back to article Next Windows obsolescence panic is 450 days from … NOW!

With the not-quite-panic over the end of support for Windows XP behind us, you'd think it's a time to chill out for a bit. Not quite, and especially not if you're still using Windows Server 2003 R2: Microsoft's product lifecycle advisories suggest support for that operating system expires on July 14th, 2015. Which is 450 days …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Forget It

    It is a panic if (for no reason of your own) your update repeatedly fails - as it did for us:

    MS admits the problem here:

    http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows8_1-windows_install/kb2919355-windows-81-update-fails-800f0092-and/4d4d23a3-695a-4bd4-b340-d2ce9c75919d?rtAction=1397851607789#ThreadAnswers

    For me the fix in that thead eventually worked

    1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
      Devil

      Wow

      look at all that command line stuff.

      Anyone would think it was running a 10 yr old linux system

      <<<runs and hides back under the fridge

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Wow

        <<<runs and hides back under the bridge

        FTFY.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Reasons NOT to upgrade?

    1) Server 2012 License price rises

    2) Server 2012 == Windows 8.x without TIFKAM/Metro/Modern (nuff said)

    3) Application availability. Several of our key applications just won't run on Server 2012.

    Server 2008 is just about possible.

    1. Anonymous Brave Guy

      Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

      Server 2012 License price rises = Avoid or go Linux / *BSD / iOS

      Server 2012 is Windows 8.x without TIFKAM/Metro/Modern (nuff said) = all the better, hardly anyone likes that crap anyway.

      Application availability. Several of our key applications just won't run on Server 2012 = Yes they do, you just need server editions of said programs (or apps as you kids say).

      Server 2008 is just about possible = Server 2008 is based on Vista whilst Server 2008 R2 is based on Win7.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

        Quote

        Application availability. Several of our key applications just won't run on Server 2012 = Yes they do, you just need server editions of said programs (or apps as you kids say).

        You really don't have a clue do you.

        All the crap that MS has loaded into the ecosystem in the name of security makes some Apps (Server versions) that run perfectly well on Server 2003 and Server 2008R2 (with a little care) just won't work properly if at all, on Server 2012.

        Beleve me, we have tried.

        Linux is not an option either as good portions of the ancillary apps use .NET classes that are not in Mono.

        If you think that iOS is a server OS then can I please have some of what you are smoking?

        We will move to Server 2008R2 later in the year but going beyond that will require considerable investment that at the moment is not forthcoming.

        1. Anonymous Brave Guy

          Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

          "Application availability. Several of our key applications just won't run on Server 2012 = Yes they do, you just need server editions of said programs (or apps as you kids say)."

          Let's see, what programs refuse to run on this new OS? considering I've been in this game for years, nothing much would be preventing it unless we're talking about a difference akin to NT4 vs 9x

          Chances are, you haven't altered the security policies of said machine, otherwise you wouldn't be posting what you did.

          "Linux is not an option either as good portions of the ancillary apps use .NET classes that are not in Mono."

          Now you're going insane, why would you use something with .NET, seriously? MySQL is understandable but .NET, man I want some of what YOU are smoking.

          "If you think that iOS is a server OS then can I please have some of what you are smoking?"

          People can and do use iOS on servers, I am not talking about iPhone or iPad iOS here even though you might get that impression /facepalm.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

            "Let's see, what programs refuse to run on this new OS? considering I've been in this game for years, nothing much would be preventing it unless we're talking about a difference akin to NT4 vs 9x"

            What game would that be? It can't be System Administration on any scale with 'advice' like that.

            "Chances are, you haven't altered the security policies of said machine, otherwise you wouldn't be posting what you did."

            Far more probably dealing with a large scale system that cost tons of cash in the day and would require extensive and expensive work to migrate to 2012, with management unwilling to foot the bill because 'it still works, doesn't it?'

            "Now you're going insane, why would you use something with .NET, seriously? MySQL is understandable but .NET, man I want some of what YOU are smoking."

            Ah, sorry. that game; trolling.

            "People can and do use iOS on servers, I am not talking about iPhone or iPad iOS here even though you might get that impression /facepalm."

            Would that be OS X 'Server' which you can buy from the Apple App Store for the princely sum of £13.99 versus a previous price tag of 20 times more for the Snow Leopard version, and which Apple at one point considered simply giving away because nobody was buying it? That provides an interesting statement of faith in its own product from Apple. Apparently OS X Server is 'is perfect for a small studio, business or school'. I'm sure there are exceptions but it seems generally unlikely to be gracing the server racks of anything larger in the future.

            1. Anonymous Brave Guy

              Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

              "What game would that be? It can't be System Administration on any scale with 'advice' like that."

              Oh nice, ad hominem when you haven't got a valid argument.

              "Ah, sorry. that game; trolling."

              I see, you like the game of ad hominem, see above.

              "Would that be OS X 'Server' which you can buy from the Apple App Store for the princely sum of £13.99 versus a previous price tag of 20 times more for the Snow Leopard version, and which Apple at one point considered simply giving away because nobody was buying it? That provides an interesting statement of faith in its own product from Apple. Apparently OS X Server is 'is perfect for a small studio, business or school'. I'm sure there are exceptions but it seems generally unlikely to be gracing the server racks of anything larger in the future."

              I suggested it exists, not that I recommend it, big difference really. But I forgot, even pointing something out gets you flame warriors around here.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

                "Oh nice, ad hominem when you haven't got a valid argument."

                An Ad Hominem attack is one where an irrelevant fact regarding the person is used to attack him, not the argument. The fact of your qualification, or otherwise to make simplistic blanket statements regarding the ease of upgrading from 2003 to 2012, is very, very relevant.

                "I see, you like the game of ad hominem, see above."

                'troll(v) 1. Make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them:'

                Implying people are insane and/or drug users because they've made the perfectly reasonable decision to develop with .NET is not a particularly polite thing to do. So again, pointing out you are a troll is very relevant and in no way an ad hominem attack

                "I suggested it exists, not that I recommend it, big difference really. But I forgot, even pointing something out gets you flame warriors around here."

