[oldschoolh4ck3r]

I still see businesses using CP/M and DOS! And they are doing well, too. Most I've seen use Windows XP. In fact, NONE have used Windows 7. Why would they bother with Windows 8 if even Windows 7 is more than they need?

[LiveBrianD]

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

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.

What do you mean no native DVD support? I assume you're talking about how it can't burn DVDs and it lacks DVD codecs unless you use 3rd party ones. As for the limited core support, what are you talking about? Vista and 7 are better at taking advantage of multi-core systems, but that's about it. And for ISO handling, keep in mind that even Windows 7 can't mount ISO files. (come on, they finally put in support for mounting VHDs, so why didn't they add in ISO mounting capabilities while they were at it?)

[waldojim]

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

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.

Ok, you win with native DVD support. Everything else, shows how little you understand. 4GB memory limit applies to Windows Vista, and 7 as well. Assuming you are foolish enough to use the 32bit versions of each. There is this wonderful version of XP called "XP X64" that supports up to 16GB of ram. XP also supports 8 cores just as easily as Windows 7, it just doesn't know how to make the best use of those cores. Then again, 7 doesn't either. For TRUE multicore support, you need Windows 8. Lack of ISO handling? What on earth do you want? It does what most people need it to do - BURN THEM.

[waldojim]

PCWorld, on 24 May 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

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

So, you want Microsoft to convince businesses to migrate to an OS that has not been released? Am I the only one who doesn't want to burn MS at the stake over Windows 8?

[rcm0502]

TsarNikky, on 24 May 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

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.

To make full use of Metro, companies would have to undergo yet ANOTHER hardware refresh to permit touch-capable laptops and tablets as few desktop monitors utilize touch.

Metro does not really fit in with typical business workflows such as entering and managing data so the desktop interface should still be available

[rcm0502]

JimH443, on 25 May 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

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?"

+1

That's the only good use for Win8 IMO.

or if you have smartphones or tablets deployed within your organization

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 26 May 2012 - 04:20 AM, said:

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

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.

Ok, you win with native DVD support. Everything else, shows how little you understand. 4GB memory limit applies to Windows Vista, and 7 as well. Assuming you are foolish enough to use the 32bit versions of each. There is this wonderful version of XP called "XP X64" that supports up to 16GB of ram. XP also supports 8 cores just as easily as Windows 7, it just doesn't know how to make the best use of those cores. Then again, 7 doesn't either. For TRUE multicore support, you need Windows 8. Lack of ISO handling? What on earth do you want? It does what most people need it to do - BURN THEM.

Keep in mind that the 64-bit versions of XP were never all that well supported though (drivers, you can't run MSE or Office 2010, etc), since it was a bit of a special market at the time. And also, remember, the ISO burning feature was only added in Win7, not XP.

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 26 May 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

Keep in mind that the 64-bit versions of XP were never all that well supported though (drivers, you can't run MSE or Office 2010, etc), since it was a bit of a special market at the time. And also, remember, the ISO burning feature was only added in Win7, not XP.

I keep seeing that lie spewed everywhere - usually from people who never used XP X64. As someone who HAS used XP X64 on everything from my Athlon 3700+ through my Core 2 quad, sorry, but driver support was NEVER an issue. Nor was Office. Did I run 2k10? Nope, but then again, I don't have to buy every shiny thing that comes out. I also use my own A/V software, and wouldn't know about MSE. Now, if all you can do is find a couple MS packages that were crap to start with, then I think you need to reconsider your argument a bit.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 26 May 2012 - 08:53 PM

[robbieremlap]

Lately MS has been producing many, many security updates for XP; I reject most of them. Like snowflakes, day by day these eat up reserve space. If these all are really necessary, why were they not offered in the earlier XP days?
Does anyone else have the impression that MS is "stuffing our storage" to make older computers with less storage run slowly and thereby produce a desire to exit to a newer OS?

[robbieremlap]

AaronSuzuki, on 25 May 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

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.

[brutis65]

Maybe if Microsoft could let us directly upgrade from Window XP to Windows 7 without headaches, companies would embrace the transition. Microsoft fell short on this idea.

