I have become a Ludite, that formerly couldn't wait to get the next great thing. I used to be our company's Network Administator and came to hate "upgrades".
I do use Windows 7 at home on my personal machine and have acquired a likely for it.
Windows 8 though has nothing to attract me.
I have largely left Windows behind but I find that when relatives hand me their Windows box to fix that Windows XP is easier to set right. Just all those little things like the serial number having a much higher chance of working. I find (especially with Windows 7) that I put the correct version DVD in and it rejects the MS serial number that is glued to the box. Then it goes downhill from there.
Then if I have to install any corporate crap like Citrix that it has an inversely proportional ratio of functioning properly to version beyond XP.
Lastly I test my own stuff on Windows by either compiling the program occasionally on windows or running my web apps on IE in a VM. Again the XP VM tends to be speedy and small. Windows 7 tends to be cranky in a VM so even though I am just running it for a few minutes I find it less pleasant. This is not some kind of show stopper just an observation that Windows XP is not glaringly worse than Windows 7 for basic usage.
So I would not ever recommend that someone pull Windows 7 off their machine but that some corporate type with an Office full of XP machines running just fine doubtfully will reap much reward through a huge upgrade. Personally if I were in charge of an office full of XP machines I would organically just replace dead machines with a new machine running whatever newer OS came with it. Someone might complain that supporting multiple OS versions is a cost in and of itself but if supporting multiple OS versions is a cost then your IT structure is either really really big or your IT people really suck.
My company has roughly 200 employees. From my perspective, I will plan to migrate off of our remaining XP machines (about 30) only because of security updates. In early 2014, I understand that security updates will cease, though I expect it will be extended. Were is not for this deadline by Microsoft, I wouldn't force the upgrade. In a corporate environment, the OS isn't terribly relevant, but the applications are. You'd be surprised how many application are still not ready for a native 64 bit environment, some niche programs that we rely on just won't work unless a 32 bit OS is emulated.
So, if Microsoft continued XP support indefinitely, I would never move. XP SP2 is the first OS Microsoft has offered that is solid and stable (just don't let users run as admin).
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Spend lots of money on new hard ware, new software, re-creating old software, training staff on a new os, IT learning the kinks of a new system, and dealing with new problems and down time from an OS untested in my business environemnt; or buy repalcment parts for when current harware fails...hmmm
Because the new product is *always* better, especially when running on older hardware.
just rename windows 7 windows xp 2 or windows xp the good edition.
Even Microsoft is telling people to abandon the XP boat, Windows 8 seems to be Vista 2.0, and Windows 7 is looking like being a dead end (if you invest on it, will end pretty much like XP). If people must change and think that is not wise to go to Windows 7, well they could go to Linux, that share some of the possible objections of switching to windows 8 (training, not running some of their old apps) but having a lot of advantages (freedom, they could use their own hardware, the user interface could be more similar to WinXP than Win 8 is, safer, etc). And now native apps are less a concern, as most of usual apps work in the web.
"We at Micro$oft need more money! Pay for our over-priced, bloated OS even though the one you have works fine and does what you want/need it to in the manner you like. You don't matter, only your money. To help force you to upgrade, we won;t release any more patches/fixes for XP, that seems to be the only way to make you upgrade."
I went to a brand new dentist office the other day. They were running XP on their brand new xray machines.
If Microsoft were smart, they would release an XP R2, they could call it "Windows for Business" and sell if for $150 a license.
If they were feeling generous they could remove the licensed RAM limits, give it a GPT boot option (heck they don't even have to do any work, just package it with some of the 3rd party options).
How about giving up the copyrights, since you appear to be unable to make any money off the copyrights you hold on it.
One trivial example: How many gaggled, "I introduced a space in all the important and default folder names. All those geeks trying to use cygwin to run shell scripts have to redo their scripts to quote their path names. ha! ha!! haa! Their support cost goes up. Our customer switching cost goes up. Our lock is getting stronger!"
And finally, they find their customers are unable to get out of XP to Win7!!!
Serves them right! Pay back is a bitch baby! You deserve it. All I got is that unspellable German word, schadenfreude or something.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Seriously trying to whine about MS requiring people to occasionally upgrade their OS is rather stupid. They support their OSes for quite a long time, 10 years is the standard support but some are extended (like XP). That is pretty damn good, rare you find other OSes with support that long.
So XP is now coming to an end of that support. You can upgrade to 7 or 8, which have guaranteed support until 2020 or 2023 respectively.
Oh, and Windows 8 works just fine on older hardware, as does Windows 7 (yes we've tested it at work).
Enough with the silliness.
I don't know why, but serial support sucks for Vista/7. I know, I know, everyone uses USB now, except in the industrial electronics industry, we don't. With few exceptions, every piece of software that has a serial interface to hardware has a terrible time with new operating systems. Between teaching hundreds of field grunts TCP/IP and Microsoft fixing serial drivers, I sure hope the latter happens. Does anyone else here have this problem? Any recommendations for solutions?
If you don't use Microsoft's support, and you don't plan on buying new hardware any time soon, there's no reason to switch.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So it's like saying "Stop driving that 1965 VW Bug, you should upgrade to the brand new Pinto!"
sudo make me a sandwich
Companies are very conservative when it comes to embracing Windows versions, for the most part, most big companies just didn't do Vista at all. Think large corporations will go to a small touch screen (phone and tablet) focused UI based version of Windows (where Metro applications are full screen only) just because Microsoft wants to sell phones and tablets? With all the associated costs there. Dream on Microsoft.
Microsoft should actually give their customers what they want, instead of trying to shove stuff down their throats cause they think their buyers have no choice. Microsoft why not just charge users $5 a year for further XP security updates...they'd make a ton of money as XP is still close to 45% of all the systems out there.
<rant>Why M$ is so determined to force Windows 8 down everyone's throat when people are just starting to get used to 7 is just mind boggling (aside from the obvious, and perhaps only, reason of making more money). I think people would take MS more seriously if they treated their products with appropriate timelines. We don't need a new OS every two years. We (pronounced /I/) barely want a new IDE, DB, or Business Suite (Office) every 2-3 years, but at least those are giving the users new and cool stuff most times (though VS2012 is a little short on that).</rant>
"other than put it behind a firewall and hope for the best."
Sorry , why exactly is it connected to a network anyway? Do you surf the web on it when you're bored? When you're dealing with equipment that expensive you do NOT put it in harms way and that includes connecting it to a network. So you can't download the files from your desk. To bad - use a (virus checked) usb stick.