                That's a well-oiled backpedal you've got there. A few posts back:

                "Server 2012 License price rises = Avoid or go Linux / *BSD / iOS"

                Sounds like a recommendation to me, a blithe, casual one.

                1. Anonymous Brave Guy

                  Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

                  @Brewster's Angle Grinder

                  Why would I be another Eadon? Care to elaborate on that one? He spammed every forum topic with Windows related posts, I haven't but feel free to look through my history if you don't believe me.

                  @Andrew Fernie

                  "to make simplistic blanket statements regarding the ease of upgrading from 2003 to 2012, is very, very relevant."

                  Well, okay I did rather forget to mention I haven't tried Server 2012 yet so I was better off reserving comment, sorry about that. Was going from previous history which tripped me up somewhat.

                  "Sounds like a recommendation to me, a blithe, casual one."

                  Well okay then point taken, as I haven't tried Apple's offering either, but the Linux option still stands, and I fully recognise the time and effort to migrate so you'd need to calculate wherever it's worth it in contrast to the license asking price.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

            "People can and do use iOS on servers, I am not talking about iPhone or iPad iOS here even though you might get that impression /facepalm."

            Well seeing as IOS is the OS of iPads and iPhones it would be obvious that someone would get that impression.

            Unless you are talking about switch and router operating systems from Cisco?

            Other than that I would say your game involves a basement in your parent's house.

            1. jmk89

              Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

              I've been using IOS on routers for decades...

            2. Anonymous Brave Guy
              Facepalm

              Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

              "Well seeing as IOS is the OS of iPads and iPhones it would be obvious that someone would get that impression."

              People like you maybe, I couldn't remember the true name of the OS and you have to look for a strawman.

              "Unless you are talking about switch and router operating systems from Cisco?"

              Nope.

              "Other than that I would say your game involves a basement in your parent's house."

              Obvious troll posting as AC.

              1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

                Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

                Fellow tentacles of sarlacc, we have a new Eadon: Anonymous Brave Guy.

                *Burp*

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

              "People can and do use iOS on servers"

              No, no they don't., unless you class an iPhone as being a server. Presumably you are thinking of OS-X - and even then pretty much no one uses that as a server either...

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

            "why would you use something with .NET, seriously? "

            Because its by miles the best framework on the market with a significantly lower cost of ownership and much better performance than say Java...

        2. LDS Silver badge

          Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

          "All the crap that MS has loaded into the ecosystem in the name of security makes some Apps (Server versions) that run perfectly well on Server 2003 and Server 2008R2 (with a little care) just won't work properly if at all, on Server 2012."

          No, it's not Windows fault. It just meant you bought crappy apps that weren't written by unskilled and lazy developers who never followed the proper rules to write Windows software. Properly written applications for Windows 2000 would work in Windows 2012 without a hiccup.

          Application written in a Windows 3.x style and adapted some way to work in NT and 2000 thanks to the work made by MS to allow them to work anyway (just read Raymond Chen's "The Old New Thing" blog to understand how far MS goes to let crappy app work... ), will now stop working, at last!

          Sure, applications that attempt to write where they never should have, require privileges they don't need and so on will stop working, and that's a good thing. That means unskilled and lazy developers now have to learn how to properly code applications, or look for another job. One way or the other, IT will become a better place.

          1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

            Re: @LDS

            As yes, those "unskilled and lazy developers" who wrote stuff like Outlook express (which saved emails at one time to random/cryptically names hidden folders under Program Files) and Office (that, unless patched, failed when XP SP3 finally turned on the firewall by default)?

            With MS playing fast-and-loose with software development for such a long time, often to get round the speed or effort penalty of doing it right, can you really blame other developers of that era for doing the same?

            1. LDS Silver badge

              Re: @LDS

              Sure. If you read the Windows guidelines docs, there are plenty of examples of how thing should not be done *taken from MS own software*.

              You can keep on writing bad sofware because someone else does too, or you can write good one and make your customers happy.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

            "applications that attempt to write where they never should have, require privileges they don't need and so on will stop working"

            Windows does have enterprise security features like constrained delegation to properly handle a lot of that sort of stuff though. Unlike certain other penguin flavoured OSs...e.g. having to use SUDO which must run as root UID0. Major security fail.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

              "Unlike certain other penguin flavoured OSs...e.g. having to use SUDO which must run as root UID0"

              What's less secure? Having a single, vetted program that accesses root on your behalf... or sticking the gubbins of a whole bloody web server into kernel space? I guess you've also not played with the ol' Toy Unix much, or you'd realise you don't need to use root all that often anyway. Besides, Windows evidently doesn't "properly handle a lot of that sort of stuff", because shit keeps breaking every time there's a major version update. What's next, Microsoft to change all of the various %PLACEHOLDERS% to something else, and then you to blame the programmers for their software breaking again?

              Enterprise in this case seems to just mean "we charge more for less".

              (I can AC too)

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

                "Having a single, vetted program that accesses root on your behalf... or sticking the gubbins of a whole bloody web server into kernel space?"

                Sticking it all into kernel space is certainly safer if you are running Windows. Unlike Linux's legacy monolithic kernel model, Windows can maintain true isolation between the kernel itself and running processes / drivers.

                The SUDO point is that on Windows you don't have to run anything as root / admin to give elevated rights - so you have to trust zero code running as admin / root - you can directly give JUST the rights that are actually required.

                1. M Gale

                  Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

                  Sticking it all into kernel space is certainly safer if you are running Windows. Unlike Linux's legacy monolithic kernel model,

                  Oooh, "legacy". Which sneakily implies "old". Okay.

                  Windows can maintain true isolation between the kernel itself and running processes / drivers.

                  You know that Windows is a hybrid kernel, right? Yes, that's right, it has "services" like a microkernel, which run shittily slow but have the separation you're on about. It also has shit glommed into the kernel, which run whizzily fast precisely because they are in Ring Zero, which is exactly where you don't want a web server.

                  The SUDO point is that on Windows you don't have to run anything as root / admin to give elevated rights - so you have to trust zero code running as admin / root - you can directly give JUST the rights that are actually required.

                  ...and that's why UAC comes up every time a program needs elevated privileges. It's not elevating privileges, just pretending to?

