Discussion on:

Windows 8 in the Enterprise: Why IT pros say no

It is difficult to see a compelling reason to jump on the Windows 8 in the enterprise bandwagon, but if you have and you have plans to add it to your organization, I'd love to hear how you came to that decision. What about Windows 8 appeals to the enterprise?

Funny how anyone who, unlike you, doesn't see this as a positive move at this point in time is a 'supposed "IT" pro'. Picking up on something new is not the only point of discussion here. Making it work with all of the applications and processes already in place is more critical to the upgrade process. I think any IT pro "supposed" or not is going to have an issue with an OS that doesn't even support it's own mainstream mail program, MS Outlook.

My comments were in regards to all these "supposed" IT pros who make these comments about how they will never ever upgrade, at a time when the product isn't even "finished" and hasn't been officially released as a final product and relatively few people have even had a chance to use it.

I'm sure Windows 8 still needs some work before it is ready for prime time. I'm sure there are and will continue to be issues and it won't suit everyone's needs. I understand that some people are happy with what they have now (whether it be XP, W2K, 98 or even Linux or Mac) and won't feel any desire to buy Windows 8. That's all well and good.

Perhaps you have not been in IT long enough to remember all the people saying they would never ever upgrade to XP, because they were so upset with the changes in the interface, compatibility issues with old hardware/software, and, perhaps most importantly, the fact that XP required "activation," preventing people from buying one copy of Windows and installing it on 20 different computers, like they could with W2K or 9x. How many of those supposed IT pros are still running W2K or 9x, after all their strident claims that they would never ever upgrade to XP? Come on, XP wasn't perfect when it first came out. It had bugs and compatibiliy issues with older software and older hardware. Some people didn't like the new interface, or thought it would be too hard to learn to use. All the same reasons why these supposed IT pros are claiming they will never ever upgrade past Windows 7.

I don't know... I guess the reality is that history repeats itself over and over. People do and say the same stupid things over and over, and very few of us are able to see these patterns. Perhaps you disagree with me because you are one of the masses of a$$es who can't see this pattern. In any case, my comment was specifically about the pattern of behavior, not anything specific about the pros and cons of Windows 8 specifically.

Rick

We only upgraded to XP after SP3 was released, and only because a) Microsoft dropped support for Win2000, and b) the OEMs for the equipment we support finally updated their proprietary applications to work properly with XP.

We skipped Vista intentionally, and looked at Win7, but decided against it because (surprise...) some of the proprietary applications wouldn't run properly, even in XP compatibility mode. Now, we're waiting on the equipment OEMs again.

So, whether we want to or not, if we are to do the jobs we are contracted to do, we stick with XP at work.

My point, and maybe I'm not explaining it clearly enough, is that we have all these supposed It pros claiming that they will "never" upgrade. Perhaps my definition of the word "never" is different from yours. Perhaps in supposed IT pro language, "never" means 6 months or a year?

Rick

is most likely "under current circumstances".

"When will you upgrade?"
"Under current circumstances, never."

I suspect that most of the IT pros you refer to as "supposed" are thinking this, but not stating it. Take my explanation above: "under current circumstances" may not have been explicitly stated, but it should most surely have been understood.

The circumstances can be funding, the attitude of the IT staff to the new OS, the attitude of management to IT, legacy applications, hardware limitations, or any combination of these and many other issues. No large business is going to jump right onto the first release of a new OS. Money has a lot to do with it, but too many managers outside IT remember the problems they had implementing the OS they are using now and don't want to go through that again until they absolutely have to. Thus, under current circumstances, IT has no plans to upgrade to Win8.

Home machines are a completely different story. I'll do things at home I wouldn't even consider at work.

So, it sounds like what you are saying is that it would be sensible for me to say things like "I'm never going to die." After all, under current circumstances, I'm only 53 years old, and in excellent health. So it would be perfectly reasonable for me to claim that I'm never going to die, right?

