EU

End of XP support: Why so many CIOs are still not ready

With Microsoft's cut-off date for support for XP just over a year away, a worryingly large number of IT leaders seem to be unprepared.

Microsoft's end of support for the venerable XP operating system on 8 April 2014 could have unfortunate consequences for most UK organisations, which still lack a plan for migrating XP legacy apps.

According to new research, 52 per cent of UK IT departments have yet to put in place a strategy for dealing with applications that currently run under XP, first released to manufacturers in August 2001.

However the study, from Accenture- and Microsoft-owned software consultancy Avanade, suggests that IT leaders are aware of the scale of the problem they could be facing in 14 months.

Eight out of 10 of the CIOs and IT directors surveyed say large volumes of unsupported apps represent a concern to them. XP continues to account for 43 percent of enterprise desktop infrastructures in the UK, according to Avanade figures.

The reason for the inertia in preparing for the end of support for the OS is attributed to a lack of a business case, which was cited as the key barrier by 79 per cent of the XP organisations polled.

The legacy software infrastructure of XP includes a number of business-critical applications, some of which the IT department may not even be aware of, and other programs that are seen as too costly to migrate, according to Avanade.

About

Toby Wolpe is a senior reporter at TechRepublic in London. He started in technology journalism when the Apple II was state of the art.

99 comments
jmatcob
jmatcob

 i hated xp when it first came out. 98se was great apart from the active desktop stuff which thankfully you could turn off.  and an issue with disconnecting network drives sometimes. 

but after a few service packs i found xp to be great too. it was not perfect but it was stable and robust.

i saw something on tv once that was obviously poking fun at M$.  one guy says, 'it looks the same, it does the same thing, what's so different about it?'. and the other guy says, holding up the box, 'it has a different number!'

M$ should keep xp going because there are so many people out there still using it with programs that don't works well with 7 and 8.

people are getting sick of having to update everything every 2 to 4 years. and then to find out that the software they use is not supported any more or they have to buy the next version when there is nothing wrong with the old one. i work in the industry and we get so many complaints when people find that they have to upgrade.  they are promised, better, faster, more reliable. but they should also be told, hassles, just as slow because now you have a faster computer we produce bloatware because it's easier, newer bugs and vulnerabilities, and it's going to cost you.

personally, i used to joke that we (techs) should send a christmas card to M$ every year for all the money we make because of their stuff ups.

i think that open source (linux, ubuntu etc) will eventually win out. especially if they let more people know about it. it was after all M$'s draconian (bordering on blackmail) policies of market control (telling stores that if they wanted to sell M$ product then 'no computer goes out the door without windows on it') that most people think that windows is the only operating system in the world.

hopefully the days of M$ are also numbered. serves them right for being so greedy in the first place.

firebird2711
firebird2711

Im betting Microsoft will EXTEND XP till the end of time, it will be called "The Tardus"

Manju.L
Manju.L

XP continues for account for 43% of enterprise desktop infrastructures in UK, it may include cost for migration. XP is phased out only when new systems are taken to consideration. Sentimental aspect is, people have no intention of moving off from Windows XP, even if Microsoft discontinues support. 1. Win7 doesn’t support only 8% of the programs compared to Win XP. 2. They can be made compatible by installation of new software’s like by using DosBox to enlarge the window preview. 2. XP has poor performance because it doesn’t support 3D acceleration. 3. XP start up time and shut down differs: Startup: XP-0.49s Win7-1:03s Shut down: XP-17s Win7-11.5s MANJUSHA L

harry
harry

It isn't just Business applications... I have a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED film and slide scanner, which cost me $1000 in 2004, which needs Nikon Scan v4.something, which Nikon have stated they have no plans to upgrade for post-XP OS's. That means I will have to keep my XP laptop going, somehow on my local network but isolated from the Internet for security reasons, to scan all those slides going back to the 70's when I retire. Get another scanner? Nikon doesn't make slide scanners anymore, they have gone digital (as have I, camera-wise). The Coolscan 5000 can output in Nikon RAW format, as can my Nikon digital camera. So preserving my XP laptop is the only way to stick with Nikon RAW.

