Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JimH]

If you have an XP machine that is connected to any network, it is probably wise to upgrade the OS now.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/27/internet-explorer-security-exploit/#continued

It's probably going to get worse.

[Krazykanuck]

I just wish it was a simple as upgrading the O/S.
I would also need to upgrade our ERP system, Solidworks, Gibbscam etc.
I'm looking at $400,000

I have been telling my boss for a few years it was coming but as a small business that's a lot of cash to put out to replace something that is working just fine.

[JimH]

You could suggest that the company could disconnect from the Internet.  That might get his or her attention.

[6233638]

 I think that's the only realistic solution - machines which need to run legacy software, should not be allowed internet access.
 
Another thing I've seen a lot of people's IT do is upgrade XP machines to Windows 7, which seems short-sighted to me.
7 is going to have a shorter lifespan than 8, so there will be less time before having to upgrade again.
 
 
But apparently no-one listens to the IT guys when they warn that the company has to roll out upgrades before the OS is discontinued - several governments are paying Microsoft millions of dollars for extended support.
I read an article which said that the British government were proud that they managed to "save" the public millions by putting the request through as a single entity rather than each department handling it separately.
 
Of course what they didn't say is that they still have to pay for the upgrades next year, or buy another year of extended support.

[BryanC]

I just wish it was a simple as upgrading the O/S.
I would also need to upgrade our ERP system, Solidworks, Gibbscam etc.
I'm looking at $400,000

I have been telling my boss for a few years it was coming but as a small business that's a lot of cash to put out to replace something that is working just fine.

You can look at XP embedded, which will have support until 2016 or the infamous point-of-sale XP that is supported until 2019 that has received a lot of press lately.

[Krazykanuck]

Win 7 support runs to 2020 right now so I can't see Win 8 until after I'm gone.

My boss reads the news so he is aware of the issue. He also knows the cost to upgrade.
The problem in this case is that all versions of IE are affected so even if we had upgraded we would still be at risk.

[6233638]

Win 7 support runs to 2020 right now so I can't see Win 8 until after I'm gone.

Mainstream support ends in 2015, extended support is until 2020 - but that's less than six years from now.
 
Windows 8 has another three years on top of those. (2018/2023)
Considering how reluctant or slow so many businesses have been to move away from XP, the extra three years support seems worthwhile.

[Hendrik]

The problem in this case is that all versions of IE are affected so even if we had upgraded we would still be at risk.

Well, except that IE on all newer platforms will be patched shortly, on XP ... who knows, quite possible not.

[JimH]

My boss reads the news so he is aware of the issue. He also knows the cost to upgrade.

The cost of not upgrading could be worse.  Target's loss of customer credit cards, for example, may have reduced the company's value by 10%.

I don't want to appear to be on Microsoft's side about this.  I'm not.  But given their decision to end support for XP, customers will have to make difficult decisions.

[glynor]

Mainstream support ends in 2015, extended support is until 2020 - but that's less than six years from now.

Windows XP Mainstream support ended in April 2009.  And that date, much less the extended support period that just ended, was extended several times from the original plan.

I wouldn't hold your breath for Windows 7 support to end next year (whatever they call it).  If If enterprise adoption of Windows 8 doesn't pick up (from, effectively, zero), it could outlast Windows 8 itself.

[6233638]

I certainly hope not. I'd like to think that people would have learned their lesson after this, but perhaps not.

[Krazykanuck]

Just remember it's IE that's the problem here not XP.
If I could just uninstall IE I wouldn't have an issue today.
I can tell people to use chrome or firefox, actually chrome seems to be the preferred browser here, but I can't enforce it.
I still have issues with software that is coded to use IE instead of my browser of preference.

I'm not saying that we don't need to hitch up the horses and get moving but I have to deal with a mayor who likes it where he is.

As far as where we move to I'm not sure what lesson I should have learned I'm at 10+ years with XP.
If I move to Win 7, which I think is where most business will move to, I expect I'll get 10+ years out of it as well.
I think Win 8 is a couple of point releases away from real business acceptance.

[jrobbins]

I have one PC with JR19 on it that still runs XP.  I note that the home page of JR19 is a webpage.  Is that IE powering that page?  If so, is there a way to cause JR19 to use Firefox instead, as I'm assuming that opening JR19 on an XP machine is the same as opening IE on the same machine?  Or am I wrong?  Thanks in advance for the thoughts.  JCR

[JimH]

You can switch the browser engine to Chromium in MC's settings.  I'll move this to a new thread in a day or two.

[Vocalpoint]

Mainstream support ends in 2015, extended support is until 2020 - but that's less than six years from now.

Well - Windows 7 is THE standard now. Our company (10,000 users worldwide) has already told Microsoft straight up to pack sand on Windows 8. And with our enterprise agreement - we could theoretically purchase whatever Windows 7 support we need past 2020 to ensure everything is solid.

The cost to upgrade our company - (we are small in my eyes) would be in the multimillions to move from Windows 7 to Windows 8. Jeez - we still have XP boxes kicking around and haven't completed a full move to 7 yet. When millions of dollars are on the table - companies tend to stay with what works.

VP

[6233638]

The standard for what? People afraid of change?
 
Of course if these are older machines already running 7, it doesn't make sense to upgrade from 7 to 8.
But if you are replacing XP machines with something new, it would be a lot smarter to get Windows 8 machines when there will be an additional three years of support.

[glynor]

People afraid of change?

Change == cost.

Cost in time.  Cost in effort.  Cost in support.  Windows 8.1 with Update 1 is getting there, but I'd still recommend against us deploying it at our company (which has around 1500 desktops, though only 45% of those, and falling, are Windows).  Not that it matters much what I'd suggest, as we're far away from being in the place where we could deploy it to regular users.

There are all sorts of problems, but the simplest ones are the ones that would probably have the biggest cost.

If you don't work front-line support, you couldn't possibly know, but... You change anything and it leads to support calls.  We're dealing with all sorts of users, from janitors to physicists to programmers (IT people are the worst, for support, by the way).  But, silly things like an application having a different icon when updated to a new version?  Yeah, we'll get calls.  Flooded with calls if it is the wrong application.  When Windows decides to resize the desktop and move all of the icons around on people?  Yep, we get calls.  The vast majority of users out there really have no idea what a filesystem is, or what file types are, or extreme basics like that.  Anything moves at all, even positioning, and it causes support requests.