Seriously , what is it with people wanting to connect every bit of machinary up to a network no matter how inappropriate it is? How long before we hear yet another Power-company-hacked story or similar? And how long after before the lessons are forgotten again? 2 minutes?
Six PCs with licensed XP in this house which couldn't now run Win7. One more offline Libretto with 98 (kitchen, favourite game only) and one putrid netbook with extra memory and mysterious Win7. Several have Linux on Wubi for fun, but it's not much fun you know. XP is here to stay, whatever Microsoft prefers. Win8 is surely for laughs only.
We are finally transitioning to Windows 7 (and IE 8) in the US Navy. A lot of the delay was caused by people fighting tooth and nail not to change from XP. These are not tech savvy people, and they fight any change which may impact their work. As long as their system is working, they don't want anyone to touch it. I see the same with commercial companies. Leave well enough alone.
I'm not surprised that a lot of folks are still on XP - at my university (where I work as a NOC network admin), the majority of the Windows machines are still XP. XP is simply what was put on older machines, and then a few years back with everyone hating Vista, new machines that had it were back-rev'd to XP Pro. Newer machines are mostly coming with Windows 7 Pro, however, a considerably number of people are installing alternate OSs on them alongside or to replace Windows 7. So far, exposure to Windows 8 has been 100% negative (the only time I ever recall seeing staff completely of the same opinion), so I don't see it ever catching on at all.
So yes... come April 2014, like or not, XP will be dead, and businesses will have to get off of it. They just don't necessarily have to stick with Windows for whatever they install instead.
No it really isn't MS's problem. Basically hardware vendors are responsible for driver support. They are welcome to support whatever OSes they like. Many vendors discontinue support for old OSes with new hardware. Since people with old OSes don't tend to get new hardware, they find it not worth their while to spend time working on it.
Same deal with software. For example Cakewalk has discontinued XP support with Sonar X2. Since it is nearing EOL, they don't feel it worth their while to test their new software on an old OS.
If you want a company that updates their OS forever, well good luck with that unless you are willing to pay a hefty service contract. Even then you will probably discover the updates will be little more than bug fixes, and if you want support for new hardware they'll require you to update to a new version.
I've been telling people to get off of Windows XP since 2001!
d) (upgrading != c)
c ?!?!?! If you want upgrading to be as fast as the speed of light, then your standards are way too high!
The return is to keep your damn business rolling.
Those XP boxes will grind to a halt one day, and who will take the blame?
Except the netbook I bought in 2010 came with XP. So it only gets four years' support.
Not that it matters since I wiped Windows and installed Linux instead, but XP was for sale until very recenlty; the only reason you can claim it was supported for a long time is because it was for sale for a long time, unlike the new compulsory-upgrade-every-two-years cycle.
"and its backwards compatible to 1991."
For most C source code? Yes
For most statically compiled binaries (assuming you have a.out support enabled)? Probably , though some kernel ABIs have changed.
For dynamic binaries (which is most of them)? Dream on. Sometimes they don't even work between one minor version update of a distro and the next due to library updates.
So no, linux isn't the magic bullet in this regard. To give MS credit , they do do backwards compatability quite well, though how long that'll last now win8 is on the block with Metro apps is anyones guess.
I work in finance and our company just made the transition from XP to 7 this summer. And that only happened because we were upgrading our hardware which happens every 3 or 4 years. As to the ancient machines being discussed in the thread that are still running XP, I'd be worried about the hard drives going bad. Forget the OS, the hardware doesn't last forever !
What do you do? You have your drivers in the kernel so that this doesn't happen.
Oh, and Windows 8 works just fine on older hardware, as does Windows 7 (yes we've tested it at work).
On Pentium 4s and dual core 1.6 GHz? That's what I'm stuck with here. And with Windows licenses at $99+ it made upgrading Windows out of the question.
Moved it all to Mint and SliTaz. The machines are even faster than they were on XP.
A problem with closed source systems is that if the company decides that it's not in its business interest to support some old but popular software, NO ONE ELSE can offer such support. Even if there's a demand for the continued support and other people willing to offer it, the business opportunity is not there since Microsoft controls the market. The more Microsoft pushes people off some platform, the harder everyone should consider some alternative solutions.
Besides, what support are we talking about here? If 11 years after Windows XP was released is not enough to fix the glitches that were made during the development, how long enough is enough? Twenty year to fix the bugs?
There's no such thing as "illegal download"
We're starting to Migrate to Windows 7 where I am at. Windows 8 is too untested with our systems to even consider it.
Plus anyways, you know how much of a pain in the ass it is to tell end users where something is at without the safety of the start menu to fall back on?
If it ain't broke, don't fugg with it.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I'm all in favor of advancing technology, but the way OS designers and hardware manufacturers team up to force upgrade spending en masse is starting to strike me as criminal. No, I don't need to be running iOS6 on my PowerPC, that wouldn't make sense, but spending >=$1200 to essentially upgrade from Firefox 3.6 makes no sense. (Yes, I've disabled Flash and Java.) Add third-party software re-purchases, and we're looking at $2000 simply because my OS and hardware designer doesn't want to admit they created a freaking good system that still runs perfectly fine 10 years later.
Sure thing, MS. Pay for our new hardware and our office will gladly upgrade.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Microsoft should quit trying to replace XP and build on its success. Tens of thousands of small businesses use ancient, outdated computers which work flawlessly with their ancient, outdated peripherals. XP is all they want or need. For example, what use does a small garage have for a modern computer? Office 2007 meets their business needs. Dial-up internet access is enough to keep them in touch with customers and suppliers. They might still generate their bills on a dot matrix printer with one of those old typewriter ribbons.
It's a good bet a lot of places like this have been replacing worn out machines with ones from home that were rejected by their teenage kids. I know one garage that's still running on Pentium 3's. The owner has no interest whatsoever in changing.
Microsoft could leverage a lot of other products by going out of its way to serve this large, almost invisible market, because the people who own and operate these businesses have kids, and the kids are where new tech will find a ready market.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
My users at work don't need anything other than XP. If MS had brains, they would keep releasing patches to XP well after April 14th.
The one thing businesses dont want, is to have to train their entire staff on a hugely different operating system. Not to mention the cost involved with upgrading.
MS should know that in this economy, businesses are struggling and many cant afford such upgrades/time.
In other news, nobody here is running Red Hat 9, either.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I have heard from friends that Tesco UK has only just upgraded (or is still in the process of upgrading) to Windows XP....
And yet I can still run Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 in Vista SP2 64-bit. Just don't playback 16-bit audio or it will crash, but record/play in 24-bit and all MIDI works just fine.
If you run Windows Vista, Microsoft argues that it's time to 'start planning' the move to Windows 8.
