If you think Google Docs cuts it, then you haven't really seen the features of Office used.
Google Docs is a nice free toy, but it is FAR away from approaching Office.
I fully agree that 90% of users do not need more than 10% of the features in MS Office. The thing is, those 90% of users don't need the same 10% of the features.
It only takes a single needed missing feature to make anything else a nonstarter, that is why MS Works is finally gone, the fact is, MS Office with "everything" is what works best, even if you never use everything.
I currently use Office 2010, I'll skip 2013 and wait for 2017, simply because the current one is fine and the learning curve makes skipping each generation worthwhile. The cost isn't even an issue, Office Home and Student is a hundred bucks, Office 365 is $70 a year if you really want everything and to install multiple times.
Linux hasn't replaced Windows, and it is free. There is far more to the cost of software than just what you pay for it.:)
Windows XP does handle 2TB just fine, it does not handle SSDs as well. It also doesn't really use the 4GB of ram in those BB computers, and a lot of machines have 8GB now.
XP also uses an older driver model, the way Windows Vista/7/8 handle drivers is better than the old way, display drivers being the single biggest improvement.
You're also mistaken about the Windows 7 options. If you buy a copy of Windows 8 Pro, you can downgrade to Windows 7 Pro. In addition, companies that use a volume licence can install almost any version of Windows they want, so long as each seat is paid for.
Windows 8 happened due to Microsoft taking their eyes off the desktop ball and being suckered into phones and tablets. In fairness, I understand why, they are worried about computer use habbits changing and they not changing with the times.
How many companies have been accused of not improving? Microsoft is dammed if they do, dammed if they don't. Keep it the same and half the people will say they aren't keeping up with technology and living in the past, change it all and the other half will say "stop messing with my OS!".
What they really should have done was hedged their bets and offered both options, boot to desktop on desktops (hey, what a thought!) and boot to Metro on anything with a touchscreen (hey, what it was designed for).
Balmer is gone, we'll finally hopefully see some change and improvement, finally...
BTW, Vista sucked due to the hardware not being ready and the drivers sucking for about a year or so, Vista fully updated and patched today on current hardware is actually just fine. Keep in mind that it was launched in 2006 on hardware that looks downright quaint today.:)
Is it? What is the labor cost of having a truck that only goes 5 mph? What is the labor cost of having to screw around with something so old, you have to park it on a hill to start it?
What is the business risk that it just doesn't start one day, a critical day, and it takes time to fix or get a replacement, yet the crops are ready to go?
It is called stepping over dollars to pickup pennies.
I'm all for being frugal, but at some point you're just being foolish.
It will take real losses and lawsuits that follow those losses before those vendors change their tune.
The old "dongles" need to go away, they go out of date faster than the hardware they run on, sooner or later someone with big pockets is going to suffer a loss traced to such a thing and turn around and sue their vendor.
That, and the whole computer revolution is still chugging along.
As long as we continue to fit 2x as many transistors in the same space every 18 months, you simply can't compare computer advancements to anything else.
Once that slows down, the business model will change, but the fact is a computer today can easily have more RAM in it than a computer had in total hard drive space 10 years ago, to say nothing of 20 years.
Yes, most of what we have today, was coming out about 10 years ago, give or take a year...
But computers in 2004 may have had a 20GB hard drive and 1GB of RAM. Today they have 2TB hard drives and 16GB of RAM.
In order to continue development and have anything new in 10 years, we have to let 2004 go and move towards 2024. We can't do that and hold on to Windows XP, an OS that was really written in the late 1990s.
And there is nothing wrong with using XP for that machine for the next 20 years...
So long as it isn't online, isn't used for anything else, etc...
It doesn't even have to know what decade it is in, just run the transmission dynaometer and that's it...
Your only real issue is that at some point, spare parts for the computer itself may become hard to get, I personally would invest in 1 or 2 spare computers, clone the current one, set them in storage, and have them for backups. It shouldn't cost much, a few hundred dollars, and you'll have backups to the one part that is least likely to get support.
You can do all that, if you know what you're doing, which 90%+ of computer users do not, nor will they EVER do that...
Upgrading to Windows 7 or 8 makes far more sense.
Just last year I managed to get my Mother off Windows XP, I simply told her that it was time and that if she wanted any further computer help from me, she had to do it, I haven't personally used XP in years and my skills in it are starting to rust and frankly I have no interest in messing with EOL support.