They're silly calls, and easily resolved.  But, each one takes a finite amount of time, for two or three workers.  All of that unproductive time adds up, and for what benefit?  Like basically all enterprise customers, we're a volume license customer.  It costs us nothing to go with Windows 7 now and upgrade later (probably not until Windows 8 is far in our rearview mirror), as you're just swapping one seat license for a different license.  Upgrading a user from Windows XP to Windows 7 is pretty painless from a training perspective.  There is some legwork you have to do if it isn't a new machine, of course, but aside from that, you can usually upgrade them and you don't hear back right away.  Stuff is "close enough" to the same that most people figure out what they need to get their work done.  We can hold the version of IE back and block it from upgrading (and block them from using it for non-Intranet purposes).  Many of those same systems are no longer easy (or possible at all) on Windows 8.

But even ignoring compatibility concerns, the UI of Windows 8?  Dear lord, it would be chaos of epic proportions.  We'd have to spend all sorts of time doing preparatory training presentations (which only a handful of people will come to, and worse, it'll be the people least likely to need the help anyway who come).  We'd have to hire consultants to write up training documentation for our Intranet, not to mention publish additional applications in Citrix because there are some things that Just Won't Work on Windows 8 that do on Windows 7 (in a real enterprise you deal with all sorts of applications that require ancient versions of all sorts of things... Just look at SalesForce and Lawson, both of which require IE 8, which makes me angry to no end).

So... The cost is massive, it would be decidedly unpopular, and it gains us nothing in the end.

Which is why... Windows 8 was doomed from the start in the Enterprise.  It is amazing that Microsoft pushed it out as they did.  But, alas, lesson learned, and they have the resources to sustain the hit.

But... That percentage of Windows machines deployed here keeps falling.  It was closer to 75% just a few short years ago.

[MrC]

The standard for what? People afraid of change?

You may not be aware of the business purchase life cycle, and the long lead time and expense imposed by vertical software developers, software upon which businesses rely and which typically works / is qualified for a given platform.  Windows 8 was not a reality when some of these businesses started creating their future purchase budgets.

And given that an OS platform can have a 5-10 year life span for a corporation, the third party may no longer be in business to support an update in any case.

The new OS software is not the only expensive; there is also OS qualification, vertical software updates, training, roll-out, and support.

Its a very big, expensive, risky endeavor for businesses to make these OS leaps, and they only do it when there is absolute need.

[MrC]

But, alas, lesson learned, and they have the resources to sustain the hit.

Do they... do they learn?  Almost like, as if by fiat, essentially every other major OS release by Microsoft has been a disaster.

There's a lot of hubris and customer disconnect in Redmond, and due to marketplace dominance, it didn't matter.  Always has been - it was the nature of Bill.

[Vocalpoint]

The standard for what? People afraid of change?

Nope - the standard for people who pay the (big) bills. As long as they can outfit the company with software that gets their work done in an acceptable amount of time - that's good enough.

Corporations do not sit and stare at Windows 8 computers and salivate. They could care less about 3 extra years of support, new or fancy. What they want is mature, reliable and cheap to service. Something that requires no new hardware and certainly no new training.

In others words - "Welcome to the company - your desk is right here - log on and start working"

VP

[6233638]

OK, that's fair I suppose. I was being a bit flippant with my comment about being afraid of change.
 
However, even Windows 7 is quite a change from XP for inexperienced users - at least in its default configuration.
 
Surely you can deploy a build of Windows 8.1 that is pre-configured to boot to desktop with all the hot-corners disabled, the old text-style taskbar icons, and work-related applications pinned to the taskbar?
Then it is essentially the same as 7 set up to look like XP.
 
Is ~2 years not long enough to do serious testing on rolling out Windows 8?

But... That percentage of Windows machines deployed here keeps falling.  It was closer to 75% just a few short years ago.

I'm extremely surprised that you find it easier to migrate away from Windows (to OS X?) than go from XP to Windows 8.

essentially every other major OS release by Microsoft has been a disaster

This is only true if you pick and choose and disregard many releases to fit your list.
Many people don't seem to recall what it was like when XP launched. It was only around SP2 that it started gaining acceptance.

[Vocalpoint]

OK, that's fair I suppose. I was being a bit flippant with my comment about being afraid of change.
However, even Windows 7 is quite a change from XP for inexperienced users - at least in its default configuration.

We haven't had a single user require any training on 7 that I am aware of. Nor do we offer any. The expectation is that if you get hired here - you already know the desktop. And we roll out 7 in a defualt mode.

Surely you can deploy a build of Windows 8.1 that is pre-configured to boot to desktop with all the hot-corners disabled, the old text-style taskbar icons, and work-related applications pinned to the taskbar? Then it is essentially the same as 7 set up to look like XP.

Our IT took one look at Windows 8 when it was released and immediately dismissed it. We actually wipe all new PCs that shipp with it and immediately image them with our standard Windows 7 build. Even today - as good as 8.1 "might" be - no one here will look at it again. Especially with a full blown Win 7 rollout wrapping up. IT has clearly stated that Windows 7 is the standard for the foreseeable future. I don't blame them - they do not want to deal with that mess and Windows 7 does the job without fail.
 

Is ~2 years not long enough to do serious testing on rolling out Windows 8?

Again companies like ours (and others much bigger) do not look at this as a "test". Our company could care less if Windows 8 is good or not. All they know for sure is that Windows 7 is solid, easy to support (which means less dollars) and doesn't require anyone getting/needing new hardware - so what's not to like?

In business it's Safe. Mature. Reliable. And as cost effective as possible. Windows 8 is none of these and never will be (unfortunately).

VP

[6233638]

Our IT took one look at Windows 8 when it was released and immediately dismissed it. We actually wipe all new PCs that shipp with it and immediately image them with our standard Windows 7 build. Even today - as good as 8.1 "might" be - no one here will look at it again. Especially with a full blown Win 7 rollout wrapping up. IT has clearly stated that Windows 7 is the standard for the foreseeable future. I don't blame them - they do not want to deal with that mess and Windows 7 does the job without fail.

