Time to move away from Windows 7 ... whoa, whoa, who said anything about Windows 8? Companies should start planning now to phase out their Windows 7 installations, according to research firm Gartner. The analyst house said that even though Microsoft has plans to support the OS until 2020, firms should begin drawing up the process of phasing the software out in order to smooth the transition. Stephen …
Well traditionally Microsoft have alternated between halfway reasonable and "screwed the pooch" operating systems, so it makes sense to hang in there and see what 9 has to offer.
Of course, if MS don't start listening to their customers soon then that could be the best thing that has ever happened to linux.
"Apple phase out support for older OS's a hell of a lot quicker than MS do."
Yes, but the changes aren't as radical. Half the reason Windows upgrades are so slow are due to significant changes to interfaces and general architecture. Add to that the fact that IE and Office version changes are normally included (with associated compatibility problems with existing documents and websites) and it becomes an immense effort to move to new versions.
More gradual and incremental changes such as seen with OS X and many Linux distros mean upgrading more often, but that prevents things becoming more firmly rooted and difficult to move when the time does come. All it takes is a shift in mindset and that's probably the hardest of all.
The problem isn't so much the change of operating systems on Macs, the changes tend to be relatively small from the user perspective, and upgrades normally work. (I have an install that went from jaguar on a G3, to leopard then tiger, then moved to a G4, then a G5 iMac then to leopard then to a G5 tower.) They also tend not to be ridiculously expensive. (The latest upgrade is the 'right price' if you have suitable hardware.)
The issues are getting stuck on an old OS because either you have software that doesn't work on the newer OSes, or because apple drop support for your hardware (either because of a change of processor architecture G3 > G4/5 > x84 > x64 or because they decide older models are too slow.)
However on the upside I doubt I'd be typing comments on the reg at home from a Dual Processor G5 tower, had they not dropped support for it.
If you get a new kernel, it's reboot time. No ifs and buts.
If you're using Ksplice, there's no reboot for kernel patches.
There's also kexec (although that's almost rebooting, but without the powercycle/POST).
There are others, too. Linux is used for high availability sites, if there's a will there's a way.
Also, you can perform an in-place upgrade of a distro without rebooting - your new kernel will get picked up on the next reboot (although personally I like to perform a fresh install, but keeping my /home so settings remain the same)
I find Windows more awkward to work with (even though I've had more experience with it) - but then, I'm not a consumer and I demand my computer to actually work for me. No ifs, no buts.
Also, you can perform an in-place upgrade of a distro without rebooting - your new kernel will get picked up on the next reboot
Sure, your in-memory kernel won't care that the bootloader will use a different one the next reboot, and won't care either if that reboot never happens; but to use the new one you have to get that one into memory and running. So then why install a new kernel if you're not planning to reboot shortly afterward?
And I'm not going to do fresh installs for minor kernel upgrades, but I do want to apply them for security raisins.
Yep - we went Linux after the Vista debacle and never looked back. OK we only have about a dozen PCs but do have a network server and are building up our own remote cloud.
I guess we don't have the problems (or expertise) of a major world player but there are more businesses like ours then those. Why they make it all so difficult and expensive using restrictive MS software despairs me.
Linux is not rocket science. Whereas these XP => Win7 migration have a bit of putting a man on the moon feel and take around the same number of years to plan, build and complete.
Why having done that once you would even think about doing it again is quite remarkable. Your choice.
I read the horror stories of XP->7 migration and think to myself surely it can't be that bad - in this day and age? Is it the IT dept. being inept, or MS? or both?
Not only that, they're even migrating to a version of the OS that is already out of date! For what reason... it doesn't look like the old versions without 3rd party software? Give me a break!
So they're holding out for the next version, in the hope they "undo" the changes they've made... where they'll have to go through this "pain" all over again.
If I put my company through this, I'd probably get the sack by now.
"Not only that, they're even migrating to a version of the OS that is already out of date! For what reason..."
