Getting the most for your money.
You must be working for the NHS. They are so disorganised, they still use WinXP and 5 1/4" disk drives.
When that 5 1/4" floppy might be part of a machine that costs £1,000,000 to replace it has little to do with being disorganised but more to do with budgets and getting the most out of what money you do have to spend. While the NHS may have hundreds of thousands of discrete PCs running word and Excel, some computers are embedded into imaging systems and replacing a old PC that has specialised software that won't run on newer hardware and the developer 'went bust' or was 'taken over' or just isn't interested if it's older than five years, then spending £1,000,000 to update just one system isn't good use of tax payers money. However if there is a definite clinical advantage to that update then that's a different story.
And to be fair to Microsoft, which I rarely am, they did provide 20-30 security updates to XP and later versions of Windows when the NHS suffered from that Malware attack. My point being it wasn't just XP that had the vulnerability but later versions of Windows too so do you keep replacing that £1,000,000 machine every 5 years? Even if it works perfectly well otherwise.
Still want to spend billions updating expensive hardware to fix vulnerable Microsoft software?
Yea, the NHS still run XP because they are disorganised. NOT!
Biting the hand that feeds IT
