Microsoft

Poll: Is the mass-adoption of Windows 8.x by businesses inevitable?

A Great Debate on ZDNet about Windows 8.1 ignited a thought and a poll question that will surely lead to a discussion.

Whatever else you can say about Microsoft Windows 8, the operating system seems to generate a large amount of passion. TechRepublic members are particularly polarized by Windows 8. Many members love Windows 8 and just as many, and possibly more, or perhaps they are just more vocal, despise it.

In early June 2013, sister-site ZDNet held a Great Debate on Windows 8:

Can Windows 8.1 re-start Windows 8?

Ed Bott and Adrian Kingsley-Hughes debated the merits of Windows 8.1 and discussed what the update to Windows 8 means for the overall success of the operating system and for Microsoft's strategy. The moderator, Lawrence Dignan gave a slight edge to Ed's "I am for yes" side of the argument.

Reality sets in

I tend to agree with Ed Bott on this matter - Windows 8.1 and the versions that will roll out over the years will continue to improve and tweak Windows 8 and the debate on whether enterprises should use Windows 8 at some point will become moot. Windows 8, for better or worse, is Microsoft's operating system. Sooner or later, businesses are going to be forced to come to grips with that fact.

I know there will be some ranting in the discussion following this blog post denouncing Microsoft and Windows 8. I know that many of the ranting members will declare their intention to adopt Linux or Mac OS or vow to stick with Windows XP forever, etc. Most of that will be bluster to be taken with a grain of salt.

Most certainly, some members will be able to change to another operating system. But for most IT pros that is just not practical. Windows 8 is the reality that information professionals are going to be dealing with in the future. It is time to face it - Windows 8 is the operating system you need to know and understand. It is the operating system you need to be able to deploy.

Poll

I know many are going to disagree with my premise, but I'm not sure how many. So, I think we should find out where TechRepublic members stand on Windows 8. Take the poll, tell your friends to take it too, and will get as large of a sample as we can muster.

Also read:

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.

199 comments
Cheval
Cheval

A casual summary of the themes look to be... 1) Without touch, metro is no good. 2) Windows releases are too fast to deploy or Win7 is good enough. 3) Rant and personal attacks. 4) "Something has changed, so I don't like it." 5) It's just too hard to *change* to another OS. 6) Windows has moved too far from being just an OS.

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

To even bring up DOS, Win95 and 98 is ludicrous. There are a lot of programs than run on XP that were designed for older OS's too. Nobody said you could run apps written for a Commodore Vic20 on cassette. You need to start understanding/comprehending what you read. There have been less vulnerabilities with Vista and Win7 so far than there were with XP on day one. Microsoft is able to patch too, with the majority of XP issues, they were unable to patch due to inherent vulnerabilities ad they STILL have more outstanding holes than Vista or Win7 have had in their lifetime so far. In fact more than double. For someone still relying on running DOS, WIN96 and Win98 apps, to hang on to XP as if it was his last chance to compute anything, is only to be expected. When you realize it's 2013 not 1997, you'll get a better picture of what is going on in the world too.