Because why break a losing streak?
but businesses will need to run 7 and they can't lock that out.
We are upgrading to Windows 7 as I write this. We fully expect to skip 8 the same way we did Vista
Headline should read: Microsoft urges business to give them more money
There's no place like
Build something the whole world buys, support it only for a decade, and ditch it and the customers are forced to buy new from the same manufacturer or completely re-learn a different computer system at their expense. What a PLOY. Its Bad Faith. Its a SCAM. There should be a law forcing Microsoft to back down on this ditching of their XP OS.
Would someone PLEASE run an ad campaign that uses this to push open source? This is one of the main reasons source code should come with the software you buy: you're not tied to one vendor. (and no, I don't think the source should be in the wild/public in every case...but the source should be part of you get when you put down money)
I'm always disappointed that someone doesn't put out a matching message to business when MS pushes this: "you know how MS is pushing you to mess with all your PC's again? If you had the code along with the software, you could hire another company to keep XP running/patched for you"
Just always seems like a missed opportunity...
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
Yea, end of sales do not matter under the MS support lifecycle. What matters is when this version was released and when the next version was released. MS guarantees Mainstream Support for at least 5 years after this version was released and at least two years after the next version was released and Extended Support for five years afterwards. This is how the April 2009 date for end of Mainstream Support for XP was calculated (Vista was released in January 2007).
2012, the year of the Linux desktop!
Oh wait...
How else can they sell new copies?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Can your apps run in Wine under Linux? This might be a very feasable "workaround". I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Lets have a look back in time at the history of Microsoft. Windows XP was the first stable version of Windows that was targeted at a typical end-user. Yes, yes, there was Win 2K Professional but it was targeted at business. Windows XP was a very attractive choice for those migrating from Windows 98/ME that were notorious for crashing at least once daily. And that was the incentive to upgrade. The operating system didn't crash repeatedly.
Once XP was released, Microsoft really dropped the ball on providing incentives to keep upgrading at a premium price. If anything Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8 are like Plus Packs. They are just adding (mostly useless) new features that no one needs. They created an artificial restriction that in order to play games on the latest Direct X you had to be running the latest version of Windows. This was quite a departure from the older Direct X versions.
Microsoft would be better off selling the Operating System separate and letting people purchase the features they want a la carte. That pretty much would eliminate all of this nonsense. If the features really are worth paying for (which most of them aren't) then they would be able to support the feature on multiple versions of the operating system. Novel concept! Why does there need to be a monolithic operating system will all the bundled crap on it?
We'll make great pets
XP Pro has more functionality than Windows 7. To get equivalent function for which I currently use, I would have to purchase Windows 7 Ultimate. The price tag for it is more than the cost of the machines that it would be running on.
It is simply too expensive for little-to-no gain in functionality.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
Oh, I'm sure they do.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
I immediately think of all the hospitals running XP. Is there ANY hospital that is not?
What do you think of your brilliant money saving management now? Just curious?
Oh I'm sure you will just continue to run XP, until your hardware dies. You then will create an entire new business of 'antique' hardware, that sells at a premium. No matter how hard you try, your brilliance is bound to cost ME a ton of money sometime in the future, idiots.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
Except windows 8 is so radical a departure from current infrastructure practices that the cost for a conversion is prohibitive for many shops. Windows 7 is cool, if you're not relying on some of the network and security apps that came standard on Windows xp.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Most of our corporate clients plan to run a "legacy" desktop service via VDI. Where they can keep XP and IE6 (spit) around for as long as they need to.
Hell some even have DOS based applications running in a VM!
http://360is.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/ie6-will-no-one-rid-me-of-this.html
Virtualization with QEMU, VirtualBox or Xen
Xen VGA passthorugh if the computer is an state of the art new one is teh best solution for DRIVER SLAVE MACHINES, the main system uis a secure GNu Linux one, and the virtualized XP runs almost as at abre metal and of course with actual hardware fast as hell, No SECURITY PROBLEMS, in fact less than actual XP bare metal, and it can use the XP native drivers.
Also if a hospital contracts ubuntu, the Ubuntu developers can be asked for reverse enginering drivers and for replace PAC or any other software importing all the old data, with any open source solution taht exist, mixing some or even creating a new one, and this one will be OPEN SOURCE, "You will never walk alone"
And this virtualization can have web access via VNC.
Sure, we'll upgrade when the support runs out, no reason to before then. They should be careful what they ask for though, because upgrade doesn't necessarily mean moving to the newest MS OS, we're probably going to switch to a mix of OSX, SLED and Win 7.
Car analogy time!
I can't help but notice that mechanics, or even dealerships, still do repairs on vehicles. If there's a problem with a 2000 Sunfire or whatever, guess what... it can still be repaired. It's not like mechanics or dealerships will be outright "Well THERE'S you're problem... it's not a new car. Sorry, we're not touching it. We can throw it away for you if you like, and you can help yourself to one of our brand new vehicles."
Don't forget that when you upgrade past Windows XP, you will have to implement a KMS server to handle your licensing. If you do imaging as a method of updating workstations, you will have to deal with this.
Conservative, mod down for violating
Heck where I work we still have NT 4 workstations on the production floor. I have XP and one of our engineers has 7. Cross compatibility sucks.
It is the same deal with any OS. Ubutnu supports a LTS release for 5 years from the date it comes out, not the date you install it, not the date you get a system with it.
MS makes no secret of their support cycle. They promise 10 years of support from the date of release. Sometimes they extend it, as they did with XP, and they then make the new date known. So when you bought a system in 2010 with XP, you bought it knowing that there was only 3 years left on support for that OS.
Support lifecycles really aren't a hard concept, and MS is actually really good with them. Whining about it is rather silly.
I'd be happy to get right on migrating chop chop just like MS wants. Our MS TAM keeps pushing pushing pushing, but the problem is that I have 30k+ workstations to manage. Just the act of physically upgrading the OS on each of those workstations takes plenty of time as it is. Plus, there's the matter of keeping the business going while I upgrade all those workstations.
First, however, I have to create a Win7 OS build that works on all the one-off situations I have. That a work in progress. Then I have to test the OS build on all those one-off situations. Then I have to test the bajillion apps I have and figure out what works and what doesn't. Then I have to determine what can be remediated and what has to be replaced. Then I have to get the budget for both remediation and replacement of those apps. Then I have to test, certify and package what's been remediated and replaced. Then I have to determine what will need to be certified by the various government agencies that we operate under. (We have to get governmental blessings in some cases to change hardware and/or software). Then I have to buy replacement hardware for those workstations that are below the waterline for the new OS. Then I have to schedule (and pay for) end user training on the new OS in various languages in cities all over the globe. Then I have to plan the overwhelming logistics of putting a new OS on all these workstations all over the globe in a manner that doesn't disrupt the business. In addition, I have to deliver replacement hardware to the right place at the right time with very limited resources (that is, not enough people to install so many boxen). Then I have to have the support infrastructure in place to support the inevitable issues that will come roaring in. Then I have to have procedures in place to investigate these issues on the new OS and do whatever is required to unbreak whatever is broken, whether it be sending the software back for fixes or unforeseen hardware replacements.
