Slashdot Mirror
IRS Misses XP Deadline, Pays Microsoft Millions For Patches
An anonymous reader writes "When Microsoft terminated official support for Windows XP on April 8th, many organizations had taken the six years of warnings to heart and migrated to another operating system. But not the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Only 52,000 of their 110,000 Windows-powered computers have been upgraded to Windows 7. They'll now be forced to pay Microsoft for Custom Support. How much? Using Microsoft's standard rate of $200 per PC, it'll be $11.6 million for one year. That leaves $18.4 million of their $30 million budget to finish the upgrades themselves, which works out to $317 per computer."
right into the pocket of microsoft thanks to mismanagement
Shouldn't that result in the patches being released for anyone to use?
AHAHAHAHA, sorry. Had to make the joke.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Time to pay up and downgrade off XP the best win os ever made.
IRS should how that one feels. A strong sense or irony or karma if you believe in the latter
http://saveie6.com/
My wife works for a large healthcare organization and they still have thousands of XP desktops/laptops deployed. Answer? Wing it w/o patches/support until they can get Windoze 7 deployed by probably the end of the year....
No hints needed!
So the IRS missed a deadline they knew was coming... I wonder what they would do to any of us in a similar but different situation?
Considering that they handle a lot of our money, they probably shouldn't be using an operating system that, while originally may have been impressive, is now probably soon to be riddled with security hole.
I find it funny though, that essentially Microsoft is "fining" the IRS for not upgrading.
Windows XP did not instantly become unsafe on April 8, 2014, the date Microsoft calls the "end of life" for Windows XP.
Governments and big corporations are often influenced by people with no technical knowledge. Because of their ignorance, governments have already paid Microsoft probably more than it costs to fix the few security defects found each year. However, the taxpayers of those governments will not be allowed to have the fixes. "End of life" is a way for Microsoft to make more money.
It's like Toyota told all owners of older Toyota vehicles that the vehicles are unsafe now and owners must buy new vehicles or pay millions of dollars to keep them. Except its worse: Software doesn't have mechanical wear.
This article contains tips about how to use any version of Microsoft Windows safely that can be shared with people you want to help. Unnecessary computer maintenance is an ugly way to make money.
I work at a large public organization that runs multiple large hospitals and a throng of clinics. We have not completed the XP -> 7 transition in time and are paying Microsoft for this extended support. Upgrading tens of thousands of systems with a myriad of specialized software isn't as easy as upgrading your home computer.
We must wait for vendors to upgrade their applications, ensure the updates work, and train users; this delayed us deploying new systems. Since medical applications aren't sexy nor cheap to make (HIPPA compliance being one of the reasons) Linux isn't an option.
Our goal is healthcare, this is the price for ensuring you have the best. Likewise the I.R.S' goal is collecting taxes, this is the price for them to implement that in the best manner they can.
Someone's taxes are going to be looked at with a fine tooth comb.... :D
Every corporation and agency is independently paying millions and millions to have them continue to patch their computers. I would not wager a guess at how much it costs to continue producing patches, but I cannot imagine it is more than a handful of full time devs.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
"... until they can get Windoze 7 deployed by probably the end of the year..."
By the end of the year, Microsoft will have already stopped selling Windows 7.
...By the end of the year, Microsoft will have already stopped selling Windows 7.
Selling and supporting are two different things.
What does it matter?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Why the hell are they using Windows? Government agencies should not be allowed to use proprietary software in the first place. Let stupid private companies throw themselves into any vendor's lock-in, but the people's data should not be subjected to it, ever!
Circumcision is child abuse.
Since I believe we (US taxoayers) will end up paying for their negligence, I think we would expect that whoever is their IT leader, responsible for their currency, is replaced or at least made personally liable (as an officer of the company in a publicly held enterprise would be to their shareholders). I know Gov agencies aren't a one-for-one for private enterprise but we need to hold our leaders publicly (and maybe personally) accountable for falling asleep at the wheel and probably costing us more money.
XP Works. Vista, 7, and 8 really don't
Wow, this has got to be one of the most opinionated and/or misinformed things I've read in quite a while. XP was the last consumer Windows that was more or less designed for the "isn't everybody an admin?" mindset. Part of Vista's bad reputation was due to it being the messenger that got shot while delivering the "hey guys, the party's over. We really need to stop assuming every user can write to system locations. This time for real." message to developers and users. Naturally the ultra-paranoid UAC settings didn't help with that. In 7 and 8 the new security model was fine-tuned to actually work instead of bombarding users with multiple confirmations for the same operation and as a result the modern versions of Windows are reasonably secure, especially when compared to the security nightmare that XP was prior to SP2.
The 30 day update schedule (same as it has been for years) means the last update on April 8th is good for at least May 8th right? The world will not collapse on April 9th in other words... Windows 7 is not a whole lot better... tired of the endless updates?? Tired of being held hostage to endless update priorities?? Shutting down to install, restarting to finish install etc. You didn't want to do anything with your computer for 30 minutes did you? really?? Install some media files and suddenly there is 90 updates to install. IS it just my machine, or is anybody else experiencing this lack of "productivity?" What Microscoffs touts "everyone has the 'right to be productive'." One day we will be spending more time updating our machines than using them.