                  When a program can arbitrarily put shit wherever it wants in the system, then whether it's technically running as the "admin" user or not is really a moot point. You might as well chmod 777 the whole hard drive and then say that it's safe because nothing is running as root.

            2. Martin Taylor 1

              Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

              "Unlike certain other penguin flavoured OSs...e.g. having to use SUDO which must run as root UID0. Major security fail."

              Errr... "sudo su - <username>". I use this daily.

        3. Bladeforce

          Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

          Thats called Microsoft hell!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

        "Server 2012 License price rises = Avoid or go Linux" - actually a lot more expensive for a supported version like SUSE or RedHat - and a higher TCO for most uses.

        "Server 2012 is Windows 8.x without TIFKAM/Metro/Modern" - It has the same kernel is what you mean. And actually you can install all that if you want to on server. But the default is no GUI.

    2. jmk89

      Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

      Server 2012 very much has TIFKAM/Metro/Modern, just pointing that out

    3. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade? @AC

      Missed the real reasons for many Enterprise applications:

      ERP vendor only certifies version 'e' of their system on SQL-Server 2005 running on Server 2003. To go to Server 2012 will mean upgrading the ERP system to version 'g' and SQL-Server 2012; which is naturally a business change project rather than an IT project. Fortunately many will probably already be doing this as this version of the ERP product is also certified to work out of the box with Windows 7 and 8 clients.

      Some server updates make a desktop refresh seem like a walk in the park...

    4. RAMChYLD

      Re: Reasons NOT to upgrade?

      Unless I've been given the runaround, the Server 2012 evaluation I downloaded from M$ has the goddamn TIFKAM/Metro/Modern on it >.>

      Also, we're still using Ascential DataStage. IBM bought over Ascential and then killed the product line for whatever reason. The last version of DataStage still doesn't support WS2008 or newer. We've not yet found a replacement (Yes, I'm aware of SSIS. The big problem is that the product we're using Ascential DataStage for (bulk loading data to said product) doesn't support SSIS for whatever reason even though it uses the SQL Server 2008 R2 as a backend), although to be fair they did say that they're also discontinuing support for DataStage and have discontinued support for Server 2003 since last year.

      I've been given the signal from my higher ups to move away from Server 2003 R2 this morning. Oh joy. Now I have to work with the vendor to find a DataStage replacement.

      Note: My problem isn't the migrating job itself. It's the corporate red tape when it comes to acquiring new software...

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Trollface

    "The first is that servers tend to be be upgraded more often than PC's"

    Heh... I happen to know a reg-reading sysadmin who still has a server running

    Novell 3.12 at his current job...

    1. MJI Silver badge

      Re: "The first is that servers tend to be be upgraded more often than PC's"

      Netware 3.12

      And what is wrong with that?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "The first is that servers tend to be be upgraded more often than PC's"

        "And what is wrong with that?"

        Nothing, in and of itself. Still, might not replacing Netware 3.12-era hardware start to get a bit tricky, or has he maybe already taken the P2V leap?

  4. Richard Jones 1

    What was that story I read a while back about the most reliable server on a USA campus? No one could find where it was until they realised that the builders had walled it in to a dead space a few years earlier.

    1. Primus Secundus Tertius

      What story?

      As I recall it, that story was about a DEC VAX/VMS machine. Unlike modern stuff, they did not need patching every week.

      Not an IBM 360, they needed mere humans permanently in attendance.

      1. Lusty

        Re: What story?

        "As I recall it, that story was about a DEC VAX/VMS machine. Unlike modern stuff, they did not need patching every week."

        As I recall, Windows didn't need patching every week back then either. The patches are a response to bugs which have been found - the Internet has meant that more bugs get found in the more popular operating systems. This has literally nothing to do with code quality, and when the NT code was leaked the majority of coders actually credited MS with having very good code.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What story?

          "As I recall it, that story was about a DEC VAX/VMS machine. Unlike modern stuff, they did not need patching every week."

          Actually, I think that the world was somewhat different then and (if we are really taking VAX/VMS - not Open VMS) the number of systems connected to the Interwebs was miniscule - I'm not counting Arpanet, JANET or other early networks. I think that patching (tapes or later CDs) came out either monthly or quarterly and it was a right faff-on trying to apply them.

          Of course, that was luxury compared to the previous generations of systems where the patches were delivered in paper in stapled books and had to be typed into running copies of system debugging tools - typically of the DDT family - or edited into source code and recomplied. Few if any had the benefit of test, development or pre-production systems so getting test slots on the production systems (often at unsocial hours) was the order of the day.

          Doubtless others of a older generation will have their own stories of how it once was and how sysadmins today don't know they are born, but neither were we exposed to the same levels of malware and miscellaneous nasties seen today.

        2. Charles Manning

          The BOFH said it needed a firewall

          The boss called the builder...

        3. pacman7de
          Facepalm

          Windows didn't need patching?

          @Lusty: "As I recall, Windows didn't need patching every week back then either .. This has literally nothing to do with code quality ..

          That a novel explanation for the virus/malware contagion currently infesting the Internet. If a Windows server is alone in the forest and throws an error, does that mean it doesn't have any bugs in the code.

          1. Lusty

            Re: Windows didn't need patching?

            "That a novel explanation for the virus/malware contagion currently infesting the Internet. If a Windows server is alone in the forest and throws an error, does that mean it doesn't have any bugs in the code."

            Why not, that was the implication for the competition after all.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Windows didn't need patching?

              "That a novel explanation for the virus/malware contagion currently infesting the Internet. "

              You know it is Linux facing internet servers that are far more likely to be hacked / defaced / hosting malware than Windows based ones right?

      2. pacman7de

        Re: What story?

        @Primus Secundus Tertius: "As I recall it, that story was about a DEC VAX/VMS machine."

        "Server 54, Where Are You?"

      3. david 12

        Re: What story?

        >As I recall it, that story was about a DEC VAX/VMS machine. Unlike modern stuff, they did not need patching every week.

        ""Oh, sure, they're sending out patches. But they're being real quiet about it. They don't want their customers to panic.""

        <THE CUCKOO'S EGG

        by

        Cliff Stoll>

    2. Aqua Marina

      I remember that story...

