Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Maybe With Help From Google and Adobe, Microsoft Can Kill Windows XP

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the but-wendy-from-accounts-receivable-will-be-upset dept.

Windows 405

colinneagle sends this excerpt from Network World: "Google announced last Friday that, in accordance to its policy of supporting a current browser and the immediate predecessor, its Google Apps productivity suite would drop support for Internet Explorer 8 once Windows 8 ships. Neither IE9 nor IE10 are available on XP. Adobe announced on the Photoshop Blog that the next version of Photoshop CS would support only Windows 7 and 8. The current version, CS6, is available for XP but, amusingly, not for Vista, which was its successor. This is a much-needed boost for Microsoft, which anxiously wants to put XP out to pasture after 11 years. Despite efforts to get rid of the old OS, XP still holds 43% of the market, according to the latest monthly data from Net Applications. Among Steam customers, Windows 7 has 70% market share, covering both 32-bit and 64-bit, while XP has 12%. That confirms what has been known for some time: consumers are adopting Windows 7 at a much faster rate than businesses. I know there is a whole economic argument to be had, and these numbers are not precise or scientific, but if XP really can be found in only 12% of households but 43% of businesses (or something close to that), then it really is time for the enterprise to stop dragging its tail."

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

Kill XP? (5, Insightful)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384519)

You'd think so.... However, you'd be mistaken. The main reason for this is that XP is used by two types of "customers":

  • Business users, that are locked to a certain platform that only support IE6. I know, the vendor of that platform should adapt its code. Business software release cycles are glacial. It will eventually happen, but slowly. Also, replacing computers costs money. Many businesses won't spend money on (perceived) non-core business.
  • "Good enough" users. The power of modern computers, even lower end ones, is more than most users can throw at. Let's be honest: is a P-IV 2.0GHz with 1GB or 2GB RAM not enough to run Windows XP and the few applications most normal users run? Yep, I thought so. Unlike most slashdotters, normal people keep their computers for a long time and replacing them is a hassle for them. Given replacing a computer is not only a hassle, but also costs money... money that can be used for more fun things, they won't do it. Note also, that people in this category are also very likely to stick with the software they own. They won't stand in a line for the latest Photoshop and are most likely still happily using the Microsoft Word that came bundles with the pre-installed Works package.

Those people will not switch until they get new computers and that simply is the way it works and should work. Finally! Stupid upgrade treadmill.

From an administrator point of view, Windows XP is well known and mature. Which means, you can anticipate problems and make sure everything works like expected. With 7 (let's ignore Vista) a whole slew of new problems got exposed (not necessarily for the users, but for the admins... Try partitioning a 7 machine in two parts: one drive OS/Apps, on drive Data... Results must be seamless for newly created users. Another example is to copy a user profile as a default template. 7 is a true bitch for these things)

What 7 brings to the table, and the only reason I recommend it, is 64-bit. If you need more than 4GB RAM, get 7. I think Microsoft should do a "Windows Classic" which is XP re-branded, and sell it as a subscription to finance future patches. Let's say 5€/month. I think it would sell like hotcakes. I think I'd take it for the few remaining XP machines, I haven't converted to Linux yet. (I'll probably convert one back to XP as the ATI drivers for that laptop suck donkeys balls)

Re:Kill XP? (2)

emilper (826945) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384561)

I would still use XP if it supported newer hardware with the original CD ... and if my copy did not decide it was pirated after changing the HDD and adding some RAM

Re:Kill XP? (3, Informative)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384819)

Reactivation is automated, and takes less than a minute.

Wait, why am I defending using XP?

Re:Kill XP? (1)

emilper (826945) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385063)

no, it's not always automated and it takes at least 20 minutes wait on the phone with the local MS support ... did that for M.S.Office at work, got enough of it

Microsoft treats its customers as if they are criminals ... no presumption of innocence

same story with Windows 7, replace enough of the hardware and having the original disk, the sticker and the bills is not enough :)

Re:Kill XP? (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385131)

takes at least 20 minutes wait on the phone

Funny - last time I had to activate Windows via phone (must have been nearly a decade ago), it took no more than a minute or two. Every other activation has been *click* *wait 30 seconds* *done*.

It sounds to me like your installation isn't all that healthy.

Re:Kill XP? ...are criminals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41385181)

I've had to call MS twice for activation. Once for VMWare (same machine, once natively and same key in a VMWare session)
and they were okay. Actually, pretty nice and provided me with a second key.

Another time was a mother board replacement, that took a couple of hours.

The problem is, like iApple, the consumer is at the whim of a person of lesser rank for a product that was legally purchased and
obtained. I see no reason to move beyond XP; if somebody wants my retail business, their pages better work under XP or I
don't need their product. I can pretty much guarantee that XP will be around for at least another decade.

Re:Kill XP? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41385201)

I run into this regularly at work, where it makes no sense at all because we have a volume licensing agreement with Microsoft. I always used to say when it happened that Microsoft was reminding me to buy a mac, which I eventually did. Macs are more expensive, and Apple isn't perfect either, but at least they leave me to run the software I've paid for in peace.

Re:Kill XP? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384863)

My copy was not pirated, too, it came with the machine. BTW, Windows support is nonexistent, M$ directed me to the PC maker upon contact -- and the PC maker support won't talk about nothing but the original configuration, WITHOUT service packs... (this was a couple of years ago, whne XP was better "supported").

Now, I got one W7 notebook (a family member idiotically wanted so, because Windows is "easier"). IE9 refuses to be installed, gives an update error and the mysterious cryptic error codes reveal nothing. Despite being quite slef-sufficient on Linux, I'm at loss about what to do (other updates work well).

I feel I was fooled into buying a product (W7) which simply can't work.

As people always say, "you get what you pay for"... actually, this is essentially BULLSHIT, if you for it you've been had.