It's cheaper for the IRS to pay the dime to continue to make patches so that they will be available to countless others who are caught with their pants down, costing far more in the economy and thus ultimately reducing revenue headed to the IRS.
They might actually make a profit off from doing this.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
That's not my point. My point is that Microsoft is already calling Windows 7 an out-of-date product. See my article for more about that: Windows XP did not instantly become unsafe on April 8, 2014,
Slashdot discriminates against AC posts. Probably the main reason reddit is better platform for discussion on news (throwaways essentially being AC posts).
I stopped posting here when I realized my posts were all getting deleted/modded down, then I stopped coming back when I realized I couldn't interact on the site!
This new Beta layout is nice, but hopefully they update the backbone of the threaded comment system, as well.
(n/t)
Just think how much money Microsoft would make by just shutting down. This is extortion, you know, extortion by copyright/patent
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's like Toyota told all owners of older Toyota vehicles that the vehicles are unsafe now and owners must buy new vehicles or pay millions of dollars to keep them. Except its worse: Software doesn't have mechanical wear.
A better analogy would be for Toyota to stop manufacturing parts for very old cars, and most car manufacturers do just that. Aftermarket is more able to fill the void in that case, but it's the same concept. And let's be real, $200 scaled up to a car would be thousands, not millions. Software doesn't have "mechanical" wear, but it has ongoing discovery of security vulnerabilities that require maintenance from the vendor. Delivering that maintenance costs money.
Even the newest systems that shipped with XP are really old now. Hell, I still use one at work (not by choice), and it's a slow piece of shit by today's standards. It's nice that so many have been able to sit on similar rigs for this long, but it's time to move on. That kind of service life in commodity-level PCs was almost unheard of a decade ago. Upgrades are a part of life in the tech business, and I don't think it's fair to bitch this time just because you got a little extra mileage out of the last round.
The masses of now-unsupported XP users reflects badly on the users, not Microsoft. If you missed the boat on a Windows 7 upgrade, it's your own damn fault. On the upside, the ensuing clusterfucks at various large enterprises should teach yet another hard lesson about the perils of under-funding your IT department.
Nice plug, by the way, though it's amusing that "Futurepower" is so willing to cling to the past.
One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
"... the last update on April 8th is good for at least May 8th right?"
Updates already issued will still be available. I read somewhere that updates are still available for Windows 98.
I agree; I also get tired of Microsoft's abuse of its customers. Go to my article and search for "Satan". How does it happen that the media allows Microsoft's abuse?
And, you can always use AutoPatcher to put all updates on your computer.
It is like if you buy a car from a Toyota dealership. It comes with a 3 year warranty, Toyota fix things that break on the car for 3 years. After 3 years they no longer provide free repairs, and you *gasp* must pay to have things fixed and replaced.
Microsoft is not forcing anyone to stop using XP, they just said that they are done providing free repairs.
This situation is similar to what the city I live in does with police cars, firetrucks, field mowers, etc. They sell them off once the warranty is up and buy the new version with a new warranty, aka upgrade to the new version so that they can get the free repairs. Or what many IT departments do, they get rid of equipment once the warranty is done. It is not that the companies are saying it is unsafe or bad to use these cars or laptops, just that they wont be providing anymore free repairs.
What makes XP so great to them? The ease with which software may be installed and configured. The stability of the platform to play Grand Theft Auto, et. al. What makes XP so terrible to technically knowledgeable people? The ease with which software may be installed and configured. The stability of the platform to provide elevated privileges and get an open connection on port 113 and run Sasser, et. al.
Damn it!
My UID is prime!
"Software ... has ongoing discovery of security vulnerabilities that require maintenance from the vendor."
Almost all vulnerabilities are caused by sloppy coding. Should only users be responsible for Microsoft's extreme sloppiness? Can software vendors profit if their software has defects?
Microsoft has issued 2,722 fixes for Windows XP. Is it still full of defects? See the section History of Windows XP.
Microsoft is already planning to do with Windows 7 what it did with Windows XP. Five years and 9 months from now, Windows 7 users should pay more? Again?
let the lawsuits commence...
Somebody else already did this. I forget who. But how many millions will they eventually get for keeping up the codebase yet not release patches?
Microsoft ... just said that they are done providing free repairs.
They are not repairs. They are defects caused by sloppy coding.
Do a Google search for General Motors recalls. General Motors pays.
That's just insane! Microsoft have bended them over a table and in a gimp suit and stuck the gobstopper up their arse. We are a medium sized company and we are seriously looking at moving, as much as possible, away from Microsoft and on to open-source. I think my company should pay me half of what it would have cost us in MS licenses ;)
Correction, it wasn't ignorance that caused Governments and other organisations to end up running late on project with a fixed delivery date at least five years in advance.
It was incompetence.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Windows XP did not instantly become unsafe on April 8, 2014, the date Microsoft calls the "end of life" for Windows XP.
No, it has been unsafe for at least a few years already. Windows XP does not support any encryption that's still considered secure.