      This was it

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/12/missing_novell_server_discovered_after/

      And this one is a good read

      http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/epic-uptime-achievement-can-you-beat-16-years/

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. noominy.noom

      @Richard Jones 1

      IBM used that story about half a decade ago in reference to an AS400. They had a whole campaign using similar stories, and they swore all stories were verified to be true. Search400 has a compilation of some of the stories at http://search400.techtarget.com/news/1207080/Just-how-invincible-is-the-iSeries-AS-400.

    5. LDS Silver badge

      It could work because servers then didn't need the cooling they require today.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Does your software require Windows?

    If you aren't running something wedded to Windows (e.g. SQL Server) then now would be a good time to consider using an alternative. You're going to have migration problems anyway going to the likes of 2012, so call it a "research project" and write it off against tax.

    You will get out from the MS enforced-upgrade model, get more performance from the same hardware and really put the wind up your MS vendor.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      Re: Does your software require Windows?

      Obsolete versions of Linux don't get updated either, enterprise Linux versions also surely have end-of-life/end-of-support just as Windows versions do?

      Just because it's open source so you can in theory jump in to the code, doesn't remove the problem... pretty few companies want to be coding their own custom OS tweaks (do they?)

    2. MJI Silver badge

      Re: Does your software require Windows?

      We did but the market pushed us away from them.

      I suppose it serves us right for not keeping with a proper server company.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @AC

      All too true. With these things its best to start early, at your own pace, instead of getting dragged into something. My company has already started the upgrade / migration 1.5 / 2 months ago and we're going slowly but steadily.

      Heck; even if you do use stuff such as MS SQL server it might still be possible to look out for alternatives, depending of course on how the whole environment is setup. And one step at a time so you don't risk making mistakes and the likes. A good approach could be to start replacing certain components with the same versions which you'd get on different (Linux / Unix -like) operating systems.

      That MS SQL server might be replaceable with PostgreSQL for example. That critter provides full support for Windows; ranging from your regular ODBC driver to native .NET support. It would most certainly help you to get a feel for the environment.

      Also note that I'm not saying you should use PSQL straight away in your production environment, but you could give it several test runs to see how well (and if) it's able to cope.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @AC

        "That MS SQL server might be replaceable with PostgreSQL for example"

        If you want loads more security vulnerabilities, and vastly inferior support, performance and feature sets...

    4. Lusty

      Re: Does your software require Windows?

      "If you aren't running something wedded to Windows (e.g. SQL Server) then now would be a good time to consider using an alternative."

      Point me to one alternative system released before 2003 which is still commercially supported and I'll consider it. RHEL 2.1 support ended in 2009 and 3 this year so with Red Hat I'd have had 2 extra migrations so far.

      SLES 8 doesn't appear to be supported so that would need to have been upgraded already.

      Ubuntu didn't exist back then and their oldest product currently under support wasn't released for another 7 years in 2010, meaning several upgrade cycles would have been required by now.

      1. Roland6 Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Does your software require Windows?

        >Point me to one alternative system released before 2003 which is still commercially supported and I'll consider it.

        Well, whilst AIX 5.2L itself isn't still commercially supported, IBM do fully support you running your 5L workloads on AIX 7.2L ...

        I'm not sure what HP's commitments are with regards to OpenVMS....

        1. Lusty

          Re: Does your software require Windows?

          " IBM do fully support you running your 5L workloads on AIX 7.2L ..."

          Microsoft fully support running Windows 3.x workloads on Windows Server 2012. That's not a guarantee they will work, just that the OS won't be hosed by the attempt, same as IBM are saying. Whoever supports the workload is responsible for making it work...

          1. Roland6 Silver badge

            Re: Does your software require Windows? @lusty

            IBM (if you're a paying customer with a few z-series scattered around the country) will help to get your legacy app's and workloads running. I've not had the the same conversation with MS.

            But then IBM probably regard it as a better deal than the alternative, as that tends to result in the customer taking a look around the market....

            1. Lusty

              Re: Does your software require Windows? @lusty

              "I've not had the the same conversation with MS."

              Perhaps you should try before commenting then. Microsoft spend enormous effort working with customers on this, and have architected it into the OS as well. Occasionally apps do something which blocks them from working but usually there is a way. In either case, third party software is ultimately out of the hands of your OS vendor and there is only so far they can go to help. In this respect, IBM and Microsoft are pretty much the same.

              1. Roland6 Silver badge

                Re: Does your software require Windows? @lusty

                >Perhaps you should try before commenting then. Microsoft spend enormous effort working with customers on this...

                Lusty, my comments made in direct response to your challenge: "Point me to one alternative system released before 2003 which is still commercially supported and I'll consider it." Which basically, suggests the alternatives to MS Windows Server were the traditional Enterprise IT systems vendors/integrators, with all their vagaries.

                I made it very clear the extent of my experience concerning legacy (ie. in-house bespoke developments) which indicated that because IBM have been more of an enterprise services-oriented organisation for longer than MS, the extent of the onsite services they provided was a little more than you implied.

                As for MS, having worked for a Gold Partner, I've found the level of service received from MS excellent, just not quite the same as that specific client received from IBM...

                1. Lusty

                  Re: Does your software require Windows? @lusty

                  Sorry Roland, I didn't mean that in a bad way, just that you were saying IBM had better support while also saying you'd not used the MS equivalent. I can fully believe they have great support, but I know from experience that it's not better than MS.

                  My statement asking for commercially supported OSs still stands - you pointed out a currently supported OS which was not available when 2003 was released and this is equivalent to Server 2012 being supported. As you said, the workloads are supported but the old OS is not, and that is identical to the MS policy which people here are bashing despite 2003 being one of the longest supported OS versions of all time from any vendor.

                  1. Roland6 Silver badge

                    Re: Does your software require Windows? @lusty

                    Hi Lusty - been too focused on IBM in recent times...

                    Perhaps Solaris v5.9 would of been a more appropriate platform to reference - being released in 2002/3 and currently due to fall off support in October 2014. I see that longer support is being offered on some more recent releases; but I doubt Solaris comes with free patches etc. so the point you originally made is still a valid one.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Does your software require Windows?