Bottom line, one of the sole remaining uses for Windows is using IE9. Libreoffice is more than enough at my house and we prefer Chrome/Firefox anyway. For the few remaining sites which demand IE (mainly governments), I wonder what I'll do (not that they can force me to buy M$, but the annoyance remains).

Re:Kill XP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384971)

"you get what you pay for" is an axiom, not a law (I'm not talking law in the legal sense of course). It's just almost always true.

The free market is a law, like gravity. It always works, it cannot not work.

I'm curious, you state "the few remaining sites which demand IE (mainly governments), I wonder what I'll do (not that they can force me to buy M$, but the annoyance remains)."

How does that classify as an annoyance, the sites, mainly governments, demand IE, hence they are forcing you to use MS or not use the service? Hardly the free market then is it (as it involves state services). QED.

Re:Kill XP? (2)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385179)

Windows support is nonexistent, M$ directed me to the PC maker upon contact -- and the PC maker support won't talk about nothing but the original configuration, WITHOUT service packs... (this was a couple of years ago, whne XP was better "supported").

Yeah, that is the downside of using OEM windows, product support is handled by the manufacturer of the PC who tend to suck at it. Afaict MS do offer real support but you will have to pay for it (either as part of a retail copy of windows, on a pay per incident basis or as part of a support contract)

Re:Kill XP? (5, Insightful)

ajo_arctus (1215290) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384623)

Business users, that are locked to a certain platform that only support IE6.

I hear this a lot, and in some (but very few) circumstances it's certainly true. However, mostly it's not. Most internal web apps run just fine on IE7, 8 and 9 too. My feeling is that these businesses don't want to upgrade because the current tool (usually a Dell Pentium 4 with XP) is working just fine. Why would any sane businesses want to spend money replacing something that works perfectly well? Well, you and I know a few good answers to that, but we're not the decision makers here.

BTW, I'm a developer, and I wrote a lot of those apps that originally ran on IE, so I've seen this all the way through. There aren't truly that many apps that are genuinely IE6 only. Most run just fine on newer versions of IE, and often times FF and Chrome too. As a developer, even though I was targeting IE only back in the early 2000s, I actually used Firebird (which then became Firefox) to do most of my testing -- and I don't think I was alone.

Re:Kill XP? (5, Informative)

second_coming (2014346) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384729)

The main ones I have found which only work with early versions are embedded web apps in things like telephone systems. We had a Mitel 3300 which just would not work with anything later than IE6. The developers in their wisdom wrote some browser detection into the pages that if you weren't using IE6 told you it needed IE6 or later then refused to display anything else.

Re:Kill XP? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384823)

at my current job I have both windows 7 and XP on my machine why?

Because the entire "system is a remote desktop session" to a secured server windows 7 came standard on my new computer however any RDP capable machine could make it work.(my previous machine was literally win 2k.

Windows XP isn't going anywhere in such environments.

Re:Kill XP? (4, Informative)

Trogre (513942) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385077)

Okay, how about Business users who don't want to have to type in the fricking domain name each time they log into a different machine.

For some utterly confounding reason, Microsoft decided to do away with the customizable msgina login system (username, password, drop-down box for Domain) and replace it with the brain-damaged domain\username, password pair. Oh, and forget about writing your own drop-in replacement, they "fixed" that too.

For more Windows 7 great ideas, how about the Shut Down button that now lacks any kind of confirmation dialog? Want to Suspend? Find the little arrow right beside the words Shut Down, but don't miss by a couple of pixels or you lose your workspace.

Re:Kill XP? (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384713)

What 7 brings to the table, and the only reason I recommend it, is 64-bit. If you need more than 4GB RAM, get 7. I think Microsoft should do a "Windows Classic" which is XP re-branded, and sell it as a subscription to finance future patches. Let's say 5â/month. I think it would sell like hotcakes. I think I'd take it for the few remaining XP machines, I haven't converted to Linux yet. (I'll probably convert one back to XP as the ATI drivers for that laptop suck donkeys balls)

I think UAC is also an improvement. At least for people who understand when "allowing change to the computer" actually makes sense. And there are technical details like support for 4k sector drives (see http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/are-you-ready-for-4k-sector-drives/731 [zdnet.com] .

In terms of general usability, however, I don't see a big difference to XP. The desktop concept was reasonably mature with Windows 95, what came after that were details.

Considering the laptop, are you running Catalyst or the Open Source driver (Radeon)? Catalyst is fast but much cursed for unreliability. The Open Source driver is slow, but reportedly much more stable.

Re:Kill XP? (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384753)

Considering the laptop, are you running Catalyst or the Open Source driver (Radeon)? Catalyst is fast but much cursed for unreliability. The Open Source driver is slow, but reportedly much more stable.

I'm forced to use the open source drivers. Catalyst doesn't support the Radeon XPress 1100 any more. Linux has become a pain to use on it. When the card was still supported, Ubuntu ran snappy.

Re:Kill XP? (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384783)

Maybe a distribution with a more lightweight desktop manager might help?
Such as Linux Mint with XFCE?

Re:Kill XP? (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384835)

Most likely. Debian sid with LXDE works, but I'm going to put it mildly: it's not exactly polished. I guess Mint is going to be more polished. It's just an experimental machine anyway. I use it for when I go on vacation and similar. If it gets stolen, I'm not going to cry over it. (Still not bad: Dual Core, 2GB RAM, 320GB HDD... I mean, it works perfectly fine on XP MCE)

Re:Kill XP? (2)

Nitage (1010087) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385017)

I'm down to 2 Windows machines now; My wife's laptop - she needs IE for remote access to her work PC, and my media center - the games I want to play run fine on Wine, but I'm still haven't been able to get a user friendly bluray setup (which means disk goes into drive and plays without further user intervention) on linux. Irritating.

