Windows

Four misconceptions you have about me and dumping Windows XP

Mark Kaelin strongly advocates that business users dump Windows XP, but there are some misconceptions about why and how.

Last week I published a poll blog post with the title "Poll: It is Time to Face Facts and Finally Dump Windows XP." I knew that the arguments I made in that blog post would generate a large discussion, and I appreciate all the different point of views expressed in the forum. However, there were a few misconceptions that I'd like to address.

Not talking to individuals

There were many members expressing dismay and even outrage that I would suggest dumping Microsoft Windows XP and questioning my authority to tell them what to do with their personal computers. As I stated in the original blog post, the advice I was giving, and the argument I make to support that advice, was directed at information technology professionals and business decision makers.

I was not talking to individuals, especially those on fixed incomes or with modest means to purchase new hardware and operating systems. The product life cycle for individual PCs is much, much longer.

However, with that being said, even individual PC users are going to have to come to grips with the reality that, eventually, they will have to purchase a more modern operating system and likely new hardware too.

Not immediately

The other misconception was that I was calling on businesses to throw away all their Windows XP PCs immediately and replace them with Windows 7 or an alternative operating system and with the hardware necessary to run it. Actually, I was advocating that businesses and IT Pros abandon Windows XP as the official operating system of their organizations and adopt a more secure, more modern operating system.

The days of mass deployment of new hardware and operating systems are long gone. The idea, and one suggested by many in the discussion thread, is that all new PCs coming into the organization would have the newly adopted operating system installed. In that scenario, Windows XP is phased out over time, and the financial impact is minimal.

Windows XP is not forever

A large number of members seem to be in a state of denial about the future of Windows XP. The fate of that operating system has been determined. Whether you like it or not, Windows XP is on its way out. At this point, it is just a bad business decision to proclaim that you, and the organization you represent, will never migrate away from Windows XP.

The business and IT world has evolved into a mixed operating system environment. As new devices are introduced into your network, you will have to learn to accommodate various and numerous operating systems, including Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7, Mac OS X, UNIX, Web OS, Android, Chrome OS, and Apple iOS and maybe one that hasn't been invented yet. This is just how it is. All I am saying is that you'd better come to terms with it and start planning how you will address these issues.

Stay on top of the latest Microsoft Windows tips and tricks with TechRepublic's Windows Desktop newsletter, delivered every Monday and Thursday.

It's not personal, it's business

The other misconception I want to address is the mistaken idea that I am advocating this move away from Windows XP because I am a technologist, gadget-loving geek who is always willing to try the next great thing. While that description may indeed by fairly accurate, it is not the reason I am making this argument.

I truly believe that if you and your organization, and again I am talking about the business environment here, do not keep up with technological changes you will lose ground to your competition. If you think the business environment we are currently in is fast moving, just wait until every worker on your payroll embraces the always-on life-style.

That means even the lowly receptionist, who was cited so many times in the discussion thread as an example of a user who does not need to migrate off of Windows XP, will be accessing your network all the time using various devices and operating systems. Your receptionist is going to have a smartphone and even perhaps a tablet, and these devices will be used to access your network. As an IT pro, you have to be prepared for what that means to the integrity of your network.

Bottom line

For businesses and information technology professionals, the decision has been made for you -- Windows XP is on its way out. It is time to accept that fact and make arrangements to make the inevitable transition to whatever newer operating system you choose less painful and ultimately successful.

About

Mark Kaelin is a CBS Interactive Senior Editor for TechRepublic. He is the host for the Microsoft Windows and Office blog, the Google in the Enterprise blog, the Five Apps blog and the Big Data Analytics blog.

106 comments
HAL 9000
HAL 9000

I was watching an Interview with the Guy from the Treasury who was talking about increasing the Debt Limit in the US. In the background was a Computer monitor with a XP Default Screen Saver running. ;) Col

TuneUp Utilities
TuneUp Utilities

Hey Mark ??? thanks for sharing your thoughts on why users should get rid of XP. This is a tough decision because many Windows users are very loyal to XP ??? it???s proved to be a steady operating system, but you???re right in that it won???t be around forever. I am curious to see how many people will migrate once Windows 8 is available.