If you've ever had win8 inflicted on your desktop you'd know that reason.
The UI is ok on tablets. Beyond that I'd sooner be castrated with a rusty teaspoon then face extended periods using it on anything without a touchscreen.
'Of course, if MS don't start listening to their customers soon then that could be the best thing that has ever happened to linux.'
MS has never listened to their customers. If they had, Windows would have been on XP version 93 by now. I'd guess that 90-95% of users are only on Windows 8/8.1 because they bought a desktop or laptop with it already installed, not through choice. The MS plan of forcing users to incessantly upgrade is simply not working.
And, like it or not, Linux will not be the beneficiary. If that was the case, the Linux percentage would have hit 95% when Vista appeared and was revealed as the disaster that it was. If Linux couldn't take over then, it never will.
Yeah, I know. Linux-head downvotes...
And, like it or not, Linux will not be the beneficiary. If that was the case, the Linux percentage would have hit 95% when Vista appeared and was revealed as the disaster that it was. If Linux couldn't take over then, it never will.
Maybe you're right, but I'd say linux (and it's various distros) have come on a long way since '05 when Vista was launched, as has the quality and compatibility of common apps (office suites etc). I'd also say that the average user* is now much more open to different OS's thanks to the spread of iOS and Android. Does anybody know what the actual statistics for linux use are, and whether there's been any significant increase since Win (h)8 came out?
*if there is such a thing
I don't think you get it.. Microsoft has vendors tied into allsorts of contracts and deals to pre-install their products exclusively on computers and has done for decades. Linux doesn't have any money, it is open source and free and requires the user to download an iso and write it to either a cd/dvd or usb stick in order to install it.. Can you really see the average computer user doing that?? I really doubt it. This is why Linux has never taken off on the desktop. Apart from the fact that there isn't billions of dollars advertising it, most people aren't even aware it exists.
Apart from that, Linux is doing extremely well overall, having 60% or more of the worldwide market as a whole covering servers, cloud, phones, tablets, desktops etc.. Microsoft has just 14% of the worldwide market. They may have near 90% of the desktop computer market still but what use is 90% of a shrinking market as computing moves away from traditional desktop computers? Just look how amazingly well Chromebooks are doing! They are outselling basically every other laptop out there.
As for Linux on the traditional desktop.. That is growing rapidly.. 10 years ago it was 1% and the number of internet users was just under 1 billion.. Now Linux is closer to 2% and the number of internet users is now 3 billion.. That shows massive growth.. Nearly 6X what it was 10 years ago with most of the growth happening in the last 4 years. Not bad for an OS users have to download and install themselves.
And, like it or not, Linux will not be the beneficiary. If that was the case, the Linux percentage would have hit 95% when Vista appeared and was revealed as the disaster that it was.
At that point there was no incentive to move off 2000/XP and (therefore to Linux to avoid Vista) at all. Only M$ marketing blah.
I think the death of a thousand cuts may be better. Infrastructure left alone for a decade builds up all sorts of odd undocumented dependencies and peculiarities (only fred in accounting has the serial key for this software for example). Organisations also lose the skills to perform platform changes over a decade of stagnation.
A steady rolling refresh over every few years reduces these problems. Compare eating a sensible diet and going for a walk each day to eating nothing for a month while running 5 miles each day. Either approach will leave you thin, but one is much more pleasant than the other.
A steady rolling refresh over every few years reduces these problems.
... which brings us, ironically, back to OSX. One of the main advantages of OSX (and its associated ecosystem of software) is exactly that updates are not the royal pain in the proverbial that Windows updates are. You don't have dramatic changes in the UI that stop you working for weeks until you have worked out where they put the the functions you need this time (typical example: the MS Office ribbon in office software of the UI changes in Windows 8) or why things simply don't work at all (XP to Vista, Win 7 to Win8 where privileges differ depending on from where you start an application).
The incremental approach to OSX (and the fact that upgrades in the main tend to actually *work* instead of borking things - making the exceptions far more noticeable) represents fewer barriers to an organisation to just keep up.