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

In case it passed you by in grade school, a question mark '?' indicates that the preceding sentence is a question not a statement. The comments were VERY typical and very commonly made. Which is why I asked the question to see if the comment fit into the most common 'I'm uninformed' category. [i]"Why do you assume he would rather move to Linux? He did not mention anything about Linux."[/i] I never assumed he would, I asked as it is the most common conclusion from others with the same comments. [i]I did not see him attribute the downturn in PC sales to Windows 8.[/i] Again I did not say he did, I asked as that is also an extremely common reason shown online. [i]I did not see where he said he feared change. Another assinine assumption made by the "Redmond bois". Good change is not feared. Bad change is BAD change! [/i] Again, I did not assume anything, I'm not a MS fan nor am I from Redmond. Who determines what is good change or bad? You? Why? What is good for me may be bad for you, so there's no such thing as BAD CHANGE unless it is a detriment to user security/safety. [i]I guess you are too buried in your cubicle to notice what has been going on. [/i] I don't have a cubicle but sometimes I work from my office, when I am in the office. My door locks I have a patio and a gorgeous view of the North Shore mountains and the seaplanes in the harbour. Now it is YOU making false assumptions...and it wasn't really a question, just an unqualified, false assumption. [i]Most businesses are still back on XP and slowly moving to Windows 7. [/i] That is unfortunate as XP is noted all over the internet, by security professionals worldwide, as the most insecure OS to connect to the internet with. [b]"I guess you are too buried in your cubicle to notice what has been going on."[/b] Denial is not a river in Egypt. [i]When it isn't broke, there is no need to fix it. Why shell out more money in a tight economy to buy a "potential pig-in-a-poke" when it offers nothing of significance from a business standpoint.[/i] What rock have you been hiding under? If it's not broke, don't fix it. I agree, but we are not talking about something that is not broken. As far as a business standpoint, protecting business data and providing a stable and secure platform for users and user data is imperative for today's business. MS hasn't and won't patch major vulnerabilities with XP that will not effect other OS's. If you don't mind users on the Internet with the most insecure OS, that's your choice, it certainly makes a viable business case though. You also don't HAVE to upgrade, you don't even HAVE to use Windows or computers at all for that matter, it's a choice, now there are better choices. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. [i]Does a potentially slight microsecond increase in speed warrant spending millions of dollars for large business and thousands for smaller business just for the sake of having something new which offers nothing of significance to improve business over the competition? [/i] No not at all, probably why I never said anything of the sort. [i]"You remember the old adage "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." [/i] You mean like when they ditched Win2K and went to XP? Yup, foolish move indeed. Win2K is STILL more secure than XP and it wasn't even designed for today's Internet or PC's, just as XP wasn't. Nobody said you had to upgrade though, assumption? I suppose so, you seem to like assumptions so much you falsely accuse others of assuming and then offer your own unqualified and false assumptions to support your own comments, Clever!!! not.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

I'm pretty sure all those businesses running apps unavailable on other platforms would disagree, but I'd like to hear you make your case.

AndyBeez
AndyBeez

Is the mass-adoption of Windows 8 by businesses inevitable? Only if business feels the same love for Windows 8 as it does for BBM :-) Maybe the question should be, is Windows 8 really for business? Windows 8 is a common 'touch' OS for tablets, smart phones and desktops; is that for business? What does business need? Unfortunately, Business IT is rather like economics; ask four IT Managers what they need from their business IT, and you'll get five conflicting answers. But universally, they should agree on the collaborative nature of a distributed, sub-contracted and global business structure. Which means business is not looking for the ability to download DRM protected music - unless they're Sony. In other words, the needs of the high volume domestic market are never those of the high value business market. And that's the conflict, for any OS developer. There's certainly an implication on this thread that IT managers are not in a rush to roll out Windows 8. Anyway, in these austere times, downsized businesses are keeping the old hardware alive; squeezing the last dime of capital depreciation from those Dell Dimensions before they brick. Businesses will pay to upgrade firewalls and add RAID arrays, but changes to the IT landscape are calculated, incremental and on a need-to-have basis. As for employees 'hot desking' with new and shiny Surface RTs (like in the advert); these guys were probably railroaded for 'budgetary' reasons, into buying and bringing their own device to work. From small SMEs to large corporation, smarter businesses are migrating to a thin client model; it is cost effective to move hardware 'off-balance-sheet' and onto a third party cloud service. Ironically, business IT is returning to the shape of '85 with networked screens connected to the corporate core - often the ubiquitous Linux Server and Oracle database. OCOB [Our-Cloud-Our-Business] means desktop machines are no longer weighty ingots with floppy slots for DOS. No longer the domain of Windows NT and IBM, business is a diverse ecosystem of devices and OS platforms. Thin means not fat. Business has little appetite for adding another heavyweight desktop OS to their support overhead: Sorry, the mass-adoption of Windows 8 by businesses is not inevitable. I guess that's called competition? AB

bobc4012
bobc4012

I hear he has an office a couple of doors down from Ballmer!