Microsoft is "under no obligation to support" Windows XP? Fixing defects in sloppy coding is NOT "support". Almost all security vulnerabilities are caused by sloppy coding.
Under no obligation? Microsoft makes its own rules. Unfortunately, people have come to believe that software companies have no obligations to their customers. Does that seem correct to you?
It's not repairs, it's factory defects.
Raise taxes on microsoft.
MightyMartian, I want to be a MightyEarthman. It is my opinion that many of Microsoft's practices are abusive. There is a long history: Search for "Satan" in my article.
U.S. taxpayers should pay Microsoft to make fixes for the U.S. government, but not get those fixes themselves?
We must recognize and counteract abuse.
Support isn't just about security fixes. It is about being able to call to get support for any issue they experience, the average large corporate makes many of these calls every month, some of them are bug fixes, sometimes security sometimes it is simply misconfiguration. The article is probably a little overblown, they would be paying millions in support regardless of version, XP just raises that cost.
"Windows XP does not support any encryption that's still considered secure."
Not only is it not secure, it has been EXTREMELY buggy. People have lost their files to Microsoft's encryption bugs. Also, the U.S. government believes it can force executives to do anything it says, and keep that secret from taxpayers.
It is best to use only GPG and TrueCrypt for encryption, or other open source software. Open source software is much more difficult to manipulate.
From the assumption that IRS will pay standard joe off the street rate to Microsoft, to impossibility of running XP without support, not much in this article passes the muster of common sense. Chrome and Thunderbird are still well supported and secure, and that's all IRS employees should need in terms of accessing Internet. Everything else would be in-house applications which can be secured on server side, so it should be Ok even if they still have run IE6.
As for employees that don't follow instructions, there is nothing to keep them from installing freepr0n.exe on Win7.
"way too busy thrashing Tea Party miscreants."
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
So how could the IRS fund their Microsoft Custom Support? By seizing tax refunds.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
When the go and audit Microsoft. Closely.
Security fixes are fixes to defects in software. Support is different, I agree. Now the U.S. government will be paying its support organizations and companies as it always has, and Microsoft, also, because only Microsoft has the original code.
Do you have any idea how many security patches have been issued since the release of Linux Kernel 2.4? Because 2.4 came out right about when XP did.
The amount mentioned is not what the IRS pays. It is what the article assumes, based on number of PCs running XP and an estimatd average price of $200 per PC. But contracts are negotiated individually. The British government pays less than $10 million for all their computers, which includes about 650,000 PCs running XP in the health service, more than 10 times as many as in the US IRS.
If the IRS does decide to pay Microsoft for continued support of XP, the chances of it paying the standard $200 per PC rate is effectively zero.
The numbers in the summary are total fantasy.
"What makes XP so terrible to technically knowledgeable people? The ease with which software may be installed and configured."
I have never seen an XP limited user be able to install software. The problem is that the default user has administrator privileges, as I explain in the section One of Microsoft's methods of making money: Provide safety methods only professionals are likely to know. I regard that as intentional abuse by Microsoft.
Software doesn't have "mechanical" wear, but it has ongoing discovery of security vulnerabilities that require maintenance from the vendor. Delivering that maintenance costs money.
Such vulnerabilities can also be introduced by "maintenance". Also they can't be easily related to some metric of usage or time, unlike mechanical "wear".
All software has defects, it's the nature of the beast. If vendors were liable for every last bug in their software, the commercial software industry would not exist. (I'm sure there are freetards who feel that would be a good thing, but let's not go there.)
It's not like Microsoft deliberately released XP with 2,722 flaws with the intent to fix them gradually over the next ~12.5 years. That's the problem with security vulnerabilities- they need to be discovered. Odds are, there are plenty more in Windows XP that have yet to be found. XP EOL isn't going to make your XP machine explode and kill your family. Before long, though, unpatched XP systems will be rife with exposed vulerabilities. Browser updates will drop support for XP. It will become unsafe to use any XP machine in any capacity that involves internet connectivity. Advising your clients to continue using XP is irresponsible at best.
Really, since you're so convinced that MS is outright evil, I'm surprised you're not trying to push some linux-based XP replacement. Though, for what it's worth, even free operating systems often have an end of support life, absent any profit motive.
One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
Hoho! I can see it before me. The tech guys entering the meeting, thinking they're so clever. And one of the managers saying that. And a short pause and then the techies going "Eh, what? But... But... That's not right. That's not even wrong. Your words does not... mean... anything..."
And on that day, the tech guys were enlightened.
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
It is like if you buy a car from a Toyota dealership. It comes with a 3 year warranty, Toyota fix things that break on the car for 3 years. After 3 years they no longer provide free repairs, and you *gasp* must pay to have things fixed and replaced.
Plenty of places have laws that require goods to be of "reasonable quality".
In the case of a manufacturing defect these can be applicable for considerably longer than 3 years. (Possibly with seller, rather than maker, having to pay.)
A problem with software is that it can fall outside the scope of such laws. Even if it's sold as a "widget".
True on both points. However, It doesn't change the fact that software still "ages" in a way, and that software that works acceptably at one point in time may become unsafe to continue using at a later date. GP seems to think that the intangible nature of software means that its utility can't diminish over time.
