Discussion on:

The end is near for Windows XP, what are you going to do?

Okay, taking a look at the poll results, what do you think? Any surprises? What are your thoughts about Windows XP and the future operating system in your organization?

We still have two Windows 2000 workstations in service here and a Windows 2000 Server product. We only recently, early 2009, completed replacing our aging P4 1.6ghz Windows 2000 Pro workstations with dual core systems running XP Pro.

None of the vendors we work with have certified their products with Vista, to the best of my knowledge. They (the vendor) would require us to upgrade to a newer product they're selling in order to run on Vista.

I'm not really sure what we're going to do but I know Vista is not in the cards. If we have to do anything, I'd think it would be with Windows 7.

A similar story here. We now only use Win 2k desktops if we're software tied, indeed we still have an NT4 box!
This year we've finally VM'd our last 600MHz and 933MHz servers but the OS remains 2k Server.
The only way we'll ever upgrade to Vista or Win7 is through hardware failure - the business runs by that model.
The most significant barrier though will be Office. We are still standardised on Office 2k which is a very significant barrier to OS replacement.

I gave up on Microsoft Office products several years ago. I switched to Open Office 2x at the time and I have never looked back. Version 3.1 can manage the Office 2007 nonstandard docx, etcx, files. My wife and her business partner used to kid me about the change. They recently both bailed from MS Office to Open Office and finally admitted that it works better.

I run a much smaller network but have XP workstations in the W2KSVR network that allowed me to run newer versions of Office. The machines with Office 2k just run the compatebility paks.

If you have the hardware and software that meets your needs, why change? One of the problems with Vista and Windows 7, is that the hardware and software vendors are jumping on the "we are not going to support the new OS with our older products" bandwagon. If you wish to continue to use the hardware or software product from a certain vendor, you will have to buy an upgrade. This is just greed on the part of these companies! Just because Microsoft releases a new version of Windows should not be a reason for our software or hardware not to work! These companies need to support their products and the customers who purchase these products. It is not up to Microsoft to make sure that other vendors products work on the new OS.

But I strongly think it's Microsoft role to work out with vendors on issues exp. drivers & applications as what I understand some of the core design for new OS (back end development, eg. new file format) is sort of re-vamp where normal users might not find it too obvious from GUI. We can't put all blames on vendors, sometimes they're also forced to take such steps to avoid future hassles.

When you move the vendor's application to W-7, what makes it the vendor's fault that W-7 is not upward-compatible from the previous OS?

Don't blame the vendor for MS's shenanigans. Why should the vendor be required to put forth a major development effort and certification process, to satisfy a whim in the new OS?

They're not necessarily greedy.

MS is the one who decided to create the incompatibilities in the new OS.

Remember Kindergarten - Sandbox 101 - "Johnny does not work or play well with others."

Sounds like Windows-7 and Vista

We have two networks. Our user desktops could be anything, but XP is just fine and paid for. We also have a regulated network that requires PC?s to be validated. Currently, it is entirely XP. I see no reason to change and our vender would require us to upgrade so we have no plans whatsoever presently to do anything. The regulated PC?s have no access to the Internet and never update unless a patch is needed (e.g. daylight savings). This network could continue for the next several years and run just as well as it does now.

As for the non regulated network, we will wait for Windows 7, introducing it as PC?s are replaced. Even though Win 7 is really improved Vista, but if you can?t purchase XP what are we to do?

Windows XP will be available as a downgrade until April 2011 (patches until April 2014)
That's as of right now, IF 7 sucks as bad a Vista I am sure it will be available longer. Just like when Vista came out, as soon as OEMS started losing sales because they did not have an XP box, I am sure the major manufacturers will still have Xp Pro pre installed.

I know a change will come eventually but I really see no benefit to upgrading the OS when XP works so well. What more does a business machine really need to do? The problem I find is availability. We have volume licenses so its no big deal but for our clients who don't and place single PC orders its getting impossible to find a reputable copy of Office 2k3.

I'm sure eventually XP will face the same problem.

The problem is that all the visual and multimedia features in VISTA and Windows 7 do not add one centavo to the bottom line for the typical workplace.