So, yeah, pardon me if I'm running a bit behind. I've got a lot of work to do with too few staff, too little time and not enough money. But, what else is new?
- Pithy comment goes here.
This is pretty much what Microsoft is saying, devoid of marketing speak:
Hey companies stuck in the mid 90's, quick upgrade to our new operating system we haven't released yet. Considering that you have consciously decided to ignore all of our products since 2002, we'd like you to pay us some more money on a more frequent basis. Have you considered renting office? You could be paying us monthly instead of once a decade. Plus, this way there is no way for you to *ahem* accidentally pirate it. There are plenty of great features in windows 8 for you, we think. If your business throws away all of its computers and replaces them with tablets, we're the company for you. Then your employees will understand how cool of a company they work for.
I'm amazed the number of people complaining.
Whenever I hear people moan about how they're running XP and it has been working just fine for the last ten years, I immediately think to myself that they've been lucky that they haven't needed to do part of their job for so long.
The folks running and maintaining servers or software products do an upgrade once every couple of months and you cannot do one upgrade in ten years?
Upgrading any hardware and software (not just Windows) is part of the cost of doing business, if you haven't factored it in (and after 10 years, calling the "upgrade treadmill" is a tad overly dramatic), then what forward planning have you been doing?
And if you really cannot upgrade, then maybe you should consider looking at implementing backup plans now? Because at some point, whatever you are relying on will stop working and you'll have to do something. It's not like you don't have any prior warning.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
I know a few clients who are still on XP and they are going to hold on to it as long as possible. When they do finally upgrade they're not going to want to hand over money for new copies of Windows, so they will probably migrate to Linux. I've already got some of them testing LibreOffice in place of MS-Office, Thunderbird instead of Outlook and Firefox in place of IE. The trials are going pretty well. When upgrade time rolls around I foresee moving most of them to Linux with few problems as they are already used to using open source applications.
I'm shocked that so many of you guys think windows xp is obsolete/dying/dead, the OS still costs $100+ 11years later.
But where is KDE going to steal its interface from?
So where are the free upgrades to Windows 7?
Excuse for why is your room always messy?
Windows 8 is down right appauling and even Windows 7 and that lame ass UAC crap gets in the way too often. Why should Vim, for example, be locked from using folders in it's own directory just because I'm not running as administrator? Microsoft has to realise that they got their way and locked people into their systems. Unfortunately they screwed up and locked them into specific versions and they're scared that the situtation will reach a point where any option is viable and therefore they are excluded.
That's why we've got VB6 in Windows 8. There is no other reason other than by not doing that people are left having to build from scratch and there are far better non-Microsoft solutions out there.
Our company still uses Win 2000 and NT 4 on most of their machines. Whats an upgrade?
I've had TV's that lasted near on 20 years without any repairs or updates. My Atari 2600 works just fine as well and that is older. XP works for what I want to do, and I understand the security risks. As long as the hardware runs, my kids can hit webkinz, gmail, IM, and run whatever stupid shoot-em-up games we approve of. The other kid does all that with Fedora on even older hardware. The kids have sports and limited PC/TV time as it is. There is no need for more bloat to do what they already CAN do. (sorry MS, no $$ from me ;))
Our home PC used to be thought of as a life improving/changing device. Now its a convenient method of communication that has retained some entertainment value. I do enough with enterprise servers/storage as a career. Long gone are the days where I leave my work PC, run/drive/scamper home, "maybe" eat something, and immediately get on my home PC ... I don't know whether my use cases are typical, but I doubt I'm alone. Win8? Thanks but no thanks unilt the HW dies and isn't easily replaceable.
... because my PC is a VM running under Parallels on my Mac, and I see no need to buy an upgrade for something that only runs games and a few specialty programs that don't have Mac versions until and unless I absolutely have to.
A** H****, 80% increase in spying algoritms... give me a break!! I am going exactly the oposite way. Gone Windows 8, back to XP. Things smoother... and faster. Obviously.
Just provide paid patch support for those who still use XP. Something like a yearly subscription to continue to receive patches. Two levels, one for consumers and another for business. Not HUGE amounts, but something affordable to individuals and companies.
This helps pay for the devs to program the patches, and helps people stay with an OS that works for them. This should be a no brainer. Hell, they may even make a nice profit from it.
since there is little reason for the XP VM to have full network access.
(same person, second account, the until it's about a day from now)
It's not a return, it's a cost.
Anything can happen, your building may collapse due to an earthquake or a terrorist attack. What are you supposed to do, live and work in a bunker?
If you buy a hammer and it works for nailing those nails day in and out, why should you be upgrading the handle without it actually breaking?
It's a cost, it's not an investment. Investment means that you have a reasonable expectation of a return on that investment. A cost means that you have to incur it to stay in business, but it doesn't mean you have to incur it before it becomes a problem.
You may need contingency plans in case it becomes a problem, but it doesn't mean you have to immediately address all such things, because running a business and being profitable is hard as is with the normal everyday expenses, having to deal with 'what ifs' is left to be a distant 100th on the list.
If you work for a place where you think this may become a problem, bring it up with your management, if you have an actual argument that shows why the computers will stop working one day (I guess the bits in the DLL files will wear out), it's up to the management to decide whether to spend any money now or wait until it happens or do something to prepare for that problem in the future but not go full ahead with the immediate knee-jerk reaction.
You think your part is the most important part of running a business, the XP windows installation? You are way off on that.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Cheapest option is likely to just stick a consumer-grade router box with firewall in front of it.
Mindlessly upgrading a system or not and sooner or later you will probably get what you deserve. Survivor bias will be used by both sides of the arguement. Till then plenty of straw men by people who have no stake in your game other than to exploit.
trim for ssd (without any fuzz) and working usb3 drivers. (btw for the can't upgrade because of...: universal restore works perfect on virtual machines. just sometimes problems with the oem serial)
That is the fallacy it is broke. Will it read photoshop CS 7 files? Nope. Will it get security updates? Nope. Is the architecture not secure. Yep. Will it read Office 2k13 files with office 2k3? Nope. Will it read PDF files make in Adobe 12? Nope, Will its IE read HTML 5 sites? Nope. Will FF and Chrome still support it after 2014?Nope.
