Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Time To Dump XP?

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the wasn't-that-ship-date dept.

Microsoft 1213

An anonymous reader writes "Gartner is saying it's time to plan your migration now (if you havent already done it). I for one know my company still has loads of users still on XP, citing training costs (time and money) rather than software license fees. Is my company alone in wanting to stay in the 1990s or is Windows 7 the way forward?"

cancel ×

1213 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

XP is the 90's? (5, Informative)

jamesborr (876769) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510662)

Could have sworn that XP was not available before Windows 2000 -- but what do I know...

Re:XP is the 90's? (1, Offtopic)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510820)

Why is the first post modded Redundant? It could be a lot of things, but Redundant seems to be a 100% inaccurate mod.

Re:XP is the 90's? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32511080)

Fuck dumping XP. Dump Windows.

Re:XP is the 90's? (3, Funny)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510838)

Mods, please explain how a first post can possibly be "Redundant"? Extra credit if you can explain this as something other than censorship, since the OP actually has a valid point that applies to TFS ...

Re:XP is the 90's? (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510880)

Especially when the post directly below this one was scored as informative, and says essentially the same thing. Maybe they picked the wrong post to call redundant?

Re:XP is the 90's? (0, Redundant)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510966)

That guy was also "Redundant" when I first checked, as well. Although you could argue that technically, he was redundant, seeing as this guy got it in first. But they have the same timestamp, so if I had been handing out points, I would have given him a break.

A redundant first post (0, Troll)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510976)

Mods, please explain how a first post can possibly be "Redundant"?

A comment that has been posted repeatedly in stories A, B, C, and D, is probably redundant in story E even if it is the first post.

(Posted without bonus due to meta-discussion.)

Re:XP is the 90's? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32510844)

The modding of the first post to the article as 'redundant' amuses me.

Re:XP is the 90's? (4, Informative)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510874)

I don't even see how this was offensive enough to be downmodded.

And: Windows XP Release date was August 24, 2001 so it's informative.

1990s? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32510666)

XP was released in 2001.

Re:1990s? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510882)

Apparently someone is confusing Windows XP with Windows ME.

Re:1990s? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32511046)

ME was released September 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows

Re:1990s? (0, Offtopic)

Bazman (4849) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511010)

Yeah, but I hate all the Windows XP shiny newness so I always set it to 'Classic' theme, which I think was first up in Windows 95 :)

Not only... (5, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510670)

...is my company still using Windows XP SP2, but we are still using IE6. Feh...and they complained that Audacity was a security risk because it was "open source, so anyone could hack it".

Insanity.

You can't fix stupid... (5, Funny)

Just_Say_Duhhh (1318603) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510946)

so migrating to Win7 won't help your company. Stay on XP, keep trying to get by with IE6, and UPDATE YOUR RESUME! Oh yeah, have you pulled your money out of the employee stock plan yet?

We are staying on XP (3, Informative)

yakatz (1176317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510672)

I would live to migrate on of my offices to Windows 7, but then they would need to buy all-new hardware, sinc ewhat they have will not support Windows 7.
Also, they use an old version of Navison Axapta (since renamed to Microsoft Dynamics AX) which has issues on newer OS versions.

Re:We are staying on XP (2, Informative)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510828)

other than the fact that new desktop PC's are dirt cheap, i'm typing this on a 6 year old P4 desktop PC that originally came with XP and runs WIndows 7 perfectly with no issues. Just get more RAM

Re:We are staying on XP (5, Insightful)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511032)

The reason I'm not getting 7 is because.... I already have an XP license which works perfectly fine on my 6 year old P4. It's not exactly cheap to upgrade, since you say: "Just get more RAM". Assuming you want 2GB RAM, with a typical machine having 2 or 3 DDR memory slots, thus needing 2 sticks of 1GB at about 35.99$/piece (Quick search on newegg.com, you might find better deals).

Add in the license for Windows 7 (Upgrade is out, because you're on XP).... 99.99$ for the Systems Builders 32-bit version (source: also newegg)...

Total: 171.97$/seat and that's ignoring workhours....