      "get more performance from the same hardware"

      Hyper-v performs better than any production Linux hypervisor. Windows Server outperforms Linux as a fileserver - including as a NFS fileserver - so in general. no.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Does your software require Windows?

        "Hyper-v performs better than any production Linux hypervisor."

        Oh, it's you. Hello shill. Kindly stop spreading incorrect information.

        1. Lusty

          Re: Does your software require Windows?

          "Oh, it's you. Hello shill. Kindly stop spreading incorrect information."

          ANONYMOUS, please point us to your sources showing well conducted tests to back this up. I have personally run benchmarks with various hypervisors and have found that the MS one perfumes generally better due to superior driver support which allows it to get more from the hardware. Linux drivers tend to work but often lack the enhancements to really drive the hardware features.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Does your software require Windows?

          It's completely accurate actually - Hyper-V beat the pants off any production Linux Hypervisor as stated.

          IBM had to completely strip down and rip out loads of features from KVM to come up with faked benchmarks that came anywhere near commercial offerings in terms of performance. If you want a laugh, go read their test documents.

          Hence partly why the Linux share of the Hypervisor market is less than 1% - that and the far better tools, easier management and an order of magnitude fewer security patches to have to evaluate with Hyper-v Server.

  6. 45RPM Silver badge

    Windows is regarded as a legacy OS where I work - which is good because it means that we're upgrading to Linux. It's also bad because, for older applications that haven't yet been ported to Linux, we're stuck with the version of Windows that they were developed on. And, in some cases, that means Windows 2003 - and the company has little to no stomach for an upgrade to what is, after all, just a newer version of a legacy OS.

    I'll have to get my persuasive trousers on again.

  7. Tezfair
    Pint

    Already migrating clients off 2003

    Over the last few years I have been moving clients off SBS 2003 as their iphones cause exchange activesync to crash constantly, and in recent times anyone that uses Office 2013 can no longer connect to exchange 2003 (imap is not an option).

    I will be sad to see 2003 go, it's one of those OS's that simply gets on with the job. Gone are the days that 4Gb ram was enough. Now 16Gb is considered the starting point, and EEC is not exactly cheap (at a small business level)

    Our tech server has 2012 loaded to 32Gb (max) and we hyperv all manner of server OS's, but 2003 is the one that feels friendly, 2008 is 'in your face' and 2012, well classic shell helps!!!

    So cheers to 2003, I built my business around you and will miss you old friend!!

    1. Tom 7 Silver badge

      Re: Already migrating clients off 2003

      It would be easier to migrate away from iPhones.

    2. Christian Berger

      Re: Already migrating clients off 2003

      Wait, a client makes your server crash? That's most likely a serious security critical bug.

    3. Sandtitz Silver badge

      Re: Already migrating clients off 2003

      "Gone are the days that 4Gb ram was enough. Now 16Gb is considered the starting point, and EEC is not exactly cheap (at a small business level)"

      Yes, well, gone are the days when you could run the company NT Server with a 486 and 32MB. (And I hope that good ol' 4GB was ECC as well.)

      I think memory is if not cheap, at least affordable. 16GB of ECC (2x8GB) memory costs around £150 in the UK. That memory plugs straight into (e.g.) a modern HP Gen8 server.

      When you contrast that with the cost of man-hours needed to install a new server+Exchange and transfer the existing data + possibly reconfigure all the clients, the cost of memory is insignificant.

      If your definition of SMB is something to the tune of less than 25 users without SysOp, I'd forget owning the Exchange and would go for Office 365 subscription or similar.

  8. This post has been deleted by its author

  9. colin79666

    Upgrade Frequency

    "The first is that servers tend to be be upgraded more often than PCs, because the former are cared for by knowledgeable and skilful Reg-reading types"

    Erm yes the sysadmin knows it needs to be replaced but the business won't pay for it. Hence why I'm still supporting some 2000 boxes in house...

    1. Peter2 Silver badge

      Re: Upgrade Frequency

      There are businesses out there that are more tight than the one I work for.

      I am actually surprised, I didn't think it was possible.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Upgrade Frequency

        "There are businesses out there that are more tight than the one I work for.

        I am actually surprised, I didn't think it was possible."

        Where companies are that tight, there tends to be a direct correlation between their perception if IT in terms of its contribution to the bottom line They are not interested in any silly peripheral arguments, like "because we need it" or "don't make them redundant and move their roles to India - they are the only guys who understand your payment system!"

        As I've touched on before, these are the types of companies who think all IT people can work with all hardware and software - "It's just computers, surely?"

    2. Preston Munchensonton
      Facepalm

      Re: Upgrade Frequency

      Even better are the infrastructure services that still run on Windows 2000 (e.g. older Cisco CallManager for VoIP). I've been consulting for a rather large US school district (180000 students) that figured the best way to eliminate the Windows 2000 was to replace Cisco CallManager with MS Lync 2013. :o Really glad I'm not the voice guy...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Upgrade Frequency

        "was to replace Cisco CallManager with MS Lync 2013. :o Really glad I'm not the voice guy..."

        Right decision and pretty straight forward to implement once the substantial planning required is completed...Significantly cheaper to run Lync and much more user friendly.

    3. LDS Silver badge

      Re: Upgrade Frequency

      Actually, (Windows) server upgrades are far more complex than client ones. First, but file servers those machine are used to run other server software usually serving a lot of users. Second, both the OS and the software running on it are more expensive than the client one (although server are less. but there is the CALs issue anyway).

      Sometimes you can just upgrade the OS and keep the old software running on it, sometimes you can't for several reasons (compatibility, support, certification, whatever), and you need to upgrade it also and it is both expensive and requires a lot of work to test upgrades and ensure everything works as before.

      Upgrading and migrating can be complex, require special knowledge, and be risky. Risk-avoidance-driven IT department usually keep old software running as long as they can, and virtualization gave them a big help in this direction. While upgrading from NT and 2000 to 2003 had the incentive of 64 bit support, 2008 and 2012 despite more advanced implementation and newer feature are less perceived a must to upgrade to (unless you really need some of the new features).