I guess I just expect too much from people. Why can't people say what they mean? Certainly, under current circumstances, no one on earth is ever going to upgrade to Windows 8, because Windows 8 is not even for sale yet. Certainly, under current circumstances, no business is ever going to upgrade to Windows 8, because no one has even had a chance to test the final product, and no vendors have had a chance to certify that their software will run properly under Windows 8. Under current circumstances, no is ever going to buy a new PC, tablet, or phone with Windows 8, because, under current circumstances, no such products are available for purchase.

So, under current circumstances, what is the point of this article, and what is the point of all these people making all these claims about never upgrading? Is this all just an exercise in seeing who can blow the most hot air?

Rick

You can choose to stick with tried and true yet out of date applications that force you to remain on an older operating system.
I can sympathize with your predicament.
But you still have a choice.
You could choose to replace legacy applications if you thought they would be better for business.
You could choose browser-based applications over fat clients which would work across many OS platforms.
You could choose to run legacy applications on a virtual machine.

Yes, I can choose to replace my legacy system, but here's what it takes:
1-2 years of RFP and Contract process (conservative)
2-3 million dollars
3 years of implementation
1+ year for MU certification
Re-train 900+ staff

Plus, Win 8 is so significantly different that our vendors are going to have to re-certify on the new platform before we even go through the above process. Should I go through all of that just for the sake of upgrading to WIndows 8, or should we bypass that whole above process and implement Linux desktops that are already approved and will require minimal training for the staff?

Yes, we have a choice, but it's not that simple to just upgrade to a radically different platform like this. And it's not jost one legacy system, I can think of 4 immediately and speculate of 4-5 others that wouldn't be as expensive or have quite as long of an implementation time and as high of a cost.

In the current economy you really believe that any company is going to go through the HUGE expense of doing something like that. Lower productivity, increase expenses BIG time all at a time when may companies are struggling to keep the doors open? There aren't that many willing to go through that kind of expensive operation. Don't forget the training for everything the OS and the new application software they would likely have to purchase.

Then the suggestion of going browser based applications. Many browser based applications I have seen suck compared to the software that isn't browser based. As for working across many OS platforms HAHAHA you are joking right? OH wait you are serious let me laugh even harder at your ignorance HAHAHAHA HOHOHOHO take a look at things like Banner for instance. A large accounting program at its simplest description. While it "works" on Macs it is real finicky about it and the version of java you use. God forbid if you try to use a newer version of Java cause then half your menus don't work. Or even better try to do document imaging on a Mac and make it use the ISIS drivers, yeah that will never happen. The list goes on. While great in concept it really doesn't work most of the time nearly as easy as you would like us to believe.

Obviously not he clearly said

OEMs for the equipment we support finally updated their proprietary applications to work properly with XP.

That is Hardware not Software and every time I have run into this there is no Alternative. Be that for Laser Leveling Equipment around Earth Work Sites that allow you to scrape earth away to within 2cm of the design saving you a lot of money in wasted fuel and backfilling to Medical Equipment.

You know little unimportant things like Ultrasound Machines, CAT Scanners, MRI Devices. These things cost tens of thousands and they are the cheap ones. God forbid you want to replace a MRI Unit because it has an older OS for the reporting software. Sure I have several Million just because the bit of hardware I bought yesterday doesn't work on Win 8 and I only spent several Million to buy it and I don't really expect it to pay for itself let alone make a profit for me. Yea Sure as if that will ever happen.

In Nick's case he supports POS Equipment If the maker doesn't support newer OS then you are stuck with what the Maker Supports. And quite often there is a very good reason why the Software for these devices is not rewritten quicker.

I have one Medical Application that is used by a couple of clients which specifically said that running it on any newer Server Platform that 2003 and not 2003 R2 may result in Broken Allege Reporting. You can read that as the Doctor Prescribing Drugs/Medication whichever you prefer would not be informed of an Allergy that the Patient had and could easily prescribe a Problem Drug which resulted in an Adverse Medical Outcome which in Layman Terms means that the Patient Died.

There is only one other Piece of Software that could be used as this stuff needs to be Certified for Use by the Authorities or you can run the risk of using Uncertified Software and being in Court every Second Day for some perceived problem by the Legal Profession when there is a complaint about something or you can use what the Authorities say is working properly and at the very least have the Legal People going after the Authorities who Certify the Software instead of you.