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

Yeah but they are not even remotely close to being the same as a user interface change. The use of a steering wheel over a handlebar is not a case of having a new way to drive, it's safety. Four wheels are easily controlled with a steering wheel, on two it's almost impossible to control a turn. Look at cars that had gun grip style steering, FAIL.

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

He read posts, just as many on here have, and decided he wasn't going to be the only person who enjoyed Win8 on his desktop. Didn't Depeche Mode write that song? [i]"Sheeple are sheeple so why should it be You and I should get along so awfully"[/i]

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

How many posts were ther eabut what CRAP Vista was? How many posts were there about how GREAT Win7 is, well now, not when it was released and everyone feared a change. Then how many posts have there been about Win7 being a rip off, simply a rebadged Vista? So this time they change it completely, which is easily reverted to and switched between a classic desktop , and now you complain that it's NOT the same. LOL, if they had designed an OS by sitting with you and building EXACTLY what you wanted, you'd find a reason to bitch about it.

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

XP has flaws that MS won't patch already, just not worth it. It is the #1 most insecure OS to run on the Internet, bar none, has had more vulnerabilities than any MS release before or since, doesn't support modern processors, has limited RAM capabilities because of the processor limitations and is unable to manage more RAM. People STILL using XP at home is one thing but for anyone in IT, as a living, they really should know better. "not to FORCE a new OS on too many loyal customers next time !" exactly what everyone here said in 2001 when XP was released, then when Vista was released, then when Win7 was released and now WIn8. Don't see a pattern yet? people whine because they want to have the latest and greatest, when the new investment doesn't make sense for their particular needs, they complain about it. Pathetic really.

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

A very secure, stable and fast OS. Proven countless times by PC reviewers, hardware testers, security testers etc.

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

People complaining about Win8 are talking about Linux s an alternative, while still using Win7 or 8. Most of the complainers have little to no experience with Win8, as proven by their completely misguided reasons for not liking it. Where does MAC all of a sudden come into the picture then? One group says MS is going to be run out of business. Another says LInux will pick up all the users and now everyone is going to move to Apple? Why? Are there no other Windows choices than Win8? peopl ewiht Win7 are beiong forced to upgrade? People with XP are but that's good for them, XP is a horribly insecure OS to be connected to the internet. Just don't see how this is a gift for Apple, I'd say it was a completely unqualified and inaccurate conclusion, a knee jerk reaction if you will.

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

What if you use Win7 on one box and Vista on another and they both run just as efficiently, as stable and as fast? What if Vista actually works for a lot of people? A LOT more secure than XP too?

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

Same as being proud to watch Golden Girls I guess.

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

the article ALMOST Makes it seem like they used Win7 because they didn't trust Win8, which you took a step further by saying [i]"relevant to this discussion is even Microsoft doesn't like Windows 8. They used Windows 7 to masquerade as an xbone."[/i] IN REALITY, the article loosely claims "Microsoft made sure that they were running on the most stable system specs available on the market and [b]in some cases[/b] that [b]may have been[/b] an HP powered, Windows 7 system with Nvidia's 700 series GTX GPU. [/i] It's like me saying a guy shot me on the way home. In actuality, I saw a guy who I THOUGHT MAY have had a gun an COULD HAVE pointed it at me and shot me with it. I have written a lot of copy, that type leading commentary is exactly what I look for in ALL articles, printed, preached or online. You lead in a court room but all's fair in the press and the he said, she said world.

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

Whether Win8 or not, you are current;y using the most insecure, dangerous and targeted OS you could possibly connect to the internet with. Way to support your users! Unless they are not internet connected machines, I'd suggest doing your homework then doing your users and company a favour by changing to at least Win7. Due to fear of change, you are risking your company's network security, good work!

