Discussion on:

Poll: What percentage of your enterprise is still running Windows XP?

Is the current practice of deploying systems changes and upgrades piecemeal, instead of in massive, all-at-once technology migrations, easier or more difficult?

Fleet-wide upgrades are like a snake eating a pig. It's a huge project that draws resources away from more routine support activities. Piecemeal upgrades can be done as part of the normal replacement cycle.

Field deployment can reveal issues that remain despite testing. Fleet-wide deployment means everyone has these problems and they all have to be fixed at once.. Piecemeal means only a few do; once they're dealt with, there's plenty of time to fix the issue for the next system.

The goobermint is a rusty machine. Each step pained by the constant maintenence required just to oil the joints. Most orgs in the .gov are still testing Windows 7.

Example:
A ticket comes in with a Win7 question or issue. The response is "Who let that guy use Win7?", "Are we supporting Win7?", "I don't think it's compatible with that application". I constantly have to remind people that M$ has gone to great lengths to create tools like ACT that can evaluate and sometimes fix compatibility issues. Most are reluctant to even take the ticket.

Ironically, just yesterday I overheard someone talking about a new application that was licensed for use. I remember hearing "Oh, that application was developed for Win7. It may not be completely compatible with WinXP". This is what it is going to take to get them to move.

I'd rather get experience with it on my desk than on a user's. Familiarity will reduce that reluctance to respond.

~95% of my company (about 1000 computers) run windows 2000.

I'm sorry. We retired our last Windows 98 machine (a Slot A Athlon no less) this year, and even I'm in a position to offer you sympathy.

We never visited the versions between 98 and XP.
We usually wait till the version is more stable and offers advantages.
It makes no sense to upgrade if the newer version only offers "it's the latest and greatest" when there is no value in our operation..

That actually is humorous, in the laughing at the misfortune of others kind of way. Don't get me wrong, I like Win2k. It is 2011 and I don't think that it is even safe to have those things connected to the internet.

Funny, I have never had to fix it other than a ram manager. NEVER

Are they running 98?

I'm not surprised at how much XP usage is still out there. I imagine most smaller companies only upgrade when equipment/software stop working.
Out of our current 34 user computers:
19 are still WinXP (56%)
6 are Win7 (only because we NEEDED new computers)(18%)
9 are Mac OSX4-OSX6 (26%)
Piecemeal is all we've ever known.

That is only because you are forced to upgrade your software because they only offer and support the latest and greatest with little or no regard to applicability.

I think only 3 people in our branch of the organization (about 400 people in our branch) have windows 7.

My entire company is still running Windows XP, a couple machines on 2000, and several Macs running 10.5. We run a print management system that isn't compatible with Windows 7.

use ACT to create a shim
XP Mode
App-v
MED-v

In that order. I garuntee that one of those options will work. Do some research and testing. #2 is your best bet because it actually is XP. You may find that App-V gives you other benefits that make it more desirable...

When I took over at the school all were XP (some had XP home actually). I quickly upgraded central server to Server 2008 (print still 2003 as well as web server). Purchased new computers soon thereafter and made sure they came with W7. One student lab is still all XP, everyone else is 7.

Our office maintains about 65 client computers, only 5 or 6 of which are still on XP, and the rest are on Win7 and have been for a few months. The only reason we're not done with the migration is simply because our progress has been slowed due to more urgent projects coming up. However, I'm confident that our total switch to Windows 7 will be completed before the end of the summer.

We are doing piecemeal replacement. We have approx. 8 Win 7 machines and the rest Win XP (100). Although most of our Servers are now on Server 2008 R2 and all of the servers are now virtual servers. We will probably put Win 7 on when we replace old machines.