Yep I can just see a bunch of Doctors willing to expose themselves to so much Literation.

The Real World Reality is that every time you Do Not have any choice that is Financially Possible to follow.

Col

Yes Hal, I read Nick's post. He is in the unfortunate (at least in this case) position of having to work with external clients and OEMs who are not ready (or willing?) to update their proprietary applications but those are still choices on their part.

I said in my post that I can sympathize so let me explain. I have a very critical pc running some manufacturing equipment that still runs on DOS 6.2 and the OEM has no plans to upgrade. As a result, it is a non-networked stand alone PC with physically controlled access in which authorized users have to swipe an id badge to get into the air conditioned closet where the pc resides. My techs have to periodically "sneaker-net" the data for analysis and perform bare-metal hard drive duplication. So yeah, I feel your pain.

DXMage
If your application requirement is to work across a list of browsers and you chose one (Banner) that did not meet that requirement, then you should have discovered this during testing. Sorry. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
If it wasn't a requirement and now it is, I have had a lot of success with Citrix XenApps / Citrix Receiver. For example, our new CEO wanted to use his Macbook and iPad on our mostly MS network. With Citrix XenApps / Citrix Receiver, he is able to remote to a Windows XP desktop and run any application we have. It gives you a lot control over the environment in which your applications can run. Plus, it only cost me one license.

As for the rest of you moaning and groaning about the Windows 8 interface, if you don't like it or you have so little faith in you users' ability to adapt, don't install it. No one is forcing you use it on the Enterprise side. If you are in an Enterprise, you should have licenses to install XP and/or Windows 7. Again, you have a choice. Make it and move on.

It is disappointing to find so many IT professionals on TechRepublic choosing to remain prisoners of inertia.

and obviously have experienced, the inertia is not necessarily that of IT.

Yet, IT pros are "prisoners of inertia" for not shoving upgrades down their customers' throats? I missed something...

It's can be difficult to make a case for upgrading applications when they're still working. "This still runs well on W2K and XP; why do we need to spend money having it rewritten as a web app?" When a non-IT department has a laundry list of needs and a limited budget, having working applications rewritten usually gets pushed down the priority list.

Isn't it our job as IT Professionals to explain the risks associated with falling behind in technology as well as pointing out the risks of moving forward?
Many of you posters seem to focus more attention on the latter.
It is "pros and cons", not just "cons".
Regardless, my advice to all of you is to protect yourself and put your risk / benefit analysis in writing.

XP has been in effective use for over a decade. It appears W7 may have a similar lifespan. You know the common practice in the industry isn't to install an MS OS until the first service pack anyway. I don't regard waiting until we have reason to deploy W8 as 'falling behind', and I see that reason may crop up on tablets before desktops / laptops.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear.
Sticking with Windows XP is two versions behind in MS OSes. Extended support for Windows XP will expire on Apr. 8, 2014.
Now is the time to work on your migration plan to Windows 7.
From the user's perspective, Win 7 is not that different in appearance from XP either so the transition should not be too harsh.
Win 7 and Win 8 are not that different. They have a similar desktop, encourage you to use search, and allow you to pin items to the taskbar.
So the transition to Win 8 will not seem so jarring if you are familiar with Win 7.
Extended support for Windows 7 expires on Jan. 14, 2020 so your users have time to get familiar with it.
I think it is OK to skip a version but I also think it is very risky to find yourself three versions behind.

Our XP-to-7 migration is already well underway. Office 2010 too, and Server 2008 is almost complete.

We are going with Windows 7 and Office 2010. They are fully tested out in the wild. (Unlike Win 8 and Office 2013)

Making it work isn't the problem. Making the employees that happen to be 50+ learn a whole new OS interface that is VASTLY different from what they know isn't something that should be taken lightly. The move from 3.11 to 95 was bad enough but this is going to be even worse. Every 'supposed "IT" pro' should be looking out for the end users that will have to make daily use of the production tools provided them first. Anyone that thinks that this isn't a vast departure from the old interface is really doing their end users and consequently their business a major disservice by not full assessing that facet. Going from 95 on up did have "some" changes to the interface here and there however they were relatively minor and incremental compared to the changes made to the Windows 8 interface.