noprem
noprem

Both of you mentioned problems that laypeople like myself had. I never needed it because (1) I had a good [legal] Xp/sp2 disc and (2) the later one I found in the thrift shop was an "Anniversary Edition" with Xp Home and Pro, sp2, and Xp-64bit- all for USD one dollar. (How's THAT for ROI?) My wife had already bought a returned/serviced Toshiba laptop in part because it came with Xp after Vista was released. All our H/W so far works fine, and all the S/W we want has Xp versions still available, so far. In the past MS has kept updates for older OSs online, and I wanted to make sure that was still the case, that 'dropping support' didn't mean the older Tuesday stuff was gone. But I do go back far enough to recall when server space was more expensive, so some sites would do housecleaning, I guess, and there would go my upgrades!) BTW Mr Gates or whoever isn't fooling me. "No more blue screen of death" didn't mean 'no crashes', it just meant the crashes no longer produced the BSOD. :-) Plus, the SysRestore has saved me many times, so I don’t need a newer OS for that, as you know. I once thought of going Linux but: the learning curve would be steep, I would certainly have driver problems, and I have a life outside computing! TUVM for all your helpful notes. Doug

james.vandamme
james.vandamme

Just like they brought out Chromebooks for $200 that do most everything a home user needs with no fuss or hassle, they could make a power user desktop with the same lack of Microsoft drama. Us geeks like our obscure Linux distros, where we can fiddle to our hearts' content, but the n00b masses just want something that works. And has a screensaver.

shikshikshik
shikshikshik

Win XP was the best and Microsoft should restart support to it. If they have made business errors, why should the users suffer? By now, they must have realised that continuously launching windows versions and making the earlier ones redundant is no total progress; there is a customer exploitation factor inherent in such policies. After all the earlier windows versions were paid for. Microsoft maneuvers could inadvertently influence piracy at every launch.

raiderh808
raiderh808

and never looked back. Like it much much better and have seen my company's trouble tickets reach.... no more than 6 per day and even then they aren't OS-related.

noprem
noprem

The posters here are mostly IT pros, it seems. I'm just this guy, you know? So... When you say "support" I think you mean, 'Someone at MS and the hardware and app vendors spends part of her workday writing code, and that will stop in a year.' Is that right? If not, then will MS delete all its site's updates to my beloved Xp and Office 2000 at that time?

firstaborean
firstaborean

Yes, I know that there is software that doesn't run native on Windows 7 or Windows 8, but did run well on Windows XP. So what if Microsoft is ending full support of XP? XP will still run, and, for those who need Internet access, more recent OS's work well The way to having it both ways is either XP Mode under Windows 7 Pro or XP installed in the Hypervisor under Windows 8 Pro, or, is one is really desperate, and one's software is really old, one can run DOS Box under Windows or Linux. And any computer that ran XP well can run Ubuntu well. I think I'm reading all too much bellyaching. And for the gent who has passed 65, I'll only state that I'm 69, and I do fine with modern software.