You know refusing to upgrade has costs. The costs externalize to the rest of us. Why should I have to learn IE 6 hacks in 2012? Why should drver makers, IT staff, developers, and everyone on the planet cater to users who refuse to upgrade and increase our costs for free? You think it is free for Dell to do QA for 3 different operating systems? What about MS?
Yes, people have been working for free doing extra stuff like IE 7 comaptiblity and making a website look shitty all for your convenience for years. The time is coming and it is time to let XP go. At some point it is not my problem but yours.
http://saveie6.com/
Were you that guy from Section 6 who's always going on about Linux Linux Linux in the downstairs breakroom? Hey, remember me? Tallish, skinny, crazy haircut, from the Tacnukes handhelds group? Used to always make lunch food metaphors about your OS proclivities? Hey, hey- "Not that kind of toast!"
How did these businesses come to upgrade from W2k to XP in the first place? What was the killer feature that XP had over 2000?
If the biggest reason was ending support for W2k then Microsoft should have no problem here, in a couple of years XP will be (almost) gone.
Win2K in VMware on the lan w/a static ip. Just for Outlook(lookout) though. Many other apps have faded away from versionitis.
Corporate gives out Windows7 laptops and there are many many XP machines still that will prob never fade away as they are in lab settings hooked up to equipment.
H.
I don't know what is more amusing thinking businesses base their decisions on anything other than their bottom line or they would choose to "upgrade" to Windows 8.
Normally the spectre of loosing vendor support can itself be an important driver for change yet XP is soo old and soo well understood I doubt this much works anymore even when security patches stop.
If I were a hardware vendor and I knew XP is the second most popular operating system in the world the question of support becomes more rhetorical than an actual question.
from XP to Linux.
Does everything I need, and still zips right along.
its microsoft doing the extortion racket
Fack. The machine I run my accounting system on is a PIII 1Ghz running Win98SE. Not upgrading any time soon either as it runs just fine.
It's not on the web. Doesn't need a browser. No Flash plug-ins. Doesn't play games (beyond solitare). No 3D graphics needed.
So - my mantra is and always will be: If it aint broke, don't fix it.
My lab decided to listen to MSFT.
We got off WinXP. We replaced it with Linux running on 128 core blade servers.
Thanks for the push, Worst MSFT CEO Ever Ballmer!
(and you wonder why you lost money this quarter ...)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
A lot of non-UI devices are running on Linux or BSD now.
Most of us code in languages that run on anything.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Microsoft is end-of-lifing a decade-old OS. It's already 11 years old, and will be declared fully unsupported in another two years. Which means they'll support the OS until seven years after the replacement is released.
Compare this to Apple. OS X 10.1 is the closest in age to Windows XP, and it was end-of-lifed in 2002. In fact, their most recent "supported" OS is 10.6 (Snow Leopard), which is only three years old - approximately the age of Windows *7*. And I can verify that many application vendors seem to consider 10.6 the minimum, some even 10.7.
And let's compare this to Linux. There's not enough space or time to get into every distro, so let's focus on Ubuntu, the most Windows-like distro. The oldest "supported" version is the server variant of Hardy Heron, the 8.04 Long-Term-Support release, which was released in 2008 (around the time of Vista SP1). For a desktop variant, you can only go back to 10.4 LTS, released in 2010 (around the time of W7 SP1). And those are the long-term support versions. "Regular" versions can only go back to 2011.
Come on now, guys. Microsoft does a lot of things wrong, but they've been downright saints about ditching XP, doing far better than pretty much everyone else.
Microsoft urges businesses to spend more money with Microsoft.
The funny thing about all the "love" on the net for XP these days is that it too was not great at release... I remember "XP" being joked about standing for "eXperience the Problems".
c) it supports about 15 years worth of professional applications (some of which are not available anymore)
Good of consideration is the 32bit version of Windows 7, and maybe Windows 8 (if they didn't remove features). Old hardware such a Pentium 3 1GHz with 1GB ram can run it, most probably limited by hard drive speed, every new hardware can run it too. You still get to keep DOS virtual machine and Win16. It can do a lot of the things a computer under Windows 98 coud do ; if there's incompatible software, it most likely does't work with XP already. Compatibility is about 25 years of applications.
If a web browser serves as a front-end to all of a large corporation's apps, I would recommend the $250ish Google Chromebooks over Win8. But only because Win8 UI is ridiculously confusing & alien to Windows users. Win8 will only accelerate enterprise IT to look elsewhere, including Google's low cost Chromebooks for its users. Microsoft should have continued refining the desktop UI, like Win7 did - Hint: should've kept desktop PC/Workstations and Laptops in mind as a priority, should've added some of the best desktop features from Linux, and kept touchscreen tablet & monitor features as a secondary amenity - not a priority. Win8 makes it appear Microsoft is in a rush to abandon Intel & AMD and PC/Workstations in general. Microsoft's Win8 is unfriendly with regards to desktop workstation user experience, and is a waste of time and money when compared to alternatives (front-ends) from Google. Microsoft had better support Win7 for the same length of time it supported WindowsXP. I won't recommend Win8 to any enterprise network.
If you don't budget for upgrades, you'd better either plan to be gone by then or be fortunate enough to be able to toss the whole thing.
You seem do not realize that in many industries the traditional upgrade cycle for expensive equipment is 15-25 years! So they did plan for upgrade, but that time may be 10 or more years away from now.
So if anyone has the Wal-Mart Shopper mentality here, it is those who think that the typical PC update cycle is suitable for everyone. It is not about updating PC, but updating the whole infrastructure (which relies on a lot of crappy third-party software) and re-training the whole personal to use it. It is completely unrealistic to do that every 3-5 years as you do in the IT-world...
If I tell you that you need to buy a new PC and replace all software (which you got used to) every 6 months, how would you like this idea?
So I can upgrade from Vista to Windows 7 or Windows 8 and all hardware, drivers, and software will just work? If not, then it doesn't work just fine.
Windows Update already gives me Office 2003 and Office 2010 updates when I have Office 2007, and that's in Vista.
You might not be aware of this, but Microsoft provides a compatibility pack for Office 2003 that allows reading and writing .docx and other 2007+ formats. With the pack, we can all keep the last good MS Office interface for as long as we like. Death to the ribbon!
No its not broke. And you misidentify the fallacy too. The fallacy is that everyone even cares about the things you list.
Do you need CS7 files? I dont.
Do you need security updates? I dont; my lab's computers are all strictly off-network.