Unlike some here who simply can jump on to any OS it has to be recognized that most users simply don't understand computers the way it is now can't really be expected to be able to jump in and start running with Windows 8. Most users will flood the help desk with thousands of calls for the simplest of things for months at best. At worst will cause major delays in getting work done. OH and don't bother mentioning training as most companies don't even bother with that any more simply because of the expense. I know of plenty of universities and businesses that have done away with that portion of their IT services completely because it really hasn't been needed for a long time. The Bob 2 interface changes all that requiring training for many users that simply come in and do their work not learning a thing about the computers they work with.

I'm not saying that it is a good thing but that is the reality. So far while I like many of the things under the hood of Windows 8 the whole interface needs to be dumped or at least provide a theme that will bring some semblance of the old interface back. As M$ has stated clearly and frequently that they will not do that it leaves most enterprises with little recourse other than simply skipping Windows 8 and Office at a minimum.

Amen

It has been bad enough getting users to move between netscape/IE/mozilla over the years.

If users can't cope with changes on that minor scale, how do you think they'll cope with wholesale interface changes?

(nt)

I am pretty confused about this comment, I am using Outlook on windows 8 at the moment.

Are you referring to something else?

nt

...I'm not. You're right, Rick. I could pick up Windows 8 and move on with very few hitches. My users, on the other hand... I can't blame MS for this, because it's prevalent in the tech industry, but it's people like you that design these interfaces to be 'simple'. The users of average intelligence, or who don't think logically, find it anything but. They get confused, and productivity goes down.

How many XP systems do I find where my users have reverted to the 'Classic' interface for their Start menu, Control Panel and Windows? They still consider XP to be cutting edge and confusing... Like the 'Ribbon'. I understand why MS doesn't offer a reversion to the 'old' interface, but they're ticking off a LOT of users. The only reason they keep their sales is that people are pretty much FORCED to buy them.

MS' next big move will be to FORCE people into 'The Cloud'. A lot aren't ready, a lot don't want to spend the extra money for bandwidth, and it's not the 'right fit' for a lot of people. But they will have no other alternative.

And to add to that Azure has been down many times unexpectedly (ie unscheduled downtime) for hours at a time. Now multiply that by the hundreds if not thousands of employees who are idled by the outage and you are costing businesses big money in a real hurry. If they could make it as rock solid as the Mainframes of old (and really isn't that what "The Cloud" is really) then it would be a great option but we all know that MS won't do what it takes to get there.

If that doesn't change, we have no intention of ever deploying Windows 8.

We will reassess when we start seeing RC versions.

And everyone knew that. Even Microsoft knew that but it doesn't mean that it won't be purchased for a few specific purposes/roles. So that's not really a surprise. What is surprising is that you're writing an article about corporate adoption of a new Microsoft Operating System and basing your sampling on 50 guys that participated from a Google owned website that while it has high membership numbers, it's actual usage is pretty small when compared to other social networks indicating that the IT pro's that do participate are probably committed to it. Not that it all really matters in the end. Like I said, the corporate adoption rate was going to be small. I'm just surprised you specifically asked Google users.

Economy sucks, business dying by the hour and companies still hesitating a move from XP.
Who are Microsoft kidding?
The only way the average consumer upgrades a OS is when they buy a new PC with the latest OS pre-installed and sales of PCs are down.
The consumer generally buys a new PC when the existing one literally dies so anyone who bought a PC is the past 4 years will probably not update for another 4 years. By then we may be looking at Windows 10.
Windows 8. Bad timing, too different, no real added value to Win7. After all Windows 8 is really just an upgrade, not really a whole new OS.

Because something is different, new and shiny, doesn't give anyone a compelling reason to buy it up.

I think that your average computer user is over the "gee whiz" factor when it comes to upgrading to a new OS.

If win8 sales tank, they have current business migrations to win7 plus savings to coast on until Win9 is released with third party software ported to winRT and the legacy desktop mode removed or only available as an optional add-on.