The reason for the more incremental approach is simple: it's not a revenue generator for Apple, so it has no need to shove new *cough* features *cough* down your throat to give you an excuse to spend yet again a truckload of money. No, the last updates were actually *free* - another barrier to upgrade gone.
However, this is not an easy decision for especially a larger enterprise, especially if they fell for the "all MS" approach which is based on strict avoidance of anything that resembles an Open Standard so you are kept locked in. If, however, you run a standards based core you can run a heterogenous desktop environment which gives everyone the best system for the job. OSX, Windows, Linux.
Except some industries CAN'T work that quickly. Take any industry with heavy machinery. These machines are meant to last DECADES and the huge costs are amortized over that period. That includes any and all control systems for that machine, regardless of the software installed in it. It doesn't matter if software or hardware moves on, the machine CAN'T move on. What then?
That's not really an "edge case"once you begin to understand that "heavy industry" includes every power and water and sewer and chemical and manufacturing facility in the WHOLE WORLD.
Dingbats who don't understand diddlysquat about what is "industry" should look but not speak.
If the so called "free software" movement products are so good, how come all those companies out there have not taken it up already? Answer truthfully and not emotionally and don't give me bullshit about MS. Any one of these heavy industries would just as soon get their OS for free.
I await your downvotes.
The majority of Windows computers do not operate machinery. It's an edge case, now matter how important you believe it is.
The bulk of XP machines were purchased to read emails, write a letter, browse the web, etc. The fact that people felt the need to adapt it into an industrial machine is irrelevant to MS.
Next time, use something that was designed for purpose - not an office/home OS.
The majority of Windows computers do not operate machinery. It's an edge case, now matter how important you believe it is.
Alas, sometime around the time of Windows NT 3.5, someone decided hat it was a perfectly sane idea to move SCADA platforms onto Windows. They still are :(
"The majority of Windows computers do not operate machinery."
And almost all of the ones which "do" are merely a UI and comms package talking to the equipment that REALLY operates the machinery.
When we updated our PBX a while back, the suppliers wanted to ding us for £7k for a windows-based control system. Turned out it just talked across the same serial cable we were using and put pretty pictures on top of the commands we were already using (which had previously been handled by a comms program on a dos box)
Cost of USB-serial cable and installing Putty on the appropriate machine? Aboout £4
The secretary concerned was very happy to have some deskspace back too.
".....The corporations can't make the change on their internal software they run on their thousands of computers fast enough to keep up with the end of life dates for each version of the Windows OS." Which is why M$ will tell you Office 365 (with continual updates to new versions built in) is the future.
My company is only just starting to roll out Windows 7 machines.... Existing core business software was designed to run on, wait for it, IE6.....
We've only just managed to climb to the heady heights of IE9 with this new rollout, and because some vital software on older machines can't be rolled out to the new ones yet, staff are having to work with both the old an new at thier desks.
You gotta love technology!!
"The corporations can't make the change on their internal software they run on their thousands of computers fast enough to keep up with the end of life dates for each version of the Windows OS"
Err, that really shouldn't be a problem, they own the software & IP so all they have to do is reach into their pockets and pay people to update the stuff. In practice the big show-stoppers are vendors who refuse to upgrade their products - or make it hard/ridiculously expensive to upgrade...
>And if you can't keep up with the breaking changes in Windows - then use something more steady!
The megacorps have more leverage in this regard.
They could, for example, "suggest" that QT and some cross-platform options for the next major release might push them higher-up the preferred-vendor list.
If indie game producers can do it, so can the major vendors with long-life products.
Few organisations can do a major switch to linux, but that's why you have strategic plans where you push for stable products even before you gain savings from them.