VISTA and Win7 only make the workstations more complex and a productivity drain for end users and support staff. Arguably, these features cost more and deliver nothing in return. This is demonstrated by the extraordinary long life WinXP has had in the businees market. Extrapolating the current WinXP support calendar into the future, I would not be surprised if WinXP support outlasts VISTA support.

Microsoft has their marketing paradigm completely upside down. Win7 Ultimate should be for the commercial media/home/gaming market. Win7 Basic should have all the network security, business capabilities for the workplace. Instead, all the network/security that business needs is packed into the high end OS offerings along with the productivity draining GUI and resource intensive media apps.

Get a clue MS, you are opening the door for the basic functionality needed for business to be met by taylor made LINUX offerings.

You might want to look here at Microsoft's Compare Versions list http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/compare-editions/default.aspx. They have a model of 4 different versions so the admin/user can choose what they need I think most IT Admins will go with Windows 7 Professional over Ultimate since they probably have ways of encrypting the data they have and switching between languages is not needed I would think. The MS model is designed to allow the user to choose and pay for what they want and will use.

I upgraded our one Vista computer and Windows 7 is not even better than Vista. There is no mail program and Office doesn't work correctly. Stay with what works! XP!

I am still running Windows 2000 and Windows 98. For people like me who only need internal data processing, I see no need to update the operating system. I just up graded from Windows 95 in 2003 because the Internet and Windows 95 would no longer communicate. Only two of my eight computers actually talk to the Internet, I keep the others offline.

I took Windows 95 off of a computer here last year. Had no problems on the internet, other than the usual java problems. Other than that, I have Windows 3.11 on line. It was a bear for the drivers and the java problem still exists. It is a real old operating system, and lacks the luster of the "Newer" Windows 98 and such, but still works. Security is a hassle, but can be overcome with a little planning and foresight.

We are running a 2000 server, 2 XP and 1 2K workstations, even one 98se unit (for some legacy apps that just won't work on any newer OS).

Windows 2000 has proven incredibly stable, easily managed and runs 98% of all our older applications that will likely never be upgraded, either because the original software vendor/developer is out of business or not supporting it and don't have a replacement for it. The last time our server went down was 2.5 years ago due to a power outage, not failure or OS crash.

We now have the challenge that several of our critical applications' next version will not run on 2K workstations, so we have 'ready to install' XP upgrades and will run them until further app updates won't run on it!

Should Windows 7 have some sort of compatibility mode that will work all the way back to Windows 2K, and run on some older hardware, we might just finally make the big jump, but from what I've found the closest it will get is an XP virtual machine...

Many industrial systems are implemented on Windows 2000. You can walk around any large manufacturing site and you will find SCADA, HMI, MIS and MES systems running on legacy windows systems.

These clients will still only specify Windows XP on new systems.

I can't see this changing in the near future.

We have completed moving a couple of our bigger customers to Servers running 2003 and/or 2008 and terminal servers and putting completly dumb terminals on the desktop, no need then for any windows at all.

the word teminal brought an odd thought. Im a computer repair guy and do builds. do you remember last year in maximum pc magazine, the artical on the "IRON KEY" usb info storage unit. very secure, and next year they are expecting an 8 GB IRON KEY.
it only needs a usb plug in along with a anomynis OS and a hid. it is encoded and leaves not a single bit of trail or evan that it's been there...
imagine a cafe where only your hid and an usb plug in exists... HEY a small version is already out. what do we do then? me? im out of a career...
lennyback@gmail.com

This would have the need for a continuous connection with HUGE amounts of bandwidth for each station, with the very real possibility of files and projects being lost and/or ending up in the wrong hands.
I would NOT want to administer this dragon.
My 2? CDN

is still windows.

Linux will run faster and smother on the hardware you currently have. Do your self a favor Dump Microsoft now.

your going to tell me every piece of mission critical software we have is going to have a Linux port or at the very least a viable alternative? That is why I laugh when someone just thinks its so simple to switch a corporate environment completely!

Anyone who thinks it would be simple is just flat out delusional. However i really think most people do understand that it's not going to be easy but in fact very hard to do...

However think of the alternative.