It's literally a handful of options that you set in the group policy editor to have it act just like Windows 7.
This should be easy to deploy as the default state of your Windows 8 build.
But this is exactly what I mean about people afraid of change or being set in their ways. It's often IT that is the problem.
 
As you put it, they took one look and immediately dismissed it.
 
I understand that you wouldn't want to deploy Windows 8.0 in its default state with all its hot-corners enabled or booting to the Start Screen (though I actually haven't encountered any regular users that have had difficulty with that - only "IT types") but it's trivial to fix before you deploy.
 

Again companies like ours (and others much bigger) do not look at this as a "test". Our company could care less if Windows 8 is good or not. All they know for sure is that Windows 7 is solid, easy to support (which means less dollars) and doesn't require anyone getting/needing new hardware - so what's not to like?

In business it's Safe. Mature. Reliable. And as cost effective as possible. Windows 8 is none of these and never will be (unfortunately).

Windows 8 has even lower system requirements than 7.
The 8.1 update actually reduced the system requirements even further.
 
Companies that are going to migrate to 7 seem like the ones which are going to encounter the exact same issues they're facing today when 2020 comes around.

[kstuart]

One might think that the support for XP that Microsoft is continuing to supply to the UK might end up on the Internet somewhere.

[MrC]

Is ~2 years not long enough to do serious testing on rolling out Windows 8?

I think you're being a little too glib, and are missing the point.   By your reasoning, companies should have migrated to Vista.

Companies want to see proven success first, before they waste time and energy moving forward.  It can take several years of success with the new OS before confidence is achieved.  Windows 8 is still not there.

[Vocalpoint]

But this is exactly what I mean about people afraid of change or being set in their ways. It's often IT that is the problem.

I don't see it as a problem with IT or anything else. They want reliable and something that just works. They have no time to get fancy - this is not like you and I testing MEdia Center on a new Win 8.1 PC - this is 10000 PCs with 10000 users. It makes perfect business to me and keeps me in profit share. The last thing I want our company doing is buying more PCs we don;t need and then trying to sell those to the masses with a dog like Windows 8 on it.

Companies that are going to migrate to 7 seem like the ones which are going to encounter the exact same issues they're facing today when 2020 comes around.

Well - Windows 7 usage far outstrips Windows 8 and that OS will be dead soon anyway. Bottom line - our company doesn't exist to keep Microsoft shareholders happy nor do we feel any need to buy their 'latest and greatest". We will probably be looking at Windows 11 before switching again.

VP

[6233638]

I think you're being a little too glib, and are missing the point.   By your reasoning, companies should have migrated to Vista.

I don't mean to sound glib, nor do I think companies should have been migrating from XP to Vista.
Companies have to migrate away from XP now because it is no longer supported and is likely vulnerable if it's connected to the internet.

They should have had a planned rollout, and completed months ago.
With a plan like that, I can certainly see why you would migrate to Windows 7.
 
For the companies that have held on so long now that they are still running XP today and "rushing" to upgrade their systems, I don't see why you would upgrade to 7 when 8 is already available and will be supported for an additional three years.
 
2020 is only five-and-a-bit years away now - XP has been running in many of these companies for twelve. (probably a year or two less if you count validation & testing)
So if they've stuck with the same OS for 10-12 years, why upgrade to one which will be unsupported in five, rather than one which will be supported for eight years or possibly longer? (often a service pack release will extend support - SP1 added two years to Windows 7)

The last thing I want our company doing is buying more PCs we don;t need and then trying to sell those to the masses with a dog like Windows 8 on it.

I think you may be misunderstanding my position.
I am not saying that anyone running Windows 7 should be upgrading to Windows 8.
I am saying that anyone looking to upgrade from XP should be moving to 8 rather than 7 - because the system requirements are lower, and if you've held off the upgrade this long, you will probably need the additional three years of support.

Well - Windows 7 usage far outstrips Windows 8 and that OS will be dead soon anyway.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle
 
Windows 8 will be supported until 2023. It's not going to be "dead soon" at all.
And again, these are all the same things people said about XP back when it was first released.
As I said previously, it was not until ~SP2 that people took it seriously.
 
Windows 8 update 2 is going to see the return of the Start Menu, so perhaps then it might start to be taken more seriously, as XP was.

Bottom line - our company doesn't exist to keep Microsoft shareholders happy nor do we feel any need to buy their 'latest and greatest". We will probably be looking at Windows 11 before switching again.

OK, perhaps the situation is different when you're a volume license customer and buying keys in bulk. A Windows 8 license is actually cheaper than Windows 7 for a regular consumer. (and has been from day 1 - it is not a reaction to the OS)
 
If you buy Windows 7 licenses - even at the same price as Windows 8 licenses, your next upgrade will be three years sooner.
Seems like that would be the option keeping the Microsoft shareholders happier.

[glynor]

I'm extremely surprised that you find it easier to migrate away from Windows (to OS X?) than go from XP to Windows 8.

Our Macs tend to:
* Last longer
* Are generally easier to support
* Not have as many issues with software upgrades

We've always had a pretty large (compared to other companies, I'm sure) Mac install base, because we're a scientific institution, and science has long-been the land of Macs.  However, we've seen a pretty dramatic shift over the past four years or so... The biggest thing?  The executives started switching, and there's a ripple effect.  Of our Senior Management Team, I believe there are only two Windows users left (the CFO and the head of our "Development" group that interacts heavily with the government).  The CEO, COO, CIO, and General Manager of Operations all switched within the past 2-4 years*, and the other three "science" positions were already Mac users.

So, for example: the COO switched, so his Admin did, and then his direct-reports did, and so on and so forth.  And people see things in person.  I do a lot of meeting support so I see one small (but big) thing all the time: Windows users have difficulty hooking up to external displays and projectors, Mac users just plug in.  All of our Macs basically work the same way, but we have three major brands of Windows laptops (older Dells, Lenovos, and now HPs), and even within those brands (and with our standard image) none of them work the same.  The hardware device drivers, keyboard "special keys", and all sorts of similar things are different, even from one HP to another.

It slowly-but-surely frustrates people.  And then, there's the virus problems.  While Macs are by-no-means immune, some simple things do make it safer.  So many of the tools people use on Windows require Power User or Admin privileges (which is terrible), but since OSX can elevate when needed, you don't have that problem on Macs.