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

Your government, military, health care system, traffic management systems, police, fire, ambulance, etc all use it as it s suits their intense demands where others do not. Mainly it's security but functionality is a key too.

peterennis
peterennis

"Obviously not the same user Interface across all devices..." That is a normal user perspective. However, corporate blindness and monopolistic tendencies have a different viewpoint. One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness blind them

texaswiz
texaswiz

The out of the box experience that the vast majority of new users of Win 8 have is terrible. They tell their friends and the first thing you know people are scared to buy a new computer because their friends had a bad experience. Multiply this by thousands of users and before you know it nobody is buying new computers because they too are convinced they will have troubles. And the saddest thing is that all this could have been easily avoided if the Microsoft donks would have simply put a user interface in Win 8 that looked something like it has for the last 20 years. Were it not for the fact that I have to fix the damn things when something goes wrong I would not buy this operating system from hell.

bobc4012
bobc4012

it smacks definitely of Redmond! From the description from your office window, one might presume you live in Vancouver, which is what, about a 2 Hr. drive tops to Redmond? People who live on Long Island commute longer than that to get to work in the City! Regardless, one debate technique is to frame statements as questions. I have read enough of your posts to believe that is one of your techniques. You mention that security professionals worldwide are stating XP is the worst system devised! Granted there are a few so-called experts (X=unknown and sspurt="drip under pressure") who might make that might make that statement about XP being the worst secure system ever devised, but a good check of the DLLs, EXEs and other modules in Vista, Windows 7 and, I suspect Windows 8, are based on XP, which, if you keep going back far enough, eventually end up with roots still back in DOS and Windows 2.0, 3.1, etc. As far as Win2K, it was used primarily in the business world. The average Windows user, and their were millions, used XP and also many of them were/are ignorant of safe computing practices. Nor do they read boards and blogs like this - too busy forwarding viruses, malware, spyware, etc. As far as security, XP was a successor of Windows 2000. Both were built on the NT 4.0 kernel. In the 10 years of support for Win. 2000, it received security patches every month. So much for a secure system! That old adage "Statistics don't lie, but liars sure can use statistics" applies a lot to there are more Windows 7 in use now than Windows XP. Of course, as PCs crapped out and needed to be replaced, what did the average "mom and pop" user end up with when they went to their local "big box" electronic store - why that "broken" XP box was replaced by a "no choice" Windows 7 box. Over time, XP will be phased out - just like DOS boxes, Win. 95, 98, etc. it has no implication that the replacement box is any better than what they had. If they could have gone to the local big box store and said sell me a new desktop/laptop with XP, I guarantee the vast majority would have stayed with it. The business world is a different animal. However, small businesses (the local flower store, candy store, etc.) would have stayed with XP too when it came time to replace their H/W. I have gone on long enough. My daddy told me long ago - "Son, if you get into a battle of wits, be fair and make sure your opponent is fully armed.". I can't see debating an unarmed opponent.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000 moderator

Actually there is Paid Support for a further 2 years after April 2014 which no one seems to want to talk about. Could it be that everyone expects free support no matter what? :0 Col

bobc4012
bobc4012

then why are there so many security patches already? At the rate they are pumping them out, they will far surpass those for XP in far less time! I check the Window 7 update logs regularly and anywhere from 80% - 90% are security patches. Could it be the Vista created a false allusion with security because it was not widely adopted? People stayed on XP. If XP security was as bad as you imply, then everyone should have been running to Vista in droves. Also, in the home market, the only reasons I see consumers going to Windows 7 is because their XP H/W crapped out and the replacement comes with Windows 7 (plus the average consumer hasn't the inclination nor a clue on how to install an OS) or the FUD that come the magic date, their XP system was going to stop working.