Any business with an IT department worth a damn will require any new software, be it an individual application or the whole operating system, to be validated by an exhaustive battery of compatability & stability tests before being implemented. That testing has, can, and may always take YEARS to complete, and trying to rush it just ends in disaster. So for a business to go from Win7 to Win9 will require said testing to make sure the OS will be up to the task, to determine what, if any, hardware upgrades will be required to run it effectively, and that all the software they currently rely upon will accurately, continuously, reliably, stabily run upon it. And if that takes so long that MS EOL's the thing before said testing is complete, the company has to start all over again on the newly released OS, at which point the testing cycle starts all over again.
So if a company takes ~5 years to validate & certify the OS to do what they need & run what they need it to run, only to have MS EOL the sucker before they can deploy it, that means the company won't bother to make the transition because they're going to have to start that testing cycle all over again with the next release. So a Win7 to Win9 jump would only be financially viable IF and ONLY if MS agrees not to EOL the damned thing before people get to validate, certify, and deploy it in the first place.
It's kind of difficult to justify all the costs inherent in that task, only to try & justify them all over again before you're finished.
TL;DR: We had over a decade of XP to work out all the bugs, get it working, and make sure all our stuff worked on it like we needed it to. MS needs to make sure we'll have that same kind of time on Win7 and beyond, else everyone will go broke trying to keep up with MS' artificial upgrade pace.
Quote
So a Win7 to Win9 jump would only be financially viable IF and ONLY if MS agrees not to EOL the damned thing before people get to validate, certify, and deploy it in the first place.
Spot on BUT if you were MS and needing to satisfy your hungry shareholders (in case a few chairs were setn flying towards Sataya...) this is exactly the thing you won't do. You wil shorten the life of everything. You could even force the subscription model onto businesses and make them pay just to keep their existing systems going even if they are old versions of Windows that you don't care a jot about...
Thus what is the likelyhood of your ideal world happening?
Oh Wait, is that a squadron of flying sheep I see heading towards Thames Valley Park?
>You could even force the subscription model onto businesses and make them pay just to keep their existing systems going even if they are old versions of Windows that you don't care a jot about...
Businesses adopted the subscription model years back - what do you think the volume licence agreement is?
All you lot do is complain about Windows.
For some reason, you all think you have to use Windows. WTF for? "legacy" software? Fcuking update or replace it, then! You can't drag this ball & chain around forever.
Is all the pain of artificial+premature product lifes driven by sales worth while?
I complain about everything, its to hot, its to cold, why did no one refill the coffee jar, the copier is telling you to put paper in, but mostly I complain about software.
Take a crappy software package (Which I think is worse than Mac OS9) which appears to be made for Windows 3.1, which can be made to run on Windows 7. Its actually supported but hasn't been updated since the last ice age. Last year the server software (Which needs to be run on the console session and annoys me by randomly stopping every year demanding I click Oui) decided it had no disk space available when it had 40. Turns out a very old bug in their dev software where if you have exactly a multiple of 4GB of space free it decided it was out of space. Every new OS that comes out I ask will it run on so and so and get told, no idea please let us know and how you made it run.
Except the companies that have deployed Windows 8?
Know at least one >1000 user company running Win 8 FAT clients and Server 2012 Citrix farm. The users, I am informed, did not spontaneously combust.
AC because it wasn't the company I am employed by...
Windows 9 undoes Win8's brain damage
You're joking, right?
If you think they're going to go back like Win7 then you're a mug. They would have done that already, rather than wait a few years for their market share to drop even more. They got lucky with Vista because it wasn't that bad, it was still a desktop OS, and the competition wasn't as available + compelling as it increasingly is now.
Mind you, with cloudy software becoming so popular, there's the possibility that companies that aren't using much else but the cloud might see advantage in switching to Linux. Can't help feeling that over-reliance on the cloud is a train-wreck waiting to happen, though. Be a damned shame if companies switched to Linux for such a poor reason, but how often do you hear of companies making rational decisions involving technology?
The only future for company solutions and cloud is to have their own private clouds. Would any company in their right mind allow MS/Amazon/Google to basically 'own' their business data especially as the NSA will have guaranteed easy access to it bacause these companies are subject to US law wherever they operate.
