How is that analogy remotely appropriate? I don't see any connection between a system with a published expiration date that got extended and your Alpha Centauri analogy. People get the idea that milk has a date on it.
I don't think corporate PCs will be the problem. Corporations have IT departments and stuff they don't want getting destroyed. They will be carefully monitoring their systems. I think the problem will be home users and those botnets will be handled by ISPs shutting down service.
I'm going for 1-5. I think they would like to do 0, but something will happen that will force a security update or two. For example something that is damaging to existing server products.
a) On windows XP b) don't upgrade hardware c) don't upgrade software d) don't buy online services
aren't really part of the ecosystem meaningfully at all. They don't engage in commerce. They don't constitute a target for developers and thus they don't hold anything back.
a) A really nice integrated suite enterprise productivity. Windows -> Office -> Sharepoint document manager. no one else has that. b) Windows -> Lync -> Universal communication is available from a handful of vendors but for most of them only for Windows. c) Ubiquitous computing (i.e. same apps on phone, tablet and laptop). d) Project Server. e) Excel for windows integration with many data warehouse applications etc...
I'm an OSX user. But there is some stuff I wish we had.
That's an even smaller group. The doesn't run any new software and doesn't use the web much. OK so they get another 4 years or so. Nothing Microsoft can do to get them to upgrade until they are ready. But they aren't a meaningful part of the ecosystem either.
Microsoft is fine with XP being an unsupported legacy operating system used to run old applications. They aren't fine with it being a mainstream desktop OS. So your dad's company has to put two computers on people's desks soon. What's the problem for Microsoft?
As an aside, windows 7 has an XP mode builtin and Windows 8 has a VM manager builtin.
And then 5 months later they will have a virus / botnet. Their ISP will shutdown their outgoing internet. They will go to their local Staples... store and get a new computer with Word. Problem solved.
The value prop has been low because Microsoft has let the cost of the average machine fall and has let applications stay on old OSes. But just to name a few features:
a) Huge integrations with Microsoft server and online service suite b) The ability to seamless switch between table and laptop mode c) Universal communication compatibility. d) Integrated notification systems. e) new graphics standards, especially scalable graphics.
If you look at say OSX software over the last dozen years where there has been a policy of forced upgrades you'll see much more.
People who are compute illiterate deal with systems all the time that require upgrades. For example milk and eggs go bad after a while. In the 1990s forced upgrades were an expected part of the expense of owning computers. Microsoft can reintroduce the concept and make it a norm, "this will break in a few years" isn't too hard to understand.
Once there are huge numbers of infected machines the telcos will shut them down automatically. We had a similar situation with this where the FBI had to deal with a virus that pointed people to an infected DNS. They shut it down and people upgraded.
Yes. Absolutely. Supporting XP like that was a huge mistake. Microsoft's trained their userbase not to be on a regular upgrade cycle. Not to plan for upgrades as part their infrastructure. They need to break users of that habit.
Apple has their users so well trained they can roll out an OS feature and by 6 months developers can release software with it as a hard dependency.
Boeing, Raytheon... need to learn that Microsoft's expiration dates mean something. Microsoft may not let them fail. But they should change them such a ton that they learn their lesson and build a 3-4 year upgrade policy into their desktop infrastructure.
As for IE6, IE6 runs fine in the XP mode of Windows 7. That's not a reason not to upgrade the desktop.
Sjbe, Microsoft could force you to upgrade annually and it wouldn't come close to the cost of a platform switch if you haven't been preparing. Your threats to switch based on being cheap aren't going to work.
I have very good reasons why our company still uses XP based machines, not the least of which is that we have some critical software that CANNOT be ported. (not my fault - some idiot before me bought it) While I will fix that in due time, it isn't going to happen in the next 6 months and the expense is considerably larger than a new PC with Windows 8 on it.
When XP was released they announced support would terminate in 7 years and the extended 5 years after that. You've been out of fully supported since 2008. They extended it once which and you are on the extended support time frame. Your deliberate failure to upgrade when instructed is not their failing.