Slayer_
Slayer_

But I think them saying they want the most stable system, does sort of imply they think Windows 8 is unstable.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

I await his every post, if only to see what party line will come out of his mouth next. It must be very difficult for him to sit with Steve Balmer's hand up his @$$, but it's been there so long that maybe he's become accustomed to it.

bobc4012
bobc4012

that is why the Russians, the Chinese and anyone else interested are hacking into those "SO, SO SECURE" systems regularly. You don't even want to go down that path when it comes to the US government. "Buy cheap" even though it will be more costly to the taxpayers in the long run! Then toss in a few influential politicians looking for those large campaign donations. Remember, the original core was a piece of crapola (IMO) and a lot of it is still around.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

They do honestly complain bitterly about the metro UI on their computers but the same people love 8 on their Phones and Tablets. I had one guy drive 1,200 Kms with the demand that I change the OS on his NB to 7 or better still XP but he was using a 8 Phone and was very critical when I suggested that perhaps he would find a Droid or iProduct a better fit for him. He loves the Windows 8 Phone and insists that it the best for him to use but at the same time finds it impossible to use a computer with the same OS and User Interface on it. When I see things like that I simply have to question what it is that people like him want. Obviously not the same user Interface across all devices but other than that I'm not sure. Col

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

They have already stopped working on major security holes that they know will take too much R&D and XP does not warrant the effort, plus the zillions they never could patch. They will patch Vista and Win7 but if it isn't directly applicable to XP too, they won't re-engineer it to support XP anymore. So why pay for support when you know right up front that, even paid support, won't have these gaping security holes fixed? Face it, XP is ancient, bug ridden unsafe for internet use and simply should be forgotten, like all the other outdated OS's they have released over time. It's time to let go, Colin, XP is a has been. If someone uses it at home and ISN'T connected to the internet, fine, anyone that is using XP on the Internet is just dancing with danger. It's only a matter of time before NOT upgrading, even if just for security reasons, will bite them in the butt. All hail XP....and cross your fingers your computer will survive.

MarkWAliasQ
MarkWAliasQ

It's not going to be the same as a team of people dedicated to finding and closing off/patching the most recently found back doors etc is it. You are not going to get anywhere near the same level of support and updates that you currently get or it would be like MS saying, we are going to keep supporting XP but we are not going to send you the updates unless you pay for them. Is that what is happening?

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

UAC, lots hated it. UAC wasn't that well implemented, but it did force a lot more people (unless they turned it off) to stop running as a naked admin. The droves never happened, because MS screwed up big style. Insistence on DRM was one thing. They kept bogging about with the expectation, so all the big sofware boys (including themselves !) were reluctant to move forward with Vista compatible software. The enterprise boys were hugely reluctant to try and hit a moving target, the hardware boys the same. So at the point where you needed a lot more machine so therefore newer hardware, no drivers, most of your software didn't work, enterprise A/V's didn't work, most of your inhouse software needed rework. Other than that it was a raging success, intelligent business people couldn't possibly pass up.... That's not even mentioning frippery like aero, substantial increase in cost, and garbage like the upgrade to Vista when we get it working licence. Oh and this was then they pushing WGA, getting hammered about IE being integrated into the OS and falling foul of the nutty socialists that run the EU. On second thoughts, perhaps we should praise them for getting anything out of Vista. :(

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

If you didn't follow the careful comments by the initial author, even after having them pointed out, it explains why you would have missed reading between the lines the first time. Point is, you surmise, from the article you linked to, that they had chosen Win7 due to stability. The truth is, IN SOME CASES they MAY HAVE been using Win7. That does not mean they used Win7 or that they felt it superseded Win8 at all. If he had said, they were supported by Win7, that is one thing and completely different to what was actually said, which was speculative. Also, lets factor in age/maturity of the OS. They most likely had done all their testing with Win7 due to availability of a finished, patched product, for them to spend a bunch of R&D money right before release, simply to have test systems operate on Win8, simply wouldn't make ANY sense. They are not selling Win8, they are selling XBOX ONE. Why take ANY measurable risk with a new OS when that's not what you are selling?

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

doesn't mean it can't be done. It's not even that difficult, although it does require a commitment of resources.