Then we are basically back to the 1970's/80's environment that looks a lot like the good old mainframe with dumb terminals.
"Then we are basically back to the 1970's/80's environment that looks a lot like the good old mainframe with dumb terminals."
ssstt..... You're not supposed to remind people that the whole Cloud setup is a fancy version of the old server-side model.. It's New! It's Exciting!!!! It's for people with Smarts!!!
ummm [/sarc]
I can't help thinking that Gartner missed the whole point of why so many companies stayed with XP.
It was, in a lot of cases, not through a lack of forward planning, but because they chose to.
The same will be true when Windows 7 reaches EOL, maybe even more so, if Microsoft persist in trying to merge desktop and mobile platforms, as companies will not want to ditch a proper Desktop O/S for some Desktop / Mobile hybrid which offers less functionality and is harder to integrate into a business environment.
I sometimes wonder if some OS's are like a multi ink pen, there is an obvious sales "advantage" of having on tap four colour inks with a downside of increased complexity cost and size.
But it can write in four tones at the click of a switch that has to be a market leader right!
Well no, most people need less functionality in a work pen, they need to it to be reliable and efficient so the single ink pens remain in the majority.
An OS should be able to do a few things reliably and repeatedly for a number of years, it's a tool not a fashion statement.
If one good thing were to come of an ecosystem power struggle it could be the definition of basic OS tasks. Right now we have varied methods for simple work actions that should be intuitive and OS agnostic, the user should not need to know what OS is underlying their current actions.
I'm not sold on the cloud as a panacea but it could provide the common ground where OS's could be judged for their longer term investment.
If Cloud (local or remote) reduces the protocols and proprietary methods employed we should be able to judge the OS as a single ink pen rather than trying to work out where they have moved the blue this year (and regain efficiency).
A pen is a single function tool, you use it to write things.
A computer is a multi function tool, you can use it to write things, play music, games, films, watch TV, run a factory, run a power station, run a ship, fly a plane, keep in touch with friends, spy on your neighbours, etc, etc, etc. So obviously a computer needs a general purpose operating system to make it work, not a single program with a single function.
> A pen is a single function tool, you use it to write things.
Not here... it is also useful for stirring coffee, flipping DIP switches, pressing fiddly Reset buttons, and throwing at the wall when Windows decides to reboot when one is half-way through an intricate set of code changes.
I like how neither of you (Irongut nor AC) considered that one can also draw with a pen. Rather telling, that ;)
You also left out stress management (aka chewing it) and earwax removal.
One thing that always struck me about the four-ink pens was that 99% of them must have got chucked out with 3 of the 4 barrels still almost full (unless you were a writer, a teacher and a proof-reader rolled into one, or an artist with very consistent colour usage). Work that into the XP analogy if you dare!
I think you'll find that for a work computer the art is in throttling the capabilities of the OS ( and the software allowed to run on it) to the minimum necessary to make User [x] perform his/her job.
So yes, a work computer is more or less like a single function tool, if you do it right. You do not want users to get...creative..
Mine is a pretty damn expensive (for such an item) four-options pen (black, red, pencil and PDA stylus) because I dislike carrying separate items for each of the functions while on the move. Same reason I carry a Leatherman, not a toolkit with the set of tools that the Leatherman covers. And in both cases I the tools I carry do a fair job of filling my requirements, taking their limitations into account, while on the other had not giving up at the first hurdle.
In my workshop I have all the separate tools I'd need, and at my desk I've got all the writing implements I'd need.
What all this has to do with OSes is unclear. Oh wait. Linux on laptop and home server (and VMS on the real computers), and stripped-down Linuxes on the Pis and BBB.