It was $500 to buy a brand new machine that is about 10 times faster than her old 2005 model (one of the very first Athlon X2 machines, just before the Core 2 line came out). Her new machine is a Core i5 and runs Windows 7 and runs rings around the old machine. I did spend $100 and put an SSD in for her, what a difference that makes.:)
For offline machines that are kept for a single task, such as running an expensive machine and they do nothing else, you can generally lock them down to the point where it doesn't matter.
For general use Internet connected machines, yea, XP needs to go, and frankly, needed to go years ago.
Windows 7, for general computer use, is far superior to XP from just about every angle.
Slashdot Mirror
Working in IT is actually the worst example...
Try management, marketing, sales, customer support, etc...
Those depts need MS Office far more than IT does...
Tell that to Iran who had the computers running their nuclear centrifuges air gapped.
If you think Google Docs cuts it, then you haven't really seen the features of Office used.
Google Docs is a nice free toy, but it is FAR away from approaching Office.
I fully agree that 90% of users do not need more than 10% of the features in MS Office. The thing is, those 90% of users don't need the same 10% of the features.
It only takes a single needed missing feature to make anything else a nonstarter, that is why MS Works is finally gone, the fact is, MS Office with "everything" is what works best, even if you never use everything.
I currently use Office 2010, I'll skip 2013 and wait for 2017, simply because the current one is fine and the learning curve makes skipping each generation worthwhile. The cost isn't even an issue, Office Home and Student is a hundred bucks, Office 365 is $70 a year if you really want everything and to install multiple times.
Linux hasn't replaced Windows, and it is free. There is far more to the cost of software than just what you pay for it. :)
Windows XP does handle 2TB just fine, it does not handle SSDs as well. It also doesn't really use the 4GB of ram in those BB computers, and a lot of machines have 8GB now.
XP also uses an older driver model, the way Windows Vista/7/8 handle drivers is better than the old way, display drivers being the single biggest improvement.
You're also mistaken about the Windows 7 options. If you buy a copy of Windows 8 Pro, you can downgrade to Windows 7 Pro. In addition, companies that use a volume licence can install almost any version of Windows they want, so long as each seat is paid for.
Windows 8 happened due to Microsoft taking their eyes off the desktop ball and being suckered into phones and tablets. In fairness, I understand why, they are worried about computer use habbits changing and they not changing with the times.
How many companies have been accused of not improving? Microsoft is dammed if they do, dammed if they don't. Keep it the same and half the people will say they aren't keeping up with technology and living in the past, change it all and the other half will say "stop messing with my OS!".
What they really should have done was hedged their bets and offered both options, boot to desktop on desktops (hey, what a thought!) and boot to Metro on anything with a touchscreen (hey, what it was designed for).
Balmer is gone, we'll finally hopefully see some change and improvement, finally...
BTW, Vista sucked due to the hardware not being ready and the drivers sucking for about a year or so, Vista fully updated and patched today on current hardware is actually just fine. Keep in mind that it was launched in 2006 on hardware that looks downright quaint today. :)
Is it? What is the labor cost of having a truck that only goes 5 mph? What is the labor cost of having to screw around with something so old, you have to park it on a hill to start it?
What is the business risk that it just doesn't start one day, a critical day, and it takes time to fix or get a replacement, yet the crops are ready to go?
It is called stepping over dollars to pickup pennies.
I'm all for being frugal, but at some point you're just being foolish.
If it were greed, Microsoft would charge you $50 per seat, per year, for continued XP support.
Yes, it is needed...
When you get out of school and move on to the real world, you'll find businesses use MS Office, it is the standard and is quite useful...
Social media is nice, but that isn't where business is done...
My wife does just that, but she uses a Droid 3 for it. It no longer is a "phone", it has been wiped and setup just for use thanks to HDMI out.
The phone itself has almost no dollar value, but it is a great device for connecting to a TV.
Yes, but the ax sold back then is more or less the same as the ax sold today.
The same is not true of computers, hence the problem with such comparisons.
If the machine costs over $1M and the vendor will do an upgrade for $20K, that is cheap.
Nice story, but frankly that old truck is an example of extreme life extension. :)
I'm all for getting your use out of equipment, but I think that one is past its prime, past its extended life, and past its dead by date. :)
Then the Target data breach happens...
The problem is people keep saying "it works, why change it".