One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
RHEL, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, is a very different situation. A new version of Linux does not obsolete old versions, it is an upgrade to old versions. Also, there are free versions of Linux, and many organizations support many versions.
That is VERY different from the situation with Microsoft. Microsoft has a virtual monopoly. There is no monopoly involving Linux.
I wonder why it is so difficult for people to recognize and deal with abuse.
I've made a decent living off dealing with legacy Linux systems.
It doesn't matter if you need IE5 for your internal bullshit, or PHP 4.x. You've mismanaged things badly, and the operating system is not at fault, nor would changing it to something else provide some magical unicorn-fart shooting cure.
that's that the IRS will actually be paying? Yes XP is being deprecated (good thing), yes MS is putting a price on the support of those unable to do so (good thing), no the IRS isn't going to be paying that.
Hypothetical situation. I am an IT director. I track trillions in revenues and hundreds of billions in taxes. Do I 1)
switch to a new system with unknown security risks and associated costs in upgrading in house systems and applications?
or
2) Do I stick with a true and tried system for a few tens of millions more?
No brainer. Stick with the devil you know. This is not some happy little mobile app like the "Annoyed Nematode" you are dealing with the financial futures of both the US government and each and every person who must file taxes.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
It's just your machine.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Almost all vulnerabilities are caused by sloppy application coding. - ftfy.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Lol, nobody takes you seriously you deranged neckbeard.
The situation with Red Hat is very different. Old versions of Linux were stable and finished.
When Windows XP was first released, it was extremely sloppy. It seems to me that it is reasonable to say that Service Pack 3 for Windows XP finally made the OS a somewhat finished product. Service Pack 3 of Windows XP was released on May 6, 2008. By that measure, Windows XP is 6 years old.
Well, dear IRS, if you missed the deadline, Microsoft will keep your 'donation' just like you keep ours.
Purely chosen randomly, of course.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Let me flip this?
What can you do on a nice shiny new i5core Dell box that your XP system can not?
Can you type faster? Can you think faster? Do webpages load up faster? Do pie charts in excel pop up quicker?
Where are the productivity enhancements to pay for this investment?? ... I am waiting. That's right there is none. So it is not an asset. It is a cost center and an expense. This is why XP is still around.
It works and the cost is already set. Instead of blowing millions like my employer is upgrading how about the millions be used to raise the share price higher? Isn't that the goal of business? Or hire new salespeople? Or buy new factories? Or upgrade trucks to lower costs? All those bring in more revenue than the cost so therefore they are a profit center and an asset.
Look you like technology like many of us and that is great. But at some point it is trivial eye candy. If security wasn't an issue no one would bother upgrading except enthusiasts.
http://saveie6.com/
Clearly they should be using Open BSD
That misses the point. Taxpayers are paying for the fixes. Everyone should be allowed to have them.
Please
Yes I was for people keeping XP too if there was no reason to upgrade.
However software does need updating. Look at the openssl heartbeat bug? Linux and apache have many that Slashdot mysteriously never report and lazy unix admins never upgrade which are constantly hacked! Java has issues. .NET has issues. Windows has issues. Solaris has issues. Nuclear reactor software written in freaking cobol for Digital's pre-VMS OS is still being updated today and run on PDP-11's in Europe.
Sometimes things change like standards, new hardware, new currency rules, timezone changes in law, etc.
http://saveie6.com/
Software never ages. It can run forever.
However, yes updates do come into play depending on use. Citigroup has a 45 year old mainframe app to do its processing. There is no need to upgrade and the punchcards will lost many decades ago so it can never be updated.
http://saveie6.com/
We are discussing vulnerabilities, not new features.
The reason the U.S. government is paying Microsoft to continue to fix defects in Windows XP is that somehow people have come to accept that Microsoft products will always have vulnerabilities.
It is my understanding that the "obsolete" version of Linux are still working very, very well, with few vulnerabilities, almost all of which could be fixed without changing versions, and all of which could be fixed without payment.
We are discussing vulnerabilities, not new features.
You said this, and I agree: "Nuclear reactor software written in freaking cobol for Digital's pre-VMS OS is still being updated today and run on PDP-11's in Europe."
There is no reason for hundreds of millions of customers of Microsoft Windows XP to buy new hardware. If XP is working for them, good, nothing new is necessary.
If the U.S. government pays for Microsoft to fix the defects in its software, then the taxpayers must be given those fixes without further payment.
"That amount wont cover the cost for a whole year."
Several governments are paying, not just the U.S. government. I give links in my article.
Others have said, and I agree, the amount the U.S. government is paying should be far more than enough to provide fixes for the few vulnerabilities that are found in the next year.
Remember, there have already been 2,722 fixes in Windows XP. It seems that eventually, no matter how sloppy the coding was in the beginning, Windows XP will have very few additional vulnerabilities. Perhaps a widely fixed OS is more secure than an new OS.
"Using Microsoft's standard rate of $200 per PC, it'll be $11.6 million for one year."
Its still probably cheaper. A new PC cause more than $200, plus user training, IT support (replacing the PCs) Tech support for users unfamiliar with Win7. and Win7 really blows!