mikifinaz1
mikifinaz1

One size doesn't fit all and this can be seen in the real world. Why is it that the bone heads at Mcrosoft refuse to address this reality that also extends into the virtual world of computers. The surface sucks, tablets are for passive consumer content subscription (ah, ah, don't argue how many people would be willing to hunch over a phone, tablet, etc. to do a days worth of typing etc. for work) and Windows 8 is virtually useless for anything but a tablet. I find the small keyboards on laptops a little tedious as well. And I am not willing to trade carpal tunnel for other injuries inspired by the jump, wave, slap and tickle interfaces coming into use today. These scratch and sniff GUIs are good for watching movies but...useless for real work. What is needed is a replacement for XP, if anything. I have found it in the conservative Linux distros. but it would be nice for Microsoft to keep making room this type of system. The best thing Microsoft could do is make an OS more XP like with these qualities: Small 2 to 4 GB Fast 20 sec. from power button to desktop Fewer versions, say small (tablets with Metro GUI), medium (all the home user stuff like the camera editing etc. and light networking). large (all the business stuff like encryption, virtual PC, and so on. I liked the old windows 2000 idea of being able to make it work as either a workstation or a server, like Linux does now: Hint. Less expensive i.e. 50.00 a pop for any version and 10.00 for add-ons. Less buggy Doesn't have that mysterious "I have lost my clients" network setup THAT HAS BEEN BROKEN FOREVER. I can remember testing this issue in NT 4 and SMS and it is still not fixed. Old GUI (with the ability to snap on and off other GUI's) You want Classic select A, Metro click on B etc.) Some form of module swap for the GUI so business people don't have to retrain hordes of people. One place that Linux people have been bone heads they pulled out screen savers. Yes, I know they aren't necessary, but people want screensavers, and the ability to trick out their desktops and GUIs. Apple gets this why are the rest of these wise guys so dense. More user friendly (I hate that phrase, but there you have it) It used to be you could just click a few settings and you got what you want. Now you have to be a registry wizard to add right click options to the right click property menu etc. or have to resort to third party apps. If I am going to have to go through all this fuss to change things I might as well use Linux, oh yah, I do. I am sure a roomful of users could add to this list. This attention to the user has been why Microsoft has had their butts kicked by Apple on and off for decades (everyone needs to rest after a butt whipp'en); first in the beginning with the GUI and now with the phone and tablets. You would think that the beat downs would change their thinking...no I guess not.

cvandeve
cvandeve

I have worked in a number of research labs and factories that have to use the older OS's to run their equipment. We updated the computers and reinstalled the I/O cards. Microsoft is in the business to sell new OS's, not provide support. Windows XP and 98 are useful and are not dying because Microsoft says so. It takes a year or more before the new Windows is stable.

bwallan
bwallan

We still support Win 3.1 and Win 98 on client PC's! Why worry about moving off Win XP? That is the platform some of our clients are considering moving to!! And you ask why? It is all a matter of the cost of porting legacy software or newer OS's not supporting existing infrastructure.

tomluoma
tomluoma

We would be more than happy to buy (at a reasonable price) a set of CDs or DVDs that have an app for selecting and installing all the security and other update updates. Once they kill Windows Update support repairing/reloading a system becomes nearly impossible.

BillGates_z
BillGates_z

What a bunch of tech pimps. You really make out like people are stupid for not getting all frothy about the latest (even if it's not so greatest). This isn't Supermarket Dash and smart people aren't racing to clear the shelves.

fjp
fjp

Is that so bad? Surely everything that needs fixing on XP must have been fixed by now? I could do without updates every time I switch the PC on, and I expect Mozilla and Google will keep their browsers up to date for me.. :-)

puritianb
puritianb

My computer collapse after I had down loaded Ubuntu. So I brought another hard drive and tried out Ubuntu and to my surprise I found it to be the best OS ever. It read data from my old hard drive that went back to Windows 98. I was able to recover data files I thought I would never see again, that had some lasting memories. Thanks Ubuntu and I donate every month now. Ubuntu boots in seconds and shuts down even faster then that, almost instantly.

cybershooters
cybershooters

People asking why change, well the answer is that QA standards often require you to use supported software. No ISO certification, no business. But anyway, my main client switched to Vista years ago, Vista is actually a bigger problem because people just don't support it much anymore. Yes you still get security updates but that's about it. Office 2013 and IE10 aren't supported for example. So how do you make the case to get rid of Vista when the client still sees it as one step ahead of XP? They use Office 2003 as well, which also has a support end date the same as XP.

pfeiffep
pfeiffep

There's an obvious difference between single users and corporate enterprise. Recently I installed Ubuntu 12.10 on and OLD Dell Inspiron 6000 laptop that had been running XP. I used a bootable USB stick to try it for a few days before I made the switch. Now I've completely replaced XP with Ubuntu and have noticed the machine is MUCH faster! I'm not proposing that corporations can easily make this switch, but certainly single users can - and they will have SUPPORTED software. I won't exactly say free, because in order to fully embrace a new OS one probably has to purchase a book or 2! Still much less than purchasing a new OS and documentation.