Only to upgrade... Which has zilch benefit....

Re:We are staying on XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32511086)

Which does not help for Axapta of course.

1990's? (1, Redundant)

rogabean (741411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510680)

90's? XP was release in 2001 But I do agree it's time to move on from it for most companies. My company has begun testing for a deployment of Windows 7, migrating from XP.

Re:1990's? (1)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510938)

Strange moderators today... Why the hell has this post been moderated "funny". Or am I the only one not catching the "joke" in it???

Re:1990's? (1)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511018)

OK forget it. I loaded the page at a strange moment too maybe...

Re:1990's? (2, Insightful)

kermyt (99494) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510940)

Yeah but MS didn't get XP right till august of 2004. and why was the parent modded funny? Are mods modding based on sigs now??

Gartner is shilling (5, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510686)

Another example of why companies like Gartner are useless. They're little more another source of advertising for computer companies.

Your decisions on your OS should be driven by your needs first and foremost. If XP is still supported, and it's doing the job well for you... why switch? Switch if YOU need to, not because someone like Gartner says "Hey you, get out of the past and get with the future. All the cool kids are running *insert OS here*"

Re:Gartner is shilling (2)

operagost (62405) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510766)

Well, not really. They're advocating planning the transition now instead of waiting until support ends, which will happen in 2014. That sounds really far away, but for some companies it could take that long to complete.

Re:Gartner is shilling (4, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510858)

Whatever it is, it's long been time to dump Gartner if you haven't already :).

Re:Gartner is shilling (1)

Hylandr (813770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511068)

I plan on keeping an XP kit handy with all the best versions of software I like to use with a personal firewall that prevents software from calling home. I will stop using XP when it becomes more expensive to fix the hardware XP likes to run on.

I refuse to pay for new hardware when what I have runs perfectly fine.

Gartner can go play with my huge furry... dice...

- Dan.

Re:Gartner is shilling (0)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510778)

I so agree and could not point this out often enough to any of my clients or users.
Just because M$ says it is time to change your habits, does not mean it is time for you to...\they need more cash in their banks, of course they will tell you, and pay others to tell you the same....I just hope all the admins out there are able to force their company to stay with xp for another 10 years, then maybe M$ will get the message through their thick skulls!

Re:Gartner is shilling (3, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510836)

If XP is still supported, and it's doing the job well for you... why switch?

The problem is, at 9 years old, XP won't be supported for very much longer. Any responsible company should be looking at a migration plan, identifying legacy apps that need to be updated, and starting up projects to do so. Companies have a bad habit of waiting until the last minute to figure this stuff out and then end up being forced to run old out of support software because they didn't give sufficient time or resources to updating their legacy internal apps that won't work right on the new platform. This is how we end up with so many companies still using IE6.

Re:Gartner is shilling (3, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510950)

Another lesson my company is painfully learning is:

Do not write large applications in microsoft languages for microsoft operating systems.

We are going to hardware and operating system agnostic packages in a big way.

For the problem software tho, it's going to be a rough road until the packages are rolled out (and that will take a couple years). At any point, our current software could be killed by an arbitrary microsoft patch since the language (vb6) is out of support.

Pfff... (2, Insightful)

PhongUK (1301747) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510692)

If someone needs to be trained to use Windows 7 then there is something wrong with them.

Re:Pfff... (1, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510802)

Maybe I just haven't worked in large enough companies, or in desktop support, to have encountered this sort of thing personally. It just always seemed to be kind of ridiculous that there would be "training costs" associated with moving between two versions of the same product from the same company, especially when nothing really substantial has changed from a user perspective, as far as I can tell. The buttons are in the same place and do the same tasks. What, really, is the big deal?

Re:Pfff... (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510886)

I once had a user request training when their keyboard was replaced.

To be fair, the old keyboard was a basic 101 key model, and the new one had some media control(start, stop, pause, little volume knob) buttons on it.

