Survey: 48% of IT pros to stick with XP after support expires

Microsoft plans to discontinue support for Windows XP in 2014, some 13 years after the operating system first launched. One might assume that most users will have moved on by then, but plenty of businesses will still be running the OS according to the results of a survey conducted by Dimensional Research. The group polled nearly 1000 IT professionals, and 48% of them plan to keep using XP after its support period expires.

Interestingly, the cost of upgrading doesn’t appear to be a factor. According to Dimensional Research, "IT simply thinks [XP]’s a great OS, one that’s still working for them." Small and large businesses alike are reportedly intent on staying with XP, as well.

I’m all for sticking with what works, and Windows XP certainly does. The same goes for older versions of Office that lack the much-reviled ribbon interface introduced with Office 2007. However, I wonder if the same IT pros surveyed will still be reluctant to upgrade to Windows 7 in a few years’ time—provided, of course, that Win7 continues to prove itself as the best Microsoft OS since XP.

Comments closed
    • warhead
    • 9 years ago

    Interesting. I’d like to actually see the full study. Most of the comments here seem to be about personal preference. Things to take into consideration:

    1. Size of the organizations polled. 48% of 950 businesses might actually include many small businesses with under 20 employees, where everyone is responsible for their own stuff (maybe one IT member)
    2. If a deployment of any kind in a large corporation (hundreds of users) is up and running, in general, it will stay that wayas long as it’s making money, and the software they use doesn’t change. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
    3. The article went on to say that adoption of Windows 7 is going as planned, and at the rates expected.

    I don’t find any of this too surprising. Business leaders don’t want to spend the capital for unnecessary upgrades, especially when it’s entirely a captial expenditure with no proven productivity benefit.

    Again, most of this discussion seems to be about personal issues, not business needs.

    • Shining Arcanine
    • 9 years ago

    Windows 2000 was the best Microsoft operating system ever. Windows XP was a few steps forward and a few steps backward. It has been downhill from there.

      • Frith
      • 9 years ago

      I’m glad somebody else thinks this. Windows 2000 was fantastic because offered the stability of NT and the application compatibility of 98 while running extremely fast due to the lack of bloat. When XP came out I couldn’t believe how slow it was in comparison while offering very little of benefit over 2K.

      Windows development was complete with Windows 2000 and all Microsoft really had to do was update it for newer hardware (e.g. larger hard drives, more than 4GB of memory). The problem is that to keep making money Microsoft have to keep releasing new versions, but they’ve got no idea how to improve Windows beyond what 2K offered. Now they’re just changing things so they can say it’s now and better, though the changes they’ve been making since Windows 2000 have actually been making the operating system far worse. The Windows 7 interface is an absolute abomination and the Office ribbon is even worse, as in both case they’re provably less effective and less consistent than the old interfaces.

      Unfortunately Microsoft will continue to change things just to release a new versions, and with each new version things are going to get worse. The biggest disaster in the computer industry was when IBM abandoned development of OS/2. IBM tend to be interested in what customers want, unlike Microsoft who just release whatever crap they’ve made and use their monopoly to force it on the market. If IBM had kept developing OS/2 they could have taken a massive chunk out of Microsoft’s market share when Vista came out and another large chunk when XP support ends. Sadly, they did abandon OS/2, so we’re just going to get stuck with whatever shit Microsoft feel like releasing. The only hope now is that Linux reaches a usable state by 2014.

        • Joel H.
        • 9 years ago

        Right, right. Because clearly, everything that needed to be developed and integrated into a modern OS in 2010 was in place back in 2000. Security flaws in IE4 or IE5? Whatever could a person mean?

        Just because you have no use for computer technology invented since 2000 doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t. Do you *really* think that more efficient multithreading (including first support for HT, then support for today’s quad core / octal threaded CPUs) could’ve just been patched back in? What about the ability to drive multiple GPUs from completely different manufacturers that showed up new in Windows 7?

        Jump back to Win 2000 and we’ve got even less SSD support than currently, no built-in TRIM. There’s no Direct2D acceleration for modern browsers, no hardware-accelerated Flash video, no HTML5 support and no advanced system power management.

        Win 2K was a great OS. Remembered fondly. But when you try to claim it was the best OS for ALL TIME HEREAFTER you sound silly.

          • Frith
          • 9 years ago

          If you read my post you’ll have noticed I said “all Microsoft really had to do was update it for newer hardware”. Everything you say would come under updates for newer hardware (with the exception of your comment about IE, but IE is an application and not an OS component and really shouldn’t be included to begin with).

          Since windows 2000 there have been:
          -no improvements to usability (Windows 7 is far less usable)
          -no improvements to speed (Windows 7 is far slower)
          -no improvements in terms of bloat (Windows 7 is far more bloated with many more unnecessary components)
          -no improvements in terms of functionality (there’s nothing you can do on Windows 7 that can’t be done on Windows 2000)
          -no improvements to system stability (Windows 2000 was rock solid)
          -no improvements to security (yes, yes, I know Windows 7 is Microsoft’s “most secure operating system ever”, just like every other version)

          If instead of producing XP, Vista and 7 Microsoft had focused only on adding support for newer hardware in Windows 2000 we would now have a far better operating system. As it is they’ve done a lot of unnecessary work that has made things worse, and this work has been done solely in the interest of producing new versions to sell rather than improving the OS.