Be interesting to see how it actually plays out over the next few years.

Because after Win8 is released, won't the sales be billed as Win8 licenses even though user's 'downgrade' to Win7? So if that's true, either way, if corporate continues to invest in Windows 7, it'll show as a profit for Windows 8.

I don't care which OS Microsoft attributes the profits to, as long as I can continue legally apply licenses to previous versions. There are plenty of more reliable ways to measure OS installations than MS sales figures. As long as vendors continue to offer W7 drivers for new hardware, let MS sugarcoat the numbers however they wish.

None of our clients have asked but we're planning to focus on Win7 and that'll involve buying Windows licenses (whether they're 8 or 7) and installing Win7 which Microsoft has already said they're going to allow. Of course, where installing Win8 makes sense, it will be done but it will not be widespread and to be clear, it's not because I dislike the OS. In fact, I personally love it but it's because I'm in favor of keeping a common platform where possible and most of our clients are already on Windows 7 and it makes sense to move only when I can move a majority of users per client at once and where it offers a significant value. I'm sure all agree that for the typical user, there's not much value in the changes in Win8 over Win7 to the point where it's worth moving an entire non-mobile company.

The whole point of upgrading an operating system is to have it provide value to your operations. You are wasting a LOT of money, time, and resources and creating a lot of user headaches during a migration or upgrade. If you then come back and say "Just kidding! We're really looking for the next version" you're going to have a LOT of angry users on your hands.

And I just don't see the "legacy desktop" getting removed. I see things going the OTHER way. Power users - those who need to create content - universally HATE the tiles and touch interface because it really limits productivity. Touch screens are great for people who are CONSUMING content but they really make life difficult for those of us who have to BUILD things. That is my single biggest gripe with the new interface - MS is trying to force EVERYONE to use an interface that was only designed for 1/2 (at best) of users!

There are very little differences in the Win8 desktop experience and that in Win7. And it is really simple to get there--simply Win +D. For all those people who "build" things and "create things", it is kind of scary they cannot figure out a few keyboard strokes and yet can build and create. Kind of makes one wonder what kind of people these are who cannot add a few new words to their vocabulary. And there are some huge plusses for Win8 even for the desktop user. The desktop in Win8 is actually easier to use than in Win 7 and for sure xp.You can pin all your apps and files you are working on directly on the start screen and voila, you are there.

Why do I have to 'get there' at all? What does Metro bring to a desktop that the old menu didn't? Mostly, why is a GUI clearly optimized for the mobile type of platform being inflicted on desktops and laptops?

@brickengraver: I'm glad to see there is at least one other person here who "gets it." I agree that it is very scary to see all those supposed IT pros who have such a hard time figuring out something so simple.

Sure, it's a little different, and it takes a tiny bit of effort to figure out how to take advantage of it. But, like you said, once you figure out how easy it is to pin all your apps to the new start screen, it is really very easy to use.

Is it a huge improvement? Is it something I'd rush out and spend a fortune to upgrade all my computers to? Probably not. But contrary to what so many of these supposed IT pros think, I believe Microsoft realizes that most people aren't going to upgrade their OS until they have a good reason to upgrade (i.e. buying a new computer). So when are they supposed to come out with new versions of Windows? They come out when MS is ready to release them, and consumers adopt them when they are ready to upgrade. It all seems so simple to me. I don't know why so many people just don't get it. Why do they think MS is "forcing them to upgrade?" Why did they say Win 7 was a "failure" just because the entire world didn't upgrade to Win 7 the first day it was released? Is it just that people like to spout off and criticize MS every chance they get?

Rick

"Is it a huge improvement? Is it something I'd rush out and spend a fortune to upgrade all my computers to? Probably not."

That's the entire point. If it doesn't make me want to rush out and upgrade, it's because the product isn't providing me more value than what I'm currently using.

I'm constantly amazed by the technophiles on this forum who can do nothing but pan the realistic users who don't buy into every new craze on the market. You have it all wrong. We do a simple comparison of cost to benefit and find the cost side of the scale significantly heavier. It's simple business - it's all about the money.