Vista isn't really that different from XP and without any training or help files or how to docs i was capable of figuring the OS out. However the problem with me arrived when my favorite anti-virus solution didn't run on it, my favorite firewall solution didn't run, and the list started getting larger and larger. I'm just growing concerned, where i work we are still running Win 98 machines, if it ain't broke don't fix it right? Well i can keep these bad boys running and we have them to work with our novel network with dbase programs. Fun stuff right? Ok so yeah none of this stuff works with xp, it's very true Novel does and i could use emulation to get the job done but the problem is certain things just don't work right. Toss this in with most of the network is running xp and active directory. We also have a few vista boxes hooked up and running active directory. So yeah we very well could get a few Win 7 boxes to be compatible with the latest and greatest but i just keep looking back and saying why? Just seems like such a waste. So then after we push all of the old code to access 2k3 or something of that nature we will have to push it to 2k7 then whatever comes after that. Because i have already tested it and 2k7 stuff does not like 2k3 stuff. It just doesn't, sometimes it just flat out doesn't understand very simple vba code!?!??! So why should i continue to support microsoft, they have been burning us for a long time here. Where is the legacy support! Heck program manager is in windows xp it's not like they are rebuilding the thing are they just deleting stuff so it won't work?!??! I know it's not true it's much more complex then i am making it out but it's just so frustrating. I can run program manager in linux, but i can't in xp now because it's updated to SP3.
But long story short, we all have to update and change with the times, and it can be very aggravating, however i think like me most people who say we should move to linux are not saying it because it's easy we are saying it because it's the right thing to do. From an ethical stand point, financial stand point and from an IT standpoint.

Now if i can only practice what i preach
LOL :P

I remember my teacher telling me the English are like pigs, they only grunt their own grunt. So it is with many so called IT people, they are too lazy to learn anything but windows. Do the industry a favor and learn Linux. You will be a better person for it.

The main problem is just about anyone that can Run and set MSCONFIG thinks they are I.T. Techs!

what is the minimum qualification to be an IT tech?

Les.

Well Mr. IT Pro, if that is all you know, I really don't want you touching my Computer! Any 1st Year Computer Operator has learned that trick, or way to set/speed up any PC.

I've switched to Linux at home, but I don't think I'm going to be able to convince my boss to do so at work. Most of our software is running as web apps or on an AIX box, so there's isn't too much of an issue re: legacy software (I've already migrated half the people to Open Office), but it's hard to overcome inertia.

I can see but we don't run any web apps. What some of our users don't realize is none of our accounting software has any Linux and Mac ports and not to mention the fact that retraining them on Linux would be a nightmare. I have used Linux at home for a few months but decided to go back to Windows just because of my certification training.

I guess it all boils down to the type of business you work for and the mindset in regards to new technologies.

Linux is still a nerd OS its far to much a jack of all trades and master of none.Its along way to go maybe when someone commercialises the OS and regulates it to a user friendly system there may be potential..but then it will no longer be "frei gratis!"

Actually i think you might be surprised to see how much linux is actually used. There was a time in the early ninties where i would have agreed with you but it really doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I mean the statement you used as a jack of all trades and master of none could be said for windows as well. Which is why we have to use server and workstation versions of the two Operating Systems. I don't think a huge change is going to happen over night but i am really starting to think that microsoft is pushing people towards linux.

There are lots of reasons not to switch to Linux, but user re-training is not a valid one. The reason is that user re-training is needed anyway whenever Microsoft wants to re-release either Windows or Office. When Office 2007 came out, I had my hands full re-training all users in how to use it, and had the same problem when Vista was released. Why not just re-train everyone in an OS/Office Suite that works better?

I would have to agree, the main things keeping me personally and professionally from pushing my home and work network over entirely to linux is just backward compatibility. I have already started pushing linux apps around like Open Office 3. They seem to have a very solid version going this time that reminds me a lot of Office 2k. I think that if i can just allow options, and the users like them then i can actually justify a gradual switch without re-training issues. I just don't think i will ever get away from win 98, my only option is web based apps, not even windows can save me from legacy compatibility.

One of the things that fasinates me is the fact that IT pros see the whole company/organization from their perspective. People in those organizations are not computer experts, and in many cases barely computer savy(literate). When office 2007 came out I had partial responsibility of training people who used office 2003. It was very frustrating, and I had to keep reminding myself that the individual jobs those people had really had nothing to do with computers/software/hardware other than a tool, much like any skilled craftsman. It's not that they are not intellegent; their skill set is different. Give a carpenter a set of mechanics tools and what would the outcome be?
Training will always be an issue.