Take the 64bit drivers - 64bit Windows need signed drivers. This means that you need to pay Microsoft to sign the driver and not everyone can do it (open source developers for example).
An admin can install there own key and self sign the driver. There is no problem for admins capable of using source.
Microsoft wants you on an upgrade treadmill again. That kind of conservatism is undermining their entire platform. Because of companies like yours their developers can't target Windows 7. Your needs may be well met, but they have new experiences they want to give you that they believe will boost your productivity.
Microsoft after letting people stay on XP has to train their users again that upgrades should be a regular event, part of the TCO.
Sure he might very well take it. And he'd be part of the problem in holding back the ecosystem. He along with tens of millions like him fragments the user pool and makes it so developers can't target Windows 7 as a minimum OS. Why would Microsoft want that?
As an aside the HP 1012 has IEEE 1284.4 support so there are drivers just none by HP.
They are going to fail. Microsoft has made it clear they are not backing off. It is important that Microsoft establish that the extensions game was special for XP and that the days of staying on one OS for years and years are over. Microsoft needs to establish their dates have credibility and their product roadmaps have credibility. Go back to leading the ecosystem like they did in the 1990s and not be led around by large customers.
The large client doesn't really have any weight to throw around. The cost of an upgrade is a fraction of the cost of a platform switch.
That's exactly the soft of thing that Microsoft wants to undermine, people not regularly updating. Why would Microsoft want to encourage you to run old unsupported versions of applications? The kinds of people who do that are harming not helping the ecosystem.
It doesn't cost that much. And yes they want people to upgrade. If customers upgrade, then developers can upgrade their applications to take advantage of new Windows 7 features and the whole ecosystem gets better. They want people who need to use XP to mostly be using the XP box in Windows 7 or Hypervisor in Win8.
They understand that some machines can't update. Then those machines get isolated like any other legacy system and are used like unsupported legacy systems not general purpose desktops.
That's not a win-win situation. They need to get their ecosystem to move on. So for example developers can safely target Windows 7 only. They don't want people on XP it is hinderance to their ecosystem.
Slashdot Mirror
How is that analogy remotely appropriate? I don't see any connection between a system with a published expiration date that got extended and your Alpha Centauri analogy. People get the idea that milk has a date on it.
I don't think corporate PCs will be the problem. Corporations have IT departments and stuff they don't want getting destroyed. They will be carefully monitoring their systems. I think the problem will be home users and those botnets will be handled by ISPs shutting down service.
I'm going for 1-5. I think they would like to do 0, but something will happen that will force a security update or two. For example something that is damaging to existing server products.
People who are
a) On windows XP
b) don't upgrade hardware
c) don't upgrade software
d) don't buy online services
aren't really part of the ecosystem meaningfully at all. They don't engage in commerce. They don't constitute a target for developers and thus they don't hold anything back.
a) A really nice integrated suite enterprise productivity. Windows -> Office -> Sharepoint document manager. no one else has that.
b) Windows -> Lync -> Universal communication is available from a handful of vendors but for most of them only for Windows.
c) Ubiquitous computing (i.e. same apps on phone, tablet and laptop).
d) Project Server.
e) Excel for windows integration with many data warehouse applications
etc...
I'm an OSX user. But there is some stuff I wish we had.
That's an even smaller group. The doesn't run any new software and doesn't use the web much. OK so they get another 4 years or so. Nothing Microsoft can do to get them to upgrade until they are ready. But they aren't a meaningful part of the ecosystem either.
No. It will be sandboxed like any other dangerous untrusted applications. Don't allow the XP VM to do anything but run the few apps you need.
So why not run the system in a VM on new desktops? If it is just libraries just run virtualized XP. What's the problem?
Microsoft is fine with XP being an unsupported legacy operating system used to run old applications. They aren't fine with it being a mainstream desktop OS. So your dad's company has to put two computers on people's desks soon. What's the problem for Microsoft?
As an aside, windows 7 has an XP mode builtin and Windows 8 has a VM manager builtin.
And then 5 months later they will have a virus / botnet. Their ISP will shutdown their outgoing internet. They will go to their local Staples... store and get a new computer with Word. Problem solved.