They had plenty of time and warning to upgrade--fuck'em
Why not just say fuck it and not patch anything. What's the worse that happens? It's the IR fucking S for god's sake.
As we are talking about an organisation here its easy to tell whats so great about XP. They have all their applications tested and proven on XP, and risk breaking their work-flow with an upgrade. Possibly they not only risk it but know that they have software that will fail, more than likely they have attempted a migration that failed in a test environment.
For your irrelevant examples about non-organisation the above reason may actually apply. However this area are well researched and if you bothered to check the information that are already available on internet you would know why people do not upgrade. The number one reason are that XP are a desktop OS while Win 8 are a Tablet OS. Windows Vista/7 are somewhere in between. But the majority of those that stick with XP think that its GUI are superior for desktop usage, and if they upgrade they will lose that GUI for something considered inferior. The second reason are the compatibility problems, but they should have faded away by now.
Also you will not win an argument by lying. A patched and properly set up XP do not have any of the problem that you describe. While its true that XP have quite insecure settings, I am quite sure that an organisation like IRS have the resources to extend it with third party software that takes care of such problems. If you have a problem with the default security of XP, why don't you just configure XP properly?
Note that the GUI may also be a problem for the IRS, but not likely a problem that blocks them from upgrading.
I think that any organization still using XP has failed an IT test. This does not mean that the IT people suck but that some aspect of IT sucks. It could be that the IT people can't proactively spend money to avoid expenses such as this and can only spend money when they have to. This is broken. I wouldn't be surprised if some dolts in these organizations are now saying that the budget to upgrade from XP has been eaten by these licensing costs.
What I have seen before is that some minor OS upgrade comes along and the various parties say, "Hey we need a minor upgrade to our software to keep up." this is then refused so after the next OS update they say, "He we pretty desperately need a medium sized upgrade to catch up." this is refused. This goes on and on until basically they are screaming, "We MUST upgrade now and the upgrade is a major overhaul of how everything works." then the worst thing in the world happens, they agree. The problem being that some sleazy mega-sized consulting company comes in and starts throwing around "best-practices" and $50 million later a completely useless system that is actually far worse than the 12 year old pile of crap they have is born. Then another $50 million is spent getting it to barely work.
The probable cost to have had a continuous stream of upgrades in the first place? Maybe $500,000 per year.
Microsoft should charge them triple, and propose confiscating all assets for such a mistake. After all, that's what the IRS would do.
Windows XP did not instantly become unsafe on April 8, 2014...
That's correct, it was instantly unsafe on August 24, 2001.
Considering they had 6 years to get their act together I find this appalling. That is 11.6 million dollars that could have been left in tax payer pockets or put towards something actually useful.
"... shutting down support of a 13 year old OS..."
Microsoft is not stopping support. Microsoft is now charging huge amounts for support. And the arrangement is that those who pay for the support for government computers, the taxpayers, will not get the fixes for which they paid. That's the entire point of this Slashdot story.
"Yes Microsoft has done many nasty things..."
Isn't that arrangement one of them?
If a computer system is serving people or an organization in a manner considered sufficient, it is sensible to continue with that hardware and software. Software is not biological. It doesn't get "old".
A lot of corporate computing is data entry, which doesn't require fast hardware.
"And guess who's footing the bill??"
Lots of taxpayers and corporations. It is hugely profitable for Microsoft. Here are stories about 2 other governments, from an article I wrote:
Dutch government to pay Microsoft 'millions' to extend XP support (April 4, 2014)
(U.K.) Government signs 5.5m [pounds] Microsoft deal to extend Windows XP support (April 2, 2014)
I realize it may seem like Microsoft has the IRS over a barrel, but keep in mind that the US Government does have a bit of negotiating power on prices due to its sheer size and the common use of large comprehensive contracts. I'm sure they aren't paying the average price for support.
Analysts noted earlier this year that Microsoft had dramatically raised prices for Custom Support, which previously had been capped at $200,000 per customer for the first year. Instead, Microsoft negotiates each contract separately, asking for an average of $200 per PC for the first year of Custom Support.
Emphasis mine.
So they are paying $30 million to migrate to Windows 7. According to the article they have 58,000 PCs left to upgrade. That's $517.24 per machine. Licenses for Windows 7 Ultimate and Pro seem to be between $150 and $200 a pop on GSA Advantage. Throw in some CALs, software assurance, or other essential software, and it is probably leaving less than the $200 per machine average for the Custom Support.
Should they have dragged their feet this long to upgrade? Of course not. But I wonder if something set them back.
[quote]Can you type faster? Can you think faster?[/quote]
No. Those are limitations in a piece of hardware we call "humans," not the fault of any software.
[quote]Do webpages load up faster? Do pie charts in excel pop up quicker?[/quote]
Yes, actually. And Excell itself will pop-up quicker to boot.
[quote]Where are the productivity enhancements to pay for this investment??[/quote]
Uh...what? We're going to ignore the obvious benefits of upgrading hardware for now. Instead, lets talk about this "investment." They would be [i]saving[/i] money by upgrading, it would seem. Hell, they don't even have to buy all new hardware. Just install a more recent OS on the computers you've got, and not piss away a couple extra million to support dead software.