Hans Schmidt
Hans Schmidt

I've been using windows ever since they started selling it. Only twice in twenty some years did I call support. They were practically useless. In fact, the last time, through persistence, I finally figured out the answer. I called MS support back and told them what it was. SO you're going to worry if they stop supporting something? I don't use MSWord, Excel, etc. I have found that OpenOffice works fine. Lets support that. I have used different flavors of Linux on machines that I don't have MS keys for. Sometimes Linux's a problem with older hardware. Have to find the right distro. I have one machine with a couple of big hard drives that I archive my photos and such on. I think the plan is to cut MS loose and stop supporting them although I did buy a couple of HPs with VISTA, because the price was less than it would have cost me to build them.

w_maertens
w_maertens

Aldough I have followed the Microsoft OS from the early beginning ... till Windows 7, and got since then a LOT of problems, because of the constant changes Microsoft is making, I will NOT continue with Microsoft Operating Systems, There is Nothing giving hope to get a Good Service . The Windows XP +SP1 was a Very Good working OS. I had NEVER problems with this OS. Or Microsoft will continue to give Service for Machines working with XP or XP+sp1 or I guess a lot of people will switch to another Even FREE Good working OS. We are still in Crisis, and most Companies are not in the position to change All Programs to AGAIN a new OS of Microsoft. Why where they Still Selling XP till last Year ....

jelabarre
jelabarre

I just don't understand the philosophy that makes companies stick with whatever MS has decided to force on users this time around, regardless of how much trouble and pain there is in retraining for a new interface. If you're going to have to spend all that time and money in retraining, re-coding, migrating, etc, why not just make the jump to Linux? With Linux you could customize the system to look however you want/need, you aren't beholden to someone *else's* product expiration cycle, you can spend your IT dollars with providers who actually *listen* to your requests, and save money in the process. (probably all those MBAs and executives getting kickbacks from the existing vendors would be my guess).

bikernerd
bikernerd

I operate two Dell Dimension CA 2005 vintage. One with Windows XP for Tax and other software which won't run under Wine on the Ubuntu 12.04. I have both running at the same time and use a switch to go from one to the other. The Ubuntu PC boots in about 40 sec and shuts down in 10. The XP PC boots in about 2-3 min. My advice to anyone considering replacing Win 7 with Ubuntu is to remove the HD and store it away. Then put a small 60 - 80 GB disk in the PC and install Ubuntu. Or if you must clone the Win 7 disk and put the copy away. Then install Ubuntu as a dual boot system. I haven't tried this but it should work. If you don't like the Ubuntu Unity interface, Linux Mint is like Windows XP and it is based on Ubuntu.

yorkshirepudding
yorkshirepudding

At work we are migrating to WIn7 - Office 2010 from XP-Office2003 later this year. I am looking forward to better interface and software (we are stuck with IE8 at present as IT refuse to provide Firefox/Chrome), though supporting users to transition from Office 2003 - Office 2010 is not something I'm looking forward to. At home, any new PCs I've bought recently have been Win7Pro, but older PCs are likely to get ubuntu/xubuntu. HTPC is on Vista, and is likely to be replaced with Mythbuntu when I get round to it. I enjoy Win7 so far, so any new PCs would have to have it but the cost of licences for older machines, in my opinion, is not worth it.

Dr_Zinj
Dr_Zinj

And if it works fine, and isn't broken, then spending money to replace it is a bad business decision. Software may be a capital expenditure, and it does depreciate over time. But the replacement lifecycle for an operating system is not 18 months any more. It's more like 8 years because the technology has matured. Unfortunately, Microsoft is addicted to the 18 month replacement cycle paradigm and hasn't evolved.

kashyap.bikram
kashyap.bikram

And new hardware doesnot have drivers for XP. Already there are few laptops who no longer support XP.