Yes, it is simple business. A vendor comes out with a new product they hope to sell. People who like the new product and who are ready to buy something new will buy the new product. People who like the new product, but are not ready to buy, put off the purchase. People who don't like the new product don't buy it all.

Do you think car makers expect every single person on earth to rush out and buy every single new car model they come out with every single year? Of course not. But the car makers keep making new car models year after year, hoping that people who are ready to buy new cars will like what the car makers have to offer and will buy their product. Very few people feel the need to rush out and buy every new car model that comes along. But that doesn't mean the newers cars aren't marginally better than last year's models. It doesn't mean the new cars suck. It doesn't mean the new cars are failures.

So why is it so hard to understand the same concept when it comes to computer software? Isn't software just a product, like a car, or a washing machine, or a new jet airliner?

Do the airlines replace all their airplanes every time Boeing comes out with a new airliner? Why not? Why do they bother coming out with new airliners if the new ones are not so spectacular and wonderful that all the airlines in the world will feel compelled to rush out and replace their entire fleet of planes immediately?

Why is there this expectation that new versions of Windows either must make everyone on earth feel compelled to immediately rush out and replace all their existing OSes, or else it is a failure?

Sorry, but you have it all wrong.

Rick

part of the problem is that computer hardware and software have a much shorter functional lifespan than cars or planes.

Cars and planes are basically single-function devices, and those functions haven't changed in decades. New software and peripherals for computers are introduced daily, and few developers see any profit in making their new applications and devices compatible with relatively old operating systems.

If you don't want to add any new capabilities to your system, this isn't an issue. In most corporate shops, it becomes a problem sooner or later. In the case of W8, it looks to me more like 'later' than 'sooner'.

Sure, there are differences between products like cars and airplanes, as compared to products like computers and software. Generally speaking, cars and planes are meant to last longer than computers are. However, I do have some clients who are happily using 10 year old computers, but who feel compelled to buy new cars every year or two. Everyone is different - contrary to what many here seem to think.

Part of the problem with some of the people who comment in these forums is that they have the attitude that whatever they want must be what everyone else wants. They spout off like they think they are entitled to speak for everyone. And anyone who disagrees with their view is labeled a "technophile" or is accused of being an MS shill or fanboy.

The other problem is that they seem to be totally confused about this concept that you don't have to buy new computers, or upgrade your existing computers the minute MS comes out with a new version of Windows. While I can't speak for MS, I'm quite certain that they have no such expectation from consumers. Just like car makers have no expectation that everyone will buy new cars every time they come out with a new version of their cars, I'm quite certain the MS understands that there won't be a stampede to upgrade to the latest version of Windows the first day it is available.

For the vast, overwhelming majority of consumers, upgrading an OS is a lot like upgrading the engine in your car. The car makers may come out with some new engine technology that improves fuel efficiency, or increases horsepower. But, few consumers will rush out and buy a new car just because it gets a few extra miles per gallon or produces an extra 10 or 20 horsepower. And virtually no one will go out and buy a new engine to put in their old car just to get a few more MPG or a few more HP. But when the time comes to buy a new car, consumers will happily take the new engine with better gas mileage and more horsepower, over the older technology engine. In the same way, very few consumers will rush out to buy new computers just because there are a couple of nice new features, or just because a new computer is a little faster than the one they have now. And very few consumers actually know how to upgrade the OS on their existing computer, even though it is something that is doable. The bottom line is most consumers will upgrade their OS at the same time they decide they need to buy a new computer. And most business will put off upgrading their PC OSes until they absolutely need to do it.

This is the reality of life, yet people here make comments like "If it doesn't make me want to rush out and upgrade, it's because the product isn't providing me more value than what I'm currently using." And they try to imply that the new version of Windows is a complete failure because the improvements are not so tremendous as to justify rushing out and upgrading every computer on the planet immediately.

Rick

I don't understand your responses. In one post, you pan the users who say they aren't going to upgrade. Then in your next post you state the exact reason I post for why many reasonable businesses don't bother with upgrading: value (or lack thereof). I agree with you - it is all about value, but I'm trying to figure out why you say I'm all wrong even when you agree it would be a waste of time/money to upgrade. ???