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

Russian government uses Windows, on top of a Novell backbone.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

"He loves the Windows 8 Phone and insists that it the best for him to use but at the same time finds it impossible to use a computer with the same OS and User Interface on it. When I see things like that I simply have to question what it is that people like him want. Obviously not the same user Interface across all devices but other than that I'm not sure." From the first time I saw Metro, I've questioned why MS thinks people want the same interface across all devices. There are reasons you don't see a steering wheel on a motorcycle or a hand throttle on a car. Maybe if you're a completely new computing user who has no experience with previous versions of Windows then a single one-size-tries-to-fit-all interface makes sense, but how many of those are there? Why not give the option for a desktop to continue looking like a desktop for those billions with existing Windows skills?

NickNielsen
NickNielsen moderator

Why would you post a statement that indicates otherwise? [i]If XP is "unsafe" for the internet, then so is Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, 8.1, ad nauseum. After all, they share the same common base Q-Dos (Quick and Dirty OS). [/i]

bobc4012
bobc4012

See further up titled "I disagree" - I posted this "As far as security, XP was a successor of Windows 2000. Both were built on the NT 4.0 kernel. In the 10 years of support for Win. 2000, it received security patches every month. So much for a secure system!" I am fairly well aware of the early OS/2 days and Microsoft's early collaboration with IBM.. One of the early OS/2 books had a forward by Bill Gates saying OS/2 was - to paraphrase - the "greatest thing since sliced bread" - in the meantime, Microsoft was going there own way as IBM found out later. BTW, one of the books was titled "OS/2 Programmer's Guide" by Ed Iacobucci (1988). The Foreword started "I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program of all time." .... Bill Gates, November 1987

NickNielsen
NickNielsen moderator

The last DOS-based Microsoft OS (whether QDOS or MS-DOS) was Windows ME. Windows 2000, XP, 7, & 8 are based on the NT kernel, which has its basis in the joint IBM/Microsoft OS/2 venture.

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

With links to TR, CNET and others who all support the fact that XP is impossible to make as secure as Vista or WIn7. But they don't like posting links here so it didn't post. Tech radar, TechRpeublic, CNet, ZDNet etc. most of which are the professionals you tout TR for having, all agree. Microsoft even says to! Check out CVE details too and tell me THEY are unqualified! As for ignorance and assumptions, how about YOUR lies then? YOUR profile, which I will assume you wrote states: [i][b]Industry:[/b] Aerospace/Travel[/i] So YOUR lies lead to what you deem as other's ignorance. So first of all you suggest I assumed and was ignorant, due to information that you wrote about yourself. When in reality you simply lied or were misinforming people yourself. Then you propose I said something that I didn't, or perhaps it was your lack of comprehension. THEN you suggest, that the people who ARE qualified and DO know better than me (not you), disagree. Meanwhile there are as many comments from the senior level, of the sites you have so much faith in, who say otherwise. One of the most reputable security tracking and vulnerability tracking sites on the planet also prove otherwise but again, you close your eyes as you know better.