Re:Kill XP? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384889)

There's a third class: "Power Users". I'm sorry, but properly-configured XP on the same hardware IS faster than Windows 7. Better machines than what you describe still perform better on XP than Windows 7. To me, it's a waste of money to upgrade to Windows 7 when I'm going to take a performance hit in the process. I also waste a lot more time reconfiguring Windows 7 to the way I like it than XP.

You're right that the only compelling reason for upgrading is 64-bit, >4GB (technically >2GB) applications. You're also right that partitioning the OS on one partition, data/users on another is an exercise in frustration (there are multiple ways to do it, all of which suck. I even tried junctions. What a mess). The only other reason I can think of at this point for choosing Windows 7 (when you have the choice) will be if hardware vendors stop supporting drivers for XP.

Re:Kill XP? (1)

ultrasawblade (2105922) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385005)

There was "Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs" but I don't know if they still offer it, or will after the XP EOL date ...

Re:Kill XP? (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385043)

There is a LOT more to recommend Win 7 than just X64, although that IS good. With Win 7 I have placed it on systems as "old school" as a socket 754 sempron with 2gb of RAM and the system...was actually snappy. Thanks to Win 7 having MUCH better memory management the system has real snap, more than XP, and by slapping a cheapo 2Gb flash drive i had around for Readyboost to take up the small I/Os it loads programs MUCH better.

That said you have a third set of users..those whose systems are frankly overpowered for them. You point out the "good enough" while forgetting that XP was sold until Win 7 was released in 09 so I've seen plenty of duals and even triples with 3Gb of RAM and WinXP. Lets look at the low end of those, the Pentium D 820. That chip was used a LOT in low end systems, heck you can find those chips for like $8 now, they are just so plentiful. Now what does the average user actually DO that would slam this chip? Facebook? watching YouTube? listening to MP3s and burning CDs?

Now I have gotten all my customers to switch to Win 7 by pointing out all the extra features and better performance, but I can understand why some wouldn't change until their systems die. After all its a major PITA to completely replace your OS, and frankly most users won't have the skill so its $100 for the OS and another $$ to pay someone to do it. And with the economy in the toilet why go through that work when you have nearly a year and a half of support left?

But I disagree about admins, Win 7 is frankly a joy to admin and is much less likely to go flaky than WinXP, which you have to remember has had 3 SPs and a ton of patches. Finally Win 7 is easy to use without admin rights, whereas XP is a royal PITA to get programs running without admin rights. You often have to tweak like crazy to get programs to play nice without admin, sure most admins are USED to it, but that doesn't mean its pleasant or fun.

Re:Kill XP? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41385079)

I bought Win XP, why should I upgrade as long it runs all programs I want to run?

What is the reason for me to give Microsoft more money, when my copy of XP runs fine on my home computer?

I will never buy a upgraded windows version, unless I get one with new hardware or my XP gets to outdated that the programs I want to run simply does not support XP.

Please point out, what is so great with the newer versions of windows?

Re:Kill XP? (0)

flyneye (84093) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385109)

Yeah , but I don't get how killing XPs version of Windoze Exploder is supposed to kill XP for anyone but old ludditic grannys who use it by default ignorance. Microsoft still believes the world uses their browzer? LOLBWAHAHAHAHOOOOO!

Re:Kill XP? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41385139)

Here's why I continue to use XP. I am a public high school teacher. I take systems that are donated by local businesses, refurb them, and donate them to students who don't have computers at home. Virtually every single computer that gets donated has an XP COA sticker on the case. I have tried sending the donated PC's out with Ubuntu installed, but the majority of recipients don't like it because it's "different", i.e. not what they are used to and comfortable with. So I install XP.

I like the "Windows Classic" idea; I think MS should (and could) put out a basic OS (with some built in limitations, i.e. limited in RAM, storage, or something like that) for $50...as that's all most users would need. Even better if they have some sort of "trade up" program that allowed you to "deregister" an XP key in exchange for a "Windows Classic" key.

Re:Kill XP? (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385173)

A lot of them did fix it, and then promptly locked it into IE8 instead. I've been trying to prevent deployment of IE9 to around 200 Win7 systems ever since it was released. It finally got to the point where I started logging into the system and just clicking the damn "Hide update" button. Grrr.

Vista (5, Insightful)

jrumney (197329) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384533)

The difference between consumer and business is Vista. Businesses never went near it, and consumers can't wait to get rid of it.

Re:Vista (4, Insightful)

temcat (873475) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384931)

Well, I for one don't plan to get rid of Vista. Moreover, I'm going to buy a used box of Vista Ultimate which sells for ridiculously low price here (due to bad rep) and install it on a PC that is going to be upgraded. This is because Vista works perfectly fine nowadays (and is more stable than XP for me), so I cannot see any reasons to choose 7.

Another difference between XP and Vista (1, Insightful)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385143)

XP has a "corporate" install disk that didn't need product activation in both 32 and 64-bit, and passed genuine advantage. Vista and 7 do not. If Microsoft *really* wants Windows 8 to take off, don't be surprised if a Windows 8 corporate install version doesn't get released for *cough* corporations.

Really, because of the 'ol corporate install version of XP, it is going to running in virtual machines for an eternity.

Part of it is just a coincidence, but notice the decline of Microsoft right about the same time they came up with product activation that works fairly well and didn't release a corporate install disk. Apple, Linux, etc., all doing pretty good now.

Adobe cs6 suite works with vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384547)

The actual adobe cs6 suite works with vista sp2 although it isn't officially supported. There is a difference between availability and support...