GR8BigCheese
GR8BigCheese

Some of you are writing about personal use even though the author explicitly said that he was talking only about businesses. That said, the cost to a business is NOT only the new hardware and software but also the cost of migration of the workstation and software installation and configuration as well. My company hired an outsourcer to migrate workstations from Windows 95 to 2000 and then it was $3000 per workstation plus another $2500 for new workstations and additional software upgrade licenses etc so all in all it was well over $6000 for each of 40,000 workstations. Adding to that the new servers etc. it was well over $400 million for the complete migration.Add to that loss of time for employees during the migration and training, it was over $500 million total. That's why businesses stick to old software and hardware so long. For me as an individual, it was $1100 for a new computer, a few bucks more for software upgrades and an enjoyable week or so fiddling with my new toy getting it "just right". If the option to XP was still Vista, would you still say businesses must migrate? Many industry insiders said just that but both businesses and individuals waited for something more acceptable. Of course businesses will eventually have to upgrade but now may not be the time. My company supports only one operating system, one workstation, and one laptop. They would never do a partial upgrade. Too expensive, they say.

martinknapton
martinknapton

i tried Linux but my three dongle would not work even with the Linux based drives (that took 3 hours to download) so i sticking close to win XP & windows server 2008

nonsy
nonsy

XP has a 2.2 GB max limit of accessible RAM. My Next PC is slated to have more than that.

mikifin
mikifin

I have decided, that we are going to move to Linux because of all this foolishness with the GUI. I am tired of retraining my staff constantly where things are and how this "new better" idea works. With Linux we can build and bolt on exactly what we want, get the functionality we need and not have to jerk around every other year trying to teach everyone how it all works.

walter.itprosource
walter.itprosource

I believe the hesitation to move forward is lack of knowledge of the user on current technologies. My advise is learn; and do move to the new technology. Growth is good, people! I say do away with XP.

Old Timer 8080
Old Timer 8080

That is happening in your case. Shilling for M$ never looks good in any techie, especially when they have a public forum. I have been making Interoperability between systems since mag tape and RS-232 were the primary means of communication. That means the bogeyman of security ( connecting to the Internet ) does NOT prevent many computers to keep the original software/hardware running. I've supported 3.11, 95, 98se NT 3.51, NT 4, NT 5 and XP based systems.. Also UNIX SR4, Linux ( to present ) and many other flavors in dedicated applications Yes, I've even supported old DOS based applications on original hardware and some ( non timing dependent ) software really flies on upgraded hardware! Many systems are STILL RUNNING APPLICATIONS DEVELOPED FOR SPECIFIC OPERATIONS! This scenario is where UNIX/Linux really shines! How many M$ apps stay compatible as THEIR software changes.....NONE! M$ DESIGNS Planned Obsolescence into the M$ software; that is the MONEYMAKER that keeps M$ alive. On the other hand, OTHER Operating Systems try NOT to force you to buy new hardware... and just add new drivers for new equipment. So jump off the New is Better bandwagon and face the reality of limited pocketbooks in the real world.. Real operating systems can live forever because a kill switch isn't built in....

radar_z
radar_z

Nothing compares to switching from paper records to electronic records in the medical field. We have several companies writing software that is horribly dysfunctional. Some systems cannot talk to others because of proprietary aspects. Medical data can be impossible to find once it is in the system. Problem lists cannot be prioritized so if the patient has diabetes and heart disease, these conditions can be buried under ten visits to the dermatologist for psoriasis, AND you, the physician, cannot force the system to keep the diabetes and heart disease at the top of the list for every doctor to see whenever the record is opened. Now you have your doctor entering all the findings from a visit instead of dictating the findings and having a professional typist type the information into the record. Your doctor looks at the computer more than he looks at you, AND he makes mistakes unless he is a touch typist with a high rate of accuracy. Presidents Bush and Obama and Hillary Clinton and lots of bureaucrats think this is the wave of the future. They don't know crap. My suggestion: routinely get copies of you health record and keep them in a file at home. (Yes, I am an old, retired MD who loves computers, but the implementation in the electronic health record has not been a success. Go to a hospital and you will see nurses and aides spending a lot of time in front of their monitors and very little time doing hands-on medical care.)

FredOneSaid
FredOneSaid

I am not a business owner, nor am I a techie of any kind, not even close, but I don't lack common sense, why would I if I was a business owner want to spend a lot of cash switching to 7 when Windows 8 is just around the corner.