Secure acrchtecture? Who cares? Do you? Cause it doesnt exist (theres a concept called ORM, operation risk management, you should learn about it; basically, worry about the things that need worrying about).
Adobe12? PDF's still load fine in older versions, particularly of archived materials that are intenionally stored with compatibility in mind.
HTML5? Agan, not relevant.
You are not hte market for XP. People who care about these things arent the ones trying to hold onto XP.
I, and the electronics lab I'm in. however are EXACTLY the market that needs to hold onto XP. Legacy hardware, legacy software, crap dating from teh 60s that someone wrote an interface for years ago that worked on Win95 and still does on XP (and doesnt on Vista/7/8) and now no one even knows what the interface commands ARE anymore for that old hunk we still need to support. And we get paid good money to do so. The joys of military contracting.
Sorry pal.
It ain't broke.
It don't need fixing.
Learn to see beyond your own small world; there are more demands out there than yours and the constant latest and greatest arms race.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
XP does not run well on modern hardware. Not what the XP loyalists would have you believe and the SATA driver is a big issue. It can't do command queing.
So the hard drive only executes one command at a time synchronous wise while the paging algorithm goes batshit in XP. It slows down an icore7 quit nicely compared to even a Pentium IV with a UMA controller. It is time to leave it behind as hardware is barely even supported on it anymore and surely not optimized.
http://saveie6.com/
Addendum:
but hey, MS dumping it just means there will be EVEN MORE money to be made by labs like mine or ATS or similar, who support, maintain, and reverse engineer legacy equipment.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I think you've completely misunderstand what is going on. The companies that refuse to update from XP probably have lots of workstations that work fine as is or have vertical market software that will not run on the newest Windows. Their ability to run the latest and greatest of photoshop is far removed from their requirements.
Not all businesses are web based, so don't be surprised that Windows XP's inability to run FF or Chrome after 2014 is high on their priority list either. Nor will they care that that some webmaster is worried about keeping their site compatible with IE6. The only things they care about are that the current software works, the workstations can be replaced and re-imaged with the working software, and they don't have to make a large investment in IT to support Microsoft's wishes.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Most businesses surely do care.
I do not give a damn about robotics and specialized equipment. I do care about trying to make an HTML 5 website work with IE 7 for free with CSSPIE javascript hacks. Newer PDF files with advanced features can't be read in older versions which are major security risks. Adobe 12 does not exist yet but will in a few years. XP will not be usable for an average office worker or person for these reasons.
If you work for military hardware I would be worried about getting hacked and someone stealing your secrets. China would love you if you work any contracts. That is a niche use case.
Sadly many who do care about these things use XP and fear change. They expect Office 2k3 to support newer versions of OpenXML in Office 2013, still expect websites to work in IE 7, and will whine when their hardware wont work. There comes a time where enough is enough and we wont support your platforms anymore as they externalize cost savings on to us.
http://saveie6.com/
As bad as General Motors is, they haven't done anything to stop people from driving '57 Chevys.
If it runs great, and I don't mind fixing it, why stop me? It's actually good advertising. I wouldn't begrudge them to charge for "parts", ie, put patches out on a subscription basis; but changing the fundamental design (ie, going out and getting a lousy new Suburban) isn't the answer customers want.
So what happens if the marketing department at your employer receives a Photoshop CS 7 file? What if a vendor emails a word or excel 2013 file?
Me I am trying to start a business on the side catering to the corporate market. I just dumped IE 6 support and I am about to dump IE 7 and maybe 8 next year. That is another lost opportunity if you use my network, I wont support you. I may do a crappy craigslist like UI for IE 8. I am undecided on what to do in that regard.
We are networked and as a result we have catered to your needs for years and MS even neutered .NET 4 to support some of XPs limited feature set in final release. Those who do upgrade will expect you to do the same. Infact the reason people upgraded Office often in the 1990s was because the staff didn't want to look like asses asking to resend in word 95 format etc.
With salesforce and clouds using an up to date browser is going to be an increasing requirement too for office workers. The world is changing and leaving your platform behind. In the next coming years this will be a problem.
http://saveie6.com/
Warning users of XP. Upgrade now or it will effect our bottom line. Here are some reasons we dreamt up to convince you to upgrade, even if you can do anything you need to on XP and Windows 7/8 holds no tangible benefit for you.
I happened to be fortunate enough this past weekened to try to reinstall an XP system from a SP2 CD (OEM). Upon installation the first thing to do was to run an update, right? (OK after ftp ftp.mozilla.org)
I found:
Windows update failed to update anything. (404 errors that blew up the engine).
MSN's default page segfaulted the stock IE.
To install Security Essentials I had to first download Microsoft Installer 3.1 from the KB.
To actually get the machine to run automatic updates, I had to download the 300-ish MB SP3 network installer from the KB, and then tip-toe though several iterations. (Dial-up users need not apply).
And this they call 'supported until April 2014'. Yeah, I imagine they're working hard on fixing these...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Even XP itself got fat over the years. After the service packs and browser updates, XP wanted a whole lot more RAM to get the job done.
Exactly. Typically, XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) was the last usable update for 1 gigabyte machines. SP3 is as reliable as it is bulky, and uses the hard drive as memory a lot unless you have 1.5 gigs or more.
I work for a company with 30,000 employees world wide. I got a nice new HP i5 laptop about a year ago. It came with XP Pro and Office 2003. I'm seeing no move to "upgrade", but I'll admit that I'm not in IT so I am not privy to plans before they are announced to the world. Friends are asking me if they should be upgrading to a Win 7 machine while they still can. I tell them, Yes. I'll take a look at 8 in a couple of years when the dust has settled.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Where I work, we're a Microsoft Windows XP Professional (32-bit) and Office 2003 shop; about a year or two ago, we moved from IE 6 to IE 7 and more recently IE 8. Fortunately, we also have Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome as options since we are devs. When it comes to an upgrade, there's always the question of what's the value to the Business? The newer machines fortunately have more than 2 GB RAM, but I hear there are plans to upgrade to 32-bit Windows 7 eventually, which is quite frustrating since I already run out of heap space.
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
They don't have to support it; people don't have to upgrade. Everybody's happy!
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Netbook XP was specifically sold by Microsoft at the time as an obsolete OS designed to run on underpowered hardware and was a not recommended configuration that they reluctantly offered.
Windows 7 is the current OS they sell. How is that an argument for staying with XP?
Okay maybe your not ready for the enterprise just yet.
You keep making assumptions that do not align with reality at most businesses. The marketing department is not going to send a Photoshop CS 7 file to the nurses station in a hospital. Most employees will not deal with outside vendors much. They will use a specialized program designed to work with their corporate data system.