Does xpGnome still work with the latest Ubuntu? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384549)

Thought it was quite funny how easy it was to make Ubuntu look like XP. :-)

People hate Vista/7. They have no choice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384553)

Consumers buy new computers with it- there are no XP options readily available. Businesses are run by IT departments who do have some choice. I wonder why XP still dominates. Vista/7 BOTH suck. Of course- I abandoned Windows around the time XP was released because of the bull shit Microsoft pulls. And I'm not talking about stupid shit like IE integration or cause its a monopoly. I'm talking about stupid shit like wizards which take 10 times as long to go through for something that took 2 seconds on prior versions of windows.

Consumers? Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384555)

consumers are adopting Windows 7 at a much faster rate than businesses

There is probably a significant difference between Steam users and "consumers":
Steam users are gamer, which _have_ to have newer computers.

However, it does not make sense to state that:

XP still holds 43% of the market

and to say that

XP really can be found in only 12% of households but 43% of businesses

because the later would not give 43% market share.

Let me get this straight (5, Insightful)

PCK (4192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384565)

If you are a company that has a working system that runs fine, why would you force an upgrade just because XP is n't used by consumers any more? Even if you put the economic costs at zero which it certainly is n't and the summary brushes aside way to casually; you always have a risk factor of unforseen issues getting passed testing.

No business should upgrade for the sake of technology fashion, weather it be OS or applications. Hell you see companies running custom DOS programs all the time.

Re:Let me get this straight (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384675)

Why do you write "isn't" as "is n't"?

Re:Let me get this straight (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41385165)

Engage Grammar Nazi Mode:

to -> too
weather -> whether

Re:Let me get this straight (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384677)

How many companies use *just* custom DOS programs tho?

A company I worked for for many years used a green screen suite of apps which they had been developing since about 1985 - they started out with dumb terminals, and gradually moved on to Windows with a terminal emulator and then stayed with the terminal emulator while tracking Windows releases. If they had stayed on dumb terminals, their business would have suffered.

The problem here has nothing to do with DOS applications or custom green screen stuff - that can always be accommodated. The real issue is that your suppliers are moving on, and it becomes harder and harder to find new versions of applications which run on your platform - how many new apps are released today which run on Windows 98? Is Windows 98 still a viable OS to run? No.

Re:Let me get this straight (5, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384699)

A lot of "business" computers only need email and an office suite. There was quite a big difference between Windows 98 and Windows 2000/XP. There's less difference between XP and Windows 7.w

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384791)

Youre not talking about circuit city are you?

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

PCK (4192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384793)

I'd wager that a large percentage of the 47% are businesses with a large number of seats and pretty much a standard application set, introducing a new application into these kind of environments are normally a big descision anyway with the likelyhood of a role out of new hardware/OS.

If the support contract for your software has come to an end and the supplier is no longer willing to support older software then you obviously have a business case for an upgrade. However as Microsoft will provide security updates for XP until 2016 why upgrade now?

Ooops (1)

PCK (4192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384811)

I meant 43% not 47%.

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384935)

47% expect the govt to pay for and support them for free

Re:Let me get this straight (2)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385151)

I don't think there are any left that use "only" custom DOS programs. But there may be the occasional old program that is still considered important for business. Especially if it is closed source and the vendor does not exist anymore.

Personally, I'm working for a medical technology company that still has a lot of devices with DOS in the field.
Right now, the successor to that particular system is under development, using Windows 7 with a realtime extension for the time critical stuff. But until recently, the DOS powered device was actually produced and sold. Maybe still is.

Compare 2 extreme to make one of them look bad... (1)

Chatterton (228704) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384571)

Steam users are games that want the latest and best of what their money can buy, and on the shelves only windows 7 computers are available.
Companies want to keep their knowledge/trainning as long as possible, and/or one of their core application doesn't work on windows 7, and/or the investment in new softwares adapted to windows 7 is too high. Companies have a bunch of "good" reasons to keep XP.

Re:Compare 2 extreme to make one of them look bad. (1)

Xenx (2211586) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384617)

While I do see that side of things, the reality is that businesses often base decision completely on immediate costs and ignore the long term. Savings from reduced power costs of more efficient hardware. Savings from reduced labor costs, due to faster hardware. Increased failure rates due to aged equipment. While those may not always outweigh the immediate costs, they often get ignored as well.

Re:Compare 2 extreme to make one of them look bad. (5, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384647)

Companies have a bunch of "good" reasons to keep XP.

Rather they have no good reasons NOT to stick with XP.
Except ofcourse artificial limits created by Microsoft.
If MS would keep supporting XP, it could easily go on for another ten years.

duh? (2)

g2racer (258096) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384573)

But Google is still supporting XP with their Windows version of Chrome... No need for IE...

Re:duh? (2)

Ice Tiger (10883) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384683)

In fact at my company we basically switched our corporate browser to Chrome because it is platform agnostic as opposed to IE which is.

Re:duh? (1)

Ice Tiger (10883) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384685)

...is not.

How dare corps still use something that works? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384593)

Pay your Microsoft tax now! Balmer needs new chairs.

Risky (4, Insightful)

pmontra (738736) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384599)

If MS forces almost half of its customers (that's more or less what the 43% of the desktop/laptop market is) to upgrade they are going to lose some of them in the process. Some people will buy a Mac instead of a new PC, some will buy a tablet and forget about their old PC, some will install Linux. I can understand why Google is happy with that, even understand why Adobe doesn't care about XP (its customers have to keep working with its sw, no matter what) but MS is sending some of its customers to somebody else. Furthermore I believe that many companies are waiting to get a boost thanks to the WinXP end of life in 2014.

Déja vu? (2)

DocZayus (1046358) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385141)

This seems to be the same chatter we had when Win95 came out, then WinNT, Win98, Win2000, WinXP, Vista, etc... (yes I left a few out, but who needs to remember millenium?) Nothing new here, MS is still going to be around even with the shift. Not everyone likes working on a MAC. I for one hate it even though I have to use it at work. And most people still think Linux is command-line only. Of course when you show them what it really is nowadays, they go oooh-aaah, but still want to stick to something they know.