Keliele
Keliele

Now that you've clarified your comments, I agree with you.

webpilot10
webpilot10

When XP will no longer function, I'm switching paradigms. Looks like Ubuntu, at this point. It's ready as well. Fast food is stuck with the dollar menu (until the dollar becomes a quarter) and Microsoft like it or not, is stuck with XP for a little longer than they are comfortable with. Some of this is a result of previous migration to new unproven products which proved...underwhelming.

james.vandamme
james.vandamme

...see if they'll run Linux & Wine. I was pleasantly surprised...

iain_stuart
iain_stuart

I have no idea why I have to change and am even more dubious when I recall the same arguments were made about the urgent need to change to Vista. Surely there is a point where programs are as good as they can get and change is made only for commercial reasons.

karl_kuykendall
karl_kuykendall

folks, xp was never realy a business platform...do you mean 2000? personally i hate it when the operating system changes so much that it negates your hardware...7 does too much for you, it gets in the way and wont shut up...wants to change the language that we speak, and is a memory hog....if you cant run an operating system with 1 gig of ram and an average application and not suffer a huge performance loss...your too darn big...keep it simple stupid...the old axiom i learned in the military is not understood by the latest crop of msgeek we find ourself subsidizing. pare it down as a default when loaded and let us add those special services when building our systems. a quad core CPU with 8 gigs of ram and a 1 gig video card would be nice....maybe one should come with every copy of windows 7...and don't get me started on backward compatability....

hotters
hotters

From a business point of view - Could you believe anyone using a high powered machine on XP (x86) which doesn't fully utilise the multiple cores and memory within the machine? Moving to 64bit platforms like Windows 7 will allow our users to reap the benefits of the hardware beneath the cover. Its a significant step forward and part of the Forward Thinking I like to foster and maintain in today's advancing business enviroments. Those are all Very Good points you made Mark!

dave.tommo
dave.tommo

We have recently had to roll back from Windows 7 to XP because MS in their infinite wisdom decided to substitute certain fonts on 7 for their UI font (segoe or whatever it's called). We have documents we print for people from Word and unfortunately it wasn't until after we'd printed documents for 7 weeks that a customer queried the font they were getting wasn't the one they expected (Ariel is substituted, as is Times New Roman and a handful of others). What gives MS the right to decide that we don't want to use certain fonts - in the UI fair enough but not in documents we print. We did manage to get round it by copying the ttf files from an XP PC and hacking the registry but for some reason it periodically sets itself back!

deway2
deway2

This all seems too familiar... oh it is. It's been ten years, however I do remember all the gripes during the transition from NT4/Win98 to win2k/XP. I will say win2K was a true biz OS. It lacked all the home user fluff that came with XP.

dan.wildcat
dan.wildcat

I understand the argument of waiting until a better OS becomes available. It doesn't work that way but I understand it. That's what everyone said about Windows 98se and I know people who still say it today. XP wasn't better for them. The real question in this line is simply this: What makes a newer OS better so that you will adopt it? We could go through a long list of technological, graphical, and security improvements that suggest Windows XP is no longer the best. I think where Kirk is going is looking for what's best for him and his application. But making a blanket statement that XP is still the best just won't hold water, especially without the criteria for what supposedly makes it the best.

darkmoonman
darkmoonman

but that's not today ... nor next year. I'm on a fixed income, and I'll buy a new PC when I must. For now, my two Dells (one 10 years old, one 4 years old) run XP just fine and do all that I need them to do. Until such time as I'm forced to buy new hardware, others who backhandedly rail at me for keeping the old are welcome to spend their money to buy me new hardware.

MyrnaT3
MyrnaT3

I am a 66-year-old retired legal secretary. I am almost always the last one to jump on any new bandwagon. Beginning almost 30 years ago, I have, without exception, been dragged kicking and screaming into each new, improved version of an OS.I started out with IBM DOS on a 286, so I've done this kicking and screaming act a LOT. The road through the various versions of DOS then to Windows (3.0) with MS-DOS, then Win3.x, Win95, Win98, [Skipped ME, thank God], XP, [skipped Vista, too] and now Win7 has been both troubling and exciting. As much as I hated each "upgrade," I was never sorry once I settled down. Change is part of being alive. The alternative is stagnation, then death.

rcfoulk
rcfoulk

the simple fact is that it is entirely unnecessary for many organizations at the moment, particularly small business (< 100 units). The network is made secure by virtue of software and appliances, the OS works for general office automation applications as well as a SQL client. It's known and understood by users. Upgrades cost money just as does retraining all of which will result in virtually all users doing tomorrow exactly what they were doing the day of the upgrade with the expected near-term loss of productivity due to retraining needs. So for many environments it makes much more business sense to continue with XP at least for a couple more years or until a Vista/Win7 killer app justifies moving sooner. In reality it will likely save an upgrade event since by then Win8 should be available. So while you attempt to make the point that it just makes good business sense I counter by noting that one size does not fit all. One simple solution seldom does.