[LiveBrianD]

brutis65, on 28 May 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

Maybe if Microsoft could let us directly upgrade from Window XP to Windows 7 without headaches, companies would embrace the transition. Microsoft fell short on this idea.

I think companies tend to deploy disk images for OS upgrades though, with their custom configurations and all, so it doesn't really matter.

[bobc4012]

ronin7752, on 24 May 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

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!

Why wait 10 years to switch to Linux. Just do it now. After all, Microsoft will be causing migration headaches every few years. As far as XP being dead, it seems Windows 7 still uses a lot of the base code from XP. As far a Windows 7 security updates, I'd say 90% or better of the updates are for security. It does not speak well of Windows 7. I can see the same argument a couple of years down the road to move from 7 to 8 or9. The way I see it Microsoft is caught in a dilemma. It built its Windows base on GIGO to start. To do it properly would require a complete rewrite and major incompatibilities, which would open the door for users to migrate to Linux at a much faster rate. Unlike IBM, Microsoft is pretty much a S/W only company (at least in the business world). Once it loses that base to Linux (and other systems) its revenue diminishes significantly. BTW, IBM also pushes Linux along with its mainframe (and S/W) and services - if it made a concerted effort, it could speed up the transition to Linux in the business environment.

This post has been edited by bobc4012: 28 May 2012 - 09:09 PM

[wth1954]

rcm0502, on 26 May 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

TsarNikky, on 24 May 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

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.

To make full use of Metro, companies would have to undergo yet ANOTHER hardware refresh to permit touch-capable laptops and tablets as few desktop monitors utilize touch.

Metro does not really fit in with typical business workflows such as entering and managing data so the desktop interface should still be available

No, you just turn it off if you don't want it or you click the tiles with the mouse.

My wife, who I'll put into the large pool of "typical casual users" looked at the W8 demo with the tiles on the screen and said, "that makes a lot more sense".

Whether us more technically inclined like it or not, most users these days use their computer in whatever format, to email, browse the net and message. Just look at PC World. Years ago it was all about the latest graphics chip, CPU, HD. Today the vast majority of articles are on phones and tablets.

[ZacharyFerreira]

ivorycruncher, on 25 May 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

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

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

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.

The thing is by 2014 Win7 will already be getting old. Win7 hit stores in 2009, by 2014 it will already be 5 years old so it'll have five, six years; most businesses will start replacing their systems then a year or two later, then they will have win7 for three four years then they will have to upgrade. Why not upgrade to win7 now? Win xp and win7 are pretty similar, and besides most people have a win7 as a home computer.

Another you mentioned is all the things removed by Microsoft for win8 yet the things that you mentioned are mostly still there. The new start menu us extremely user friendly, especially when you use every feature. Businesses I think will be preferred to Win8 rather then Win7. This is my view using win8 developer and consumer previews and loving it!!!

[bobc4012]

ZacharyFerreira, on 31 May 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

The thing is by 2014 Win7 will already be getting old. Win7 hit stores in 2009, by 2014 it will already be 5 years old so it'll have five, six years; most businesses will start replacing their systems then a year or two later, then they will have win7 for three four years then they will have to upgrade. Why not upgrade to win7 now? Win xp and win7 are pretty similar, and besides most people have a win7 as a home computer.

Most everyone I know with a "home PC" is still using XP, not Windows 7. They only use Windows 7 when they have a H/W failure and it costs more to fix than to buy a new cheap one for $300 - $400. If they can't get the old one fixed at decent cost they stay with XP. Besides, all they typically do is send e-mail and browse the internet. Just because Microsoft says XP is dead, doesn't mean it can't be used as long as the H/W keeps working (or is easily replaced). I have both XP (lap-top) and Windows 7 (had to buy a new Desktop - cheaper than replacing 3 boards and a P/S). So far, I have found Windows 7 to be a piece of crap. It continuously crashes, I spend more time in repair mode in 8 months than I did in 8 years with XP. Of course, if I want reliability, I use Linux (Ubuntu 10.04) on an even older Toshiba lap-top. My son-in-law works in IT and his company is still primarily on XP. They have run into too many migration problems and are taking the slow approach to moving to Win. 7. They have spare PCs that they can replace any unfixable H/W. There may be even bigger problems with Windows 8. My one son works in the medical field and a lot of the doctors bought I-Pads. The I-Pads ow sit home as the doctors found them worthless for data entry (which was a primary reason to buy initially - small and convenient compared to a lap-top until you are sitting with a patient trying to enter data).