The one thing about IT that I could never understand is why very large bodies (I'm thinking Governments, NHS that sort of thing) don't switch to Linux. The NHS is the perfect example of somewhere that should switch to Linux. It's big enough that if it switched it could force the people working with it to maintain compatibility and it's big enough that it could put together it's own support system if it needed. I'm sure though that if the NHS approached Canonical they would fall over themselves to tailor a version of Ubuntu for them. Now I hear what you are all screaming: legacy software. Yes, that's a problem, and there would be a long transition period but it would give them a chance to start doing the software procurement process correctly.
your comment is excellent but for one thing. Canonical
They appear to want to be in everything these days and IMHO in danger of becoming a master of none.
If Linux was to be used then IMHO it would have to be either RHEL or SUSE.
RHEL gives you a 10year support like OOTB. That would be the sort of metric that the NHS cares about, not the latest whizzo idea to come from Canonical.
I think the problem is the management of these big companies has NO CLUE about the software... they only recognise it from a business financial direction.. that is most likely why Nokia went for MS.. they just thought a big company would save their financial asses!! not much hope recently!!! :P
Increasingly it is big management that makes the decisions, and as Linux is not that big financially, it does not get their attention... that is why us techs have to use the 'industry standard' that has become over bloated, and sort out the managers PC cos he has no clue about it....
I think the problem is the management of these big companies has NO CLUE about the software... they only recognise it from a business financial direction.. that is most likely why Nokia went for MS.. they just thought a big company would save their financial asses!! not much hope recently!!! :P
That has always been the problem. Microsoft learned their marketing trade at the feet of Big Blue back in the days when most company thinking was about buying big boxes because they knew no better. They thrust the shiny pamplets and whatever else came to hand and nobody else made a murmur even though, even back then, there were better things coming from several sources. Microsoft's product got where it was through the apathy of its competition, aggressive marketing and, most of all, the ignorance of the consumer.
The one possible saving grace here is that there are others in the market now. I say "possible" because I'm not sure I trust the competition either!
And yes, I wouldn't mind seeing Linux gain from all this, but I also doubt that this will happen either for all sorts of reasons. A shame, really.
I agree with what you're saying. But here's why it's hard to make that happen. The NHS (or the Government) isn't a single entity. It's a loosely-coupled group. All of whom have their own management, different operational needs, budgets, and often come into conflict with each other. So you need some central organisation to lay down the law, but they have the cat-herding problem from hell.
And if you *do* ever get agreement to do something, you have the Brooks' Law problem from hell because there are so many people involved in the process.
The NHS tried a central IT approach not so long ago. Yeah, that went well.
In fact there are some financial incentives from central NHS organisations, to promote the use of open source software at the local level. But I think widespread use will be a long time coming.
Anonymously posted from my NHS PC running Windows 7.
Are we ignoring the elephant in the room? Android?
Take an Android tablet, add a keyboard/mouse via USB or Bluetooth, a stand for the screen and sign up to Microsoft Office Mobile (Office 365 effectively).
Admittedly, line-of-business apps would need some sort of remote desktop facilities for the foreseeable future, but for an awful lot of people Office + web-accessible systems or bespoke apps would do the trick.
Just saying...
"Take an Android tablet, add a keyboard/mouse via USB or Bluetooth, a stand for the screen and sign up to Microsoft Office Mobile (Office 365 effectively)."
Microsoft will be very happy if you do this - they make $10 per tablet and they make far more money out of Office than they ever did out of Windows.
I am surprised that products such as scriptlogic don't include the functionality to remove all the metro garbage and restore the start menu, so that windows 8 looks and feels like Windows 2000, XP, or 7.
I am making the assumption that this facility isn't already explicitly, (obviously with a bit of time it could be contrived by a good sysadmin) built in and they just decided to keep quite about it.
Oh, and they could put back the old XP style corporate login, while they are at it.
Well, I lashed out five dollars for Start8 which more or less does what you ask. What it doesn't do is stop the useless "apps" from being bound to file extensions. For that you must install the appropriate handler and then manually change from the app (e.g. Acrobat for pdf files).
Admittedly I don't use Win8 very much (just for Turbocad and reading pdf help files) since I am 99% a linux desktop user (both on the same computer using Vmware on top of Centos).
