Re: Microsoft is Unrealistic
To an extent, you are both right. And wrong.
Treating the OS of a server in the same way as you treat a desktop OS is unrealistic on the part of both Microsoft and the users because a server is used in a completely different fashion. Moving from one OS to another can take a lot of effort, not just on the part of the OS developer but the developers of any software related to that server. OK, such simple items as file server and print servers are pretty simple to sort out but even then a wrinkle will occur that can stop a migration dead in its tracks.
I don't necessarily believe that an OS for a server needs to be supported indefinitely but having hard defined cut off dates can be a problem for any operator if an application or a driver just isn't there. Or indeed the budget for whatever replacement work is needed.
There also appears to be a habit of people assuming that an OS becomes a liability (or even unusable) the moment that support stops. As even Microsoft will admit, part of the security of any OS is related to the way in which the system has been set up and while they can advise on that, if it is done wrong then a Windows 2012 Server can be as much of a liability as an NT4 box. W2K3 isn't going to be a major problem as long as it was configured correctly in the first place, though I agree that it isn't something I'd leave in a sensitive area indefinitely.
The question, therefore, isn't that the W2K3 installations are there, but whether they are doing anything about it. (Of course, as someone else pointed out, one solution is to pay for the extra support...)
Biting the hand that feeds IT