[JimH443]

bobc4012, on 31 May 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

I have both XP (lap-top) and Windows 7 (had to buy a new Desktop - cheaper than replacing 3 boards and a P/S). So far, I have found Windows 7 to be a piece of crap. It continuously crashes, I spend more time in repair mode in 8 months than I did in 8 years with XP.

I don't know why you're having a problem. I've had Win 7 for 9 months, and it hasn't crashed yet. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of XP. I was kicking and screaming as I was dragged away from it... but being able to use 16GB of RAM with no hassle is nice. Once I got used to having freaking icons stacked in the task bar (instead of one text tab per program instance as I had it set in XP), I got used to it.

I still hate the idea of "pinning" - it seems every time I want to copy/paste from one program to the next, I have to play a game of "tag" on the task bar in order to convince Win 7 that I really DO want it to open the window of the task that I'm chasing down there.

[bobc4012]

JimH443, on 01 June 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

I don't know why you're having a problem. I've had Win 7 for 9 months, and it hasn't crashed yet. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of XP. I was kicking and screaming as I was dragged away from it... but being able to use 16GB of RAM with no hassle is nice. Once I got used to having freaking icons stacked in the task bar (instead of one text tab per program instance as I had it set in XP), I got used to it.

I still hate the idea of "pinning" - it seems every time I want to copy/paste from one program to the next, I have to play a game of "tag" on the task bar in order to convince Win 7 that I really DO want it to open the window of the task that I'm chasing down there.

I am running an Acer Desktop with 4GB of Ram and a 1TB HD (Partitioned - 500GB for the C: and 250GB each for the other two). I use Avast and Zone Alarm and run MSE, Malbytes, CCleaner, Glary and Advanced System Care regularly along with Defragging. More often than not, it hangs on shutdown. I have shutdown, gone to bed and found it still shutting down the next day. I have to power off and then restart and go through a "repair routine" - just starting up and logging in to my "non-admin ID, hangs unless I go back and "clean up" with my Admin ID. Quite often, I need to go through repair mode to get things working. In 8 months, I have seen the BSOD a few times (both the "Blue" and even a "Black" - appropriate, leaving one "Black and Blue"). One suspicion I have is Microsoft does not play nice with other S/W. I use Firefox, Google Chrome and Opera as browsers. I also use VirtualBox, which guarantees a Windows shutdown hangup. This is in addition to the periodic freezes where I end up having to power off (even waiting to the next day). At least with XP, it was rare that I couldn't break in with "CTL-ALT_DEL" - Win. 7 just plain freezes.

Actually, I find the "pinning" one of its best features. I also use Linux and Gnome 2 allowed for panels (which I had both top and bottom). I found them quite convenient to pin "launchers" that I used periodically. General usability problems with Windows 7 is when I sort a folder, it always resets and sorts in descending order rather than ascending (which I prefer). At least with XP, it didn't change to order that you selected. I also had instances where I copied files to an external HD, flash drive (or even to one of the other partitions), only to find that Windows 7 only copied the links (no copies of the files from the original folders) - a surprise when I plugged in to my lap-top and found only "links". I have run into other surprises and nuisances. When I scan the forums and blogs, I see others who have experienced similar or the same problems. I also noticed that (my estimate) the bulk of the regular Windows 7 updates are security fixes. So much for being more secure than XP.