Start8 certainly makes Win8 feel very much like Win7 and I am very happy with it. 5$ is not a very high tax to circumvent MS retrograde gui so I don't know what all the fuss is about regarding Win8 gui. The underlying Win8 OS seems to me to behave better than all the previous versions of Windows.
Or you could try Classic Shell, completely for free. It does everything that you are asking for. My electricians wife was in tears trying to figure out Win 8 (because she had a deadline to meet) until they tried Classic Shell and was up and running in minutes with a menu that looked like Win 7.
It will create or replace a start button and make Win 8 look like XP or Win 7.
Corporate Login's I'm not sure of but they take suggestions.
Go to http://www.classicshell.net to download it. They have a comprehensive FAQ as well.
"Just built two Ubuntu 12.04 (actually newer than win 7) computers and are already on about EOL it. How are you supposed to keep up?"
Just built as in a few months ago? Why didn't you go for 14.04 which is also an LTS release meaning you're good for three years at least?
"Linux is insignificant on the business server side of things?"
No, but they are insignificant on the business client computer side of things.
This article is about XP, Windows 7 and Windows 8 - they're all personal computer operating systems. I'm sorry for your confusion and knee-jerk reaction.
Bring on the downvotes!
..if a worldwide consumer group got hold of the reins for the rest of eternity.
A group that defines standards for all things and in this case operating systems.
An OS would then be expected to meet ALL the standards in every iteration it churns out and thus support the old programs that had also adhered to the standard.
New doc formats, for example, would have a requirement that they are accessible by older programs, its just that the older program would not display the flashing neon banners and such like, that the new format offers.
If installing the latest Windows was just that simple, but it isn't as you now have to factor in a whole gamut of devices and software that has ceased to function.
We only need to look at how the instruction byte Intel had taken ownership of has become perhaps the most inefficient part of x86 architecture. Even when it was obvious this byte was going double they still squandered the remaining resources left in the first byte, so now we have four byte instruction sets that could easily have been implemented in just two.
OKay so I have tried hard to think of something smart of pithy to say about this but all I can come up with is "What a bunch of B*ll*ck5"!
As ever Gartner leads the world in talking up utter crap. How do you draw up plans to migrate to something that hasn't been invented yet!
Moronic claptrap.
Most business stayed with XP because it was the last version able to run the bad coded applications many business are forced to use without the issues and warning the new security model introduced with Vista brought. Also, missing drivers for still used devices and lesser HW requirements played a role.
Moving from 7 to 8 or 9 doesn't look so problematic, unless the latter introduces new big changes, and I don't mean the UI, but hw requirement, driver model and security framework. Thereby I can't see any hurry, it can be a more evolutionary approach then a revolutionary one.
I must be off my tree then as i have just moved from Windows 7 to Mac OS X. I'm happier and staff are happier. So many little things are done so much better in Mac OS like Time Machine backups to OS X Server, much better than Windows backup. Not saying its perfect but its better than the mess Windows is in right now. Odd Windows only legacy apps we have we use 2X so to the end user it looks like its running on the Mac.
It's interesting seeing the comments on this forum. Most of the comments reflect the environment the person works in and their knowledge of that environment.
But business are not consistent, there is never a one size fits all situation (if there were, systems architects would never be here).
What Gartner are saying will help sell their reports and provide ammunition to people who don't want to upgrade yet, but want to wait and see (and reports can be used to justify any point of view to a manager).
So just sit back read Gartner and smile, they will be coming out with more tat to justify what you wish to justify to a phb any day now.
And remember there is no one size fits all. Frankly I'm os agnostic, if it does what the business requires it to do great. If not then I'll find something that does.
Until something else that is truly OS independent (i.e. looks and feels exactly the same regardless of OS) makes MS Office redundant, Windows will stay.
Why cross company compatibility (yes I know there a problems between versions). But I pretty much know I can go to company X use their laptops/desktops, exchange documents with my laptop without any major issues.