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

What is ignorant or assuming by saying you work in Aerospace, when you stats in your profile: [i][b]"Industry:[/b] Aerospace/Travel[/i] I know many profiles here seem to be BS but you should remember what you type in for your own profile. Windows 7 would include all Windows 7 applicable patches, if they ALSO work with XP then they are released as XP patches too. They don't forward engineer, they reverse engineer, as any software developer does. You seem completely blind to the fact that Windows7 DOES have different layers, specifically designed to reduce the effects of malware and trojans that are so easily infecting XP machines. Okay, so you aren't really in the aerospace industry, as your profile states, but this isn't rocket science either. The last couple of years the UPDATES/PATCHES to Windows XP have been fewer and fewer, however it STILL has more open vulnerabilities and new attacks than any other OS on the market today. You blindly suggest it's because of problems found in Vista and Windows7???? :D Seriously? You should listen to yourself, it's good for a laugh anyway. XP does not get teh same level of supprot as Vista and WIn7. IF a patch for Vista or Win7 vulnerabilities is effective for XP, it is included for XP too. When a vulnerability is patched in Vista or Win7, having a different security layer and completely different file structures, it is generally not a fix for XP too, and they don't bother expending more money and effort working out a resolution for XP as many can't be applied due to it's limited security structure to begin with. So many on THIS board are merely half witted IT guys who believe everything they read on similar forums, by similar half wits. As for miles and miles of experience and understanding, that does not negate blind ignorance nor being biased due to making such decisions for their companies many years ago. My knowledge IS limited but it is also unbiased as I have nothing to gain nor lose either way. I haven't recommended that our 230 users are best to stay with what security professionals worldwide deem the most unsafe and insecure OS available on today's market. The people who write the viruses TARGET XP due to it's ease and the widespread rick of infecting more machines. What easily infects an XP box would not have the same opportunity top propagate in Vista or XP. http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-26/product_id-739/cvssscoremin-5/cvssscoremax-5.99/Microsoft-Windows-Xp.html [b]Your 'qualified sources', on Tech Republic also talk about such vulnerabilities when sticking with XP.[/b] http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/european-technology/ok-so-stick-with-windows-xp-but-how-big-a-risk-do-you-run/1627 [b]But as capable as Windows XP is, it is inherently less secure than Windows 7[/b] http://www.biztechmagazine.com/article/2011/04/windows-7-vs-windows-xp-security-showdown [b]Report: Windows 7 almost five times more secure than XP[/b] http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20063220-83.html [b]There are plenty of reasons to like Windows XP, but security isn't one of them.[/b] http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/windows-compared-windows-7-vs-vista-vs-xp-615167/3 So lets look at credibility, seeing as that has been your key defense against my comments. 1) You suggest you are in the aerospace industry, then say you are NOT in the aerospace industry. 2) You illustrate your lack of comprehension by repeating things I said, but reversing their meaning. I didn't say XP fixes were also applied to Vista and Win7, it was the other way around. 3) You comment that the people on TR are more experienced than I. I agree and offer you links fro this and other sites owned by CNet that show the security professionals here also recognize the same problems I have previously mentioned. If you had a leg to stand on, you'd need a forklift to support the weight forcing you down.

bobc4012
bobc4012

ignorance and assumptions are appalling. I do not work in the aerospace industry. I have developed operating systems, databases and other commercial products over the years. I also hold patents on some of these - which from your denials of not being employed by Microsoft, is probably more than you can say. As far as Windows 7 being more secure than XP, one would hope it includes all the XP patches and security updates. But since it also added additional function and layers, it opened up more avenues for malware, spyware, rootkits, etc. in spite of adding more layers of security. The last couple of years, the updates to XP have been fewer and fewer - probably due to the problems found in Vista and Windows 7 that could be retrofitted to XP. Ironic that too many on this board disagree with much of what you have to say. I would also add, based on their replies and posts over the years, they show miles and miles of more experience and understanding than you can even begin to fathom. No need to reply as your statements about me being uninformed, misguided, etc. are more appropriately applied to yourself.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

UAC was a layer on top of XP. So yes it was just as insecure underneath, though getting better as it went along, but in order to get at the soft underbelly, you had to first get round UAC. Why didn't MS fix it immediately? Because there was no commercial pressure for them to do so. I'm far from one of Redmond's biggest fans, but I have no argument with what Vista really did, which was put security on the map for windows appliance users, I have a great many with the idea that XP is as secure as Vista though. Very, very many.