The user was informed, as politely as shock allowed, that the function of each key on the new keyboard was the same as that of the old, save for the additional keys, whose use was optional, and not required for the performance of any job-related function.

the big deal (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32510960)

What the big deal is, is that there are millions of WAY overpaid western nation office workers who don't even come close to being deserving of their pay based on a global economy anymore. That they are incapable of having enough self drive and initiative to be able to transition from one operating system to another without this being some huge hassle is proof enough. Let them go bankrupt and unemployed and watch their jobs go overseas, then they might learn to spend a little entertainment time into learning some new skills..that aren't that much different from their old alleged "office skills".

Re:Pfff... (5, Insightful)

rkfig (1016920) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510986)

Hundreds of employees each spending 20+ minutes to figure out where the fuck the print button went in the new version of Office, for example. No, clicking on the ball in the top corner of the screen is not even close to intuitive, and no, there isn't anyone that actually clicks on the take a tour of $new_product to find these things out. Even if they did, multiply that half hour to hour of tour across an enterprise, and it is significant.

Taskbar differences (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511040)

It just always seemed to be kind of ridiculous that there would be "training costs" associated with moving between two versions of the same product from the same company, especially when nothing really substantial has changed from a user perspective

Compared to the taskbar of Windows XP, the taskbar of Windows 7 works a bit more like the dock of Mac OS X: Windows 7 has one button per app even when the taskbar isn't full, and Windows 7 unifies quick launch and open windows.

Re:Pfff... (1, Insightful)

adonoman (624929) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510928)

There are plenty of people in every organization who have lists on their desk detailing how to do each thing -

To Open email:

  • Move the mouse until the pointy thing is over the yellow "O" picture
  • Push the left button on the mouse
  • Push the "Enter" button on the keyboard.
  • Click on "Inbox" on the left side of the screen.

These are the same people, who after having a job working on a computer for 10 years, still use a single finger and hunt for every key-press.

Re:Pfff... (1)

PhongUK (1301747) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510956)

I suppose i naturally expect, being a programmer, for people to be atleast as practical as me. But without wishing to cast a stereotype, i hear stories from family members about administrators and receptionists that they have to work with. These people shouldn't really be employed to use a computer.

Re:Pfff... (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510992)

If someone needs to be trained to use Windows 7 then there is something wrong with them.

Well, yeah. Some people just aren't smart period. In the immortal words of Judge Smails: "Well, the world needs ditch diggers too."

Um (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32510696)

90s? Are you *sure* you're using XP? :)

Staged migration (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510698)

Start a pilot migration and use it to find the bugs. Once the bugs are worked out you can proceed with the migration. Many places have too many legacy programs that do not work with the new OS. The old stuff is stretched as long as possible mostly for budget reasons in the down market. There it too much investment in the installed base to toss it.

poor use of "or" (1, Troll)

skelterjohn (1389343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510702)

"Is my company alone in wanting to stay in the 1990s or is Window 7 the way forward?"

Uh... yes? no?

The OR version of "or" that computer scientists creates a question for which the answer provides little relevant information. The XOR version of "or" that is the popular meaning in spoken english has similar problems.

lefiljwefojewf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32510704)

Well MY company adopted it early... and we all are much faster, ever since!

Huh? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510714)

Wait what? 90's I must be missing something. XP was released in 2001. I'm not really seeing the training issue either. There's not that much of a UI difference between XP and Win7.

Dont know (5, Insightful)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510716)

I am at a Fortune 500 and everything is still XP. Most companies I know are not migrating at this time.

Although, if they have to retrain (Citing time and cost) Plus the cost of a new license then why not move to Linux and at least drop one of the costs (Licensing)

Re:Dont know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32510988)

I am at a Fortune 500 and everything is still XP. Most companies I know are not migrating at this time.

Although, if they have to retrain (Citing time and cost) Plus the cost of a new license then why not move to Linux and at least drop one of the costs (Licensing)

Because you would save money in licensing but have to spend 3x as much in training. Thats a no brainer!

Re:Dont know (3, Insightful)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510990)

Absolutely agree with you on this, except that you will have to convince all your software suppliers to create a version of their software for Linux, or you will have to find other software for the employees at your pretty big business to do their job.