Alan21
Alan21

I prefer using xp on office, because there no nagging messages, and after a period of time most of the important problems in the software have been sorted out. If I keep to the standard software - why would I need support.If I use XP for every day data, so why would I want to change something that is not broken. Win7 and Win8 have their advantages, but for every day data they are still bloated compare to XP.

alfred
alfred

While I am retired and so do not have commercial pressures I still have the problem. Several programs I use frequently do not work on Win 7 or 8. It is not the cost of upgrading that stops me, It is that the "upgrade" programs are vastly inferior. In particular I have JASC Paintshop Pro 9 which fits my needs ideally. Corel Paintshop Pro X which works on Win 7 I regard as unusable. When Corel took over JASC they imposed their practices on PsP and ruined it. I have a legacy of documents from Lotus Smartsuite which I still want. While MS Office can do marvellous things I do not need, it is very difficult to do some items that are easy in Smartsuite. I have just bought a PC with Win 8 pro so that I can keep on using Win XP when my old PC dies.

Gisabun
Gisabun

While going to Win 8 full timex is unlikely for me [I've tried it and don't like it], Windows 7 is a vast improvement over Vista [which I won't get into] and Windows XP. First, with Windows XP, many computers running them are at least6 years old [when Vista first came out] and some are breaking down or just dying a slow death. So if a company is using Windows XP and a system dies, what are they doing? Buying a system with Windows 7 or 8 on it, scrapping the OS and putting Windows XP on. No way of knowing but I'm sure most Win XP systems are strong enough to run Windows 7. Now Windows XP is an old OS. You need drivers to install the latest hardware. Wireless was problematic [which is why manufacturers included their own wireless utilities]. USB3 support wasn't built in. Neither are other recent technologies. Deploying Windows 7 [while bulkier] is easier than than Windows XP. If in a workgroup, Homegroup feature kills that problem of accessing resources from another computer. No need for passwords, duplicate accounts, etc. Group policies for domains add much more options to locking down systems. I can go on and on. Now as for why CIOs aren't pushing? They are a bunch of idiots. They have had years to prepare for the change but it seems like few bothered to look ahead [I know of an ex-boss who was like that]. Then they will rush to migrate which will probably cause problems and mistakes.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

I still have a Positive/Negative Scanner that was made many years ago for Professional Photographers that was capable of scanning all Film Stock including 35mm Slides. As My brother used to use Medium Format and occasionally Large Format cameras it was very useful to be able to scan in the images alter as required then sent to a High End Photo Quality Printer. Alas the Printer which was well over 1K can no longer be supplied with Ink Cartridges other than Refills so the color isn't quite right and it's now effectively useless but the scanner which was quite expensive at the time of it's release and cost several K at Trade works perfectly but I have to run it on 98 which I keep a system loaded with and very occasionally use these days. I still scan a few bits of Film Stock in then transfer the images to a XP or newer system to manipulate as required. The scanner is still used though the software that it came with for anything but Image Capture is no longer used mainly because the hardware is so limited and hence slow now days. But there still remain quite a few devices all Industrial that will not have any new drivers written for anything but XP a Vinyl Cutter which is costed at many thousand of dollars is a perfect example. The owner of that device who makes Vinyl Stickers for Motorcycles, Boats, Race Teams and Cars recently bought a new computer to replace his aging one and came across the issue of no new printer drivers being available. So he had the option of paying thousands for a new device and waiting months for delivery and setup or back-loading XP. No prizes for guessing which he chose to do for a device which should last 20 years as apposed to a NB which maybe will last 5. Col