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

Edit: Actually I see that you are not, you are in aerospace but not in an IT role, which is a great benefit to the company! Think first, XP was not designed for modern technology, not at all. XP was released before YouTube, Facebook and GMail were around, THAT'S the Internet world it is designed for, an ancient one. XP and Firefox have amased the absolute WORST vulnerability record of all time. Despite your comment of Windows7 being fixed with regular security updates, which merely means it is actually up to date when it comes to sexurity (I think NO patches would be a red flag) XP STILL has more infections popping up each quarter (approx 200) than any other OS they have released (Vista less than 40, Win7 less than 65), and FEW are still being patched for XP unless a Vista/Win7 patch works for XP too. As far as it being the same base as XP, DOS, you need to look further into security. You can say they both have a 120V plug for AC power too, that doesn't mean they are the same at all. IE7 for Vista and later offers protected mode surfing, although you can install IE7 on XP, it does not offer protected mode due to OS limitations. 64 Bit OS is also far more secure from malware than a 32 bit OS. LUA bugs/trojans don't effect Vista due to the UAC. Using address space randomization in Vista and 7 makes it extremely hard to exploit. not so for XP, open door there. Heap management enhancements make it a lot harder to carry out buffer overflow attacks in Vista and Win7. Vista and 7 also require all kernel-mode drivers to be digitally signed, making it much harder for rootkits to install. So, in contrast to your unqualified commentary that they are all the same because they are based on DOS, as all monitors are the same because they have a flat screen, you are clearly misguided, uninformed and unqualified to offer any support for your beliefs.

bobc4012
bobc4012

If XP is "unsafe" for the internet, then so is Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, 8.1, ad nauseum. After all, they share the same common base Q-Dos (Quick and Dirty OS). Garbage in, garbage out as we used to say. So far, there have been tons of security fixes for Windows 7. I understand your (whoops, I meant Microsoft's) reluctance to patch XP forever when it doesn't add to the bottom line. But to spout nonsense that XP is dangerous to use, is pure nonsense. If it was so dangerous, then why didn't Microsoft replace it immediately? It seems they could get buried in law suits by the megacorps for ever pushing an "unsafe" product on them! Where is Ralph Nader when you need him? How far down the hall is your office from Balmer's?

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

XP is so full of unpatched holes its not funny, most they won't even consider patching for XP, too much R&D. They've left major vulnerabilities open with XP for years, people seem to feel that Windows updates will patch it all up, just like a more modern OS, but it doesn't work that way at all. Nowhere near the updates you get now? How about you already get f-all for Windows fixes, besides a few patches that are cross platform friendly. They stopped fixing XP itself a long time ago. As it sits now it is BY A LONG SHOT, the most unsafe way to browse the Internet that is available. May as well have no AntiVirus, firewall etc and just surf porn all day, it's no less safe than browsing with XP and what people feel is security.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

More secure was the initial goal, then cope with the issues that arise from it. All the people holding up XP as better than Vista are ignoring security. The How and When of Vista can be argued against, what they did is irrefutable. Near all of the complaints about UAC were, I don't want to have to confirm that I want this application to do something crackers and malware boys do, such as replacing a dll in program files.. So while I don't agree with you on Win8 is a good choice of OS for my role, even less so that it's a value add, I certainly do agree that XP has a catalog of unacceptable issues.

aidemzo_adanac
aidemzo_adanac

As we manage a Peer2 network, worldwide, to serve our client base directly, including US military, several governments etc, we have to have VERY tight security. We have actually hired/ flown in security techs, with more certs than I knew existed, from Eastern Europe to manage our security network. As I also work with the second largest ISP, Cable and tel provider in Canada too, partner programs, I know our security is even tighter than their own. We ALL run Vista desktops though, so I guess it passes their standards without issue. I have reason to seriously doubt fanboys who are quick to say Vista has issues and yet the most insecure OS of all time, XP, is on their desktop. Would be nice if opinions were at least qualified.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Take up was so slow, by the time people got done 7 was on it's way . Needed the effort for win 7 anyway, so wasn't a big deal. Fortunately our release cycle meant Vista was almost usable by the time we promised we would be as well.

bobc4012
bobc4012

There is an interesting study in Ars Technica, involving Adware. Since users and business are moving (some eventually) to Windows 7, the Adware hackers are devoting their time to Windows 7 and not so much to XP anymore. I suspect this holds true for spyware, malware, etc. Why beat a "dead horse" (XP, in this case, when most XP users will eventually be on Windows 7).

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

that so few people adopted it that it wasn't worth targeting :D

Editor's Picks