And, then there's Windows 8. I don't think it helped matters at all.  There's been a definite mentality of: If I have to switch anyway, I'm going to switch to a Mac and just have a nicer computer.  It applies even with people switching from a Lenovo to a HP, but I don't think the PR "black eye" of Windows 8 helped at all (even though we aren't deploying it, except in limited cases).

I've even overheard our CFO (of all people) complain that she'd prefer to switch to a Mac, if Lawson worked natively on it (which the next version will, supposedly) and if Excel for OSX wasn't such a POS (it is, but the rest of the Office suite on OSX is good now).

It has been a bit like a tidal wave that started with a trickle, much to the chagrin of the Microsoft-loving IT folks who have been burying their heads in the sand for way too long.  Heck, even the sysad who runs our Active Directory and Exchange servers has a Mac laptop now, and he's said (quietly): "This thing is actually pretty nice. I'd rather have Windows on it, but... It is a nice machine."

* Incidentally, or perhaps not, every single one of them was an iPhone user before they switched.

[glynor]

Do they... do they learn?  Almost like, as if by fiat, essentially every other major OS release by Microsoft has been a disaster.

There's a lot of hubris and customer disconnect in Redmond, and due to marketplace dominance, it didn't matter.  Always has been - it was the nature of Bill.

I'll quote a song:

Besides, maybe this time is different
I mean, I really think you like me

The dominance is over, and I think they're starting to accept it.  If you count Smartphones and tablets as computing devices (and doing anything else is stupid), then Windows is already down around 30% of the market.  They seem to finally see the world for what it is now.

We'll see. No matter what, it will be an interesting ride.

[Vocalpoint]

So if they've stuck with the same OS for 10-12 years, why upgrade to one which will be unsupported in five, rather than one which will be supported for eight years or possibly longer?

Simply because Windows 7 behaves exactly like XP and is much closer in fit and finish than 8 every will be. Plus - you are not seeing this from the enterprise level. We can buy as many licenses and as much support as we need - for however long we want. Support for 7 ending in 2020 means nothing to our company. If we want Windows 7 until 2023 - we can buy our way there. Trust me when I tell you that is a lot cheaper than the overhead and pain in buying 10000 PCs with Windows 8 on them.

I think you may be misunderstanding my position. I am not saying that anyone running Windows 7 should be upgrading to Windows 8. I am saying that anyone looking to upgrade from XP should be moving to 8 rather than 7 - because the system requirements are lower, and if you've held off the upgrade this long, you will probably need the additional three years of support.

Again - missing the point from a hardware and usability angle. We want to be able to instantly repurpose an XP box into a Win 7 box in like minutes. Hand it off to an employee - they click the Start menu, fire up their apps and away they go. We do not want to deal with Metro, or Start screens or anything at all to do with supporting Windows 8, it's drivers or it's UI. It's all about turning an XP box around fast and not spending a dime doing it. And finally - we do not care about when support starts or ends - if we need support or more of it - that is all part of our enterprise agreement.
 

Windows 8 will be supported until 2023. It's not going to be "dead soon" at all. Windows 8 update 2 is going to see the return of the Start Menu, so perhaps then it might start to be taken more seriously, as XP was.

All I meant here was that Win 8 is "dead" in the public eye. It's clearly not selling, offers little to no reason to upgrade and with MS already talking Windows 9 - even they want to put it in the rear view mirror as fast as possible. Consumers still have to tolerate it since they have little choice when they buy a new PC. However - when we buy new PCs - Windows 7 Enterprise comes standard and Windows 8 is nary a thought.

Gotta say tho - I also find it astounding that in my fairly wide circle of friends, colleagues and studio pros/voiceover gang that I interface with - I honestly cannot name a single resource as of today that actually runs Windows 8. It's either a Mac or Windows 7 Pro. You would think if Win 8 mattered - at all - after 2 long years - someone that I actually know - would have it.

If you buy Windows 7 licenses - even at the same price as Windows 8 licenses, your next upgrade will be three years sooner. Seems like that would be the option keeping the Microsoft shareholders happier.

With our enterprise program - Windows 7 licenses are in a limitless supply and we upgrade when we are darn good and ready to. Not when some support timeline passes. We could easily buy enterprise XP support right now and run that old dog for however long we need to.

But Windows 7 is ideal for us now and is where we will stay until we see a real good financial and business reason to change. That keeps our shareholders happy

Cheers!

VP

[glynor]

What I find most disappointing about it is...  Metro is, on its own, pretty good.  It is an excellent piece of engineering, without a doubt.  And, for once, Microsoft finally took design with vision seriously.  And Metro is, again, on its own, quite innovative.  Definitely a version 1.0 product, but a decent effort, and showed they really could have their foot in the game.  And, incidentally, I think it could (with a bit of tweaking) work spectacularly in a form-factor like the XBox, so they had that potential tie in too.

But here's the rub: they made the engineers staple it to a tepid refresh of Windows 7, like some kind of monstrous beast, forcing all existing desktop users to compromise (laughably billing it as "No Compromises").  And then, for their pièce de résistance, they tried to "deprecate" the Desktop and the entire Win32 API.  This one choice (One Windows To Rule Them All) resulted in:

* Metro was behind where it needed to be to truly compete with iOS and Android.  It wasn't complete, for a touch-based device, at all.

* They alienated their core constituencies: developers and enterprise IT stooges.

* They burned all of their hardware partners.  And I mean well before the Surface.  I mean all of them who tried to build what Microsoft wanted them to build (convertable things, bad at being both laptops and tablets, largely) and they flopped.  Which made the market, the next year around, revert back to boring (and still crappily made) traditional PCs.

* They made IT people like VP, traditionally their biggest fans, say stuff like that.  Yes, people have been saying that about every Microsoft OS since the dawn of Microsoft OSes.  But this time is different, and everyone knows it.

* It prevented them from really accomplishing the main benefit, to regular people, of iOS (and, to a lesser degree, Android): simplification.