Unless all they are using is MS Office that you can replace with OO, you're gonna have the hell of a time finding equivalent software, but in the end, it might pay. Or be painful.

Re:Dont know (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511026)

I am also at [Generic Huge Corporation]. All XP here. We just got Office 2007... right after 2010 came out.

Re:Dont know (1)

simetra (155655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511048)

Why not move to Linux?
Maybe because 99+% of all significant applications used by businesses have been built for Windows.
Or do you think it would be trivial for every software vendor out there to drop everything they've been working on for the last 20 years to switch platforms?

Re:Dont know (2, Informative)

kenh (9056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511088)

The cost of a Win7 licesne doesn't enter into it, most llikely.

Your Fortune 500 company most likely doesn't have retail/OEM Windows XP licenses - they ar emost likely under "Software Advantage" and pay a per-desktop licesne fee for a number of MS apps per year. It is more economical if you turn your desktop operating system or MS applications over every three years.

They pay a license fee each year (software maint.) - do you really imagine a Fortune 500 company can just 'migrate off Win XP' incurring only "training costs"? Every end-user, desktop support tech, and server admin will need exhaustive retraining, plus many, many new applications will need to be evaluated to replace all those handy applications they've used for years...

Apparently you aren't in the IT part of your Fortune 500 employer...

XP is productive (3, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510718)

FOr business do you really need anything more than XP?

The problem with XP is not that it'snot perfectly satisfactory but that it's not maintained. New software won't be written for it. That's the reason to migrate.

On the other hand one could make a lateral move. Linux is more like XP in feel than even Win 7 is. And software is in production for Linux. So perhaps a lateral move is not so unthinkable in terms of training costs at this particular point in time.

Re:XP is productive (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511052)

On the other hand one could make a lateral move. Linux is more like XP in feel than even Win 7

What a great idea, why have the possibility of some software incompatibilities when you can have a guarantee of complete software incompatibilities! If a company does not want to move to Windows 7 because XP is working exactly the way they want it to, what type of head injury are you planning to inflict on them to make moving to something completely different sound like a good idea.

It is going to be a while before software drops XP as a supported platform, other then games, many platforms still list 2000 in their minimum. XP is being maintained (security updates) until past the end of the world (2014), why would you need to migrate from it to anything else if it is still doing everything you need?

Time to change your OS to OSX or BSD (5, Funny)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510730)

Just to get the ball started... yes, I agree... it is time to dump Windows XP and change to OS X or one of the BSDs or heck, even one of the mature Linux distributions like Ubuntu.
Moderators: start your engines... am I Flamebait, or am I Insightful? Informative or Offtopic?

Re:Time to change your OS to OSX or BSD (5, Funny)

Trev311 (1161835) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510760)

You are an insightful and informative flamebait who skewed off of the topic!

Re:Time to change your OS to OSX or BSD (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510816)

I was thinking the same. What does Windows 7 bring to your business that XP doesn't? Would that same benefit be provided by other operating systems? Is the difference between Windows 7 and FreeBSD (for example) enough to justify the license cost (not just the initial cost, but the requirement to track licenses as well)? If you're going to need retraining anyway, it seems like now would be a good time to consider other alternatives.

Re:Time to change your OS to OSX or BSD (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511000)

Windows is entrenched because of the massively unthinkable amounts of in-house, custom software that can't/won't be rewritten for another os.

This is one of the great advantages of a) web apps and b) software that targets a vm environment (Java, Python, Perl, etc.) The os suddenly becomes a matter of choice, rather than an obligation, and it certainly gives organisations a competitive and cost advantage.

Re:Time to change your OS to OSX or BSD (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511038)

I was thinking the same. What does Windows 7 bring to your business that XP doesn't?

Well, if you don't have an enterprise contract/license, security fixes after April 14, 2009 (already in the past) for XP or XP SP1, after July 13, 2010 (next month) for XP SP2, and April 14, 2011 (next year) for XP SP3. If you have an enterprise contract/license, support for security fixes after April 8, 2014.

Dates taken from the Windows XP Lifecycle page [microsoft.com] .