We followed WIndows up thru 98, then to XP. We have yet to see any value in moving further except for some applications that say we should, because they want us to buy their software or hardware. All of our applications and utilities run just fine on XP, and we would like to know how to upgrade our hardware while keeping XP. That may not be possible much longer. "Pretty" may be important to some, but not our business environment. There is also the change of where everything is, and how it runs, requires too much change in procedures to figure out or adapt. Sorry. XP is just fine for quite a while to come. Seems over 60% still use XP, and less than 25% indicate a desire to move to a more bloated package with little or no value beyond the "trend?"

Windows XP is 'good enough', which is exactly what I thought about Windows 2000, and WindowsNT 4.0, and Windows 98... Windows7 is actually the first OS I've seen that has me thinking it's worthwhile upgrading to it on it's own strengths. The OS supplements the newer hardware to make the combination even faster for everyday business, although this isn't apparent until you see it in action.

That being said, I'm pretty sure our upgrade path will be as most systems are replaced. Then we'll probably upgrade the newer systems running XP (w/ Vista Pro licenses) on a very relaxed schedule. No rush.

Win7 is indeed faster on a new PC than WinXP on a vintage 2002 machine. Load WinXP onto an i7 with an SSD and see what a speed demon you have! A (blind) friend still uses DOS for database remote access (better screen reader); you'd not believe how fast a text OS runs on a modern machine!

I love this sort of thinking.

"These are the best tools for the job, there is no need to change." Which was true 8 -10 years ago for XP. But things change (and in IT... they change rapidly) and clinging on to old ideas that were once true does not always work."

It is the essence of fail.

You missed a level.
More like 90% on XP, 9% Linux, and 1% Win7 (out of 50,000 userbase)

Some of my clients feel that they spent a lot migrating to XP , not to mention app software, support etc. They have a system that is tried, tested and understood. It works well and can be fixed economically. Why change?

Many advancements have been made in software and hardware yet some people are locked in to legacy UNIX systems that don't even exist anymore. All because their business is based on a dead system. Soon there will be no more COBOL programmers left and all the hardware will fall apart. I guess it's proof that you could potentially stick with XP long after support is dropped...

and earn big bucks keeping their systems going. It will be cheaper to pay me, than replace them....

Your comment sounds a lot like their situation!

I doubt that! So long as there is a decent level of demand the colleges will offer courses ... and it isn't that difficult to learn (very verbose) - just don't bother if you have arthritis of the finger joints !

I think most Enterprise believe if its not broke why spend money? The company I work for actually handicaps me because I just bought a new laptop with Windows 7. But much of their web site I use still must work with IE 7 or older? I use compatibility view which fixes much of the issue. But their systems are very old and slow. This is a fortune 500 company no less! You have to wonder when they will finally break away from XP Pro?

When security patches dry up XP will be left to the vultures. The very usage of IE7 could lead to the downfall. When a business closing data breach occurs they may not have a choice to upgrade. They may have to pull out the money and close up shop. Nobody is too big to fail.

And when the data breach occurs using Microsoft's latest and greatest, are you arguing that the company can't fail? Near as I can tell, most of the latest batches of security issues apply to Windows 7 as often as to Windows XP.

Looking at the Justin James comments on the June and July releases, we see the following (number of occurrences followed by rating):

1 Critical (Vista, W7)
5 Critical (XP, Vista, W7, 2003, 2008, 2008 R2)
1 Critical (Vista, W7, 2008, 2008 R2), Important (XP, 2003)
1 Critical (XP, 2003), Important (Vista, W7, 2008, 2008 R2)
4 Important (XP, Vista, W7, 2003, 2008, 2008 R2)
2 Important (Vista, W7, 2008, and 2008 R2)
1 Important (2008, 2008 R2)
1 Important (2003, 2008, 2008 R2)

2 Critical (IE 6, IE 7, IE 8, IE 9)

I couldn't resist adding the 2 critical patches for every version of IE from 6 to 9 given the suggestions by several that IE 9 is the ultimate in security.