Not everyone is in sales.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I told you. Money.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Where I work I have to deal with clients, users, vendors, and a hospital does not have a marketing department. That was just one example. Real enterprise interacts with other people who most likely at this point run newer software. It is a mild problem now but after 2014 it will be major. People use newer software and if you can't interact they will think something is wrong with the company.
You can only go so far by staying behind the competition. Eventually you need to actually spend/invest costs, not just label everything as a cost center until your assets turn to crap.
http://saveie6.com/
it's not uncommon to hear about people still running XP at work.
WTH? In my experience it's just starting to become not so uncommon to see people running something other than Windows XP (mostly, Windows 7) at work.
If we were in a tall office building and terrorist crashed our christmas party, you'd probably be that coked up salesman that gets shot because even the terrorists aren't buying your bullshit.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Dear Business,
Please upgrade your WindowsXP to Windows7 now. You may not have that option once we release Windows8.
Obligatory Penny Arcade comic: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11
When XP was released they tried that. Though it wasn't $5/yr but I think 3% of software costs per month, so it might have been something like $1.20 / mo for XP, and you never had to "buy" software. Companies decided they would rather save the money and upgrade when they had to.
I've got a Collins 75A-2 receiver that was made in 1952. It still works fine.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
a) it is fast even on old hardware,
No it isn't. If you upgrade XP it runs slow. Slow Hardware runs slow.
b) it is supported by at least one good, secure Web browser (hint: not MSIE),
For business? Businesses use IE, and the smart people break the policy and install other Browsers. Business use IT, because there are still too many stupid companies who think Active X was a good idea.
c) it supports about 15 years worth of professional applications (some of which are not available anymore), and
If your application isn't available anymore. You are putting your company as risk.
d) upgrading == (pain + time) && (upgrading != c)
Lazy ass IT.
This is not a -1 flamebait just because you disagree with him.
a. It is documentated that the SATA driver for XP is crippled to make Vista look faster with disk access. It only does synchronous I/O due to no command queing. OUCH. Ligher=! faster for newer hardware. I can vounch for this on my hex core system that runs much better under Windows 7 and is sluggish under XP
b. IE is standard. Love it or hate it, it is integrated with both active directory and policies. IE 9 is a decent browser and IE 10 is a great one! No you did not misread that if you do any benchmarks with IE 10. Night and day compared to an ancient Xp version of IE. It is certainly usable for corporate drones now and is standards compliant.
c. You are putting your company at risk. Yeah no shit! Security threats due to bad design are huge. Saying it is secure is like saying IE 6 is secure because it still gets updates. Using a modern browser is a much better idea. Same with the OS.
d. IT supposed to look into the future. Not only put out fires and care about making the cost accountants their bonus! It is irresponsible to wait until people start sending files in Office2k13 formats and Photoshop CS 7 formats that you cant support, or wait until XP goes EOL and then find out you can't upgrade and get 0wned, or your executives all buy Windows 8 tablets/IPADs and your ancient intranet software wont work.
You do not have to migrate but you should be prepared before these events happen. Not after someone many ranks above goes to an HTML 5 contract with salesforce in 2 years and are still running IE 7. Ooops.
You can disagree and see no reason to blow money but they are valid concerns. In the 1990s anyone still running Windows 3.0, netscape 2.0, Wordperfect 5.1 by 1999 would be fired! Not given a pat on the head for cost cutting and fearing all so scary Windows 9x. But sadly in this decade we are doing just that. It is silly.
http://saveie6.com/
Microsoft argues that it's time to 'start planning' the move to Windows 8.
And therein lies the problem. If they told people to start planning to move to Windows 7 they'd get a lot more takers.
I have a newer computer with windows 7. It works well. I also have an older computer with windows XP. It works equally well, and delivers 95% of the windows 7 experience. Actually, the differences are so minor that its barely noticeable you're running one or the other, as soon as you set both in "legacy look".
Moral of the story, nobody wanted to upgrade to windows Vista, as it was a downgrade from something that worked to something that doesnt. Nobody cares about upgrading to 7, because just whatever. Windows 8 tries to part with that issue by introducing real change, but that might come back bitting, if people don't like "novelty".
I'll upgrade to XP before I install windows 8 on any of my machines.
So who cares? We're already a year behind schedule for replacing 4 year old laptops. We're not really refreshing hardware unless it's some exec or some drone who managed to get an exec to sign off on it. We could run XP for another 10 years. The only downside is the inevitable embarrassment with customers over our inability to open their Office 2010 and later docs on our MS Office 2002 machines but we're slowly abandoning that for Open Office anyway which is even less MSO 2010/2013 compatible so again, who cares?
XP 4 Eva! Save your way to prosperity!!!
The reason XP is still common at my work, there just haven't been many good releases since.
Lets see:
Vista - won't touch it for obvious reasons
7 - gradually getting rolled out, not a bad release.
8 - not released yet, way to soon to consider.
When 8 has been out for a while, maybe then we;ll give it a look.
This just in: Microsoft urges customers to migrate to Linux, releases Windows 8.
to get off Windows 8
The catch is they do not lose money by making older parts. If anything they still make money. MS fixes Windows for free. Same with crappy insecure browsers like IE 6. Website makers have to put ancient IE hacks to accommodate these corporate users for free. Developers have to use tools like VB 6 and ignore .NET to make these users happy.
Meanwhile they get hackers over and over and help desk has to work overtime for free. Enough is enough. costs are rise on older vehicles and outdated software. The difference is the driver does not get a financial incentive to externalize the cost to repair shops. Corporate America is getting this as well as middle aged users who fear change.
Kill it already!
http://saveie6.com/
Sorry Microsoft. I refuse to pay for another operating system. My next desktop will be built as before by hand and will have Linux. My current laptop has Win 7 but I have Fedora as well. As soon as Steam jumps to Fedora I have less reason to care. Any new laptops will be built by System 76 or some other linux based OEM. Really between smartphone and my Galaxy Tab I am good for now or netbook with Fedora as well
I did computational fluid dynamic simulations of loss-of-coolant scenarios in nuclear power plants. All of the modeling software had to go through a very rigorous and painful validation process dictated by the NRC that was tied to not just the OS, but the machine it was performed on. Change either and the entire validation would need to be repeated.
These validations were dutifully accomplished on (then) new quad-core machines with XPx64. These machines are used for nothing else. So now we're having another OS rammed up our behinds, for no good reason? If the OS were obsolescent and had issues, I'd see the point, but forcing a migration to a new OS will cost several hundreds of kilobucks to implement (which we can't bill without really cheesing off our clients).