People just go to Firefox etc instead... (1)

MacroRodent (1478749) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384603)

>Neither IE9 nor IE10 are available on XP.

The Google stuff works better on Firefox anyway. Or on Chrome.

Re:People just go to Firefox etc instead... (1)

terjeber (856226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385015)

That wooooshing sound you just heard was the point wizzing behind you without you getting it.

Why Update (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384625)

Why would business from XP to Windovs 7 (or Windows 8)? For that matter, why would non-gamer browsing and office only user do that? As long as they do not need some new Photoshop or other Windows 7 software, they have no need to update.

Businesses are not supposed to buy new stuff just because it is shiny, they are supposed to spend money only when it is effective. Home users can spend the same money on tons of other fun or useful things. Why new computer when the old one is just fine for what you do?

Do professionals use Photoshop on Windows? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384645)

I always had the impression that photographers and designers preferred Macs. Of course, this is also one of those applications where people will buy a computer to fit the application rather than the other way round, so Adobe can afford to do this.

Re:Do professionals use Photoshop on Windows? (2)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385075)

The hippie evangelist kind do, and yes, many shops are run by these people. However, they choose mac for ideological reasons because there's no technical reason why the same work cant' be done on windows...at least as far as adobe goes.

Carrot or stick... (4, Insightful)

Zemran (3101) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384649)

Maybe it is well past time that companies (i.e. Microsoft) learnt to support customers rather than drive them. If 43% of businesses are really happy with XP then they should continue to support it. Many companies are fed up with constant updates (although constant is not an apt word with this time frame) and would prefer to stick with something that works. Most companies are not interested in bleeding edge and just want Doris to be able to type up that invoice for the roof that Gary has fixed or the sink that Fred unblocked or whatever and updating the computer to do the same job is of zero importance.

It is one thing that a company does not want to continue to develop an old product but when they pull the plug on updates etc. rather than just leaving the server running, I feel that they are not complying with their agreement. If Doris needs to run a new scanner or something that does not work with XP then it is time for her to talk to her boss but while she is happy with her laserjet churning out reams of invoices and heating up the office at the same time, let her.

Written using XP :-)

Re:Carrot or stick... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384751)

The problem is that supporting XP costs MS money. They could offer a subscription-based system to recoup these costs past the product's lifetime (yes, yes, shouldn't have written the bugs in the first place), but that's a PITA too.

They do offer a "cheap" (25GBP) upgrade to win8, but
a) it's a reet pain to migrate from XP to 7 (even with the easy transfer thingy - you still have to reinstall all your software)
b) it's more resource intensive, minimum 1GB RAM (note ram for older machines is really quite expensive, no 4gb sticks for £15 here), and
c) it's windows 8 :-(

They're stuffed, really. People won't upgrade, and they'll look bad for not offering updates any more when the inevitable virus/worm emerges.

Re:Carrot or stick... (1)

Viceice (462967) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385105)

Lets not forget the dot matrix printer. That thing refuses to die,

Businesses are concerned with applications. (5, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384661)

When you have thousands of dollars in CAD software (for example) on a system which works fine for your needs, you lose time and money changing out your PC. If some of that software doesn't work well with later Windows versions, you lose even more.

The cost of the PC and OS may be trivial, but replacing it may "cost" much more than buying a new machine.

Steam users != typical consumers (2)

Nick Fel (1320709) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384665)

Nitpicky point, but Steam figures should never be used to represent the whole consumer market. Gamers are more likely to have new rigs or want to play games that already don't support XP. I suspect XP users a more likely to be users with simple needs who have a system that works for them and don't want to chance. For that matter, Photoshop isn't likely to sway them either. Google Apps maybe, if it includes Gmail -- but damn if that doesn't miss the point of using webmail in the first place.

Re:Steam users != typical consumers (2)

Radak (126696) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384763)

Exactly this. Steam users are a terrible metric of "consumers". Probably a decent way to analyse OS adoption among gamers, but certainly not consumers. Grandma is a consumer, and she might still be using 98. Hell, I'd be willing to bet 1% of Steam users are running Windows 8, which isn't even out yet. Does this prove that consumer adoption of Windows 8 is already at 1%? Definitely not.

Nobody wants Win7 or 8. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384667)

They are just forced to use it because things stop supporting it. (including newer hardware)

Both of them are an embarrassment of an OS. Seriously embarrassing. Worst things to ever come out of Microsoft, worse than ME, Visual Basic and ActiveX combined.
They are pitiful attempts to copy other OSes.

Not to mention the fact that they removed countless useful features from WinXP to Vista to 7 to 8 and NEVER replaced them at all. Especially true about a lot of lower-level things too.
The new explorer is awful to look at, it is inconsistent as high hell, it STILL is in Win8, and it is a pain to use.
Now we have Win8 and that "Metro", considerably worse than any of these. Let's just have 2 segmented sessions running together, BRILLIANT IDEA.
Why not just go full-on and have everything be its own little session?

I'm skipping to Win9. When Win8 crashes like it is supposed to, Win9 might actually be less crap than this terrible embarrassment of an OS.

time for the enterprise to stop dragging its tail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384669)

WHY is it "time for the enterprise to stop dragging its tail"?

What value is Microsoft providing with newer versions of Windows?

So why should "the enterprise" (whatever that is) fork over more money to Microsoft?

Re:time for the enterprise to stop dragging its ta (1)

terjeber (856226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385033)

What value is Microsoft providing with newer versions of Windows?

Supportability. It simply isn't possible to support ancient versions of software indefinitely. Nobody is going to force enterprise users to upgrade, but if they want to use newer software they'll have to. If they are happy with a Windows that is the way it is and runs what it runs, they'll be fine, but they'll get zero upgrades, even when serious bugs are found.