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

That Vista was fine on complete systems provided by the Big Box Makers from the Get Go. It was also fine on most White Boxes that it was supplied with from the very beginning. It was only a problem for the more specialised add on things like Video Capture Cards and the like. As for not being able to use older hardware with it Vista was no different to XP or any other Windows Release. The Old Hardware that was no longer being sold simply didn't have Vista Drivers. That was what made XP so good for End Users it was the same over the years so the printer that you bought when XP was first released worked with the last version of XP as it had the same drivers. Of course 7 seems so much better than Vista because 7 is Vista Developed and the drivers that worked for Vista are the same as the ones released for 7 despite what they may be labelled as. So ideally as many think that 7 is so much better than Vista they fail to realize that they actually have a Developed Vista which really is much closer to a XP Service Pack 2 than it is to a new version of Windows. When Microsoft released Vista they specifically said that their development cycle was a Service Pack at the 2 year mark and a new named OS which was a development of Vista at the 4 year mark. This was to be repeated for a 10 year cycle at which point they would release a New Ground Up written OS again. So if they follow that Development Cycle the Service Pack released for 8 in a couple of years time will be the end of the development cycle of the Vista,7 and 8 Windows and what comes next will be as different to 8 as Vista was to XP. Of course Microsoft may have rethought their Development Cycle since then but as yet they have not announced it publicly if they have. ;) Of course many people said the same thing about XP as they did about Vista when XP was first released which shows more of a problem with Microsoft than anything else. XP wasn't accepted by business till after the first Service Pack was released and at the first release of XP Microsoft sold both 98SE and XP alongside each other with 98 vastly outselling XP. It was that experience which resulted in Microsoft never again selling 2 OS's side by side as way too many people refused to buy the new one. Col

bobc4012
bobc4012

I suspect that if you download a distro like ZorinOS, SolusOS or Mint with MATE and burn to a CD/DVD and boot the CD/DVD (without installing) and give it a try, you might be surprised. You can run some of the Linux distros from a CD without affecting your HD. It is a good way to find out how small the learning curve can be. ZorinOS can support 3 desktop environments - Gnome 2 (very XP like), XP and Win. 7. Any Linux distro hat still supports Gnome 2 should be an easy "learn" for an XP user - unless you really want to get into the "nuts and bolts". As for driver problems, you may be surprised and not have any. BTW, at one time I would have suggested Ubuntu, but in release 11.04 they went with Unity as their desktop and it is nowhere near an XP desktop. If you can download Ubuntu 10.04/10.10 (they were using Gnome 2 as the desktop) and burn to a CD, you should find that easy to pick up.

noprem
noprem

The above was meant for Tony and HAL 9000.

callister
callister

I agree 100 % I am refurbishing a old computer which I intend to load win XP as I have noted it was the best . I nowhave win 7 as it ws loaded when I bought my laptop last year XP is the better one by far

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

they aren't going to check to see if it work on XP. That's anything from office, security patches, drivers. Saying that, they haven't always been brilliant at checking anyway. If you want to stick with the hardware and software you have and you are behind a hardware fire wall and no further critical security threats are found in XP. The killers will be how much use you make of things like flash, new games, and if you have to mess with your hardware, say your video card died.

callister
callister

I still have them all they do come in handy at times Oh by the way Im almost 70 lol

Who Am I Really
Who Am I Really

it's done by using a completed image on the last day of support, do the following: - remove the current HDD from the system - install a new HDD - install the OS and activate - get all the updates downloaded & installed - configure desired settings etc. - take a manual base full image of that install and label it as completed image "OS only" - install and configure the software you use - take another manual base full image and label it as completed image "Full" - remove that HDD and box it on the shelf for when the current one dies - install the original HDD and continue on - verify the system is clean and free of malware etc. - take a manual base image of the current install HDD when the day comes for a reload on the current HDD reload from the current image or the fresh install completed image and it's done in a matter of minutes like 20 to 30, and not with 60 hours work done this with win2K when support ended and will do the same for XP in 14 months manual base images can be done with clonezilla (which is free) or just about and other free / paid cloning / backup system imaging software