Would that same benefit be provided by other operating systems? Is the difference between Windows 7 and FreeBSD (for example) enough to justify the license cost (not just the initial cost, but the requirement to track licenses as well)? If you're going to need retraining anyway, it seems like now would be a good time to consider other alternatives.

Windows hasn't really changed THAT much, certainly not as much as moving to another OS and set of applications would.

Re:Time to change your OS to OSX or BSD (4, Funny)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511064)

Apparently you are none of them, just Funny. Sorry.

Gartner the other marketing arm of Microsoft (2, Informative)

gmack (197796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510736)

Gartner has been a Microsoft/Intel shill for a long time. Their predictions tend towards the laughable as well. If you want some good laughs check out their Itanium, bing or Windows Mobile predictions.

Already out of the 1990s (1)

Trev311 (1161835) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510740)

If you're company was still in the 1990s you'd be using NT 4 or Windows 98... So They are already out of the 90s?

In all seriousness though my university is still exclusively using XP when running Windows (There are some machines with Fedora on them and a few places use iMacs). So obviously you are not alone.

Migrate this! (5, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510742)

God no, you're not alone. We need stable environments for consistency of software development. We have a dozen home-grown tools, and 2x that from open source type things, and jumping service patches is a holy pain, much less an entire OS. We were still supporting Win2k machines until two years ago.

"Migration" is in Microsoft's interest, not yours.

Dont stay in the past, Use Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32510752)

Seriously this is slashdot, what kind of news reporting is this, I couldn't care less about Windows.

Re:Dont stay in the past, Use Linux (1)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510978)

Thank you for letting us know that you don't care about Windows but even the most ardent Linux supporters have to deal with other OSes if they work in a corporate environment. Let's assume that the Rock 'Em, Sock 'Em L. vs. W. battle is over tomorrow and the entire corporate world is convinced of the benefits of FOSS. It would then still take years for the transition to complete so I would expect to see at least some discussion here @ /. about the OS that > 90% of the world's desktops run for some time yet. Despite some of the evangelizing that goes on here (and I wave the FOSS flag myself often enough), it's a technology site and that includes, for now at least, some discussion of the OS with the largest install base.

90s? (3, Informative)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510758)

Windows XP came out in late-2001...hardly "the 90s"

At my small office workplace we are down to one remaining Windows 2000 computer, majority XP, no Vista, and one Windows 7. It was a pain to convert our roaming desktops from 2k/XP style to Vista/7 style (samba server). I personally really like Windows 7 though it of course comes with the assortment of upgrading pains and things that make you slap your forehead and say "WHY?!" -- example, out of the box Windows 7 runs a maintenance task that deletes broken shortcuts. Unfortunately for whatever reason it believes shortcuts to documents and programs on our network shares are broken, and so they repeatedly disappeared until we figured that out. Why can't I pin a network share/document/application to the start bar? etc

We also have an OS9 computer that doesn't get used often anymore (though did up until about 3 months ago), OSX 10.4, 10.5, and 10.6.

Why upgrade if it still works? (of course barring any major security vulnerabilities that can't be protected against)

Windows 7 is actually kinda good (3, Insightful)

superglaze (1112971) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510762)

Flamebait, I know. But honestly, having used 7 for a while on my personal machines and having to still use XP at work, it's 7 all the way. I shall pretend that Vista never happened.

Re:Windows 7 is actually kinda good (1)

superglaze (1112971) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510814)

Sorry - I should add why 7 is better: way faster starting up and shutting down, looks better, super-fast desktop search, excellent toolbar (who cares if they ripped that off Apple?).

Re:Windows 7 is actually kinda good (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32510894)

That's nice, but XP is also "kinda good". It'll die when it can't run a supported version of Office anymore.

Re:Windows 7 is actually kinda good (2, Insightful)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511076)

As long as it can run Office 2003, there will still be people who use it. (*sigh*)

No (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510764)

You are not alone. I will be very surprised if my company moves from XP any time soon. We only upgraded to Office 2003 about 18 months ago, and yes, we are still stuck on IE 6. We're also using Lotus Notes 6.5 (latest version is 8.5 according to Wikipedia).

