News - Microsoft urges the enterprise to move on from Windows XP

[Main]

There is no real incentive for companies to move to a new OS when the old one still serves there purpose. And there is the cost issue. Not even universities have moved from XP yet. There is no reason to.

Like when you do some work in the university labs and find the old but still working perfectly well lab equipment and the associated Windows 95 machines, both still there because they do the job perfectly well, and because the lab equipment software is equally old and might not work on newer stuff.

And then you curse as you have to get the day's data off it by means of a floppy disc that will only work properly if you've performed the day's designated satanic rituals correctly

[Kanoe]

Considering my work PC can barely handle running Windows XP with more than one application running at a time I can't see them looking to move beyond that in OS.

[nichomach]

Stop complaining, sacrificial goats are cheap...

[GheeTsar]

Xp would be a welcome addition where I work - we still use Win2k!

+1. But, the good news is that we're moving onto Xp later this year.

[Fraz]

Oh no! The Windows XP versus Windows 7 thread is born!

I predict several million total snorefest threads/posts ahead.

[Gunbuster]

The problem is that XP after it's three service packs ended up being so good. Also underneath it all it is still 8 years old and has 8 year old requirements. Corporate IT has probably geared itself up as if the OS never changes, only updates.

In a sense MS might be benefitted from slow transitioning business to the next generation. Through XP Second Edition etc. Baby steps like in the past.

[dangel]

The problem is that XP after it's three service packs ended up being so good..

MMmmmmmmm goood... nah. Not really - robust (ignoring the crappy USB stack o' death, or kernel mode drivers) certainly as a result of maturity. I can't say i miss the old girl much now though - and certainly she is one very old girl.

[Gunbuster]

Robust is a much better term. IE7 is an optional upgrade here and we are an IT Consultancy company.

I looked in a travel agents the other day and they had higher spec machines than I use for graphics :/

Chris

[dangel]

Robust is a much better term. IE7 is an optional upgrade here and we are an IT Consultancy company.

I looked in a travel agents the other day and they had higher spec machines than I use for graphics :/

Chris

Yikes! And as for not enforcing installing IE7 - the shame! the shame!

I do get it tho - XP does the job 'well enough' and generally doesn't fall over. But I do find it curious to see corporate downgrade PC's that come with Vista simply because they don't understand it. The PCs are more than capable - it's just (I guess) the cost of training the IT monkeys and the fact that most of the ill-informed think Vista is Windows ME 2.0. The times i hear people spouting off about how crap vista is only to find they've never actually used it.
Then again, corporate think Lotus Notes (7) is a good thing - so perhaps they're beyond help.


Windows 7 is like.. Vista with added pixie dust though - perhaps special enough to negate all that Vista-bad PR

[McPhee]

I can see their problem really, they've been churning out regular updates for it for 8 years now. This all costs them money, money that the vast majority of XP customers haven't paid them in years!

Microsoft should change the way they sell their OS. Make it cheaper, but charge for service packs. That way it doesn't matter if customers upgrade or not, Microsoft are still getting paid.

[shaithis]

XP64 *shudder*

Hey it's not THAT bad

In fact it's as stable as XP, just a lack of drivers.....yet that isn't as big of a problem in corporations as the likes of Dell, HP, Lenovo etc probably have a range of XP64 drivers available.

[Gunbuster]

... But I do find it curious to see corporate downgrade PC's that come with Vista simply because they don't understand it. The PCs are more than capable - it's just (I guess) the cost of training the IT monkeys and the fact that most of the ill-informed think Vista is Windows ME 2.0...

Main reason is business systems that don't support Vista or that have had radical updates to accomodate it.

For example Novell's Vista client is lacking much of XPs as it is complete rewrite.
IE6 is required for some old internal systems.

I hate it, we look like a joke to some of our competitors and clients. Thankfully there are very few of the nasty Compaq beige CRTs kicking around so it doesn't make the amount of P4 based Celeron systems so obvious.

My machine actually has a Vista Business logo on it even though it runs XP. It is however a base model. I am not that upset as I have one of the most powerful systems in the office.

[GheeTsar]

Then again, corporate think Lotus Notes (7) is a good thing - so perhaps they're beyond help.

We can only dream of Notes 7. We're stuck on Notes 5 here...

[shaithis]

But I do find it curious to see corporate downgrade PC's that come with Vista simply because they don't understand it. The PCs are more than capable - it's just (I guess) the cost of training the IT monkeys and the fact that most of the ill-informed think Vista is Windows ME 2.0.

That's not the reason....Its the TCO.

Supporting multiple OSes, configuring applications for remote deployment to multiple OSes, dealing with roaming profiles across multiple OSes....and the biggest of them all: Standardisation

All those (and more) mean that it's normally all-or-nothing for corporations when it comes to deciding on a desktop OS.

[Saracen]

I've spent a chunk of the last couple of years working on a phased implementation of systems over a couple of hundred branches, and up to 50-60 PCs per branch, replacing old hardware running a customised version of MS-DOS ( )with a customised version of XP. If MS are expecting that particular enterprise to immediately start again to replace all that with Vista or 7, their efforts are going to have about the same degree of effect as farting in a hurricane.

A good bit of the gear we took out was 20 years old. Even if that particular company halves the lifecycles of their systems, they'll be with XP till 2018. Rather than shifting to Windows 7, I'd say that Windows 10 is optimistic.

Oh, and even then, a major motivation for the change was that hardware support was getting to be a major challenge, and that keeping some of it up and running at all was a case of cannibalising several old units to get one or two working units. That hit uptimes, it hit time from fault call to repair and it certainly hit maintenance contract costs. It wasn't at all about MS-DOS not doing the job, 'cos it did. Sure, they added some bells and whistles available now they've moved into the 20th Century, but that was opportunistic and incidental rather than a motivation for the change.

So replacing all that kit meant physical infrastructure changes, extensive application development, changing communications around as a lot of that was proprietary not ethernet, and wholesale staff training. I will predict they will NOT spend those tens (maybe hundreds) of millions again, until and unless it's either necessary for expansion or a sound business case can be made.

If that applies to enterprises, it applies to SMBs too, especially in times like this. Take, of a small garage business. What do they computers for? Invoicing and accounts, admin and WP, maybe looking up parts etc online, and so forth. Quite a few of the people running small business like that that I know certainly don't care what the OS is, and in a good few cases, probably don't even know. They just know it does their WP, accounts and so on. The computer is a tool to get a job done. If what they have does the job, then convincing them to replace that tool (or even just an expensive part of it) requires being able to demonstrate to them how the investment of that money (and time) pays for itself. And in that environment, it's hard to see how you can demonstrate that going XP to Win7, or even to Vista, does that?

It's easier with home users. They're more likely to be impressed by visual bells and whistles, but then, they're also a lot less likely to understand the architectural benefits than the enterprise market and perhaps even parts of SMB. And even for home users, you might get them to buy Vista or Win7 with a new PC, but getting them to fork out for a OS upgrade on their existing PC is a much harder sell. And for some, you've got a job on your hands just trying to explain what an OS is, let alone why they should spend a large chunk of cash "upgrading" it.

Frankly, I'm not surprised Vista is not the commercial success MS wanted, or expected or hoped for. I'm something of a technophile, and even I'm not interested. I can see the advantages, but my value judgement is that they just don't justify the cost or upheaval in terms of what they give me. Better than XP? Yeah, in many respects. But better enough"? Nope.

In many cases, for businesses, their attitude is that XP does the job, and if it ain't broke, don't upgrade it for a new model that might be broke .... and is certainly expensive.

Look at it this way. A business buys x copies of an OS at £100 per. If that lasts them 10 years, that's £10 per PC per year. If it lasts them 3 years, it's £33.33 per PC per year. What's the payback for the extra investment? And that's without staff costs of implementing changes, modifying or replacing apps, training staff to operate the new stuff, etc.

If, as with the enterprise I used above, maintenance costs, uptime, etc will all benefit to the point that it pays for itself, they'll do it. But not unless the upgrade is financially justifiable. And that is the problem MS have.

[dangel]

We can only dream of Notes 7. We're stuck on Notes 5 here...

For you sir, I have much sympathy.