Looks like MS aims to kill Windows in general (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384673)

Win8 Metro UI - there is nothing more to say!

About time (1)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384719)

The game makers pulled something like this for Windows 2000 in the mid 2000's. Seems like a generation of XP users will have to learn the same lesson I got back then, having to throw away a good OS because of waning application support. It's remarkable that MS has kept XP alive for so long, as they're not making much money on it. There are few other pieces of software with such wide adoption that are used 10 years after the release.

Re:About time (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385127)

most of the win2k/xp checks were easy to bypass, but back then it was easier to get xp trimmed down to win2k levels where it performed identically.. Today, win7 only games typically use dx10/11 so they will not run on xp unless they have a d3d9 fallback.

The killer was the security center service which (I think) intercepted a bunch of IO and possibly other calls, slowing perf. considerably. Disabling that service brought it back to win2k~ and reduced memory footprint.. there were some other tweaks, but I got xp down to about 13 services (for a non domain network) at home, with most of the 'required' ones on 'on-demand' stopped state. with win7, this is much harder to do and the gains are a lot less.. The libraries are turkeys like they were on vista.

No support for OSs with less than 10% of market? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384731)

Luckily, nobody cares about those.
If nobody significant uses it, it doesn't matter.
No point in supporting software that is only used by a few geeks.
Unlike Windows 7.
eXamine your priorities.

To many new versions (1)

zippo01 (688802) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384745)

I think a problem windows is having is they have to many versions. No one in the business word wants to upgrade to Vista and then to windows 7 and then in a year need to upgrade everything to windows 8 and in another year to windows 9 and so on, possibly loosing compatibility along the way and certainly making more work for themselves having to answer user questions on how to do things on the new system. They really need a slow moving Cooperate Windows they can put out and say, this is the next 10 year upgrade. A Home Windows that can change more rapidly and a mobile Windows that no one will still care about.

Re:To many new versions (1)

terjeber (856226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385047)

and in another year...They really need a slow moving Cooperate Windows...this is the next 10 year upgrade

They did, it was called XP. XP was released eleven (more than ten - see?) years ago. Now it is time to upgrade. Ten years later. Business who upgrade to Windows 7 will probably be supported at least until 2019, which means that is when Business next has to upgrade. They have the slow moving Cooperate Windows, it's called a support contract.

One word. (2)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384757)


I don't really care what I "use" on the desktop so long as I have something that supports the hardware I need, and a desktop that I can work on without needing to retrain.

Thus virtualisation is being taken up by companies. Why? Slap ANYTHING on the machine itself. Virtualise an old version of XP that you KNOW how it works, all its quirks, all the software you use is compatible with, all your users know how to use, and you already have disk images and licenses for.

So you're not selling XP licenses (businesses already have them), but you might sell a Windows license or not depending on how well Windows works for them. Hell, with modern machines you notice precisely zero overhead from virtualisation and it absolutely DOES NOT MATTER what's running the VM.

I imagine VM companies are raking it in at the moment. If they're not, they're not pushing their product's features well enough.

The argument to upgrade "because everyone has it at home" is so ludicrous as to be beyond mention and shows absolutely zero knowledge of what a business is and how to run an efficient one. Nobody serious in business is still using IE6 (or if they are, it's locked down by virtualisation or proxies that don't let it stray to the Internet), but lots of people in business are seriously using XP. Because it works, predictably.

The only reason to change is hardware support, which virtualisation pretty much solves. Hell, hardly anybody dual-boots any more when they want to try Linux - just run it in a free VMWare player or equivalent at full speed and isolated from the rest of the machine.

That said, I got a new laptop recently. It came with Windows 7 (and a Windows 8 upgrade offer). I kept it on there but, hell, it took me a few days to get it how I like it and turn all the crap off and install some freeware to make it useable. And it will take me FOREVER to get used to the explorer windows (which are horrendous). So I slapped my old hard drive into the second drive bay and virtualised XP on it until I feel I can transition smoothly.

I got Windows 7. Made it as close to XP as possible. Then run XP on it to get work done. Sure, my Steam games are running in a 64-bit Windows 7 install, but that's not anywhere indicative of the OS being a choice itself (only that it's "passable"). I also have an Ubuntu VM to test my code against for multi-platform and 32/64 bit issues. And my browser has never been IE, even on Windows 95.

The fact remains: If you offered those businesses a paid-for Windows XP update, they would probably pay it rather than the massive HIT that they will take moving things to newer Windows. Hell, if they're going to have to have Windows 7, it's cheaper to virtualise their old machines and they get a lot more functionality back for doing so (e.g. rollbacks, snapshots, always clean images, etc.)

Re:One word. (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385149)

seems like a whole waste of new hardware to virtualize like that. you're better off just running xp. A sane network policy will protect you better than any ms update will. It is still possible to get xp running on most newer hardware, but it does take a custom install disk and possibly some bios tweaking.

RIP XP (1)

ra1n85 (2708917) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384779)

Now Microsoft needs others to do its dirty work? I can see it now, poor XP being buried in a cornfield by hired goons Adobe and Google. When will this cycle of violence end?

Not this again (5, Informative)

Quick Reply (688867) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384785)

First, it was already posted: http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/09/15/0130219/google-kills-apps-support-for-internet-explorer-8 [slashdot.org]

Second, IE8 is being dropped, not Windows XP.
IE8 does not equal Windows XP.

IE8 is a web browser.
XP is an operating system that supports many web browsers and applications, and more than one at the same time.