I think not. (1)

ThoughtMonster (1602047) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510768)

Windows XP is still "good enough" for many people out there, and besides, it's still supported by software vendors, and probably will be for quite some time. The technological rift between Windows XP and Windows 7 is not overly large (the base infrastructure is in many places similar to identical), so that incentive is also missing (unlike, say, the jump from Mac OS Classic to Mac OS X, which were completely different, with Mac OS X clearly being the way forward).

As long as people can run their Offices and their Firefoxes and whatnot, XP will stay for those people who do not wish to purchase new computers (or new OS licenses, anyways).

And to think that Vista was supposed to be a quantum leap forward in terms of infrastructure (remember WinFS?). If the largest software company in the world can't get their asses into gear, something is clearly wrong with their modus operandi.

Staying on XP... (1)

thittesd0375 (1111917) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510772)

right up until we can get iPads and then everyone gets an iPad. No more desktop computers.

Staying with XP (5, Insightful)

NetDanzr (619387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510788)

Same at my company. Given that we use largely Web-based applications, there is no cost for porting apps to Win7 (if necessary at all); the only external cost would be to retire a few older printer that we tested as not working with Win7. However, with the few Win7 machines we have, we experienced two problems:
  • Retraining for Win7 is prohibitive, from a production perspective. We can't afford people to be idle for a day or two. (This also assumes converting from Office 2003 to Office 2007, which eats up most of the retraining costs
  • Anti-piracy controls on Win7 are far from perfect. We have only three machines with Win7, and yet we experienced a total of four times so far a black background and a screen that our product key was invalid. A call to Microsoft has always solved the issue, but it's still a hassle.

Re:Staying with XP (1)

Xiterion (809456) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510982)

We can't afford people to be idle for a day or two.

If even a day of downtime is that damaging, what do you do during flu season? Forbid people from becoming ill? Or are you referring to the cost of having a majority down for a day all at the same time?

Re:Staying with XP (1, Troll)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511002)

Troll? Is there some new bug in slashcode that automatically and randomly doles out troll mods?

I'm not sure why anybody would listen to Gartner.. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510806)

Gartner have a well deserved reputation for authoritative delivery of a mixture of the blatantly wrong and the painfully obvious; but they seem to be veering largely toward the second camp with this one.

Even extended enterprise support for XP isn't going to last forever, and whatever legacy crap people are worried about isn't going to become any more compatible as time passes. As for "training", home users' access to XP has been(barring active effort on their part) largely cut off for some time now, so the ones that aren't mac users at home will be getting exposed anyway.

Unless you have some scheme to drop Microsoft, it seems pretty blatantly obvious that planning for their latest flavor is your only choice at this point.

How long has 7 been out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32510822)

Windows 7 hasn't been out that long, expecting everyone to jump to it is quite a stretch. It may be an improvement in many areas, but we're still dealing with companies whose internal apps only work on IE 6. Browser upgrade support is hard to get funding for from your corporate overlords, OS upgrades even moreso.

Having Vista happen didn't help anything either. XP needs to have its support extended until people, companies, and software/drivers have a reasonable amount of time to move to Windows 7.

"...is Window 7 the way forward?" (4, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510826)

Well, it's a way, but it may not be forward...

Why Even Bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32510832)

I'd only upgrade as necessary to a Win7 modified to a WinXP look-and-feel so less training is required.

As long as the hardware is supported, what is the reason to upgrade? And what new features of the current release of Office are really needed?

If the business adopts non-platform-specific standards for documents and data interchange, there will be less pressure and haste to upgrade and more flexibility overall.

We'd like to but... (2, Interesting)

painandgreed (692585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510840)

My company is ready to migrate once our vendor applications are compatible with Win7. Some won't run. Some haven't been verified by the company to work and our company won't move forward till the bendor says it's ok. Some are web apps that won't work with IE8. They will work in compatibility mode but once again, unless the vendor signs off on that and agrees that they won't corrupt our database or lack features doing such, management does not want to move forward. We're also a hospital and healthcare if involved directly so we don't want to beta test anything. We'd like to move forward to 64 bit Win7, but until ALL the applications we use can, we have to stick with WinXP because they are all used together on the same machines.