"Dont worry
Linux will run faster and smother on the hardware you currently have. Do your self a favor Dump Microsoft now. "

It's not as easy as Dump Microsoft Now. Linux has matured a great deal, etc. etc., but in most cases you cannot simply dump your mission critical apps onto a Linux box.

or a Windows 7, I should think...

He could have said VMS, Unix, Plan9, BSD doesn't matter. The only definite thing is if you want support, no matter how provided, one of the bullets has got to be bitten....

When 7 out of 10 users in a company can't even switch versions of Office without complaining about learning all over again, an OS switch is going to send them over.

It's easy to say "Dump Microsoft" when it only impacts yourself, but when you work in a company that maintains 400 users you can't just "make the switch." You must create new system images, develop new applications, processes, procedures, re-engineer networking models and authentication systems.

This is even before the user impact. While I appreciate your attempt to let everyone "think outside the box", your ill-considered position is poisonous kool-aid.

I agree. It is very hard on both the system and the workforce. It will change any large orginizations bottom line. In out present economic environment, this spells disastor.

Besides, what is the big deal when you have something that works perfectly fine, why switch?

This is very true, however don't be so quick to throw the whole idea out the window, what happens when you have 400 users using 2k, or xp and you drop them in windows 7 with office 2k7?

I'm guessing they would be way more angry then if they had SUSE with open office 3 and firefox. Right? or can you see my kool-aid stained lips? lol

A large investment in vba , ms office templates and such like kills tha tmove stone dead.
I remember a place that rolled out office 2k and then discovered that all their ole code to link to word and excel fell completely on it's arse. Nice little earner for me, damned painful for them though.

Any OS switch it's power users and up who feel the real impact, a normal user will simply ring up to see where print has gone as we all did when the 2k7 ribbon appeared.

Actually I have migrated a few users to Windows 7 RTM Enterprise with Office 2007, you know who's complained...nobody. Granted I work for an MEP Consulting Engineering firm, so maybe not a good sample of the average user. But on that note, anyone in Architectural/Engineering that is suggesting a switch to Linux, tell me, what legacy app do you think will replace Autodesk products? And I'm sure your office manager will have no problem switching to a legacy app nobody knows how to use while throwing away the 100's of thousands of dollars your company has invested in AutoCAD and Revit. And don't tell me to just use a virtual desktop app - might as well upgrade to Windows 7.

We use Unix and Linux for specialised custom applications we run because of securty and stability, however the everyday corporate lan runs on W2k3 server and xp desktops. It would be great to make a full migration to RHEL however one of the major hurdles woud be an alternative to Outlook. Office no problem - Open Office but Exchange server and Outlook ??

Actually, I am the former VP of a company that created the first MS-Outlook replacement for Linux/Unix. While I am no longer affiliated with them, you can check out www.bynari.com.

Novell and others have clients and servers that are drop in replacements as well. By the by, having done migrations in Fortune 500 companies with Linux, I can tell you first hand it's better to change the server first, then migrate department by department. Retraining employees is not that difficult especially for a well planned migration. The trick is to define the employees role, access requirements etc. and create a profile based on that. It actually reduces long-term costs. No 'kool-aid' needed.

Although i haven't tried it myself i have heard that if IMAP is enabled on the Exchange server then Thunderbird will work with it. Don't know how true it is, but that might be an alternative for you.

Our little company relies on Intuit's QuickBooks software for accounting. They do not support Linux, no matter what! And, Quickbooks did not run right in Wine, a software that imports Windows programs into Linux. I've written Intuit, begged them, pleased with them, to make a version for Linux to no avail. The data base accounting programs currently available for Linux cannot compare to Quickbooks. Otherwise, I'd switch to back to Linux TODAY!

Have you looked at gnuCash? Not sure how well it compares but might be worth a look.

Yes, I tried Gnu Cash. It's good for home financial applications, but doesn't have many of the necessary features to run our accounting that Quickbooks has. I've pleaded with Intuit (Quickbooks maker) to develop a version for Linux.