There are plenty of other SUPPORTED ways to access Google Apps on Windows XP:
- Google Chrome
- Mozilla Firefox
- Apple Safari
- Google Chrome Frame
- Google Apps Sync for Microsoft Outlook

With all of the above solutions, Internet Explorer 8 will still work on the computer for other websites that are required (whether that is a technical requirement or user preference). These solutions work in ADDITION to Internet Explorer, they do NOT replace Internet Explorer.

If the organisations IT policy is so rigid that they can't allow any of these solutions onto their network but still use Windows XP, then I doubt that this kind of organisation would be using such progressive and relatively new (compared to on-premise) solutions such as Google Apps in the first place.

Re:Not this again (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384901)

You are right about IE8 but in the summary I read "Adobe announced on the Photoshop Blog that the next version of Photoshop CS would support only Windows 7 and 8."

Re:Not this again (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384947)

You are right about IE8 but in the summary I read "Adobe announced on the Photoshop Blog that the next version of Photoshop CS would support only Windows 7 and 8."

..it also said that CS6 doesnt support vista... meanwhile I am running CS5 on Win7, and I suspect we could go back to Photoshop 7 or earlier and have no problems.

Re:Not this again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41385001)

I've worked in a so called research institute that made all the suggested options stackable offences. The only way some empire building anal retentives will change is if they are forced too.

Right after we replace Netware... (5, Informative)

MasterOfGoingFaster (922862) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384801)

We'll be replacing those shop-floor Win XP machines - right after we get rid of the Novell Netware servers. Yeah - we still use Netware.

I guess you'll have to mod me 'funny' because you can't mod me "sad".

Forced upgrade fees are WRONG (1)

nurbles (801091) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384837)

At the tiny company where I work, we've discovered that many of the software packages we own simply will not install under Windows 7. If Microsoft somehow manages to force us to stop using XP, they are also forcing us to purchase [sometimes very expensive] upgrades. In addition, we often still develop and support 16 bit applications and many of those tools will even (or EVER) run under Windows 7. Of course, Microsoft offers an option for Win 7 Pro and above -- a free Virtual XP! But how long will that last if they are trying to put XP "out to pasture?"

I have no problem with Microsoft abandoning XP, but I fervently believe that the moment a company decides to abandon a product, the product should become public domain, open source, or at least be transferred to an entity that is willing to maintain and support it. Software companies should not have the right to unilaterally revoke our ability to use their tools any more than a physical tool company should be allowed to come take back that reliable old drill we bought 11 years ago, just because they don't want to support that model any longer.

Forced upgrade fees are wrong, bordering on criminal.

Re:Forced upgrade fees are WRONG (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384949)

They won't revoke your ability to use XP. They just won't update it any more. Although I guess if they turn the registration servers off that would break any XP machine that needed a new motherboard. They should at least issue a patch in 2014 to remove the registration requirement.

Re:Forced upgrade fees are WRONG (1)

nurbles (801091) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385153)

Not just a new motherboard, but if a re-install is needed for any reason, it could well be impossible to get back to the necessary patch/service pack level. That is no longer possible for people who need to use NT4 because none of the update sites allow IE3 (which shipped on NT4) to access them any more, making impossible to get updates even if they were available. The same will be true of the browsers that shipped on your XP install disks.

As for a new motherboard, that may require an entirely new license according to Microsoft (I've called them about this more than once.) To stick with my tool analogy, that's kind of like Craftsman demanding that I buy all new tools (or perhaps new workbench and storage systems FOR my tools) because I've rebuilt my work room after a hurricane. For my computer it was purchasing a replacement motherboard [after a lightning strike] that was as identical as I could find to the original -- but since it wasn't PRECISELY IDENTICAL, Microsoft required me to purchase a new XP license. So, businesses that want to keep running XP should buy up as many IDENTICAL hardware platforms as possible, for use as spares later when the current stuff breaks down, otherwise their licenses are likely to not work on replacement hardware.

Of course, that's given the existing licensing scheme (an appropriately nefarious sounding word, eh?) But we all know Microsoft is a reasonable company and they'll probably make it very easy to reinstall XP on any similar hardware with any license without requiring on line (or telephone) activation so that they don't alienate customers who don't want to pay to upgrade everything they own for Win 7/8 compatibility. Right?

Re:Forced upgrade fees are WRONG (1)

temcat (873475) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384973)

I think that as a minimum minimorum, the company should be obliged to offer an abandoned product to all as a free downgrade from their current similar products. I think this is the easiest option within the current IP regime.

Re:Forced upgrade fees are WRONG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41385089)

+100 agree. Once a company decides it doesn't want to offer a software product any more they should have a legal obligation to place the source into the public domain. I think I'll write to my Euro MP and see what I can get going on this front.

The Cost (2)

ravenswood1000 (543817) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384847)

The cost of upgrading from XP can be prohibitive. I work part time for a small market radio station. Just to replace the OS it is $150 a pop. There is the new version of the automation software that will not work with XP, that is an additional 15K. The new software won't work with the old servers so add 4-5K on that. Then there are the little things. Adobe Audition1 is a great product! Doesn't work so well on 7. That's another $350 a pop Some business just can't afford it yet.

Re:The Cost (4, Insightful)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384961)

I love these kinds of articles, usually from someone who's never had a proper IT job, who assume that businesses are just being lazy or cheap just because they don't feel spending a fortune to replace something that still works fine with something that probably won't work any better and may actually be worse.

Re:The Cost (3, Interesting)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385093)

"Adobe Audition1 is a great product!"

That's because it's still Cool Edit Pro. Then Adobe started fucking around with the codebase and turned the entire thing into a horrible, steaming pile of shit in a few short months.