steveh
steveh

...make the switch to Linux. It's more than ready for prime time and far better than Microsoft's O/S's. Blazing fast installs, near instant shut down, very few driver issues (easily resolved), great security, automatic updates, a fully functional GUI for the terminal(ly) afraid, easy to customize, works on any hardware, thousands of free programs for a full range of applications - personal and commercial - and, if you really need to: run a virtual machine for those stubborn companies (like Intuit) that haven't yet figured out that Linux Rules!

mike
mike

I serve micro-Buusiness who may have 0-10 employees. As groups get smaller, owners behave more and more like personal users: They buy "WalMart Specials," load free security software, get residential Internet service, have their "nethews" take the first shot at all repairs, and listen to their friends -- other personal users -- for IT advice. So, yeah, I get reluctantly support Win98, NT, and 2000 systems, and clients ask me about upgrading their Pentium III systems to WIn 7. While Microsoft made a few bucks with Vista, they lost customer confidence big time. People avoid Win7 because they experineced Vista. Maybe the best thing MS could do is offer a free-free-free upgrade for Vista sufferers, gain market share and respectability, and then confince XP users to upgrade. The worst thing they could to is release Win8 (or whatever) and continue playing the marketing game rather than the technology game. Open source is looking better each day : - )

blarman
blarman

The debate over OS is still all about VALUE: a value where many people still view XP as providing superior VALUE to 7. Whether that is in compatibility with older/business critical programs, lower hardware costs, retraining costs, reprogramming costs, etc., it is a VALUE judgment that is made by that company - not by pundits and article editors. Yes, XP has been around for a while. UNIX has been around for almost 40 years, and while many of the utilities have changed and the kernel has been upgraded to handle different hardware, it's still a solid system. Now I'm not trying to compare XP to UNIX, only to point out that age doesn't necessarily work as an argument to upgrade. It is only one factor of many. Security is another item where the biggest attack vector is the browser and the user. Train your users not to visit suspect sites using Internet Explorer and not to click on popups of any kind, and most security problems are never a problem. And those problems aren't going to be solved by an OS change (unless you're moving to non-Windows) anyway. I'm not advocating for staying on XP for another 20 years, but the move to switch operating systems needs to be made by individual companies assessing their own needs - not by outsiders.

butkus
butkus

Use server 2003 / 2008 and try to map a personal drive with a Win7 machine. Won't happen. How can that be progress ? Every large public school in my area is wiping new PCs and using XP. Found that out when asking about the above problem.

britton.sams
britton.sams

We started late last year leasing 10 new workstations at a time which have Win 7 Pro 64-Bit. Our typical current machines are Win XP 32-Bit but we are migrating about 10 to 15 a quarter with the hopes to be completely on Win 7 64-Bit by the middle of 2012.

jfuller05
jfuller05

I didn't take your previous article that way. However, clearing up misconceptions is always beneficial. It's a good way to reinforce your arguments and you did just that. Where I work, we are gently phasing out XP.

oldbaritone
oldbaritone

"dumping Windows XP" is quite harsh. In my mind, "dumping" implies a large-scale wholesale removal of something. We "dumped" Vista. It was a disaster at the time, and XP was readily available then, and reliable. It was an active, aggressive move to "dump"; it was a decision to rid the enterprise of what was felt to be "a bad apple." (Not unlike Windows-ME in an earlier time.) OTOH, we are "transitioning" to Windows-7. Since its release, it has been refined and bug-fixed, and is finally beginning to have the level of stability and reliability essential for business operations. I think we all agree that "you cannot continue using Windows XP as your official business OS forever." Ask anyone who is still trying to cling to DOS/Win-3 about their challenges. Our cars don't have a hand-crank to start them any more either, and our computers don't run on DOS. Windows-NT (original version) has faded into oblivion, as have many other OS versions and revisions. But at this juncture, XP is still viable and supported by Microsoft. As our workstations reach end-of-life (5 years) and are retired, the new replacement machines are Windows-7. The transition will continue. We stopped downgrading to XP long ago, but we're not rushing into Windows-7. It's just part of the normal planned obsolescence. As the older machines are retired, the transition moves forward. If a department has an issue that creates a problem having a mixture of XP and Win-7, their remaining systems may be replaced early. But that's rare, and doesn't constitute what I would consider "dumping." So no, we're not "dumping" Windows-XP, but it is gradually fading away into obsolescence. Within a few years, it will be gone completely.

dschlabach
dschlabach

MS will be supporting XP until 2014. Our HIS (Hospital Information System) has not yet certified their system to operate in the W7 environment... the certification is scheduled for this year, but we'll not be moving from XP until that certification is complete, and then most likely based machine replacements... I have 3 years...