The IRS can get back the money by making sure that Microsoft and the executives there pay their taxes correctly. To some extent the IRS sets their own rules.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
So how long did XP without service pack have support? How about XP SP1? Linux kernel 2.4 has reached end of life, but with code available there might be patches made by individuals who need it. You are comparing a kernel with an operating system, if you wanted to beat the linux crowd ask them about any distribution individual release. I was pleased to find out that the last version of SuSE before being acquired by Novell still has some mirrors on the net.
uhm...
Seems only fair given how they treat the average citizen (i,e. non-politicians, non-moguls)
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
im buying 3ghz 2 gig core 2 duo's with w7 installed for 99 bucks a pop (off lease IBM pizzaboxes)
they aint the fastest machine at the track, but more than enough for office and email
so whats the fucking problem?
They could switch to something with perpetual support. No. So they go back to the one that has been fleecing them and sucking money out of them year on year. $317 per computer per year. Wholesale, you can buy high end replacements in 2 years at that price, and never have to pay them another penny. Nope. Stupid is a stupid does.
Wonder how many people would be willing to pay that 200$ year to continue support for XP... Sounds like that could me big business opportunity for Microsoft at time when Windows 8 is in rough sea sailing..
What can you do on a nice shiny new i5core Dell box that your XP system can not?
Access more than 4 GB of RAM which is necessary for most modern science and engineering applications. Same goes for video editing, graphics, etc. applications.
Where are the productivity enhancements to pay for this investment?? ... I am waiting. That's right there is none.
If all people did all day was word processing and spread sheets, a vintage 68040 Mac II running System 7 with WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 would still be adequate. But try supporting vintage Macs in a productivity environment, I would hope your supply of SCSI hard drives doesn't run out. Same goes for XP, spare parts are getting more and more scarce with time.
Look you like technology like many of us and that is great. But at some point it is trivial eye candy. If security wasn't an issue no one would bother upgrading except enthusiasts.
I think you're just a troll. Most people on /. would know that Win 7 or a modern 64-bit LINUX compared to XP is more than just eye candy.
Did you read that article? Huge chunks of it are nonsense. For example that flaws aren't as bad... what hackers need is write access to the file system if they get that they get everything else. And those are still being found. He gives an example of FreeBSD as a place where these security flaws don't happen, which is of course nonsense as HeartBeat shows quite well.
Microsoft sells a limited lifetime product. They have never claimed that their products are defect free forever. They have always supported the idea that a customer should move from OS version to OS version. It is not a defect of Microsoft's that you don't want to use their product in the way intended.
if you can't tell the difference between a p4 2.4ghz(when you were lucky, in those years) and an i5, you have some serious perception problems. Try open 20 tabs of google plus on chrome, and scroll them. I can do that smoothly with a laptop with i3, 8gb of ram.
It's not going to augment your ability to think or to type, but sure thing web sites will load faster, your megaexcel table that you are using instead of a more appropriate program will load and calculate faster.
people like you are the reason we are in this mess now.
OpenBSD might very well have more defects. Moreover
a) the core OpenBSD code (i.e. what Theo actually fixes) is a tiny codebase compared to Microsoft something like 3 orders of magnitude smaller
b) the core OpenBSD codebase changes more slowly. While both Microsoft and OpenBSD are conservative over the last quarter century Microsoft has ripped out far more of their subsystems and added newer features to them.
Theo does a terrific job. But Theo also does a much smaller job.
Which is total nonsense. Under Balmer Microsofts earnings and sales exploded. http://venturebeat.files.wordp... The entire enterprise class software explosion (SQL Server, Dynamics, SharePoint...) happened under Balmer.
Stop trying to use logic to discredit an article that gets these /. geeks in such a froth. These are people who use logic for a living, but ignore it when it suits their cause.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
They sold their product under a contract that clearly specified the support period, which was then repeatedly extended at no cost to anyone who bought XP.
Windows XP is archaic by modern standards. Yes, some people have to use it or buy new scientific/industrial/medical equipment, but that can hardly be blamed on Microsoft.
When you last bought any piece of electronics or machinery, did it come with implied free support for all eternity? No, you got a well defined warranty period and beyond that you are expected to pay up. Same here.
100% true and why corps love XP. 90% of staff run fine off a pentuimIV so the cost accountants will find a better use of the money
http://saveie6.com/
I haven't been making the complex issues clear enough.
Concerns about Microsoft's business practices:
1) Security fixes that cost huge amounts of money. Linux: None.
2) Security fixes available only to some customers. Linux: None.
3) Business practices that create artificial profit-making arrangements. Linux: Difficult because there are so many suppliers.
4) New versions of software that deliberately and unnecessarily try to obsolete old software. Linux: None.
5) New versions of operating systems that try to be so resource-intensive that they cannot run well on old hardware. Linux: Find the oldest computer in your attic. Install Linux Mint.
"Microsoft sells a limited lifetime product."
The question is, should Microsoft, a company with a virtual monopoly, be allowed to create anti-customer profit-making arrangements?