      The larger your systems, and the larger the data handled by them, the more difficult is to manage upgrades. I won't be surprised if next year we'll see again big issue about migrating away from 2003.

  10. jonfr

    Can't afford Windows 7

    I can't afford Windows 7 for my gaming usage. I have one computer running Windows XP doing other things (recording earthquakes) (that's two copies of Windows 7 that I would need to buy). I would move it to Windows 7 if I could, but I can't. No money. That's why I am sticking to Windows XP for few more years at least.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      Re: Can't afford Windows 7

      If you don't have money to pay for software, you're important to nobody :)

      Although I'm interested in the earthquakes.

      1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects
        Pint

        <OT>About them</OT>

        I'm (less than important to everyobody)^3, don't have a server, only use Linux and forecast earthquakes:

        https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.geo.earthquakes/GPgOSV-2bQg

        What would you like to know?

        PS:

        I can't say I have never played a computer game. Someone came round with an Amstrad once and showed me one about driving a train. I couldn't see the point and saw no future in that sort of thing. Geo-Physics of course is endlessly entertaining -though full of prattfalls.

        Plus you get to be a real Thaumaturge.

    2. Cameron Colley

      Re: Can't afford Windows 7

      "I can't afford Windows 7 for my gaming usage." yet you could afford the games? You knew over 5 years ago that XP support would end but you didn't put a dollar a week away?

      Yes, I appreciate none of us have much money nowadays but claiming that you play games but can't afford $200 over 5 years plus seems a little strange.

      I also don't see how your earthquake recording OS has any bearing on your gaming OS?

      1. LDS Silver badge

        Re: Can't afford Windows 7

        It's obvious: after you spent many $$$$ for a gaming motherboard, an high-end CPU, GPU and RAM you an overclock, liquid cooling to cool them all inside an expensive modded cool case, and of course an SSD disk because you can't wait for the game to start, while adding some expensive gaming keyboard, mouse, and maybe joystick/joypad, there are no money left to upgrade the OS...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Can't afford Windows 7

          So how do you afford the games?

          Last I looked they were going for £30-£40 a pop. A single Windows 7 licence key is not *THAT* expensive that anybody can say they can play games but not afford to upgrade the OS.

          Specially as I bet the graphics card is upgraded regularly as "new games need more power"

    3. FrankAlphaXII

      Re: Can't afford Windows 7

      You can't afford 69 dollars? A Windows 7 Pro x86_64 (or 32 bit if you so choose, I don't recommend a 32 bit OS for gaming, that 4 GB memory wall is really rather annoying. With bigger games like Skyrim and Dark Souls you wind up crashing to desktop an awful lot) OEM key is around 69 bucks, and you can download the media for free and slap it on your own DVD or USB drive.

      Its ten dollars more than Titanfall is dude, look at it that way. You can afford to get off a dead OS.

  11. localzuk

    Virtualisation

    Many organisations will have migrated away from 2003/2003 R2 already as part of larger virtualisation schemes, as hardware consolidation became a big thing after 2003 appeared.

    I know my setup is pretty small, but if you look at it as an example, we migrated from 12 2003 R2 boxes to 2 2012 servers last year. Sure, there was a bit of fiddling in between with a couple of 2008 R2 boxes around, but the bulk of the migration was 2003->2012.

    Many organisations that I know of dived in earlier than we did too, and went from 2003 on lots of physical severs to 2008 or 2008 R2 on a much smaller hardware estate.

    So, I doubt there's *that* many 2003 era servers still running to be honest.

    1. Alan W. Rateliff, II

      Re: Virtualisation

      I did a lot of your second migration path there: virtualized 2003 (especially SBS, R.I.P.,) then migrated to 2008R2 (or SBS 2011.) At this point I have all but three customers on 2008R2 or SBS 2011. One customer actually already bought SBS 2011 but will not/cannot purchase upgraded hardware, one customer is planning their budget in-line with the 2003 end-of-life, and another customer just does not care.

      For myself, I figure I will have replaced my aging Core2Quad system running XP x64 by the time 2003 is retired. I have already moved to Windows 7 for just about everything else. And, for those of us El Reg reading-types, seriously, a Microsoft Action Pack really is worth the $400 a year. (Mind you, Microsoft has been rather bitchy these past few months and removed ALL previous software versions -- if you would rather use 7 over 8.1 or have a machine that cannot run 8.1, too bad.)

    2. Lusty

      Re: Virtualisation

      The quoted number of systems out there in the article is based on 2013 server sales. Given that 99% of 2013 server sales will be virtualisation hosts and 2003 era systems would not be I'd say there is potential for at least 10 times that number!

    3. LDS Silver badge

      Re: Virtualisation

      Possibly not, because virtualization is also a way to get your old OS and have it running on newer HW inside their own VMs. I know of many 2003 - and even some 2000 and NT servers, running inside big VMware deployments. It was a cost effective way to replace old HW with newer one while not having issue with drivers and reducing the number of physical machine running. But often old machines were simply "converted" and let running in their new virtual hw - because a full upgrade would have been much more complex.

  12. AnoniMouse

    Domino effect

    It's not just upgrading Windows Server - a sensible move in an ideal world - but the need to install updated versions of numerous other software component running on those servers, negotiating the mind-boggling challenge of being able to identify a set of software component versions that:

    a) are certified to inter-operate with each other;

    b) are guaranteed to support the server's current application set.

    Why, oh why is the expectation of a continous evolution - as opposed to a succession of forced revoluionary changes - apparently impossible? The result is that FAR too much of the effort expended by the IT industry (and the hapless organisations that depend on IT) is devoted to managing the impact of a succession of "improvements" whose vendors seem to view backwards compatibility as a minority need.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If it finally gets some of my bloody customers to upgrade

    I'm all for it. We're still supporting Windows 2003 servers that have bits of specialist hardware long since end of lifed. It's been good kit (and a stable OS), but we're running out of things to cannibalise. Alas, they pay (and pay well) while we nudge, so hopefully Microsoft will help with the nudging.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    TLS anyone..

    People should have been moving off of Server 2003 for no other reason than to get proper TLS support. I know of a few companies still running 2003 IIS servers which perform ecommerce transactions. Bad bad idea.