My company didn't see anything in Windows 7 we couldn't do in XP already. So we are just now beginning to replace our PC's with Windows 7 as they die. We avoided Vista altogether after initial testing proved that lack of software and drivers and support from PC manufacturers made it an absolute disaster. In Windows 8, the interface makes things more difficult for desktop users (99% in my company), thus we don't want anything to do with it. We'll wait until they put out the first Service Pack and see if they finally allow desktop users their choice of interface. Or we may just skip it entirely. This is a business decision, pure and simple. And it didn't even take my MBA to figure it out.

And I'm not implying anything. You're putting words in my mouth. For us, Windows 8 doesn't provide value. Neither really did Windows 7 for that matter. We are moving to it because we don't really have a choice. I never said Windows 8 was a failure, only that it didn't provide value. There's a difference and I'd take it kindly if you wouldn't try to speak for me. If you think I'm implying something, maybe you can ask.

The only users I "pan" are the ones who say they "will never upgrade" or who claim that a new version of software is a "failure" or is "crap" or whatever, just because they don't like it or haven't bothered to try to learn to take advantage of the new features, or are simply incapable of learning anything new.

I guess one of the things that people here seem to be having a hard time understanding is the whole concept of how products are marketed. Maybe another car analogy will help here:

I have a 2011 Mustang GT. It's a very nice car and I am very happy with it. The 2013 Mustang GT is out now, and it has some nice new features and an extra 10 or 20 HP. From what I've seen so far, I believe the 2013 is an improvement over my 2011. But guess what? I still owe the bank money on my 2011 and I'm in no position to go out and blow big money to buy a new 2013.

So, how do I handle this situation? Do you think I go to car forums and spout off about how the 2013 Mustang is crap, just because I can't justify buying one right now? Do you think I go around spouting off about how I will "never ever" upgrade my car, just because I am happy with the one I have now? If someone told me they wanted to buy a new car, and they were thinking about a 2013 Mustang, do you think I would try to convince them to buy a used 2011 Mustang, just because I can't afford to buy a 2013 myself? Should Ford continue selling the exact same 2011 Mustang from now on, forever, just because most people who own 2011 Mustangs can't immediately justify buying a 2013 Mustang?

The bottom line in the real world is that it is extremely rare for a new product to be introduced which is so drastically superior to the previous product that everyone must immediately rush out and buy the new product, even if they already have something which works perfectly fine. The exception to this rule, of course, is any Apple product, where Apple fans seem to feel compelled to always spend huge sums of money to buy the latest and greatest products for whatever marginal improvements they contain. But that is a different story. For the rest of the world, vendors come out with new products to stay competitive, and consumers buy the new products when they are ready to buy them. It is only in the world of Microsoft software users where there seems to be this kind of mentality that says either everything has to stay exactly the same forever, or else there must be some tremendously drastic improvement such that everyone on earth will feel absolutely compelled to instantly go stand in line with their credit cards, waiting for the new product to be released.

In my home/office, I have about 14 computers and one server. The majority of the computers are running Windows 7, except for my new laptop, which runs Windows 8 Preview. The remaining computers still run XP. Personally, I have found Windows 7 to be far superior to XP in nearly every respect. It is more stable and more reliable. It is easier to fix when something goes wrong. The improved interface makes it so much easier and faster to do things. However, I have a computer in basement, which I only use as a "jukebox" to play music while I workout. All I ever do with that computer is turn it on, open Windows Media Player, and start playing my music. After my workout, I shut it down. Is it worth spending time and money to upgrade this computer to Windows 7? Absolutely not. For what it does, XP is just fine.

I also have a laptop with Windows XP on it. All I ever do with this laptop is carry it with me when I go to do a video job. I plug it into my video camera and capture video from the camera directly to the hard drive in the computer - essentially using it a cheapskate's FireStore. When I bring it home, I copy the video off of it and on to my Video Editing system. Once again, is it worth spending the time and money to upgrade this laptop to Windows 7? No! XP works perfectly fine for what I use it for.