The value prop has been low because Microsoft has let the cost of the average machine fall and has let applications stay on old OSes. But just to name a few features:
a) Huge integrations with Microsoft server and online service suite
b) The ability to seamless switch between table and laptop mode
c) Universal communication compatibility.
d) Integrated notification systems.
e) new graphics standards, especially scalable graphics.
If you look at say OSX software over the last dozen years where there has been a policy of forced upgrades you'll see much more.
People who are compute illiterate deal with systems all the time that require upgrades. For example milk and eggs go bad after a while. In the 1990s forced upgrades were an expected part of the expense of owning computers. Microsoft can reintroduce the concept and make it a norm, "this will break in a few years" isn't too hard to understand.
Once there are huge numbers of infected machines the telcos will shut them down automatically. We had a similar situation with this where the FBI had to deal with a virus that pointed people to an infected DNS. They shut it down and people upgraded.
Yes. Absolutely. Supporting XP like that was a huge mistake. Microsoft's trained their userbase not to be on a regular upgrade cycle. Not to plan for upgrades as part their infrastructure. They need to break users of that habit.
Apple has their users so well trained they can roll out an OS feature and by 6 months developers can release software with it as a hard dependency.
Boeing, Raytheon... need to learn that Microsoft's expiration dates mean something. Microsoft may not let them fail. But they should change them such a ton that they learn their lesson and build a 3-4 year upgrade policy into their desktop infrastructure.
As for IE6, IE6 runs fine in the XP mode of Windows 7. That's not a reason not to upgrade the desktop.
OK so what's the problem? That's a dedicated legacy piece of equipment you treat it like an embedded system. Just don't use it as a desktop.
Sjbe, Microsoft could force you to upgrade annually and it wouldn't come close to the cost of a platform switch if you haven't been preparing. Your threats to switch based on being cheap aren't going to work.
When XP was released they announced support would terminate in 7 years and the extended 5 years after that. You've been out of fully supported since 2008. They extended it once which and you are on the extended support time frame. Your deliberate failure to upgrade when instructed is not their failing.
An admin can install there own key and self sign the driver. There is no problem for admins capable of using source.
Microsoft wants you on an upgrade treadmill again. That kind of conservatism is undermining their entire platform. Because of companies like yours their developers can't target Windows 7. Your needs may be well met, but they have new experiences they want to give you that they believe will boost your productivity.
Microsoft after letting people stay on XP has to train their users again that upgrades should be a regular event, part of the TCO.
Sure he might very well take it. And he'd be part of the problem in holding back the ecosystem. He along with tens of millions like him fragments the user pool and makes it so developers can't target Windows 7 as a minimum OS. Why would Microsoft want that?
As an aside the HP 1012 has IEEE 1284.4 support so there are drivers just none by HP.
They are going to fail. Microsoft has made it clear they are not backing off. It is important that Microsoft establish that the extensions game was special for XP and that the days of staying on one OS for years and years are over. Microsoft needs to establish their dates have credibility and their product roadmaps have credibility. Go back to leading the ecosystem like they did in the 1990s and not be led around by large customers.
The large client doesn't really have any weight to throw around. The cost of an upgrade is a fraction of the cost of a platform switch.
Why would Microsoft want to assist you in not paying them $6.5m?
That's exactly the soft of thing that Microsoft wants to undermine, people not regularly updating. Why would Microsoft want to encourage you to run old unsupported versions of applications? The kinds of people who do that are harming not helping the ecosystem.
It doesn't cost that much. And yes they want people to upgrade. If customers upgrade, then developers can upgrade their applications to take advantage of new Windows 7 features and the whole ecosystem gets better. They want people who need to use XP to mostly be using the XP box in Windows 7 or Hypervisor in Win8.
They understand that some machines can't update. Then those machines get isolated like any other legacy system and are used like unsupported legacy systems not general purpose desktops.
That's not a win-win situation. They need to get their ecosystem to move on. So for example developers can safely target Windows 7 only. They don't want people on XP it is hinderance to their ecosystem.