We weren't that paranoid about Vista, there were a few early teething troubles but I never really got all the moaning about drivers - any new OS is going to have problems with drivers. Yeah it required 2GB of RAM to work properly, not a big deal. So 90% of our clients are Vista. We are slowly moving over to Windows 7 but I seriously doubt it will be even 50% done before Windows 8 comes out.

Also the Application Compatibility Toolkit for Windows 7 is pretty powerful, haven't found anything from XP that won't work on Windows 7 - the caveat being that XP mode is really just an XP virtual machine. XP was out for so long that getting rid of it is like getting rid of cockroaches. I'm sure there will be the odd user out there with a laptop we've forgotten about for a year or two yet.

In the basic business world, what is mostly used is Word, Excel and Power Point. Graphic Designing business' use a lot more, but most of that comes from software unique to Graphics. At this point in time, Win XP is a solid OS. It works with almost all components, needs little security updates and there is NO 'learning curve' to work the OS. For the IT department, this is definitely a plus.

Bottom line, workers honestly HATE change. It doesn't matter if, this is in the Corporate world or Healthcare Field or Small Business. Workers love to work with things that are extremely familiar, comfortable and basically, what they can do by thoughtless routine. It's like driving a car, sometimes you wonder how you got to work, because your brain went on 'automatic pilot'.

The work place is stressful enough, add change, like upgrading to Win 7 and the factor of stress has increased to 1000%. Workers tend to 'rebel', when that happens. Complaints come in to IT, a lot more than normal. Simply, offering or making mandatory educational sessions to learn the new OS, isn't necessarily the answer either, workers again, tend to 'tune out'.

The cost factor alone is 'off the charts', when it comes to Corporations, just take a look at Volume Licensing prices. Bottom line, the purpose of any business, be they small or large, is to make a profit. Microsoft hasn't made any moves to lessen the overall cost to upgrade to Win 7, so "If, it ain't broke...Why change it?!"

Smart IT personnel, listen to the workers and work with them. A lot of IT personnel tend to think they are 'better' than the workers, thereby creating lots of problems. Workers know that IT personnel are more knowledgeable about their computers, than they are. But when superior knowledge is 'rubbed into their faces' continually, the workers resent it. Doctors are more knowledgeable about medicine, than the staff that they work with, but smart Doctors have learned to respect the staff for their knowledge and can usually bring the staff around to their way of thinking. It is called Team Work, which I have found lacking in many business structures.

Yes, there is, or more correctly, yes, there was, a learning curve for XP. It's just been so long ago, you forgot you climbed it. No one is genetically implanted with knowledge of any OS, even OS-X (despite what Apple might like to think).

The learning curve for XP has already been paid for, and it is now doing it's work. If they deem no value in upgrading, there is no need to incur that expense again, for now. What is wrong with that? Why put out the expense when the only justification is that it is "newer".

How many are waiting for the dust to settle? Why not make it easier to migrate the software applications and not just the data files? Tying the hard drive to the BIOS has made it a real pain to migrate. Not everyone has a large IT support group.
The order of difficulty to migrate is key to the reluctance to do so.
For example the original software source might not be available to reload and if updates were done online, then over time the older original might no longer be
upgradeable. Most have special software besides Word etc. that they have developed
databases for or use for other purposes. BIG HEADACHE, therefore avoid pain and
put it off. Just another facet of the problem.

6x Win XP Pro SP3
7x Win 2K Pro SP4
1x Win 95a
4x Win3.10 WFWG / DOS 6.20
1x DOS 6.20 (on an 80386 that's too "short" for win3.10)

.

Just of of curiosity, has this particular machine out lived the company that built it?

yup ! they're gone;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_Edge_(company)

but the machine still chugs along with the original 80MB Quantum HDD
no bad caps either

Just now we are upgrading our small network to Windows 7 Professional (32 bit) because of the Windows XP Virtual capability. So many programs are compatible with XP and not Vista or Win 7 with Win 7 actually being more incompatible (Microsoft hasn't been listening to the screams about Vista and its incompatibility).