    Also, having migrated a few apps to 2012.. My personal opinion is stick with 2008 R2. You'd think they'd understand why that stupid Win8 interface shouldn't be used on machines that people remote desktop into.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Riiiight

    XP and Server 2003 are basically the same thing. So M$ is writing the patches for 2003 which also apply to XP but are choosing not to release them / charging uk gov £3m for them. wha?

    1. Sandtitz Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Riiiight

      "Fedora 12 and RHEL 6 are basically the same thing. So Redhat is writing the patches for RHEL 6 which also apply to Fedora but are choosing not to release them. wha?"

      See what I did there?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Riiiight

        Except Fedora usually gets the patches first and is the main project upon which RHEL is based. The "Enterprise Grade" support and applications go over the top of that. Might as well mention the whole thing about the OS being gratis and thus costing zero to install the latest version of.

        See there's facepalms, double facepalms and nuclear facepalms. I'm not sure which one to apply here. You'll find out which by the strength of the emanated shockwave, I suppose.

        1. Sandtitz Silver badge

          Re: Riiiight @AC

          Dear AC,

          you're right, my example was invalid. Here's the corrected version:

          "I'm not getting updates for my WinXP/RHEL. Mind you I'm not paying MS/RH for support, but surely they should release all those patches gratis for everyone + dog, since they're gonna produce the patches anyway! Whaa?!"

  16. Christian Berger

    Why this is less of a problem with open source

    Your typical Linux distribution or *BSD system comes with all the software you need in place. So you get your kernel, your shell (graphical if you like), but also things like your web-server. Software running on those systems typically is ported to multiple systems. So your web-server most likely doesn't just run on Linux, but also several BSDs, Solaris and maybe even Windows. Chances are extremely high it'll run on the next version of your operating system without any changes... and even if it needs changes, your distribution will take care of those.

    While on Windows you have your operating system, which is fairly bare bones compared to what you get on most other operating systems. Therefore every software vendor needs to supply large parts of the system. Your operating system vendor has no idea what software you run, and your software vendor has no way to contact your operating system vendor in case of problems.

    An additional problem is that most software vendors on Windows don't adhere to the UNIX philosophy. This means you end up with closely integrated "do it all" modules having binary interfaces. Since there is little communication between different companies, misunderstandings are common. Particularly with binary interfaces this creates a mess amplifying every little version mismatch.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why this is less of a problem with open source

      "Your operating system vendor has no idea what software you run, "

      Nor do you, but you''re stating without doubt that Linux or BSD has it in place? Your obvious dislike of Windows/MS is noted, but kindly STFU unless you've got some requirements analysis in place.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC

        Ok, I'll bite. Got nothing better to do anyway, and sometimes feeding the troll can actually be a bit of fun (which is my sole intention here).

        So; instead of biting the hand that fed us why didn't you come up with some requirement analysis? Anyone can say they don't agree, these days very few seem capable of providing some motivation.

        Thing here is that it doesn't really need much of an analysis because Windows Server 2k3, which IMO is a very impressive piece of work, still suffers from quite severe limitations. And that makes its overall functionality limited. Example; Microsoft pulled it off by making PowerShell (actually this is the management framework) not only available for the products it was designed for (Server 2k8 and up, and Windows 7 and up) but also "down ported it" (as I like to call it, I know it's not entirely right). Meaning? I can administer my in-house 2k3 servers using PowerShell on my Windows 7 client. I don't care what others think, but in my opinion it's a pretty impressive display (it helps that PowerShell is my favourite administrative tool on Windows of course).

        But that awesomeness is still overshadowed with other limitations. IPv6 for example? You're better off not using this, because although it provides some basic support for it, how safe will you be if you're using a firewall which only supports IPv4?

        And of course this is not even addressing the very obvious: what roles does 2k3 actually provide? Far less than 2k8, that's for sure:

        • File server
        • Application server
        • DNS server
        • DHCP server
        • WINS server
        • Print server
        • File server
        • Mail server (POP3 / SMTP, no IMAP)
        • Terminal server
        • RAS / VPN server
        • AD domain controller
        • Streaming media server

        Rest assured that your average Linux or *BSD environment has everything it needs which might be required to take over these roles. Including tasks such as WINS or (limited?) AD thanks to the existence of the Samba project.

        Even if your environment is using SharePoint (which my server is doing; used as a test environment. One which, once again, is administered through PowerShell) then you might still be able to pull this off. Because although the Mono project doesn't support the latest in .NET technology (talking .NET 4.5 now) neither does server 2k3. The best you'll probably manage is .NET 3.5. This is what I'm currently working at; testing how hard it'll be to move some projects over onto a FreeBSD / Mono environment. So far the results are looking quite good. Even Visual Studio (2012) has no problem at all with compiling and distributing website projects onto a FreeBSD powered server.

        So yeah, if you don't got Christian's message above then it's most likely because you hardly understand how this 2k3 thing actually works. But here you got something which spells it all out for you ;)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's a very different game now

      Our solutions deploy onto VMware, on any suitable bog-standard, racked up server. All the things that used to require specialist hardware, are now done in software. Whether it be Windows or (more normal for us) Linux, the vintage just shouldn't matter as much. It's still normal for us to (mostly) provide a rack of servers, but this is only because most of our customers don't have big data centres, or a fast enough connection to the internet to contemplate someone else's cloud.

      As our friends across the pond would put it, it's a whole new ball game, and I like it.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Windows

      @Christian

      "While on Windows you have your operating system, which is fairly bare bones compared to what you get on most other operating systems. Therefore every software vendor needs to supply large parts of the system."

      There is a flaw in your analogy here because, as shown above, Windows 2k3 is everything but bare bones. In fact, if you don't focus completely on functionality (so we'll ignore the limited support for IPv6) then I think it's fair to say that 2k3 could still go toe to toe with FreeBSD 9 or 10 where functionality is concerned. Do note; I'm talking about the OS only and not so much about 3rd party solutions.