IndianaTux
IndianaTux

Especially the point about mobile devices. Our Corporate IT department is now implementing changes that will facilitate users accessing our network securely to get to the data they need from more robust mobile devices (ie, iPhone and iPad, etc) than ever before. I also agree that the mass-deployment days are over (for now, at least). Slowly phasing out Windows XP is working well for our location, and I have no trouble supporting 2 desktop environments, and also 2 mobile environments (Blackberry OS and iOS). Hanging on to older OS technology will become more of a security risk over time, but there is time to make the switch a few-at-a-time rather than all at once.

godzcomputertech
godzcomputertech

Put all the machines in windows 7 but let them choose to run xp in a virtual environment Sheesh !!!!!!

bclomptwihm
bclomptwihm

If you could put a Windows 7 CD in an XP machine and directly upgrade then XP would pretty much be over. Without an upgrade path XP will be around for a long long time

RF7000
RF7000

i recently placed a call about a problem i have logging into work email from outside of work, i would get a timeout error. Phone tech said it was because i was running IE8, or that I was not running IE6. IE6 is the official "approved" version and I am supposed to use that. So yeah, we're not migrating away from xp anytime soon. I even need xp mode on my new pc running win7 to use the vpn software, it won't install or work in win7.

TheChas
TheChas

The RAM limit in XP is still there in the 32 bit versions of Vista and XP. In fact, the 4GB addressable RAM limit is there in 32 bit versions of Linux and any other operating system. Starting with Vista SP1, Microsoft changed the RAM number in system properties from usable RAM to installed RAM. Further, based on your 2.2 GB number, you must be running a very powerful video card. Or, you have a lot of shared RAM devoted to the on-board video. For any 32 bit OS, the limit of address space is 4 GB. The PCI bus and other system hardware items use the upper 500 - 750 MB. The more RAM on your video card, the more usable RAM you loose. The only way to be able to address more RAM is to use a 64 bit OS. Even the 64 bit version of XP will address more than 4 GB of RAM. Chas

Who Am I Really
Who Am I Really

4096MB / 4GB -512MB reserved for system devices, memory mapping etc. -256MB "Shared" RAM for Intel GMA = 3.24GB usable RAM if I reduce the shared video RAM allocation to 128MB I get the following: 3.37GB usable RAM

james.vandamme
james.vandamme

Not only can you get 300 different distros, and tweak any of 'em to make it look like you want, you can roll your own corporate setup and put it on everybody's machine so you train them all once. You can even get a desktop that looks, and mostly operates, just like XP, right down to the Start button (although I'd call it something else for legal reasons). I'm sure there will be some grumbling because you won't have a reason to get new CPUs.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

The average Office will not have a problem with 7 but for instance if you are a Doctor who uses the more common Medical Application you have more than a big problem. Not only will the software not be guaranteed to work on 7 even in XP Mode but your Legal Advisor's will insist that you don't even try to use 7 to protect you from claims that may very well be justified. Or the Local Mechanic down the road who plugs in a NB to test your Car's Electronics. Some of those need to be running 98 so they can properly service your car. Sure it's not a problem if you buy into the idea of New is Best and you buy a new car every 2 weeks but the reality is not many people do that and tend to keep them for a while. So currently most mechanics have a NB running 98SE, and one running XP for different makes/models. Sure the new software will work on 7 but it's not going to test the older cars. ;) There are 2 examples why not all can move to 7 without a backward glance. Col

radar_z
radar_z

I have Ubuntu running on VirtualBox on my laptop, but I cannot get Ubuntu to use the full size of my 17" laptop monitor. I am so used to having a larger monitor that I cannot stand the 4:3 (12" or so) Ubuntu workspace. My son says it is probably due to VirtualBox causing a problem. MS XP in its VM on Win 7 does not have this problem. Getting Linux to print can be as bad as dll hell.

