PCWorld Forums: What Windows 8? Microsoft Pushes Xp-to-win 7 Migration - PCWorld Forums

Post your comments for What Windows 8? Microsoft Pushes XP-to-Win 7 Migration here

WinXP is not "antiquated." If it were, businesses would not be using it.

tonyatn, on 24 May 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

Actually, I think it fits. Merriam-Webster lists the definition as:

1. Outmoded or discredited by reason of age
2. Being out of style or fashion
3. Advanced in age

XP fits numbers 2 and 3, and it's starting to slip into number 1 as well. Businesses are still using it because it's massively expensive to upgrade and requires a lot of work and retraining...not because it's still a current system.

Do they actually expect business to deploy Windows 8 with the metro UI, causing a big loss in productivity among employees? Besides, many of them haven't even fully deployed Windows 7 yet. At my school, half the machine STILL run XP. Heck, a few of the machines in my family are still Pentium 4 XP boxes (sometime I'll get around to replacing them...).

Once businesses have Windows 7, there will be no reason to go to Windows 8. Microsoft is fooling itself if they really think people sitting at desks with keyboards and mice want to use the Metro interface. The only way Win8 will do well in business is if there is a simple off-switch or an automatic bypass of Metro to take you straight to the traditional desktop, which is what the huge majority of Windows computer uses are familiar with.

scophi, on 24 May 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Technically true, but a bad definition. 1.) Age does not by itself automatically make anything outmoded or discredited. 2.) Style and fashion are irrelevant to business -- unless you're in the fashion business. 3,) (See counterpoint #1)

Also technically, nothing is "outmoded" unless it lacks "modes" that you want and need. That is why XP is not "antiquated" for those who don't want to upgrade.

This post has been edited by ronin7752: 24 May 2012 - 04:28 PM

My recommendation:

Migrate to Windows 7 now. It will probably serve as well as XP (probably better) for the next ten years.

Then you can switch to Linux!

BThorn, on 24 May 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

Switching between the two is easy. Metro is for basic users, and the classic desktop is for advanced users that need heavy multitasking capabilities. Of course, this makes upgrading to Windows 8 over 7 pointless for business users, but I don't think businesses are what Microsoft is targeting with Windows 8, hence their push for 7 adoption.

The title is very misleading.. The prospective demand of consumers and enterprises of these two OSs at release are analogous to comparing apples and oranges. Honestly, what company in their right mind would deploy Win8 at release? F'n ridiculous..!

Once businesses have Windows 7, there will be no reason to go to Windows 8. Microsoft is fooling itself if they really think people sitting at desks with keyboards and mice want to use the Metro interface. The only way Win8 will do well in business is if there is a simple off-switch or an automatic bypass of Metro to take you straight to the traditional desktop, which is what the huge majority of Windows computer uses are familiar with.

The question asked earlier "Yes, but how does Windows 8, with its radically redesigned Metro interface, fit into the business-upgrade cycle?" Is answered by "It doesn't." Metro is for smartphones and tablets, not for laptops and desktops on which the vast majority of business activity is performed.

BThorn, on 24 May 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

Ah, someone else is suggesting the "simple off-switch" to bypass the Metro UI. It appears that MS is so enamored with smartphones and tablets that they refuse to put in a simple Registry file entry that would do that for those of use using laptops and desktops.

Didn't Microsoft say just yesterday that the Win7 UI was "cheesy"? Today, they want people to migrate to it.

Correct, WinXP isn't antiquated, plus Admin work on Windows 7 is a nightmare.

ronin7752, on 24 May 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Some points:

1) The word 'antiquated' fits. It is outmoded, it lacks current fashion, and it is advanced in age. You can't just decide that the meaning of a word isn't what you like and then change it. The three definitions I listed ARE the definition. So the use of the word by the author of the article is correct.

2) Being antiquated has nothing to do with a person's wants. Saying it's not antiquated because users don't want to upgrade makes no sense. That just means more and more users are keeping an antiquated system.

3) Fashion is not important in the tech industry? Please. Apple has made an industry off fashion. Microsoft just made a statement about Aero looking "dated and cheesy". Appearance is very important if you want to sell products.

4) XP has limitations that are keeping it from being useful in a modern setting (such as no native DVD support, 4GB memory limit, limited processor (core) support, and lack of ISO handling) which makes it "outmoded". Whether or not you use these features doesn't mean that they don't count.

Now, I'll grant you that just because something IS antiquated it doesn't mean it's not still useful. I never said XP isn't still useful or usable. Utility and currency are not the same thing.

A 1968 GTO is antiquated, but it still rocks and can be used to drive around in. A wall-mounted telephone is antiquated, but it still works. Windows XP is antiquated, but it can still be used in simple settings (I am using it right now). But it is antiquated and becomes more so each year.

This post has been edited by scophi: 25 May 2012 - 04:26 AM

scophi, on 25 May 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

Sorry, just to clarify...

XP is not useful in a "modern" setting, but it's still useful in antiquated environments.