Lately, I just go into VirtualBox and use Ubuntu (10.04 or Mint and XFCE) with WINE, DOSBox and DOS Emulator. I find the same browsers actually run faster in a Virtual Disk environment than native under Windows 7 and with less problems. Once the warranty has expired, I'll probably scrap Win. 7 and dual-boot XP and Linux. BTW, I tried to install Windows 8 (both Developers and Consumer Review) into a VirtualBox and neither would install (even after redoing the downloads). I was able to install ReactOS (the freeware version/clone/whatever of XP) and try it. Unfortunately, it still has a few glitches (it was the "pre-made" VirtualBox download - haven't tried the ISOs nor a straight install of XP).

[LiveBrianD]

bobc4012, on 02 June 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

I am running an Acer Desktop with 4GB of Ram and a 1TB HD (Partitioned - 500GB for the C: and 250GB each for the other two). I use Avast and Zone Alarm and run MSE, Malbytes, CCleaner, Glary and Advanced System Care regularly along with Defragging. More often than not, it hangs on shutdown. I have shutdown, gone to bed and found it still shutting down the next day. I have to power off and then restart and go through a "repair routine" - just starting up and logging in to my "non-admin ID, hangs unless I go back and "clean up" with my Admin ID. Quite often, I need to go through repair mode to get things working. In 8 months, I have seen the BSOD a few times (both the "Blue" and even a "Black" - appropriate, leaving one "Black and Blue"). One suspicion I have is Microsoft does not play nice with other S/W. I use Firefox, Google Chrome and Opera as browsers. I also use VirtualBox, which guarantees a Windows shutdown hangup. This is in addition to the periodic freezes where I end up having to power off (even waiting to the next day). At least with XP, it was rare that I couldn't break in with "CTL-ALT_DEL" - Win. 7 just plain freezes.

Actually, I find the "pinning" one of its best features. I also use Linux and Gnome 2 allowed for panels (which I had both top and bottom). I found them quite convenient to pin "launchers" that I used periodically. General usability problems with Windows 7 is when I sort a folder, it always resets and sorts in descending order rather than ascending (which I prefer). At least with XP, it didn't change to order that you selected. I also had instances where I copied files to an external HD, flash drive (or even to one of the other partitions), only to find that Windows 7 only copied the links (no copies of the files from the original folders) - a surprise when I plugged in to my lap-top and found only "links". I have run into other surprises and nuisances. When I scan the forums and blogs, I see others who have experienced similar or the same problems. I also noticed that (my estimate) the bulk of the regular Windows 7 updates are security fixes. So much for being more secure than XP.

Lately, I just go into VirtualBox and use Ubuntu (10.04 or Mint and XFCE) with WINE, DOSBox and DOS Emulator. I find the same browsers actually run faster in a Virtual Disk environment than native under Windows 7 and with less problems. Once the warranty has expired, I'll probably scrap Win. 7 and dual-boot XP and Linux. BTW, I tried to install Windows 8 (both Developers and Consumer Review) into a VirtualBox and neither would install (even after redoing the downloads). I was able to install ReactOS (the freeware version/clone/whatever of XP) and try it. Unfortunately, it still has a few glitches (it was the "pre-made" VirtualBox download - haven't tried the ISOs nor a straight install of XP).

You do NOT want multiple security programs installed. (Avast, Zone Alarm, AND CCleaner? Note: Malwarebytes is an on-demand scanner, so it's ok.) Also, tools that claim to improve your system's performance are usually junk. I've never had those kinds of issues on my Win7 system.

Also, if you try Windows 8 in a VM, you might want to try Vmware Player (it seems to work better with it - just tell it you're running Windows 7 as the guest and vmware tools and all will work perfectly).

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 02 June 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

You do NOT want multiple security programs installed. (Avast, Zone Alarm, AND CCleaner? Note: Malwarebytes is an on-demand scanner, so it's ok.) Also, tools that claim to improve your system's performance are usually junk. I've never had those kinds of issues on my Win7 system.

Also, if you try Windows 8 in a VM, you might want to try Vmware Player (it seems to work better with it - just tell it you're running Windows 7 as the guest and vmware tools and all will work perfectly).

You do realize that all three of those offer different types of security, right? I used to run the exact same mix, until I figured out I didn't need Avast or CCleaner.