dayen
dayen

I am gona try that I have been testing windows 7 and realy don't like it I am going to Linux and if wine works great I think 7 need fix untel then crapware is all it is one machine has crash 3 times one twice and this one I just finish installing see how long this one goes with our software some of it won't run in any mode and it give VMware problems too

karl_kuykendall
karl_kuykendall

i have a bunch of systems at home and at work that use various versions of windows....if you ever plan on new hardware...you can't go with a stock computer purchase with win 7..or vista...memory wise you will want to fully populate to the highest amount you physicly can...forget your budget....just to keep your current performance....fortunately new hard drives are faster...and larger....by another the same size or larger too....and fully image it as your backup....then unplug it. you will need this with win 7 some day...concider off line storage of all your important files too....never been as nessesary until win 7...as far as hardware is concerned...no hardware specificly needs win 7 that i am aware of...our western digital winbook software managed to completely loose track of the weekly backups it made under win 7....never on xp. all those files lost...i usualy wait until sp2 or sp3 to "upgrade" to something new...by then they will be closer to having it right.....all the current hardware interfaces...SATA, ...WERE CREATED WHEN XP WAS KING....EVEN USB 3 WILL COME WITH DRIVERS.... FOR AWHILE..

Rayezilla
Rayezilla

Your advice will help with individual virus problems, but a large scale network worm (like the one I personally witnessed nearly defeat our systems) is going to be much harder to wipe out on XP than on 7. Once XP security updates are done in 2014, running your whole business network on XP will be an open invitation to that sort of business-crippling problem.

harlanharris
harlanharris

I do it everyday. You just have to make sure that permissions are setup on the server drives correctly.

jfuller05
jfuller05

So you can't map a drive to your Server 2003 or server 2008 computers using Windows 7? I use Windows 7 and I have a network drive mapped on my computer from our Sever 2008 computer. Check this out (For future ref in case you switch back to 7): http://www.itechtalk.com/thread3673.html

patrissatech
patrissatech

Our law firm uses a legacy application (based on MS Access 2.0) intended for Windows 3.1 that will run on XP, but not Windows 7-even using virtual XP Mode. The software vendor's new product is web based and represents a six-figure cost to implement which ain't gonna happen. Solution for us: maintain a couple of WinXP PCs just for this one program and migrate all 70+ users (except 2 Macs) from WinXP/Vista to Win7 64bit for max HW/SW performance.

deway2
deway2

It's twice the work and sloppy however you can xp > vista > 7

bboyd
bboyd

Please move to a more secure browser. IE6 is a critical weakness. If something does not work outside of IE6 its made with broke html code.

james.vandamme
james.vandamme

This machine at work is a 5 year old with 1G RAM, and the monitor died so I got a nice widescreen (1280X720). It wouldn't work on XP except in Safe mode. On Ubuntu 10.10 it looks great, and all the peripherals work too (even the old TV card). Installing our new wifi-networked printer was a 2 minute job. I use RDP to run networked servers, easy. I edit .DOCX files and spreadsheets, and nobody knows the difference. I even edit movies on this ole box, with free software. I've used Windoze forever and starting over with Linux is tough because it's different. But I'm starting now to learn. You have nothing to lose but your chains.

blarman
blarman

...It's not going to matter what flavor of Windows is running, right? With a worm, though, it's still a payload the user has to activate in some way. You still have to have a PERSON open the "invitation", and the OS isn't going to do much there, so I fail to see a point in your argument. I use 7 every day at work, but after tallying up all the costs and comparing them to the benefits, I see less actual VALUE there than I did in XP, and that is my point. Software is about VALUE to a customer, not about relative age. Eventually, we will be forced to migrate away from XP, but it won't be because we see more VALUE in Windows 7, it will be because we will not have the option to stay with XP. That is the point I and many others have been making: that Microsoft's case for Windows 7 is less about value and more about forced obsolescence. Desktop operating systems are there to help you run applications: the OS itself isn't going to make one more productive in business - even if all you do every day is move files around. Thus VALUE is not in an operating system, but in the applications that run on that operating system which allow for real work.

morleyfl
morleyfl

I have never seen a secure MS upgrade since DOS days. Throw vista and 7 in that mix and I wouldn't expect it to do any thing more complex than PING or IPCONFIG with out having a virtual blue screen corinary.

Editor's Picks