Next time the IT systems go down or someone steals all the patient records because of an XP security hole don't complain then.
Certain medical and research device manufacturers use Windows 2000 (!) as the platform on which their devices are supported. The manufacturers also usually (always, in my experience) prohibit patching of the PCs attached to their devices by refusing to support them if they *are* patched. (Reasons vary, but often include the old "FDA won't let us" excuse.) My employer has several scanning tunneling electron microscopes that use Windows 2000 and simply won't ever be patched.
Thank you, Microsoft, for encouraging these vendors to use your crappy products! Also, thank you, vendors, for being stupid enough to tie your products to someone else's and not providing for ongoing maintenance over the life of your products!
Got a lot of machines running XP even for life sustaining equipment. Some have SP1 (not allowed to update to SP2/3). Heck i even have machines that still running Win 3.11. I already forget how to re-install those thing. Just make a hardisk copy of it for backup. Luckily i still can get 20GB hardisk for 5 bucks in used market.
My computer for about 2 months a go still running XP. Until the motherboard dies. the same happens with the office computers. Unless the computer dies. There are no reason to upgrade it.
"...Microsoft argues that it's time to 'start planning' the move to Windows 8'
That's nice. Here, have a lozenge for your Microsoft throat, then keep arguing. You'll need it.
Now leave us alone.
It is the only operating system (And I use the term in a rather loose way) that M$ has produced that is not well below average. If you want to stay with them, why go to anything else?
I live here in regina saskatchewan (Canada) and the most scary thing is on pretty much every computer screen you see that has kicked in with a screensaver in the Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region which is hospitals clinics offices etc attached to them they are all running Windows XP.
I find that kind of scary considering its hospital and patient information being accessed by an eleven year old operating system that likely has not been fully updated and will still be in use after 2014.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
Well I use some no longer developed (or supported) audio software on an XP box. I've tried installing the software on a Windows 7 box but it requires Direct X 7 so won't run.
I use this software every day, have hundreds of projects written in it, and there is no way for me to convert the projects to another software tool. So I guess I'll have to stock up on some hardware because I use this software to make a living. It works, it does what I need and as far as I'm concerned the OS only exists to enable this software to run. As it runs on XP I'll be using XP until I die (or retire).
Moral of the story ? Only use open source software as that way you can at least develop tools to migrate your data to new formats etc.
Next time somebody breaks the door and steals a bunch of patient paper records or there is a flood, don't complain then.
It's the same nonsense argument.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Next time somebody breaks the door and steals a bunch of patient paper records or there is a flood, don't complain then.
isn't theft just another kind of free market competition that you advocate? if poor people can't afford police protection, that's their fault, you say!
It's the same nonsense argument.
now you're being hypocritical again. get back on message!
Seriouisly. I used Win2K for years after it was no longer supported.
Software will continue to run on XP for a long time. Arguably, device support is still better on XP than on anything newer. IT staff not familar with XP? Were they litterally born yesterday?
Reread your post. Your argument was the interface of Windows 8 was such a radical departure that the cost... Which isn't an argument against upgrading to Windows 7.
If you are saying the licensing costs of Windows are the issue, then you are a customer who isn't spending very much on IT. In which case why would Microsoft care.
Another appeal to emotion argument. Whatever Apple, or Ubuntu, are doing does not change the fact that win8 is not needed, or even an improvement.
People used to wait in line to buy the newest MS upgrade. Today, people have to have upgrades forced on them.
Is MS willing to give us Win7 or 8 for free? Why stop using software that works?
Screw windows and their greedy coders. There is a Linux system based on XP and it works for FREE. Wine allows us to run almost any windows program we want in it. But tell you the truth, I would rather tell Windows Sayounara. Its all Linux from now on. Free operating system, free office program, free printing software. everything freeeeeeeeee....Take your Greed somewhere else Windows. Ubuntu beats windows Hands down. Oh.....and we dont have to worry about having an anti-virus program since that junk is produced for Windows systems......Windows. What a joke. Super Dave IT Tech
At Microsofts request I went ahead and upgraded my machine... to Ubuntu Server, then went out and got a MacBook Pro. It was a good decision!
Hardware that is so obsolete is ridiculous.
In the real world, we upgrade and adapt to remain competitive.
People clinging to 11 year old hardware and OS's are simply incompetent. Sure there will always be niches where it's simply unnecessary to upgrade, but those are few and far between.
I wont even touch 11 year old hardware; it's junk.
Antiques are certainly nostalgic, but I'm not in the business of nostalgia, I'm in the business of keeping my clients competitive and able to get the work they need done, done.
There are people who look ahead, and there are people who look back. I live in the present while looking always towards the future, and successful businesses do too.
It really IS that simple.
...Want to force the sales of new products!
n1 reason to Upgrade to W7 (pro of course) is to us Xp in multiple virtual session.
n2 reason is to throw away all your old hardware, the more U have the better
n3 reason is to throw away all your old software, the more U have the better
n4 reason we all love shopping don't we? just to throw away the crisis U know buy new scanners,printers,touch screens full of fingerprints, short screen with the excuses thah U have to see videos (what about going to the cinema? and socialize 4 real instead of facebookin; well in a country with many guns around could be thrilling dangerous of course).
.
PS come on boys U can do that inside a linux machine as IBM says after OS/2 comes Linux, Wich one? U say with wich desktop Slackware what else if it's been around so long (more than XP) there has to be a reason, only good software live long the other die b4.
If MS had shorter OS life cycles, software developers and IT Managers would be less lazy about keeping their applications up to date. Ten years is a long time to write code and support a system. No wonder it's so hard to upgrade when hardware, software and code and hell even management techniques are totally different after that length of time. If everyone knew they only had two years to work with, they would keep things fresh, there would be budget available for constant upgrades as part of an ingrained IT strategy (strategy!!!!! I wish), the upgrade market would be cheaper since it's a more frequent ongoing cost with regular and constant guaranteed demand. We wouldn't need £10 million refresh programmes in organisations with a mere 4000 users. My organisation is on XP desktops and Office 2002. Exchange 2003. Somewhere they found the cash to implement VDI, and are now suffering the pain of trying to package applications that work on XP on a VMWare environment. And yet no one can come up with a Business Case to upgrade anything. This thread has been a pretty good way to compile a list of pro's and con's actually, so thanks /. !
Of course I forgot that it's all about reducing ongoing costs, because that makes your books look like you're being efficient, while wasting £8 million a year with your "capital" money on failed projects goes unnoticed.
(Public Sector, for context)
IBM urges you to get off OS/2, too.