      In its basic form FreeBSD consists of a base OS which provides all the basic functionality which is required on a Unix (like) environment. So you have a mail server, DNS server (though from version 10+ his is only a DNS resolver), DHCP, VPN, FTP, NFS, NIS, PPP, SSHD, Syslog. But it doesn't provide stuff such as a webserver or application server obviously, for that BSD relies on 3rd party solutions (provided through the so called Ports collection).

      Whereas Windows 2k3 actually does. It provides IIS out of the box which is your web / application server on the platform. And if you need to it can even be used as a (limited) SMTP / POP3 server as well (though I think most people would quickly move to either Exchange or another 3rd party solution which as hMailServer for example).

      And that's but one example, there are more ;)

      Windows 2k3, though dated, really wasn't as bare bone as you seem to make it ;)

    4. LDS Silver badge

      Re: Why this is less of a problem with open source

      "and your software vendor has no way to contact your operating system vendor in case of problems."

      If you're a small, almost unknown software vendor, probably. Large (and some not so large) software vendors can easily contact Microsoft, and they do, believe me. It's probably easier than having to go through a long stack of different groups when you have an issue with Linux... - although more expensive.

      "Your operating system vendor has no idea what software you run". Again, wrong. Do you believe MS doesn't test its OSes with many vendors software? Sure, it can't test everything, nor Linux distros maintainers can test every software run on them.

      Have you ever installed a Windows "compatibility update"? Or do you install updates blindly, or just not install them? Microsoft does make money selling OSes, it's its interest to ensure they work with the software customers needs to run.

      It also publish a large amount of information about how to write software properly so it will work on actual and future OSes. Just many developers are too lazy to read them, and prefer quick and dirty solutions, risk ingto break with the next release.

      "Chances are extremely high it'll run on the next version of your operating system without any changes... and even if it needs changes, your distribution will take care of those."

      When you run a critical infrastructure, you don't rely on "chances it'll run". Even if upgrades are free, you have to test thoroughly everything works as intended on a new release. And some custom software may break because Linux releases are far less backwards compatible than Windows usually is. Because they imply you can always recompile your code, but not everybody can - if you just get binary packages. Not everybody just needs a Samba/DNS/WebServer server, there is a lot of other software running which is commercial and not included in any distribution.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why this is less of a problem with open source

      Your typical Microsoft system comes with all the software you need in place. So you get your kernel, your Powershell (or GUI if you like), but also things like your web-server, FTP Server, Fileserver, Directory Server, etc. Software running on those systems typically is portable to multiple OS versions and will run on new versions decades into the future. So your web-server software most likely doesn't just run on the version of Windows you built it on. but every other future version too. Chances are extremely high it'll run on the next version of your operating system without any changes... and even if it needs changes, the upgrade process usually will take care of those.

      An additional advantage is that most software vendors on Windows don't adhere to the UNIX philosophy. This means you end up with closely integrated "defined purpose" modules having well defined API binary interfaces. Because of this, there is little need for communication between different companies, and everything just works. Particularly with binary interfaces this avoids the mess of version dependencies, a zoo of required and often conflicting libraries and multiple upgrade issues that are so common with UNIX OSs and frameworks like Java..

  17. J 7

    Going to be a problem for the NHS. Most of their GP surgeries still run 2003 for their clinical servers, and Exchange Server 2003 for e-mail - which in itself causes headaches with Win 7 clients.

    Most of the clinical systems will work with Win2008R2 server, but not 2012.

    OK, not as big a problem as the NHS has at present, trying to upgrade the clients on a shoestring, but its going to be a logistical nightmare - theres not many who know the clinical software and how to put it all together

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We are only just in a plan to upgrade our 2003 to 2008, since our developers are behind the times and only a year ago were able to support 2008 and IIS7. It means we have about 100 servers at 100 different sites still running 2003 R2. And it is a pain in the ass to convince our customers to have a few hours downtime in order to swap the machines for 2008 R2 ones.

    upgrade to 2012? HAHAHAHAHA, our developers are not even looking at 2012 until next year

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Time to get rid of the last few Windows 2000 servers then :-s

    Got a fair few 2003 servers nearing ten years old, then a mix of 2008R2, 2012 and 2012R2...

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hmm upgraded more often.....The Tin! yes but the os and system software not so much. Unfortunately since virtualisation, management forget that that just because its a VM (Consolidation was smoke and mirrors) and expandable via cpu/memory, that OS is just a minor issue, nothing to worry about.

    We have recently been asked to "refresh" upgrade Apps Window 7/8/IOS/Android for existing Windows 2000 and SQL 2000 servers for rollout way beyond the original system spec at zero cost almost at go live, as its virtual! item 90 on the project plan, its the app licences / desktop where the money is spent (Item 10...What a Saving!), oh its just needs a bit more cpu/memory and disk to get ready...doesn't it...chop chop were running behind because of you...!?

  21. Michael Habel Silver badge

    Does this also include Windows XP-64 (Which was built on Server 2003), or did the support on that die on the 8th as well?

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Win2k3 was a total sleeper and unsung hero.

    This was BY FAR and away the best OS that MS ever did.

    Used as a notebook/workstation OS gave/gives quite unrivalled driver support, and a memory footprint half the size of XP, with all the bugs removed.

    This made it about twice as fast, and very reliable in a production environment.

    Being as few people got around to using it like this, it's a sad fact that those conmen from Redmond will have their way to destroy what was/is the best OS by far for professional audio work and video.

    Having seen the nightmares we get with Win7 win8 and all the other bloated crap Redmond want to throw at us, makes us despair.

    They have no clue do they?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @AC

      Win2K3 is our workhorse here as well. I sent this link to the higher ups today to remind them that if we started converting servers from Win2K3 to Win2008R2 today, and converted at the rate of 1 a week, we still wouldn't make the deadline ...

      I will leave it to "the suits" to exercise some executive decision making now.

      We were never dependent on XP, so it was replaced by Win7 when it came along (Vista never got a foot in except the one test machine) and Win8 is in a similar position (on one test machine) and similarly loathed.

  23. Dave Oldham
    Alert

    NT...

    I wonder if my previous company has finally got shot of their Windows NT4 SP6a server that they said that they could not switch off (2010). I have my doubts.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021