Microsoft is being PAID for continued fixes to Windows XP. Should governments allow Microsoft to prevent those fixes being given to taxpayers?
I just added a better explanation of that to my article, Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": What to do?, which is written to explain the issues for people with little technical knowledge. See the section titled, Can Microsoft prevent distribution to taxpayers?
As I said elsewhere here and in my article, the question is, should Microsoft, a company with a virtual monopoly, be allowed to create anti-customer profit-making arrangements?
Microsoft is being PAID by the U.S. government for continued fixes to Windows XP. Should governments allow Microsoft to prevent those fixes being given to taxpayers?
Should a company be allowed to manage software development in such a way that there are many defects, and then pressure customers to pay for new software with some of those defects fixed?
Good point. I overstated my ideas. However, it is my understanding that it is possible to fix security defects in recent versions of Linux without paying more. I'm not talking about ancient versions.
It is important to understand that Windows Vista was so unfinished that it was rejected by customers. Windows 8 and 8.1 have also been rejected. So, Windows XP is just one accepted version behind the latest accepted version, Windows 7.
My main point is in response to this Slashdot story. Microsoft is being PAID for continued fixes to Windows XP. Should governments allow Microsoft to prevent those fixes being given to taxpayers?
"... nobody is going to die or be injured because an old PC got pwned."
Financial loss is considered legal injury.
Yes. Anti-monopoly rules don't prevent profits they prevent things like spreading to other industries. So for example it would be unreasonable to prevent them from using an OS monopoly to try and lock people into their office suite. It is perfectly reasonable for them to make excess profit from their OS (though I'd disagree that's what's going on) because that is likely to encourage more marketplace diversity.
That's all besides with the rise of Android, OSX now having more market share, Linux being viable (though rarely used), and a 1/2 dozen minor systems becoming much cheaper I'm not even sure it is reasonable to classify Microsoft as having a monopoly anymore.
Of course. What you are talking about is nationalization not anti-monopoly provisions. The government if it considers Microsoft be a critical utility could pay Microsoft share and bond holders off and nationalize it if they want Microsoft run completely in the public interest.
For mismanaging enough money to feed hundreds of people of people for a whole year
Correct - it's been unsafe for many years but third party stuff helps to make it usable.
Anything that requires more memory than the artificial memory ceiling on XP. Something as trivial as editing a few photos from a camera on a phone can use all that up these days.
And it's not a Microsoft problem it's an XP problem - I've got an old Win2k system at work that gets fired up every year or two with more memory than XP can use. XP is a toy that got used long enough that people got used to it but it's still a toy made to run computer games at home.
A typical office latchkey can do office work fine with 512 megs of ram on XP. Yes it will boot slowly and he will have to come in 5 minutes early. But only the engineers, developers, and servers need anything more for light office work.
You can edit photos fine with 512 megs of ram if you use Adobe CS2 which is free and what XP users would be using. IE 8 runs fine with 512 megs of ram too. So why change if people can still get work done just as well?
Sure a new $600 computer sounds trivial for a user but when you are complex you have +20 GPOs (some are not win 7 compatible), apps, fussy apps, OU changes, and many many other issues it gets expensive and a pain in the butt requiring consultants, +20 temps, and production impacts as bugs arise.
XP is not just a toy. It is the pillar upon all business processes and software rest upon. Quite a big under taking.
http://saveie6.com/
You are right. I can't tell the difference between a reception typing a letter in word 2003 on a p4 vs an i5. She can work just as fast and albeit slower on Windows 7/office 2010 as she may not be familiar with the ribbon yet.
People at work use older IE so that issue of 20 tabs is mute as Chrome is a pig and not a good example of a well written app.
Excel will work just as fast on a pIV unless the finance guru runs a custom VBA application running calculus in excel that number crunches (very rare I may add unless it is a niche app). But for light excel pie charts a 386 can display things as fast for 95% of spreadsheet work as computers today are very very very fast.
http://saveie6.com/
It is a limited toy compared with Microsoft's own products available at the same time.
Your suggested workflow is also available on an Atari ST or first generation Mac, but people expect more than those or a ten year old PC can offer.
Such as ...?
FYI I am typing this on a Windows 7 system I have at home. I use more yes I use VMware workstation with my 16 gigs of ram to simulate domains and do testing and lab work to sharpen my IT skills. But I am not typical. So I am not a 50 year old who hates change at all and wanted to clear that up first.
Security wise excluded XP works for business except in niche cases I see and it is very very expensive to switch and gpos, app certification, and many other steps are needed for something that is not required does not make sense.
I do not know of any use a typical office worker could not do on a Windows 3.11 486? The only except is poorly written javascript ajax websites but that is considered off task on the job anyway.
XP works for 1/3 of the users on the internet. Windows hit the maturity point with XP and now there is no reason to ever change. As the years go by when 2019 hits and Windows 7 goes EOL anyone needing more than 16 gigs of ram and a non raid SSD will be even a much smaller niche. Again no need to change unless MS wants more money.
Yes you like technology and some newer graphical effects and kernel features are cool. But HR does not utilize 4 cpu cores to write a report, check email, and go to taleo to screen an applicant. This is a new age and yes post PC era. Phones need upgrading hell of a lot more than desktops as the benefits go down each new release.
http://saveie6.com/
That gives them until 15 October!