Those people I mentioned above, who if you tell them a file is in their Home Directory, or on the //imaging_science/ share that look at you with blank faces?  That use Word as their operating system?*  People for whom if you move a file off of their Desktop and into a folder on their hard drive that's effectively the same thing as deleting it?  To all of those people, the iOS "lack of a file system" is a Very Good Thing.  To nerds like us, it ticks us off, because we know it is there (but hidden and we're blocked from using it), and some "nerdly" tasks (and some regular ones too) would be so much simpler if we can just use the paradigm we understand almost instinctively.  But that very thing is, I'm convinced, a symptom of the larger issue that blocks huge portions of the population of Earth from learning to use technology.  It is technology for engineers, built by engineers.  Starting that "over" was absolutely the most important thing Apple did with iOS.  Microsoft could have used Metro to try to tackle some of these difficult issues (which will take years to solve, and many iterations).  But, instead, they punted, and got out the sutures.  They made it worse and more confusing, not better.

This stuff was, by no means, their only problem.  They were already very late.  They owed a massive strategy tax "debt" due to their "partners" (ASUS, Dell, HP, acer, and all the rest) making horrible, cheaply made, customer-hostile products for years and years.  The race to the bottom.  At first people thought "Wow, I can get a laptop for $280!"  But those were NOT good products, and they had Microsoft Windows branding right there on them.  For years.  You don't get to do that and not expect it to have an impact.  They had exceedingly insular teams, a crippling process (and poisonous work environment driven by gaming the system and backstabbing), and then... They decided it would be a good idea to stop listening to developers and feedback (pulling an Apple, without all the other Apple-y goodness).

But, if you could somehow turn back time and show them the future, and convince someone (anyone) to make Surface with Metro a completely separate product, with no desktop, and leave Windows alone (unifying the overall "flat" look a bit and whatnot, much like they did, but without stapling the two together and deprecating one for the other)...  Not version 1.0, and not 1.2 even, but version 2.0 would have been pretty darn compelling and they'd have been in the fight.  But, the marketing guy was in charge, and so... They had to "leverage their strengths" (and make everyone angry and disappointed in equal number).

I am, not at all, convinced by the inevitability of convergence.  Tablets are, and will certainly continue, eating away the low end (formerly netbook) market of PCs.  Because that's what it is.  People screamed for Apple to do a netbook for years and years, and they did, called the iPad.  That doesn't mean that iPads will replace powerful workstations, or high-end laptops.  They never will, that's not what it is about.

* I know a few people who open all files (PDFs, Images, and even occasionally DOC files) on their computers by first opening Word then going to File > Open, and opening them from there.  This actually works, because Word uses the system Open dialog, and happily opens anything you ask it to (in an associated application if it can't open them natively).  I think they do this largely because it automatically shows their Documents folder, but mostly because normal people don't get the file system.  At all.  Learn one trick, and repeat.  Like it is voodoo.

[glynor]

I'd also like to add...

While it isn't a good situation, at all, if you are using a Windows XP box at home as your primary computer for regular home-user computer-y tasks.  That's fine right now (as long as you don't use IE, which would have been decent general advice anyway), but soon enough as the 0-days keep coming, it won't be safe at all, and all too soon.

However, I think a lot of the "scare" out there (which Microsoft's marketing people are happy to encourage) is way overblown.  Essentially all of the critical security vulnerabilities found in Windows XP in all of 2013 can be mitigated by two reasonably simple precautions:

* Do not run as an administrator (this mitigates, by itself over 90% of the critical vulnerabilities from all of 2013).
* Do not run IE (this mitigates the remainder, essentially), or lock it to only those sites where it is deemed necessary.

Both of those things are difficult-to-impossible for the average home user, but gravy to an IT department with Active Directory, Security Policies, and System Center.  XP, in an enterprise, used responsibly (not on a mobile device that will leave the corporate firewall) is perfectly fine, and will probably remain so for years to come.  We may need to, over time, take additional enhanced precautions if the machine is used for "traditional" users.  You might have to turn off a service here, or tweak the registry there, and block them from doing dumb things (and stay vigilant).  But even that will become increasingly rare (most of ours are still in service because they are attached to something that has drivers or software that can't be upgraded, or for which it is not economical to replace them for this kind of reason) via natural attrition.  When the others above mentioned using Windows 7 for 10 years or whatever, they're (mostly) not talking about using it on the same PCs for 10 years.  They're talking about using it as a platform for more than a decade (for all the reasons MrC mentioned).  The machines themselves have nowhere near that lifespan (especially laptops, which get beat to snot in three to four, usually).

If you're in a small shop with no volume licenses (but you should really look into it if you're approaching medium sized, when you factor in all the other "hidden" costs, it makes way more sense financially), then... Well, maybe.  But a small shop also feels the pain of additional support requirements much more acutely.  Otherwise, I like it at home, but Windows 8 has only very niche opportunities in the enterprise, and I don't see that changing for at least another 2 years.

[JimH]

I vote for glynor for CEO of Microsoft.  The world would be a better place.

[6233638]

Our Macs tend to:
* Last longer
* Are generally easier to support
* Not have as many issues with software upgrades

Well 1 & 3 are certainly true. I moved all of my family over to Macs early (as soon as the original Intel MacBooks were released) because they were not really computer users at the time and did not really have much knowledge of computers either way.
 
I'm sure I've posted about it before, but I've managed to keep one of those machines running (probably 7/8 years old at this point) because they are more reliable in general, but parts are also still available for them. Try finding parts for a specific 8 year old Dell or HP machine. (though they could probably run Windows 8 rather than being several OS releases behind...)

I'm not sure I agree about being easier to support though.
When something software-related does go wrong with the Macs, I generally find them to be a much bigger headache to sort than Windows. When things work, they tend to be a lot less problematic though.
 
 
But I had really meant that if you have users which would struggle to move from XP, that I was surprised that they made the transition to OS X easier than a newer version of Windows. (either 7 or 8)
While I don't think OS X is difficult to learn, it's certainly far more different than even moving from Windows XP to 8.

Windows users have difficulty hooking up to external displays and projectors, Mac users just plug in.

Huh. That surprises me because OS X has always given me more trouble with external displays than Windows has. But any trouble at all has been rare. The biggest issue is the box full of adapters I have to keep around for the Macs.

All of our Macs basically work the same way, but we have three major brands of Windows laptops (older Dells, Lenovos, and now HPs), and even within those brands (and with our standard image) none of them work the same.  The hardware device drivers, keyboard "special keys", and all sorts of similar things are different, even from one HP to another.