Gisabun
Gisabun

If you are getting new updates from Microsoft every time you turn on the computer you either turn it on once a month or you have malware disguised as Microsoft updates on your computer. Oh ya. If you don't mind getting updated by Google every 2-3 weeks, that's fine.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Cost and risk Obviously! We aren't talking moving from IE to firefox here, though even that is not always as simple as some would make out. Think of all the vba that might have to be moved, getting ROR or PHP to work with sql server. Reporting add ons, back ups scheduled tasks, reworking Active directory. MS is an integrated solution, specifically designed to add featurettes when you stick to their suite. Imagine trying to deal with something like Lotus notes! Only when you have a trivial set up could you contemplate such a switch without acceptance of a huge and risky change over cost. Some one on peer to peer networking and only XP, may be able to countenance it, but larger organisations? They won't even know where all the impacts are going to be. Whole thing could be de-railed by a PAs report, or a data island. There's nothing wrong with the reasoning, but the practical consequences across an embedded IT system are horrendous. There are available altenatives and with some work and cost and some operational changes it could be done. You can even make the ROI case, but the upfront investment cost and ameliorating the business disruption highlight the idea as at best naive as far as business is concerned. Going to the baord with this simply reinforces their opinion that we are clueless propeller heads. It's just the sheer volume of changes you could have to to make to do it, that makes it so hard to manage. No tech should ever suggest this to any buisiness head, let them geta bee in their bonnet about vendor lock in first.

Mad Mole
Mad Mole

Being in any if-it-ain't-broke industry applies specific pressures that no amount of new features can ever change, even if potential process improvements are glaring. CIO's simply won't get the budget to push through change. For many XP support will have to end before any change can be achieved. Typically it will depend on how quickly infrastructure applications stop supporting an outgoing OS. Most likely the biggest flag will be for internet facing hardware. Outside IT circles senior staff care more about shiney and functional so no matter how derogatory some IT Pro's are towards MS as long as security updates are in place those with the purse strings will likely be happy. However pull the comforting big-manufacturer support blanket and senior non-IT will likely get very twitchy. If they don't support an immediate change they'll certainly have you chasing legacy software suppliers for exposure clarifications and indemnifications. For me, I'll have to bury the XP machines with our 2k hardware, deep in the network behind a firewall until they physically expire or I virtualise them with our instances of NT4. There's no escapes from old OS'es as I was reminded last week when a brand new piece of shopfloor hardware arrived running Win2k on an integrated Pentium IV that needs LAN access. I for one cannot wait to migrate ALL PC's to Win7 or 8 as it's helping to drive infrastructure change including fewer Server OS'es. I've enough OS'es to understand and manage!

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

For IT this year and how much of that was specifically set aside to move away from XP? I'm betting no where near enough. ;) Col

noprem
noprem

Good point about cards and such. I just did a full re-install of Xp when I came across Xp Pro (up to SP2) in a thrift shop. (Did I mention I'm not a power user? :-) ) Also of course my Office 2K etc. As long as I can get the last updates and add-ons for those I'm too cheap to worry about it. Doug

jelabarre
jelabarre

Spending the money to prepare for future problems is unacceptable in today's MBA-run companies. Future-proofing means a reduction in *THIS* quarter's inflated/tweaked numbers; it matters not that the result of not fixing it *now* will cost you 5x as much down the road. By then the decision-makers hope to have abandoned ship for the next sucker to hire them.

gman49
gman49

As CIO I started phasing out XP in 2010. Any reasonable office desktop hardware purchased in the last 5 years will run 7 or 8 with a minimum of fuss. The last hold-outs got a 2nd Enterprise-grade HD with Windows 8 deployed and a dual-boot setup, and they have 30 days to get their data migration done before the network will no longer recognize their login. As an administrator it is my job to make decisions that maintain the productivity and security of the corporate infrastructure. I deploy Windows, Solaris, Linux, Unix, all of which have their place in a productive environment.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

When it was first released a lot of people complained and many where accurately complaining that it required much more Hardware than 98 did. At the time Microsoft sold 98 and XP side by side and 98 dramatically outsold XP till it was removed from sale sometime around the release of SP1. Actually it wasn't until SP1 was released that XP really got accepted and turned into the OS that many don't want prized from their [b]Cold Dead Flippers.[/b] :^0 Seems that the more that things change the more that they stay the same. ;) Col

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

But SP1 was out before I got it at work, and SP2 when I got it at home. Actually thinking about it, anyone who relies on version 0 of an OS is certainly someone who's opinion I don't value that highly. :p