When it's not your money, you don't care. There are foster children who think water coming from the tap is free and unlimited. They don't understand why you can't turn on the hot water tap in the kitchen full blast, and leave the faucet on while you're cooking, because their mothers never paid a water bill in their lives. These same people work for the IRS. They're not paying for the water, so this means it must be free.
For years, Microsoft has been attempting to rent out their software instead of selling it outright. Having a yearly cost for an OS or Office suite is what they've been attempting to do for years.
It started with their Enterprise licensing where they started charging "Software Update Assurance", basically for a yearly cost per computer you 'rent' any version of their software (usually a Windows/Office/CAL combo). Then they went to Office365 where you paid for both storage, server and the desktop software on a yearly basis outright, no more buying the Office suite, no more buying Exchange and also, you're locked in because you can't get your data out anymore. Now they've come full circle where you rent their OS suite. Since they've tested the waters over the last 2 decades and know that large companies rather remain locked in because it's a cheaper solution for the next quarter, they can now keep raising their prices as they're doing with Software Update Assurance (it went up 30% last year), Office365 and now Windows ($200/year). Expect the next Windows to cost a pretty penny on a yearly basis as well.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The article linked above is not to the GP's article.
You would think that, by now, we would have some compnay like Red Hat or Google contracting out Linux-based systems and support for critical infrastructure. Since *nix/*BSD is the backbone of the Internet, why do they depend on Windows?
The UK government I believe is getting updates for 1 more year this way as well. I bet all these updates will be leaked online!
OK, FOSS, step up to the plate.
Get me a VM host image that can boot underneath XP and secure it. Make a world where XP is safe. I am pretty sure you have the tools.
Where is the torrent?
--
There's a big difference between the right answer and the correct answer - Scott Myer, Basic Instructions
"... the EULA clearly states that Microsoft made no warranties regarding the quality of their software."
True. But should there be no control of any kind over the behavior of a software company?
Can Microsoft ask the U.S. government to pay for security fixes, while preventing those fixes from being given to taxpayers?
A old system good enough for typing up reports is going to be seen to be inadequate the second someone sends something to it in a new format or the second someone sends an amusing cat video. Telling the user that it's good enough for work purposes and they should ask for things in an old format and tell their friends to stop sending the amusing cat videos tends to put you in Bastard Operator From Hell territory or Dilbert's denier of information services. Memory, low end systems that can take a decent amount of memory and a modern OS is so cheap now that it looks insulting if you deny them something as good as the home computer they got for a low price three years ago. If they've used a decent system they probably are used to leaving programs open so they'll bring XP to it's knees if they don't learn to only have one thing running at a time. XP isn't designed to be used like a workstation, it's a toy to run one game at a time full screen with a side benefit of being able to run a word processor so you can bring the games machine into an office.
It's got that step backwards into a low memory ceiling which is now a very major reason to change for anyone that likes to have more than one window open at a time.
Put even simple images in a document and such a system is unusable - I know that from plenty of frustrating experience back in the day.
If they want to burn a CDROM they need at least two unless they just want to stare at the screen until it is finished. I've still got a single core machine around that proves that point from time to time, although now it's just doing good duty as an X terminal for a guy who does all his real work on a cluster so the single core and low memory does not matter.
:) While they probably could do their work related tasks with "ed" on a dumb terminal connected to Xenix running on a 286 the workflow would annoy the crap out of them - the same with a less extreme suggestion of yours that they would consider as antiquated as my Xenix example. Giving a new employee a slow XP box is a way to get rid of them even if the older employees like XP.
Now while I have some XP systems for users that don't need anything else, or on hardware that can't cope with anything newer (Dell laptop with a 1600x1200 screen and can't justify $5k to get something newer with as good a screen), it appears to me that the average user is getting up to stuff that needs more memory than XP can provide.
Also your HR strawman would be on Facebook most of the time and sharing silly cat videos a lot of the rest of the time so needs a powerful PC even if it is not for work purposes
"The king's cheese is half wasted in parings; but no matter, 'tis made of the people's milk." - Ben Franklin
I wish Ben Franklin were in charge of government spending - either the federal government, or California's goverment (my state). We need someone with a sense of responsibility and planning ahead.
Why not? They created an artificial problem then made money off a defenseless bureaucracy.
OP - your post is incorrect. The max a company would pay was $2M. Microsoft stated a ceiling, or MAX in their pricing. The max the IRS WOULD have paid was $2M.
Also - this pricing was revised several weeks ago...they reduced their pricing to $250K max. So - $250K for support on a product that is no longer supported for the IRS' 58,000 desktops left on WXP... not a bad deal.
Do your research. or was your objective just to stir people up?
as far as the comments on W7/8 - I ran W7 since it came out - it's fine. . Have ran W8 since it came out - it works fine as well. /Have never had a BSOD or compat issues.
The newest systems sold with XP are netbooks. I think production of netbooks with XP stopped around 2010, and that really isn't that long ago. So Microsoft can't support something five years after issuing the license and selling it?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes