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

[Jay]

We're commited to upgrading to vista - somethign in the region of 170,000 Workstations globally

from a hardware point of view , it gets refreshed every 3 years , so most people havn't had to put up with it on a "slow" system.

One of the driving forces for us behind 2008 upgrades ( aside from security ) is that certain other products which the business requires have know issues on 2k3 , which MS have no plans to resolve , making 2008 an inevitable upgrade for us.

How I would have loved to have been in that kind of setup when I worked in IT managment.

[Moby-Dick]

Plenty of toys , just a different set of challenges

[ionicle]

if it aint broken, dont fix it
if xp works
why change?

[stroberaver]

I work in a small business (~30 full time employees) and we use WinXP. In my dept, we have to use XP because the software we work with on a daily basis and which produces the company's output is only compatible with WinXP. Doesn't work on Vista, not a chance in hell that it'll work on 7. The software doesn't need fixing (and it's not going to be - the vendor no longer develops it due to pushing their newer product line which requires a different workflow and new skills) as it works fine on XP. Even if the rest of the company upgrades to Vista or 7, my dept will still require a couple of XP machines.

Also an issue is the cost. New version of Windows are just too expensive. Our company couldn't afford to upgrade, and if it were going to dump tens of thousands into IT, I'd rather have a pay rise instead as what we have now works fine.

At home, I'm also still on XP. I have no plans to use Vista, but the favourable early reports about 7 make me more likely to try that. But at home, there's one big reason why not: the cost. Windows is a rip-off in the UK, compared to the prices elsewhere in the world. At least, Vista was. MS would do themselves a lot of favours by not being so greedy. A lot of home users (especially self build enthusiasts like myself) baulk at the cost of a non-upgrade licence. I have two XP licences, both of them upgrades. To do a clean XP install I still need my Win98 disc, but the upgrades were a reasonable price. With no upgrade route available to Windows 7, Microsoft simply need to slash the price to get more home users upgrading.

Microsoft recently cut 5000 jobs including the closure of the Aces studio, responsible for the last few versions of Flight Sim and the upcoming Train Sim. Why? Did MS make a loss? No. They grew by 2% and made over a billion dollars every quarter. But they didn't make quite as much money as expected. That kind of greed is reflected in the prohibitive costs of a new OS, both for home and business users.

[TheAnimus]

Saracen, the problem is the maintance costs.

Its much the same way as a car, only a hell of a lot worse. If you have to keep people about with the knowledge to maintain the old code base, understand how it works. Its expensive.

Modern software design makes things a LOT cheaper, for instance a project i've been doing has seen the porting of some VB GUI app to a properly designed V-VM-M WPF application. Its so much easier to keep running, fix bugs, and more importantly add features. In a small office like ours then its simple to depricate the code, and move forward. That means its MUCH cheaper and easier for me, to add the demanded new features, and bug fixes. We have to twist the arm of the business and coerce them ?? (C# joke) into using the newer platform, as long term, they will be better off.

The problem comes when its due to twist the arm. When is software so old, bogged down with features it was simply never designed to comprehehend. When the same hardware is no longer available, yes i've used apps that can't cope with been run on a system with 800mhz FSB.......

[Saracen]

Saracen, the problem is the maintance costs.

etc .......

Yes, I know. That's why I said it's about the benefits versus the costs. There's a calculation to be made about the costs of doing things, versus the benefits. One of the benefits is that it can keep ongoing maintenance and/or development costs down. But the converse of that is that you're moving from a relatively stable platform and a known quantity, with which staff are experienced, to much more of an unknown quantity. It might be worth it, but it isn't worth it every time a software house, be it MS or anyone else, wants you to do it.

And you have to take the long view. You might keep incremental costs down, but you accept a VERY large capital cost if you have to replace thousands of machines across an organisation, and a huge logistics and training cost in the process. I've spent a good part of the last two years involved in implementing exactly such a program. In that case, a good part of the motivating force wasn't about maintenance costs either for the OS or for application development/replacement. It was about some very old hardware that was getting harder and harder to keep operating, that was so old that even spares weren't available new so you had to cannibalise bits from old kit, and where some plastics were breaking because they were brittle with age.

So, finally, a nationwide upgrade program took place ..... to XP. Why not to Vista? Well, in part at least, because application development had been going on for a couple if years, and because the hardware implementation started before Vista was available, and when you're half-way between replacing all the IT in several hundred branches, you don't switch platforms mid-stream. Apart from anything else, if you do, you increase maintenance costs because now you're trying to maintain two separate platforms.

Yes, keeping up with releases can keep maintenance costs down, but trying to stay too close to the leading edge can also introduce maintenance costs, because you don't want to be the ones discovering the quirks and foibles of a new OS the hard way. It gets very expensive if you've got a £100 million+ program (involving buying new sites, refurbing and/or extending others, etc) waiting for stable, finished apps!

Whether enterprises will even consider Vista will depend, in part, where they're at right now. Having spent several years completely updating ancient systems to XP, guess what the chances are in that enterprise of now starting again and switching everything to Vista. (Hint - for the foreseeable future, zero, IMHO).

There are costs involved in maintaining old stuff. But there are costs involved in upgrading too. It's all about perceived costs, versus perceived benefits, for wherever a given enterprise finds itself at the current moment. My guess is that Win7 will be a dimly fading memory before that company does this project again.

[Splash]

I work in a small business (~30 full time employees) and we use WinXP. In my dept, we have to use XP because the software we work with on a daily basis and which produces the company's output is only compatible with WinXP. Doesn't work on Vista, not a chance in hell that it'll work on 7. The software doesn't need fixing (and it's not going to be - the vendor no longer develops it due to pushing their newer product line which requires a different workflow and new skills) as it works fine on XP. Even if the rest of the company upgrades to Vista or 7, my dept will still require a couple of XP machines.

Out of interest are your licenses OEM, retail or some type of VLK? And what is the expected lifecycle of your hardware?

Also an issue is the cost. New version of Windows are just too expensive. Our company couldn't afford to upgrade, and if it were going to dump tens of thousands into IT, I'd rather have a pay rise instead as what we have now works fine.

A fair point, though I'd be surprised if you got to choose between the business running an upgrade program and a payrise . The question is what do you do when XP stops being a supported platform? Do you run the risk of running it becuase it "works fine"? I've seen local government departments running what they deem to be "mission critical" applications on Windows 95 and Windows 98. To me, that's an unnecessary risk that they've introduced right there, but to them they don't see why they should replace systems that have worked fine for ~15 years. The question then becomes "what do you do when it breaks?"

At home, I'm also still on XP. I have no plans to use Vista, but the favourable early reports about 7 make me more likely to try that. But at home, there's one big reason why not: the cost. Windows is a rip-off in the UK, compared to the prices elsewhere in the world. At least, Vista was. MS would do themselves a lot of favours by not being so greedy. A lot of home users (especially self build enthusiasts like myself) baulk at the cost of a non-upgrade licence. I have two XP licences, both of them upgrades. To do a clean XP install I still need my Win98 disc, but the upgrades were a reasonable price. With no upgrade route available to Windows 7, Microsoft simply need to slash the price to get more home users upgrading.

...except they don't. They really don't.

Most people who will be getting an upgrade to 7 will get it preinstalled on a new PC. The same way most installs of Vista happened. I can honestly say that I don't believe that anywhere approaching a significant portion of sales will be retail boxes off the shelf, and as such the cost that you're talking about won't even enter most people's minds. That and the fact that Vista cost no more than XP at release, which seems to have been an acceptable cost to you.

Microsoft recently cut 5000 jobs including the closure of the Aces studio, responsible for the last few versions of Flight Sim and the upcoming Train Sim. Why? Did MS make a loss? No. They grew by 2% and made over a billion dollars every quarter. But they didn't make quite as much money as expected. That kind of greed is reflected in the prohibitive costs of a new OS, both for home and business users.

This just in - business out to make as much money as possible. More after the weather.

[digit]

This just in - business out to make as much money as possible. More after the weather.

Perfectly reasonable then for quite a number of people to lose jobs due to greed then? Microsoft I'm sure could shift more units at a slightly lower cost and make more money overall. Would piracy be so rampant with Windows and Office at lower price points? I'm not so sure that would be the case.

[TheAnimus]

Perfectly reasonable then for quite a number of people to lose jobs due to greed then?

Err, yes. Right now i'm sipping a can of coke, i've also had a smoothie.

That money could keep photogenic aids riddled African orphans alive for months.

Lets be honest, about 99% of the human race is making such choices implicitly. Get the hell of your high horse.

Microsoft I'm sure could shift more units at a slightly lower cost and make more money overall. Would piracy be so rampant with Windows and Office at lower price points? I'm not so sure that would be the case.

Well, I think you should go and tell them with you been obviously correct, and having well thought out insight.

Price point is often the single most important part of ANY product design.

I thought Apple had the iPhone waaaay to high, but boy did they prove me wrong. How much money do you think they spent researching the price, weighing up losses in one territory vrs another. There is a whole bunch of statistics designed to this field alone.

Now the bits they cut, where wait for it, under performing. It dosen't make sense to throw money after bad teams, unless your in government. The problem comes when the teams are doing something quite visionary that doesn't get understood, they get chopped (the classic example been some of the people at MS who invented AJAX).

[Splash]

Perfectly reasonable then for quite a number of people to lose jobs due to greed then?

You think Microsoft are the only company downsizing at the moment?

Microsoft I'm sure could shift more units at a slightly lower cost and make more money overall.

It would appear that they disagree, otherwise why would they be taking this action?

Would piracy be so rampant with Windows and Office at lower price points? I'm not so sure that would be the case.

Until I see some form of evidence that this would be the case I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. Pirates will pirate software regardless of the cost, otherwise why isn't OpenOffice doing better in the market?

[stroberaver]

Out of interest are your licenses OEM, retail or some type of VLK? And what is the expected lifecycle of your hardware?

Not sure. Why do you ask? Definitely not retail. Probably a combination of OEM and volume licencing.

I'd be surprised if you got to choose between the business running an upgrade program and a payrise .

So would I!

The question is what do you do when XP stops being a supported platform? Do you run the risk of running it becuase it "works fine"? I've seen local government departments running what they deem to be "mission critical" applications on Windows 95 and Windows 98.

Firstly, bitch at Microsoft for not supporting it, and not replacing it with anything that offers any reward for the required investment. We'll undoubtedly be running XP for many years yet due to the software compatibility I mentioned above, which for us is mission critical.

The question then becomes "what do you do when it breaks?"

Use a cheap, spare XP machine. That's why we've recently got some.

Most people who will be getting an upgrade to 7 will get it preinstalled on a new PC. The same way most installs of Vista happened. I can honestly say that I don't believe that anywhere approaching a significant portion of sales will be retail boxes off the shelf, and as such the cost that you're talking about won't even enter most people's minds. That and the fact that Vista cost no more than XP at release, which seems to have been an acceptable cost to you.

Oh I'm aware that most people only get Vista or 7 preinstalled on a new machine, and that self-builders such as myself (and no doubt, many people here) make up an insignificant part of the market. But that doesn't change the fact that the cost of a new Vista or 7 retail licence for self-builders such as myself makes it prohibitive to purchasing the OS, and tempts a lot of people down the pirate route. Retail Vista may indeed have cost the same as retail XP, but that doesn't make it justifiable. As mentioned, I legitimately have upgrade XP licences due to previously being a Win98 user, which cost less than £100 each rather than the half a grand or more that a pair of full retail licences might have cost.

No discount for previous users that don't want to buy a pre-assembled, pre-installed system + sky high retail price = no sale.

This just in - business out to make as much money as possible. More after the weather.

Obviously. Although the "let's make billions regardless of the impact it causes" attitude is what banks do too, and their business model is just hunky dory. Oh, wait...

[Poison]

All our users are on XP with office 2k3 (a few have office 2k7, still on xp)

The main reason simply being the fact that they don't like change. Couple that wit hthe fact some of them have taken about 5 years to learn xp effectivly, putting them on vista/windows 7 would hinder them more than help at this time. The major cost's would come from upgrading the hardware and the training required, costs we dont need right now.

We are using vista and office 2k7 in the office (and I do at home) and find it much easier and quicker to 'use/navigate' than xp.

We also have a couple of machines in the office on the windows7 beta, these machines dont have the spec for vista but run windows7 perfectly well, so no need for hardware upgrade with this, just the training.

We are moving to a purpose built office in two years time, we will have the budget to completly kit out the new building in all new hardware etc... I can see us buying all new PC's with windows7.

[Splash]

Not sure. Why do you ask? Definitely not retail. Probably a combination of OEM and volume licencing.

I ask as if you have a structured hardware refresh program and the licenses you use are OEM then cost of licenses goes out of the window, and if they're VLK then chances are you have Software Assurance, in which case you don't need to worry too much either.

Firstly, bitch at Microsoft for not supporting it, and not replacing it with anything that offers any reward for the required investment.

A better security model for a start.

We'll undoubtedly be running XP for many years yet due to the software compatibility I mentioned above, which for us is mission critical.

Why have the vendors not updated the software to run on an OS that's been generally available for over 2 years?

Use a cheap, spare XP machine. That's why we've recently got some.

And when a critical vuln in XP is discovered after the OS is out of it's support lifecycle? It may seem like a silly suggestion to make now, but coupled with the point I made above you need to be sure that you don't end up like the local government bods I spoke of before, running mission critical software on totally unsupported, massively insecure and unstable platforms.