No, it doesn't work, having security holes is not "working", it is broken.
The first task is to change the status from "working" to "broken due to unpatchable security holes".
It will take real losses and lawsuits that follow those losses before those vendors change their tune.
The old "dongles" need to go away, they go out of date faster than the hardware they run on, sooner or later someone with big pockets is going to suffer a loss traced to such a thing and turn around and sue their vendor.
Lawyers have a funny way of making things move.
Of course it will continue to work, it just won't be supported.
Microsoft isn't being greedy, they are in business to make money, not provide free support for decades for software that you paid for a LONG time ago.
That, and the whole computer revolution is still chugging along.
As long as we continue to fit 2x as many transistors in the same space every 18 months, you simply can't compare computer advancements to anything else.
Once that slows down, the business model will change, but the fact is a computer today can easily have more RAM in it than a computer had in total hard drive space 10 years ago, to say nothing of 20 years.
You are looking at it all wrong...
Yes, most of what we have today, was coming out about 10 years ago, give or take a year...
But computers in 2004 may have had a 20GB hard drive and 1GB of RAM. Today they have 2TB hard drives and 16GB of RAM.
In order to continue development and have anything new in 10 years, we have to let 2004 go and move towards 2024. We can't do that and hold on to Windows XP, an OS that was really written in the late 1990s.
If cars had the same level of improvement, we'd all be getting 1,000+ MPGs and driving at 1,000 MPH.
If cars today could do either of those, do you think ANYONE would be driving a 20 year old car? (besides the odd collector)
A 20 MPG car would be insane and a waste of time in a world of 1,000 MPG cars.
That is why 20 year old computers are very rarely used anymore.
Even Supercomputers have this problem, go look up ASCI Red, once the world's most powerful computer, less than 20 years ago.
Today? It no longer exists, it was taken apart because replacements were faster, cheaper, and smaller, using far less power.
C and C++ may not have changed as much, but the computers they run on sure have...
10 years ago, my desktop computer had a 20GB hard drive.
Today, my desktop computer has 32GB of RAM.
What a change... the world moved on, the pace of computers FAR exceeds the pace of... well, just about everything else...
Your partner will have to update that sooner or later, or if there is really no money, why be in business?
I keep hearing "but we can't afford to upgrade".
Really? Then why do you go to work every day for years on end, if you'll never have the money for upgrading anything.
What, you bought computers and figure they'll last 50 years?
Budget for it, or change something, cause you're just one step from bankruptcy if the budget is really that tight.
VMs don't always work, some hardware demands direct access.
Hardware security keys being but one example...
And there is nothing wrong with using XP for that machine for the next 20 years...
So long as it isn't online, isn't used for anything else, etc...
It doesn't even have to know what decade it is in, just run the transmission dynaometer and that's it...
Your only real issue is that at some point, spare parts for the computer itself may become hard to get, I personally would invest in 1 or 2 spare computers, clone the current one, set them in storage, and have them for backups. It shouldn't cost much, a few hundred dollars, and you'll have backups to the one part that is least likely to get support.
If I was a University Network admin, that is my first thought, simply refuse access to any OS that is EOL, such as XP.
So long as everyone knows this, it makes life easier.
Vista will EOL in a few years, when it does, any machine still running that needs to upgrade, but thankfully going to 7 is pretty easy. :)
You can do all that, if you know what you're doing, which 90%+ of computer users do not, nor will they EVER do that...
Upgrading to Windows 7 or 8 makes far more sense.
Just last year I managed to get my Mother off Windows XP, I simply told her that it was time and that if she wanted any further computer help from me, she had to do it, I haven't personally used XP in years and my skills in it are starting to rust and frankly I have no interest in messing with EOL support.
It was $500 to buy a brand new machine that is about 10 times faster than her old 2005 model (one of the very first Athlon X2 machines, just before the Core 2 line came out). Her new machine is a Core i5 and runs Windows 7 and runs rings around the old machine. I did spend $100 and put an SSD in for her, what a difference that makes. :)
For offline machines that are kept for a single task, such as running an expensive machine and they do nothing else, you can generally lock them down to the point where it doesn't matter.
For general use Internet connected machines, yea, XP needs to go, and frankly, needed to go years ago.
Windows 7, for general computer use, is far superior to XP from just about every angle.
1GB of space is a lot in 2014?
We have different definitions of "shitton of disk space" then...