That's not something I had really considered before but that's a good point. Even within the same company things are different across each model in the PC space. Just look at what Lenovo are doing with the ThinkPads.

So many of the tools people use on Windows require Power User or Admin privileges (which is terrible), but since OSX can elevate when needed, you don't have that problem on Macs.

Well isn't that what UAC and "Run as Administrator" is for? Or do you mean something else?

Heck, even the sysad who runs our Active Directory and Exchange servers has a Mac laptop now, and he's said (quietly): "This thing is actually pretty nice. I'd rather have Windows on it, but... It is a nice machine."

This is actually the biggest problem, and why I have been saying that Microsoft needs to get into hardware for years now.
 
There are no premium products in the PC space that are trying to compete with Apple.
There are expensive products, but nothing with the attention to detail, design, and build quality of the products Apple is putting out now.
It has taken them a long time to get there (my old Powerbook G4 was a flimsy piece of crap that just happened to be made out of a nice material) but they are now years ahead of everyone else.
The only thing the PC-space seems to be trying for is creating cost-reduced Mac-clones, or relying on gimmicks, rather than creating unique premium products.
 
One of the best things in the PC space right now is, of all things, probably the Razer Blade, which is a "gamer" product with an ugly aesthetic (just look at that keyboard font!) that is - once again - a Mac clone. Probably the most blatant Mac clone actually, and I'm sure you will really notice a difference in build quality between the two if you see them up close.
 
It's a shame that HP shut down Voodoo PC.
I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall the Envy 133 being a better machine than Apple were offering at the time - though it did still have the same problem as Razer, and only offered a gamer aesthetic. (stupid fonts on the keys etc.)

Incidentally, or perhaps not, every single one of them was an iPhone user before they switched.

That doesn't surprise me at all.

Simply because Windows 7 behaves exactly like XP and is much closer in fit and finish than 8 every will be.

The only meaningful difference is Start Screen vs Start Menu. You never have to see the Start Screen if you set things up with your applications already pinned to the taskbar, and in my experience, most users find the start screen easier to use than the start menu. It's the "power users" who dislike it.
 

All I meant here was that Win 8 is "dead" in the public eye. It's clearly not selling...

Yes, it's clearly dead and not selling at all with only 200 million licenses sold.
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2014/03/28/dont-believe-the-windows-8-failure-hype/

With our enterprise program - Windows 7 licenses are in a limitless supply and we upgrade when we are darn good and ready to. Not when some support timeline passes. We could easily buy enterprise XP support right now and run that old dog for however long we need to.

Again, it sounds like you have already migrated over to 7 a long time ago. Which is completely irrelevant to my point.
 
This is about institutions which are still running XP on all their machines, not ones who already have an enterprise license for 7 and have already migrated most of their machines over.
 
Of course there's little reason to move from 7 to 8, or move your last remaining XP machines over to 8 if the majority of your systems are already on 7.

Those people I mentioned above, who if you tell them a file is in their Home Directory, or on the //imaging_science/ share that look at you with blank faces?

We can still dream, right?

To all of those people, the iOS "lack of a file system" is a Very Good Thing.  To nerds like us, it ticks us off, because we know it is there (but hidden and we're blocked from using it), and some "nerdly" tasks (and some regular ones too) would be so much simpler if we can just use the paradigm we understand almost instinctively.

I actually think the balance lies between the two.
The iOS sandbox is stupidly limiting. Why is there not a central document repository like there is for media?
Why do I essentially have to create duplicate copies to "move" a document between apps?
 
On the other-hand, the current desktop filesystem is a mess.
I shouldn't have to know where files are on my PC.
 
Let people organize them via folders if they like, but I should just be able to type what I'm looking for and bring it up immediately.
 
OS X seems to be doing a lot better job of surfacing this than Windows right now.
Windows supports things like file tagging, but in OS X it's easily surfaced. I can tag files in any location as "work" and simply click the work label in Finder to display any work-related document.

But, if you could somehow turn back time and show them the future, and convince someone (anyone) to make Surface with Metro a completely separate product, with no desktop, and leave Windows alone (unifying the overall "flat" look a bit and whatnot, much like they did, but without stapling the two together and deprecating one for the other)...  Not version 1.0, and not 1.2 even, but version 2.0 would have been pretty darn compelling and they'd have been in the fight.  But, the marketing guy was in charge, and so... They had to "leverage their strengths" (and make everyone angry and disappointed in equal number).

No, I actually think they had the right idea with what they did. Having all devices run one operating system and be able to run any apps is the best solution.
However, the state it was released in, and how it was implemented was the wrong approach.

OK, you won't want to run desktop apps on your phone - at least not yet (just wait until your phone does everything and simply docks to a display to become your PC) but at least they now have tools to build universal Metro apps that will run on any device.
 
And sure, I barely touch any Metro apps (unless you count the Start Screen an "App" in itself) but there are a couple that I do use, and it's better for that.
 
One of the things I miss on OS X is the option of running iOS apps on the Macs.
Sure, a lot of tablet apps don't work well on the desktop - but there are some which do, and for those, it's a much better experience than not having access to the app at all.
 
Another thing I've seen quite a lot recently is that my father, who now uses his iPad more than anything else, will occasionally touch the screen on his MacBook Pro and wonder why it isn't working.
And he's not the only person I've seen do this.
 
While you aren't going to use touch all the time on the desktop, for things like accepting or hanging up a Skype call, it seems to be more intuitive to simply tap the incoming call button than use the trackpad.

[Vocalpoint]

Yes, it's clearly dead and not selling at all with only 200 million licenses sold.

Important note - these "sold" license totals are very very different from "in use". "Sold" figures always includes all those licenses sitting on devices that may never be sold/used and most certainly millions of OEM licenses that may never be installed.

Real world usage stats are here:

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

Windows 8 usage (real world) is about 3% higher than Vista in March 2014. That is not saying much. Win 7 is at almost 50% of all Windows usage - that is a very big number.
 

Again, it sounds like you have already migrated over to 7 a long time ago. Which is completely irrelevant to my point.

We are migrating from XP as I type this. Far from done.