As I said, I am using it right now from work. But I recognize that the environment I work in is outdated and needs upgrading. There are things we can't do because we are using "outmoded" tech. We are working on that. So XP is good enough for now, but we acknowledge it's antiquity.

This post has been edited by scophi: 25 May 2012 - 04:36 AM

My previous posts were way off topic.

What I wanted to say is that I agree with the IDG analysis 100%. Sticking with XP is a bad idea, but so is switching to Windows 8.

I can't see Windows 8 being used in an office environment. Metro is simply not designed for efficiency or work flow and IT departments dread the idea of retraining staff on an entirely new GUI.

Windows 7 is the place to be.

Ahead of Win8 being available, Microsoft will continue to sound the drum for Win7 because the XP legacy is still so strong. The leap to 8 is going to be so big for end users that XP to 8 migration is a problem. You have to expect Win8 migration guidance to include a story about using Win7. Ultimately, if Microsoft doesn't get people onto 7, they know they won't go to 8 and they will miss a lot of revenue.

Customers are in no hurry. Microsoft has to create urgency through FUD like lost efficiency and wasted money by staying on XP. But I don't know many organizations that will change their strategy just because there is a white paper that says XP is costing them more. For the most part, the organizations still on XP and staying on XP are not waiting to migrate because they love XP. In most cases they are staying put because they have no choice due to the complicated set of applications they run and the migration barriers to get everything to run on 7. And, no, virtualization is not a terribly practical option due to cost and added complexity.

This is a long term challenge for companies that will haunt Microsoft for years to come.

About the only place where Win 8 might be appropriate for business use is on touch screen icon driven cash registers... followed by the question, "Would you like fries with that?"

GlenWelchs1ve, on 24 May 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Yes, Windows XP is without a doubt antiquated. That does NOT mean it's useless junk that has no business running on any computer anymore, like the Windows 9x line. It just means that with the rapid rate of technological progression, it is outdated, and newer, better options exist. Windows XP debuted in 2001, 11 years ago. In technology years, that's ancient history. From purely a security standpoint, Windows 7 is far, far, FAR more secure than Windows XP could ever hope to be, and from a usability standpoint, it's UI and handling of hardware and peripherals is far superior to that of XP's as well. Windows 7 also has superior administration capabilities than Windows XP. Yes, XP is antiquated, and it's definitely time to start retiring it, but it is still relevant, and not to the point where it's dangerous to continue using it. Once support has ended in 2014, then it will become critical for everyone to upgrade as new vulnerabilities are discovered at a time where Microsoft will no longer be patching them.

As for your comment about admin work for Windows 7 being a nightmare, such a statement tells me that you simply don't have a good understanding of the options available. I am a sysadmin for a datacenter full of virtual server farms running anything from Server 2003 through 2008 R2, with clients connecting to us running XP/Vista/7. Group policy administration and technical troubleshooting on 2008 R2 (the server equivalent of Windows 7) is a dream compared to Server 2003/XP, or even 2008/Vista. The updated set of group policies make administering and locking down servers and workstations alike a breeze, and the integrated troubleshooting utilities are far more advanced, making for much quicker diagnosis of things like performance issues. Even UAC (which I'm guessing is what you're referring to) is practically a non-issue once you understand how it works, and why it's necessary.

Back on the primary topic, I'm not surprised at all to see that Windows 7 is still being pushed. Home PCs are one thing, but businesses thrive on mission-critical applications that are most definitely not going to play nice with the Metro UI. In a business environment, drastic changes like this will be very, very slow, because it will take lots and lots of time to educate and train users on the new UI. And that doesn't even take into account technical backwards compatibility issues that most definitely come into play. IT techs who have gone through a migration from Office 2003 to the ribbonized Office 2007/2010 should have an idea of what a drastic UI change can be like. I personally think Office is much more user-friendly now, and Microsoft proved the need for a drastic redesign when they asked for feature enhancement requests at developer conferences, and the majority of those requests were for features that had already been implemented, some even several versions back. The fact is that some features were buried so deep that many didn't even know they existed. The point of the ribbon UI was to bring all those functions to the surface so that people can find and make use of them. However, it is still a challenge for people who've used the old menu-based UI for years to relearn all the functions engrained in the memories. Some people don't care about about new features or new ways of doing things, and instead are only frustrated when something they didn't perceive as broken gets "fixed."

There have been plenty of changes to the Windows UI over the years, but the same general concepts have persisted, such as the desktop, taskbar, start menu, control panel, Explorer, and so on. Metro is now taking over the UI to a point where many of those classic elements will be hidden or replaced. Will Windows in general be easier to use once Metro completely takes over? Quite possibly. But will those who have decades of experience with the classic Windows UI be quick to jump on such a drastic change? Doubtful. Still, there's nothing I can do to stop this change, so all I can do is make the best of it and continue supporting our clients as we inevitably migrate to this new platform. UI aside, there are some very interesting new capabilities coming in Windows 8/Server 2012 that I'm eager to make use of that are relevant to my line of work, so I'm doing my best to focus on those positive aspects. There will always be people opposed to change, and even people who don't mind change in general aren't going to agree with every change. But, that's life.