For the record, nobody ever considered Vista. Not us. Not the vendors.

Hai guyz, was XP released in the 90's??? (-1, Flamebait)

axl917 (1542205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510846)

Seriously, half* of the responses so far are of the "OMG n00b it was 2001!!!" variety. Let's try some honest responses rather than nerd-raging over OS release dates...

* If someone actually scurries off analyzes the exact percentage to see if I'm right nor not, I'll facepalm mightily.

Do you need it? (1)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510852)

Windows 7 adds a bunch of stuff that's really nice and convenient. It resolves some XP issues, and introduces it's own little quirks.

So the question really boils down to:

- Do you really need it?
- Do you have the budget for licenses and potential necessary new hardware?
- Do you have the helpdesk staff available to train to answer user questions?

A Helpdesk can cut down quite a bit on OS migration training costs, at the expense of a greater Helpdesk initial call volume.

If you're considering overhauling your enterprise OS version because you want to "keep up with the Joneses," do yourself, your budget, your stockholders, your customers, and your users, all a favor, and wait. XP is still well supported, even if it's not the perceptual cream of the MSFT crop.

Huh? (0, Redundant)

tthomas48 (180798) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510856)

What's the difference between Windows 7 and being stuck in the 90s? Windows 7 is a useful upgrade if you care about security and have users who MUST run windows apps.

Otherwise install Ubuntu. Your users will complain just as much about the transfer from XP to Windows 7, so it's a great time to make a transition to a lower cost operating system.

Old OS is nothing like.. (1)

placo (1829820) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510860)

some of the companies we sometimes do elearning contracts for. Things like flash player 8 only. I try to explain how many thousand exploits that would leave open but apparently it 'costs too much to upgrade'. I wonder how much it costs them by having machines with Flash 8 going online ..

Windows XP is about to lose support (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510900)

along with Windows 2003. which means that any new applications you buy next year will probably not support XP and Windows 2003

Re:Windows XP is about to lose support (1)

webbiedave (1631473) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511016)

I seriously doubt that the world's most popular OS will not have support from application vendors. Of course it will. And for many years to come.

Why should we move to Windows 7? (1)

webbiedave (1631473) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510906)

Things are working fine in our office with XP. Everyone can run all the programs they need. The industry continues to write their apps to also run on it. What can Windows 7 do that our company needs?

My is mostly rhetorical btw (1)

webbiedave (1631473) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510970)

Not trying to throw a softball to either camp. It's just that no employee has ever complained that the OS is too old and that we really need Windows 7.

Any concept of what's involved in migration? (5, Informative)

kenh (9056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510930)

Windows 7 has hardware requirements that many, many otherwise capable WinXP boxes can't meet either technically or economically.

It's easy to say well, upgrade your 1 Gig RAM 2 GHz P4 desktop to 2 Gig of RAM, but if you have to pitch 2x 512 Meg sticks and buy 2x 1 Gig PC3200 sticks it can get expensive fast. And that IDE drive will suffice, but it won't be very speedy - an upgrade may be in order, but unless your desktop includes a SATA port, will it really be cost-effective? Oh, and you can toss in a ReadyBoost USB flash drive to improve performance, but this is starting to get expensive...

PC3200 RAM is about $40-50 a Gig, a 4 Gig ReadyBoost USB flash drive will cost another $10 and where does that leave you? With an investment of $100/desktop plus labor in performing the hardware upgrade, or half the price of a new low-end Dell OptiPlex which will blow the socks off the 5-7 year old P4 you are investing in.

OR you could just sit on WinXP boxes for another year and start saving up for a forklift upgrade next year...

Training?????? (1)

orsty3001 (1377575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510958)

Train for what? Can people not just figure out where they moved the buttons you click on to?

Economics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32510962)

Upgrading for the sake of upgrading makes absolutely no economic sense.

Going from 1 version of windows to the next is usually only done as a result of needing the new verson of office to 'keep up'. Well Office 2003 or whatever basically fullfills every normal office need. In fact upgrading may mean all your internal scripts and automated excel crap will break or stop working.