XP instead of Win7 (1)

GLowder (622780) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384849)

While reading the above during a lull in work. I'm struck by the fact that this computer sitting in front of me has a Win7Pro sticker on it, but is running XP Pro. Seems to support most of the comments about being easier to predictably manage many installs by our IT dept.

but with free software... (1)

ssam (2723487) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384903)

but with free software (firefox, gimp, gnash...) we can keep windows XP alive for ever. hooray, screw MSTF. oh, wait a minute...

businesses still hoping for a useable linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384929)

{Crickets} no, really. They have Intel hardware, can't run osx, don't like Ubuntu, don't trust Oracle, don't speak German... still waiting for commodity Linux.

This is a good time to rethink business software. (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#41384939)

The practice of replacing software and equipment every few years for thousands of dollars a seat doesn't make sense anymore. Business computing is really starting to become a mature market, and there are no benefits to upgrading in many situations. It may be time to start looking at software as a service and not a product. And it's definitely time to sit down and draft some firm standards regarding business computers, so that software can be compliant with those standards. It's time to move away from proprietary operating systems like windows and towards standard operating systems so that software can be guaranteed to work on business computers for decades into the future.

Still on XP because it takes too long to upgrade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41384993)

I am still on XP because I was going to wait until my company issued me a new laptop when mine became 3 years old this month, but they extended the replacement time to 4 years. And they no longer have on site support to simply swap my drive with a Windows 7 drive. They no longer do that. Reloading my laptop with all the apps I need would take almost a week, but I would have been forced to with a new laptop. Now, I simply do not want to bother.

XP is "good enough" (2)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385021)

Where I work, I use Windows XP to run an Exchange client, deal with some intranet sites that only work with IE, and run a Cygwin X server.

Most of my work is in Linux; whatever docs I need to read from the Microsoft "productivity" suite, I can read with OpenOffice or one of its variants, and I never need to create or edit one, so that doesn't matter.

I don't use Adobe ANYTHING, cause I'm a bit too security conscious (or, paranoid, if you prefer); evince, again, is close enough (actually, better, most of the time) for PDFs.

Why should the company piss away the license cost and three days to a week of my time (~USD$2000/week) to get back to a usable work environment, for absolutely no benefit from a Windows 7 "upgrade"?

Still running XP SP2, and quite happy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41385045)

I've run XP through several system upgrades and have unused Vista and Win7 license sickers on the bottom of various computers.
IMO SP3 was released mainly to force .net on you and slow the systems performance so benchmarks wouldn't show such superior benchmarks vs Vista/7.

What will kill XP is of course the memory limit, 64bit support as software exploits it more;
Theres no money in it, but what would be nice, is if XP was simply optimized(and security patched) over the years and new features that are very popular in Vista/7 be added to it(tho I don't know what those are). then your older systems would seemingly continue to get faster and new systems faster still, vs new computers being basically the same speed to do the same thing on the more bloated OS.

Once incompatibilities force me to stop running XP, I'll try to find the least bloated version of FBSD/Linux and try that for a while.

The biggest drag right now isn't the OS, but the web sites themselves requiring new browsers/plugins just to view content, forcing browser updates that are less and less efficient with 'basic'/old html pages. We keep reinventing the wheel, and imo it doesn't look any different but requires more horses to turn it.
IE6 still works with my gmail(no I don't run IE. Opera/firefox here, but IE 6 is installed and I just tried it)

I say good riddance to XP (1)

cbope (130292) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385049)

I'm glad to see big companies pushing XP's viability out the window. It needs to die, swiftly. As someone who manages several large Windows-based software projects, keeping XP around and supported is a headache and costs a lot of money and time. You see, Vista, 7 and now 8 are very much alike from a support and development standpoint. XP has fallen so far behind and is now the edge case, it's the exception. Some of our software seriously pushes (and exceeds) the limits of memory on a 32-bit OS when working with very large data sets (I'm talking 1.5 GB here and more in the future), and well 64-bit XP is kind of a bastard child so it's a no-go (check how many software actually support 64-bit XP, it's very rare). 64-bit starting from Vista is fine.

It is a major pain to support XP while trying to move forward. Having to support XP holds us all back, whether you realize it or not. It can't die fast enough. It served its purpose and now it's time to move on.

I wish Windows 7 would run on my PC... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41385053)

... but some genius at Microsoft decided to not support the ICHR6 southbridge on my mainboard running a Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. I suppose I'll be running Fedora on it soon.

Time (2)

puddingebola (2036796) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385071)

I still have Vista installed on my machine with Ubuntu. I use iTunes. I sync to an iPod. I do not care. But it is not time for businesses to drop XP. It is time for us to smash the computers that rule us. It is time for the humans to rise up. It is time to climb to the top of the highest towers and launch our laptops off to the waiting cement below. It is time to smash the computer overlords with baseball bats, to storm into the server rooms of the universities, of the schools, of the businesses, of the research facilities. We must destroy the computers that our attempting to take over our lives. Take up a hoe, or a shovel, or a hammer and begin to destroy all the electronic devices around you. Take off your wristwatch. Is it digital? Destroy it immediately. Destroy everything that contains silicon microchips. If your car was made after 1984 set it on fire with gasoline. Then, and only then, can we form the perect agrarian society. Thank you.

This is not a troll and I am not a spy. You went to the crazy house and said you were going as a student to school. You are abnormal because we have schools here, in all the suburban urban areas.

In his mind, James Taylor is going to Carolina in his mind.

If it is not broke, don't fix it (3, Insightful)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385083)

If it is not broke, do not fix it. If your system (which can be huge and cost millions) is working perfectly well on XP, why update?

Reap what you sew Microsoft (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41385145)

Microsoft created a vendor lock-in strategy. Expensive and proprietary, they encouraged everyone to develop develop develop for it.

Microsoft has pushed the limits of what companies will spend for OSes and applications. That everything is so very integrated, while it encourages business to work within its proprietary framework, prevents them from easily leaving it.

The short description of the problem? It's deeply complex and rooted within business systems and Microsoft created things this way intentionally.

What did they expect would happen?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?