VP
 

[glynor]

I'm sure I've posted about it before, but I've managed to keep one of those machines running (probably 7/8 years old at this point) because they are more reliable in general, but parts are also still available for them. Try finding parts for a specific 8 year old Dell or HP machine. (though they could probably run Windows 8 rather than being several OS releases behind...)

Yep.  Though, not always.  I've encountered lots of hardware device driver issues with machines designed for XP. Most of these prevent Windows 7, but some are specific to Windows 8.

I'm not sure I agree about being easier to support though.
When something software-related does go wrong with the Macs, I generally find them to be a much bigger headache to sort than Windows. When things work, they tend to be a lot less problematic though.

Hah.  Definitely depends what you're used to, and most experienced in troubleshooting.  I find OSX much simpler because:

* It is UNIX, so the command shell is much more capable, and it includes things like Perl out-of-the-box if you need to write more complex scripts.  Of course, Windows does have PowerShell (and VBScript) out of the box, but I'd rather use things I already know, and have known for years (which means, I end up doing it in VBS on Windows, which is annoying).

* AppleScript, ARD, and Automator can each be EXTREMELY handy.

* Better hardware breaks less and the fact that they're all exactly the same (or close enough except for minor iterative OS revision differences).

* Imaging a mac means copying a disk.  It is simple, extremely reliable, and can be done (live) with free tools that work well.

* It isn't just hardware quality that is better.  The average software quality is better too.  Better software is better, and breaks less.  Now, that certainly comes with a cost (there is less "medium-quality" GUI OSX freeware than there is on Windows), but you get what you pay for.  I'd much rather support someone using OmniGraffle than Visio, for example.  Transmit is better than Filezilla (which is also available for OSX, but people use Transmit because it is nice).  And so on and so forth.  There might be a little less total software available for OSX, but the average quality of it is much higher.  And, that doesn't even mention that they have so much high-quality software built in (iPhoto and iMovie are two huge examples) that you don't need to buy much else.

* And, if it is freeware you want, macports.  Again, OSX is UNIX.

* The confluence of Registry Settings, Local Security Policy, AD Security Policy, AD Group Policy, and local group policy creates all kinds of headaches for us here.  If you're able to image all of your machines and have total control, then I suppose it is fine, but in my world that is unrealistic.  For example, I have a machine I've been working on for 5 months now that can't use certain of our network shares.  It is baffling.  We have two nearly-identical HP Z620 workstations connected to fancy 1/2-million-dollar microscopes.  One works fine.  The other works fine when you connect to certain network shares (such as a vanilla one you make on your Windows desktop).  It also works fine when connected to our fancy shares for the HPC cluster.  But, our "regular" NetApps shares, it can see, but can't access any files on (Windows Explorer hangs when you try, and times out with a generic I/O error after a LONG time).  I've seriously had every sysad here, and a whole bunch of us desktop folks all beat on it.  We cannot figure it out.  I'm sure it is some esoteric combination of group policy, local security policy, and registry settings (something dumb set by the vendor, I'm betting) messing it up.  I'd love to just re-image it. I'm sure that would solve the issue, but it would break the scope completely (which, among other issues, has a hardware dongle and a license tied to the motherboard and who knows what else).  The only way we can get a new image on it is to pack the whole thing up, send it to Germany, and wait 6 weeks for the vendor to image it and send it back.

This happens to us all the time.  There are too many ways to do everything on Windows, which is a million points at which something can go wrong.

I completely agree that getting your AD set up to handle Macs nicely can be a bit of a pain.  But once it is done, it is done, and then they're extremely well behaved network clients (since roughly Snow Leopard, before that it was a horrorshow).

But I had really meant that if you have users which would struggle to move from XP, that I was surprised that they made the transition to OS X easier than a newer version of Windows. (either 7 or
While I don't think OS X is difficult to learn, it's certainly far more different than even moving from Windows XP to 8.

I think that my point above about software quality is the difference.  Most users don't learn the OS.  To them, there is no distinction between the OS and the applications they use.  Most of our support queries from switchers have been about Office (and stupid Excel, mostly).  Thank god they killed Entourage...

But aside from that... Firefox is still Firefox.  The dock is simple enough to understand, and you throw the Applications folder on the Dock and it acts like a Start Menu.  Meh.  Not a huge amount of trouble, aside from Office power users (the Admins complain about the differences in Outlook, which I hope improves with the next release).

Well isn't that what UAC and "Run as Administrator" is for? Or do you mean something else?

Unfortunately, that doesn't work for lots of software out there.  We still have a ton of software deployed that even having UAC turned on at all breaks completely.  Run as Administrator support is extremely spotty (even MC doesn't behave well with that).

OSX doesn't have that problem.  Basically, the only reason we'd ever have to enable Administrative privileges for OSX users is if they need to install software all the time (or if they're a POSIX nerd).  Hell, I've seen WEB APPLICATIONS on Windows that require Admin privileges.  Windows 7 and 8 are much better than XP in this regard (Vista was somewhere in the middle), but it is still problematic.

Huh. That surprises me because OS X has always given me more trouble with external displays than Windows has. But any trouble at all has been rare. The biggest issue is the box full of adapters I have to keep around for the Macs.

Oh, dear lord no.  Perhaps if you're only using external desktop monitors with digital connections, that is the case, but analog VGA connection support and behavior is extremely inconsistent on Windows.  Do you do Function-F4 to enable the external display, or Function-F7?  Or do you have to go into the Windows Display Settings?  Or the GPU control panel?  Which GPU do you have, and what version of the driver do you have and oh crud, Intel changed their GPU driver interface for the 800th time, yay.

And EDID support on Windows is basically universally terrible with analog outputs.

Sure, you can get an 800x600 image, probably shifted partially offscreen (cutting the start button or clock in half), but if you want it to actually look right on your 1080p projector, on a Mac it is super-simple: Plug in the MiniDP connector.  Maybe, just maybe, if you're weird, enable or disable mirroring (which is always done exactly the same way on every machine and which hasn't substantially changed in 10 years).

On Windows, if I'm on the phone with the user (and not in person)?  I'm trying to remember which specific Lenovo POS they have, so I can tell them what to do and not have to walk there.