It will and does cost a shitload of money to upgrade for a company and really most of them gain nothing tangible.

The only thing that will get a lot of companies to update is when they lose support and due to insane company charters that say they need to run software that is under current support contracts from 3rd party vendors that never give them support anyhow. Why they have this? Who the frack knows, probably the same reason they all run mcaffee and still get infected with 'all the latest virii'.

You're not alone (1)

necro81 (917438) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510964)

My current employer and my previous employer still have the technical staff using XP, because most of the software that we rely on to do our work is still a little shaky or unproven under Windows 7. At this point we could migrate to Vista as an interim step, but why bother?

Training time and costs... (1)

Adustust (1650351) | more than 4 years ago | (#32510968)

Are just another way of saying they're too cheap/scared to move forward. Especially if the license fees aren't an issue. More likely than not, this same company is still running on P3, P4 CPU's, too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for most people and their day to day activities on their workstation, the changes made from XP to Win7 would take less than 5 minutes to get familiar with and a few days of monotonous 8 to 5 grinding.

If ain't broke... (1)

nomorecwrd (1193329) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511014)

Don't fix it.

If everything works fine, you've got everything you need to do your job, and do it well. I don't see the need of change everything every five years or so.

The urge of migrating OS every five years is evil. Windows XP and Office 2003 should be more than enough for anyone whose only work has to do with writing reports, memos, processing spreadsheet data, etc. You are using 10 years old software... so what.

I still use a 20+ years old TV, and the only reason to change it is the technology breakthrough from analog to digital... nothing even compared to that has happened on the windows platform since W2K.

Tony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32511036)

As a .net developer, it would be nice to migrate to win7. There are some very nice debugging tools baked right into win7 that would help in tracking down bugs. Also the UI is much nicer to develop in. Nothing major.

Please note that MS has changed their OS release Cycle. They want to release a new OS about every 2 years or so. Much like the time between Vista and Windows 7 and less like the time between window XP and Vista. So the longer you wait, the further behind you are going to get and the harder the migration is going to be.

It's also time to dump dumb terminals... (4, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511050)

...but we just rebranded them as Virtual Desktop Infrastructure.

-Brought to you by VMWare and Wyse.

Why not go back to windows 95? (1)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511056)

I think companies should migrate back to windows 95. That way all the new fangled viruses and trojans won't work and you can feel safe again.

64-Bit (4, Interesting)

DarkSarin (651985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511058)

The main reason, in my mind, to upgrade is being able to effectively use 64-bit machines fully--and have more than 4GB of RAM.

Yes you need new machines to do this, but really, if you are buying NEW machines, you should probably upgrade. The question then becomes a matter of whether or not new machines are worthwhile. Your old machines may be still serviceable, but would newer machines result in getting work done enough faster to offset (even partially) the cost of the upgrade.

In many cases, the answer is no--a LOT of secretaries & folks that mainly do word processing are better off just staying where they are--their machines are fast enough for what they do, and additional RAM & extra cores aren't going to make a difference.

That said, if you are doing statistical analysis, engineering, graphic design, programming (and compiling), and a number of other jobs, then you should ABSOLUTELY be on a very aggressive upgrade schedule. Additionally, 8GB of RAM is more than just a good idea for many of those jobs--some of them should be stuffing as MUCH memory as they can into their machines so that they can do their jobs more efficiently.

In any work setting the bottleneck for employee performance should not be the environment or resources, but rather human capacities. That's the ideal. Obviously cost of achieving that and other considerations prevent most companies from getting to the point where that's true--but it should be the goal.

So either move to Win7-x64 OR move to another 64-bit OS with lots of power & memory in the hardware. Staying where you are only makes sense if you are doing mostly word processing.

No thanks. (1)

Judinous (1093945) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511074)

I'll keep my framerate as it is, thank you.

Forgot the golden rule of I.T. ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32511078)

"If it ain't broke, dont fix it".

and a private company wanting to force you to 'fix' it so they can make money off you, doesnt classify as broken.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>