The point it, things are not so "black and white" as many of the supposed IT pros in these forums try to imply. There is a difference between saying here is a computer I spend a lot of time working on, and it's worthwhile to have to the best components and best software on this machine because I use it all the time, vs. saying here is a computer that I hardly use, or don't do much with, so it doesn't matter much if it is a 10 year old computer with a 10 year old OS. It does what I need it to do, and I'm not going to spend any money upgrading it until it dies. And when it does die, it will most likely be replaced with a "hand me down" computer, which in turn will be replaced with a new computer with a new
version of Windows (not XP).

I fully understand that a lot of people just use their computer to read email or surf the web. Or maybe they run one business application all day long, and don't do much else. Unsophisticated users are not as likely to see much advantage to a newer OS with a newer interface which makes it easier to do more sophisticated activities. But that doesn't make the newer OS bad. It just means some users are not likely to see much advantage to it. I can see where this makes it hard to justify the effort and expense of upgrading. But it also doesn't mean that these people should "never" upgrade. Support for new hardware in the future may eventually become a reason to upgrade. Support for easier management or easier maintenance or easier problem resolution are reasons to upgrade, even if the users will not directly appreciate these differences. Improved security and reliability may be reasons to upgrade, again, even if the users will not directly notice these differences. Changes in the OS interface, while perhaps the most obvious differences, are not the only differences to be considered when thinking about upgrades.

Regarding the idea that the Windows 8 interface makes things more difficult for desktop users, I have seen no actual evidence to support such an absurd claim. Basically, in Windows 8, the old fashioned Start Menu is replaced with a new Start Screen. Instead of pinning frequently used apps to the Start Menu, or putting shortcuts to fequenlty used apps on the desktop, you just pin your frequently used apps to the Start Screen. Using the mouse to click on an icon on the Start Screen is really not all that terribly difficult to do, as compared to using the mouse to click on an icon on the desktop. It may look a little different. And it may take a few hours of using Windows 8 to get accustomed to the new look and to fully comprehend what it's all about. But that's really about it. It's really not so incredibly difficult to learn to take advantage of it.

I'm not sure where I have put any words in your mouth, so I'm not sure how to respond to that part of your message. Unless you feel that you are part of the population here who are making all these absurd comments about Windows 8 being so horrible, and how they, or their employers, will "never" upgrade. But then, if you feel you are making such absurd comments, then it's not me putting words in your mouth.

If anyone is putting words in anyone else's mouth, it would be you. Nowhere have I ever said it would be a waste of time/money to upgrade to Windows 8. What I said was that I am not likely to rush out and upgrade all of my computers to Windows 8. Again, the machines I mentioned previously, which are still running XP, will continue to run XP until they die. My video editing system will continue to run Windows 7 until I am quite certain that all my video editing applications will work properly with Windows 8. My son's audio production system will continue to run 7 until he is quite certain that all his audio/music related apps will work properly with 8. And so it goes down the list of my computers. I will not rush out and upgrade every computer to Windows 8 immediately. I haven't even seen the final Windows 8 product yet. I only have a preview version. As far as I am concerned, it is way too early to have a definitive plan. And again, this is why I think it so absurd for all these supposed IT pros to be proclaiming that they will never ever upgrade, when they haven't even seen the finished product yet.

Rick

rick@...: You REALLY need to get off that 'supposed IT Pro' kick you're on. Most, if not all of the folks on TR are indeed Pros.
Let me break it down for you: if you do a job and get paid, that makes you a Professional. In ANY industry, in any job. Period.
Why you would want to come on TR and insult people is beyond me, but you are way out of your league.
Why not head on over to Yahoo and start a group discussion for 'real' IT Pros such as yourself and leave us 'supposed IT Pros' alone so we can, I don't know- reminisce about DOS and such?

I guess I'm just an old fashioned guy. I like to think the term "pro" implies a certain level of skill, training, experience, etc. But clearly, in this forum, you are right. "Pro" just means someone who gets paid to do a job.

Rick

I like to think that conduct and respect should be included in your "etc."