I agree about the dongles.  I have a big box of dongles right here next to me.  But, thankfully, they've been using MiniDP now for 5 years?  6?  I don't know, it has been a LONG time, and the older ones with DVI and MiniDVI and all the other weird things Apple tried in the bad old days are long gone.  The "old dongles" box hasn't been opened in quite some time.  I've affixed MiniDP > VGA adapters to all of our cabling in the conference rooms.*  Problem solved.

I agree completely with you on the hardware discussion.  No need to say more there.

I'm out of time to respond to the rest, but I generally agree on many things... Like I said, I like Windows 8 at home.  I actually LIKE the Start Screen quite a bit (the All Applications page, however, is a POS).  But... I do need to respond to this, just to needle you a bit:

The only meaningful difference is Start Screen vs Start Menu.

And the dumb charms menu.  

We've discussed it before.  Thankfully you can finally shut the PC down without going into the stupid hidden charms menu.  But, even this, they were somewhat dumb.  It shows the Power Button.  Mostly.  Well, sometimes.  It depends on the hardware you have.  GAHHHHH!!!! STOP IT STUPID MICROSOFT!  MAKE THINGS THE SAME!

* I have a pretty clever, and cheap, solution for this.  Ask if you want to know.

[BryanC]

Windows 8 pushed our lab to migrate to Debian, not necessarily because we were forced to (we still had valid XP and 7 licenses), but rather we had an epiphany that we were at the mercy of a UI design team tailoring its product for consumption and not production. As a scientist that's a real hard pill to swallow and almost a slap in the face as a 'power user.'

"Yes, we know that production of ideas and products are the roots of a strong economy and we can support that endeavor by selling an intuitive platform on which to build those ideas as we have done in the past. But instead we'd rather chase the short-term dollars for our shareholders by selling 1,000,000 copies of Angy Birds using our new apps ecosystem and forcing that ecosystem on consumer and enterprise users alike."

[6233638]

...scripting...

Well I don't really equate that with troubleshooting. It might be useful in your day-to-day work I suppose.
 
As for the rest of your points, well I can't argue against your experiences.
I guess our experiences and the issues we've just had to deal with have been quite different.

Oh, dear lord no.  Perhaps if you're only using external desktop monitors with digital connections, that is the case, but analog VGA connection support and behavior is extremely inconsistent on Windows.  Do you do Function-F4 to enable the external display, or Function-F7?

They've standardized on Win+P since Vista haven't they? (or was it 7?)

And EDID support on Windows is basically universally terrible with analog outputs.

Well it has been a long time since I last had to use VGA connections. I don't recall them causing me problems in Windows, but I do remember having a hell of a time getting VGA to work correctly on the Macs via DisplayConfigX - because like so many things on OS X if it doesn't work right away, it's a right pain to fix.
 
On Windows, the worst-case scenario with VGA that I encountered was typically having to install an INI file for a specific monitor to gain access to all the resolution options. Of course that in itself was not a great solution. But on OS X you had to figure out custom timings.

on a Mac it is super-simple: Plug in the MiniDP connector.  Maybe, just maybe, if you're weird, enable or disable mirroring (which is always done exactly the same way on every machine and which hasn't substantially changed in 10 years)

I agree about the dongles.  I have a big box of dongles right here next to me.  But, thankfully, they've been using MiniDP now for 5 years?  6?  I don't know, it has been a LONG time, and the older ones with DVI and MiniDVI and all the other weird things Apple tried in the bad old days are long gone.  The "old dongles" box hasn't been opened in quite some time.

That's true, they standardized on Mini DisplayPort with the Unibody MacBook Pros in late 2008 - but while that may have worked for you converting to VGA, those things have been unreliable for me with a lot of digital displays.
 
I guess it just depends what you end up connecting to.
P.S. Expect more adapters when Alpine Ridge ships.

But... I do need to respond to this, just to needle you a bit:

And the dumb charms menu.  

Disable it in your image?

Windows 8 pushed our lab to migrate to Debian, not necessarily because we were forced to (we still had valid XP and 7 licenses), but rather we had an epiphany that we were at the mercy of a UI design team tailoring its product for consumption and not production. As a scientist that's a real hard pill to swallow and almost a slap in the face as a 'power user.'

The desktop UI is basically unchanged, other than a few improvements in some areas. (mostly areas which power users would appreciate)
What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that they didn't take anything away with Windows 8. (though they replaced the start menu with the start screen)
 
Still, moving to open source if it meets your needs is probably not a bad idea.

But aside from that... Firefox is still Firefox.

Not to take things off-topic, but... not any more.

[glynor]

P.S. Expect more adapters when Alpine Ridge ships.

I know... Ugh.

I've NEVER had to do any custom timings things with any machines (thankfully, since I'm often dealing with visitors with no admin access to their machines and for which I don't have credentials at all, and the keyboards/OS is often in Chinese).

But... Yeah, we still have analog cables everywhere because:

1. If you're going to a 1080p display, digital cables do not improve quality.
2. The shortest cable run I have in a conference room is 75'.  The longest is 1500'.  Nuff said.

[glynor]

I guess our experiences and the issues we've just had to deal with have been quite different.

It sounds like much of your corporate Mac experience has been with outsiders (or outside machines, anyway) and older stuff.  I remember things in the "bad old days", certainly (though Windows had problems then too, of different sorts).  But since Leopard and Snow Leopard, they've really been, for most things, extremely well behaved.

But... There is a different way of doing things.

PS. No need for anything fancy to get to custom timings and resolution settings on OSX.  Hold Option when you open the Displays Preferences Panel.  Anything else, which you'll essentially never need unless your stuff in the room is badly broken, is accessible through a Defaults Write command at the terminal.

[glynor]

Not to take things off-topic, but... not any more.

Yeah.  I'm hoping they back down.

[JimH]

Engadget.com reports that Microsoft is providing updates to IE now, and including XP.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/msrc/archive/2014/05/01/out-of-band-release-to-address-microsoft-security-advisory-2963983.aspx

[Krazykanuck]

I don't think Microsoft could risk people migrating from IE in this age of the browser.

[kstuart]

Microsoft blinked.

My XP system just received a Security Update for Internet Explorer.

[glynor]

Microsoft blinked.

Yep.  Totally predictable. 

[Hendrik]

Considering its an IE update and not a update for Windows itself (strictly speaking), it may have been an exception to the rule, I wouldn't take it as a sign of anything really.