Gisabun
Gisabun

The wankers disliked Vista for other reasons: lack of drivers for the OS. Lack of 64-bit apps. Different interface. Most of the wankers where those who used the leaked betas and RCs or bought it in the first day of selling and then moaned that certain things didn't work. Fast forward 2 years after its release. I installed it on my system. No driver issues, no software issues, no BSOD [the system had Win XP and was built prior to Vista coming out]. UAC is part of Win 7 but toned down.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

were. Early adopters, because all the non MS vendors weren't dumb enough to believe all the crap that was coming out of Redmond. No market = no stuff. All the people who thought Vista was going to be what was originally promised under some other name, that I entirely forget. And above all, all those people who never wanted UAC. I never believe anything Redmond say about the next thing they want me to buy, I knew most of Vista was missing and I wanted UAC very badly. Well maybe not that exact implementation, but the idea of it.... Aside from one service pack hiccup, where I got half and halfed and ended up having to nuke the install, never had an issue with it. Being an even handed sort of bloke, I took the nuke option, to dual boot with Linux as well intead of the Vista which the guys who built my box had made nigh on impossible without buying something like partition magic.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

Sure it's not my Cup of Tea but now there is very little difference to 7. When it was first released it had issues because Microsoft didn't make the code available for the hardware makers to prepare drivers but that was a long time ago now and has long since been sorted. If Vista is supposed to be terrible then 7 must be terrible as 7 is Vista Developed. Today there is no real reason for the domestic user to move to 7 from Vista as the improvements are not much more than the contents of a Service Pack and to be perfectly honest how many Domestic users need better Networking Security? All of the Down Side of Vista are incorporated into 7 so we still have an Annoying UAC and so many things moved to different locations in the Menu Systems of 7 though if you can find it in 7 you can find it in Vista just as easily. Unlike most End Users when I buy a new computer I buy Quality not on price and I get the best that is currently available so things like a Core 2 Duo running SATA only Drives and 24 GIG of RAM will run 7 or 8 just as well if not better than a new i7 system with 4 GIG of RAM and a slow HDD. Sure it cost a lot more but on the up side I can do much more with it and it lasts a lot longer so I get a better ROI for my money. I don't need to upgrade every Second Week like a lot of Budget Buyers feel like they do. Or the Apple users upgrading every 12 months to stay current. ;) Col

noprem
noprem

:-) Do you also have a medal for sticking with "infamous" Vista? Doug

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

In fact the less supported it is, the more interesting arcane techno wizardry we can be proud of mastering. :) I tend to change OS's when my hardware finally dies as well. Moved to Vista when my XP box died a horrible death. Just to exacerbate things I tend to pick the best hardware mix I can get for the current OSes and dual boot with Linux. All chugging a long quite nicely. Win 7 would be nice, but no ROI, Win8, not interested. Not many tablets about with 12 Sata, 2 IDE, 16 USBs, two NICs....

Gisabun
Gisabun

You spend money to beef up your network security all the timre. Isn't that a form of "future problems"? Nobody says a company will migrate eveything over in one quarter. Place I worked for took over 9 months from the time they purchased the computers to the time the migration was done. In the mean time, dead laptop batteries were replaced, cleaned up some licensing issues [a few illegal pieces of software installed] and standardized on others. Went from a dozen different FTP software clients to one that is supported.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

Not all companies are moving away from XP quite so quickly. Here I suppose it all depends on what Specialised Software and peripherals are in use and the cost involved in rewriting/replacing them is. Currently I still support Specialist Software that will run on nothing newer than NT4 and at the moment is given away with multi thousand $ bits of Plant to be used on Construction Sites. The Hardware is useless without the software and the work can not be done economically without the Hardware. Or the Medical Profession who uses their 1 of 2 Programs which as of yet are not Certified to run on 7 or latter Desktop OS's and has only recently been certified to be used on a 2008 Server. Specialised Software used in some places simply is not rewritten as fast as most companies would like and a lot slower than I personally prefer. ;) Of course bigger places can use more of the available options or probably are forced to use different things to just Microsoft depending on what it is that they do. However most small business is stuck with Microsoft as they are the people rightly or wrongly who own the Desktop and small network environment. Col

Editor's Picks