I remember many years ago having some Sun consultants on site who had to you Solaris on their laptops, we had no end of problems exchanging documentation, presentations, etc, etc
I've tried Libre office, I find it a little clunky, like all opensource software it lacks shine and usability. Why?
Opensource just cannot afford to employ armies of ergonomics experts, armies of artists to produce fancy colourful icons, etc, etc.
It will take Apple to finally let go of OSX to give MS a run for it's money, but they will have to make sure that Pages is 100% compatible with office.
Migrate away from Win-7? What a crock. We're still using XP - hasn't anyone heard of the simple registry mod that lets XP get updated with POS2009 patches and fixes - until 2019?
I personally still use win-98 (with KernelEx API enhancement). I'm typing this post now on a win-98 system (with 2 gb installed ram - thanks to a simple patch to a few .vxd files).
Anyone who follows the technical press lemmings advice about constantly needing to follow Macro$haf't s instructions to upgrade must take the Micro$oft motto to heart:
"If it works, it's not complicated enough."
The Windows-NT line of operating systems: Like the emperor's new clothes - woven from the finest, most expensive threads.
Migrate away from Win-7? What a crock. We're still using XP - hasn't anyone heard of the simple registry mod that lets XP get updated with POS2009 patches and fixes - until 2019?
I personally still use win-98 (with KernelEx API enhancement). I'm typing this post now on a win-98 system (with 2 gb installed ram - thanks to a simple patch to a few .vxd files).
Anyone who follows the technical press lemmings advice about constantly needing to follow Macro$haf't s instructions to upgrade must take the Micro$oft motto to heart:
"If it works, it's not complicated enough."
The Windows-NT line of operating systems: Like the emperor's new clothes - woven from the finest, most expensive threads.
Migrate away from Win-7? What a crock. We're still using XP - hasn't anyone heard of the simple registry mod that lets XP get updated with POS2009 patches and fixes - until 2019?
I personally still use win-98 (with KernelEx API enhancement). I'm typing this post now on a win-98 system (with 2 gb installed ram - thanks to a simple patch to a few .vxd files).
Anyone who follows the technical press lemmings advice about constantly needing to follow Macro$haf't s instructions to upgrade must take the Micro$oft motto to heart:
"If it works, it's not complicated enough."
The Windows-NT line of operating systems: Like the emperor's new clothes - woven from the finest, most expensive threads.
Again , MS makes me itch all over. I simply believe they should be reigned in solid . When the company decides to unilaterally end support i'm tempted to make the car analogy. If a car maker comes and tells me .. you spend 20K on this little car but in 10 years your car is scrap because we will cut the supply of parts and you will have to buy a new one i'm not sure people will be buying those cars. Specially if the model has been out for 9 years. That one pays full price for a product due to be shelved don't make ANY sense. For operating systems , even more so. We work on the machines and they are bread and butter for companies. The investment in time , resources is way too high to gamble on an operating system that the supplier can , at will , decide to stop support ( no more parts ) .
Is it time to move on ? Yes .. but can we ? No . There's too much stuff companies use that have no equivalent yet that can run on a different OS for say Linux .
Whatever way you look at it , MS has got the general computer users by the ba*** and until legislation is in place to protect the computing industry and users from their tactics we're screwed .
I would not have a problem with them ending support if at the end they would open source the software so we can fix it , but i do oppose , in the strongest terms being screwed by MS having to buy over and over again for software that's going to be crap a few years down the road while the machine we bought and on which the software was installed at the factory still runs and does the job it was intended to do .
Too early for a scotch dang it .. MS is driving me nuts .
"leaving IT to figure out how to secure Windows . . . and secure funding" to do so.
This is different how? Even if you switch to the new O/S the day before it is released, it is still up to IT to secure the company networks, data, and users. Just because you buy the O/S (be it MS, Linux, Unix, Apple) does not mean that you are magically protected. Less so, for the most part.
So that argument doesn't fly.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