Oh I'm aware that most people only get Vista or 7 preinstalled on a new machine, and that self-builders such as myself (and no doubt, many people here) make up an insignificant part of the market. But that doesn't change the fact that the cost of a new Vista or 7 retail licence for self-builders such as myself makes it prohibitive to purchasing the OS, and tempts a lot of people down the pirate route. Retail Vista may indeed have cost the same as retail XP, but that doesn't make it justifiable. As mentioned, I legitimately have upgrade XP licences due to previously being a Win98 user, which cost less than £100 each rather than the half a grand or more that a pair of full retail licences might have cost.

I think it's safe to say that most self builders will buy OEM licenses, unless they're serious upgraders. And if they're serious upgraders what's a couple of hundred quid on an OS that you will use until you move to another if you're spending three hundred quid on graphics cards every4 or 5 months? You may be shocked to hear that a couple of OEM licenses for Vista Home Premium x64 will set you back a shade under £180.

No discount for previous users that don't want to buy a pre-assembled, pre-installed system + sky high retail price = no sale.

That's your call - obviously in your case the benefits don't balance with the cost, but again I'd disagree wth your use of the term "sky high" in terms of price: As I said, very few of the tiny market that is the self builders will be buying retail as most will pick up a cheap OEM copy.

Obviously. Although the "let's make billions regardless of the impact it causes" attitude is what banks do too, and their business model is just hunky dory. Oh, wait...

Touché. Now let's all move to a commune and outlaw money and ownership of goods.

[cpfc]

Two issues here for Microsoft.

The first is early reports on Vista were very poor. Because the O/S was poor. And the perception in the vast majority of public view has, rightly or wrongly, stayed that it is poor. Regardless of any fixes since.
So if you were thinking of deploying a new O/S across your company, 3 pc's or 3 thousand, why would you take out a perfectly good working and proven stable O/S for a poor one?

Is that too simple for you Microsoft? I suspect not, given that you are meant to be at the cutting edge of IT R & D. You know your product is basically flawed, but you have to sell it anyway, whilst trying to get the next O/S to market much quicker than intended. Now, in this current business age of a total lack of morality [ anyone contending that statement, go talk to the bankers across the globe, if they will admit they are bankers to you. ] it is alright to do this. First get the marketing folk to 'spin' [modern term for outright lie, first used a lot during New Labour's rise to power, then dictatorship] a statement saying 'people don't understand Vista'. Then keep wondering why is isn't selling.

Secondly, MS should look at previous examples of themselves to understand the'problem'. This is a compnay, that for all it's current faults, managed to do what no one else has done. They turned the world onto the power of computing. They did'nt have the best O/S. But they are the ones who have rolled out upteen billion copies of Windows, in one form or another across the world. Having done that to 1500 in a work scenario, I can only applaud that feat.

The lesson I learnt was this. Most of the 1500 still thought [ in 1995 this] that a mouse belonged behind the wainscot. That was the difficulty from day one until the end. Technical competetence. The mere fact you are on Hexus suggest you are one of the minority who are comfortable with your pc. A lot of the public, at home and at work DO NOT WANT CHANGE!

Because, finally they are 'ok', nothing more probably, with their pc. It took years for this to happen, and that's why changing will cause lots of frustration and anger in the learning curve. The public also know that the pc does what they want already, so there are no benefits to change, only negatives. And no reason to. The pc already does what they want. And you MS, want them to pay for the pain of learning a new system, adding stuff 90% of the public will not use.

Earth calling Microsoft, come in please. You did it initially, Windows is across the globe. But understand what's changed since. My bet is that the touchscreen element will be the lever for you.

And stop taking the public for a fool. You don't have a licence to print money, you have to earn customers respect for them to buy. You know, statements like 'you don't understand Vista'.

We did, and we didn't like it. Deal with that better and you might just sell some Windows 7.

[Splash]

You know, statements like 'you don't understand Vista'.

The problem is... the vast majority of people *don't*

They just read what ill informed, biased, low quality reporting oiks like El Reg and The Inq have to say and then spout it to anyone who'll listen. Things like "it uses too much RAM" without understaniding why this is, and that it's a *good* thing to make maximum use of available system memory. Things like "UAC sucks, turn it off", when in fact it's probably the single biggest step forward for Windows as an OS. Things like "it churns my hard disk", when in fact this is the initial indexing which actually makes things run a lot smoother.

You do have a point in that Microsoft have in the past been able to deal with this kind of problem through marketing and user education however the big problem is the things that's powering this boom in computer usage and ownership: the internet. Anyone living in their parents' basement can happily spout off anything they like on the internets and at least some people will believe it. Microsoft didn't have to deal with anything on that scale when XP launched, but I think it's safe to say that the rules have now changed for good.

[dangel]

If I had a pound for everytime I heard someone spout off about Vista without actually having used it.. etc.