            • Joel H.
            • 9 years ago

            Frith,

            If you work in IT, you simply have to be aware that there comes a point when attempting to do new things with old software becomes a bad investment.

            I can grant that maybe the particular advances made between 2K and 7 aren’t changes that you value. That’s just personal opinion. But one the hallmarks of backwards compatibility is that instead of trying to shoehorn new capabilities into old systems, you take the old systems and you plunk them inside of a sandbox (where you then emulate old functionality as perfectly as is possible.)

            Windows 2000 Datacenter Server could handle up to 32 CPUs. A modern big-iron deployment can put 32 cores / 64 threads on *one* motherboard. Effectively handling so many threads isn’t just a matter of increasing the “max core count,” and I see no reason to suspect it’s functionality that could’ve just been patched into the OS.

            Its not your “no UI improvements” that floor me, it’s the “no improvements whatsoever.” It seems an odd position to take.

            • Flying Fox
            • 9 years ago

            Usability:
            – May be you were just too entrenched to the Win95 ways of GUI, I find the Spotlight-like menu better in usability. I don’t need to constantly organize my Start Menu
            – With 7 they finally make the Windows key a lot more useful
            – The MRU based start menu since XP can be a better experience

            Stability:
            – Moving video and sounds subsystem out of kernel mode
            – You may not have seen it, with each rev BSODs are less of an occurence

            Security:
            – Windows Firewall (since XP and has been improving with Vista and 7) enabled by default
            – No auto admin mode to get your driveby malware

    • MarkD
    • 9 years ago

    If you work for a publicly traded corporation, are you really going to stay on an infrastructure that will no longer have security patches created for publicly disclosed vulnerabilities?

    The IT guys might go for it, but the Finance guys and auditors will not.

    I’m typing this on XP at work. My systems at home are running W7 and Fedora 14.

    • clone
    • 9 years ago

    it could be just me but I’ve been having to deal with a lot of Gremlins since I upgraded to Win7 64bit premium.

    I’m not one to keep my PC on and in the beginning it would post 30% of the time without sound and the only way to get it was to restart despite Windows saying all was great and yes the volume was up and mute was not enabled.

    I’ve also found that Eset Nod32 fails to update about 40% automatically and fails about 2% to update at all until after a restart and while I never had the problem with Vista or XP I still blame the application for this problem.

    I’ve only been using Win7 for a month but I’ve had 2 lockups right after posting which was a rarity with Vista….. understand I never liked Vista even when I had it setup it always seemed sluggish and never really stopped with the minor annoyances associated with UAC but Win7 seems overkill on the UAC crap even when reduced it never stops being annoying, every app I launch will ask if I really want to launch it despite me creating an Admin account and enabling all apps to run as Admin… it’s ok the 1st through 20th times but c’mon already do I really need to grant permission 2 X to run Stalker Call of Pripyat every time?

    Mozilla Firefox was terrible with Win7 until version 3.6.12 came out it routinely crashed every cppl days requiring a uninstall/reinstall to get it working again and again while I blame Mozilla for this I was surprised given Win7’s rep to have had to deal with it.

    it’s all good now with Mozilla as of this writing though and that annoyance will fade in time.

    the only difference between the platform I’m using now and the one I was using Vista with is that I installed 2 matching Seagate IDE drives in a RAID array…. I’m starting to wonder if that is potentially the problem but dammit I was hoping to RAID 2 SSD’s next with Win7 and if this is what I’ve got to look forward to I may actually go back to Vista …. understand I really thought little of Vista.

    I miss XP’s ease of use for the average user, if it had DX11 I think I’d still be using it, the 8gb’s of ram I’m using doesn’t really do all that much more compared to 4gb’s and if any system has RAID’d SSD’s it’ll fly regardless.

    USB 3.0 still isn’t mainstream although I’m really looking forward to it addressing some perf shortcomings and the additional ram support may eventually matter although that still remains to be seen for the average user.

    • Vaughn
    • 9 years ago

    haha ya right.

    Most of the sheepie don’t even know what run and cmd plus enter will do and when they see that little blackbox come up on screen the glazed over look turns to fear.

    And you want them to use a linux desktop…..

      • BlackStar
      • 9 years ago

      Troll fail.

    • Vaughn
    • 9 years ago

    I’m just glad some of you don’t work for microsoft, or belong to the windows team.

    We’ll all be stuck with Windows XP with service pack 8 and the hackers would be ruling the world.

    And OneArmedScissor,

    what you missed out on that reply was the performance of the SSD.

    Do you really think an SSD will perform the same in a Win XP box as it will in a Win 7 box. Would you honestly run windows XP on a Quadcore box with an SSD?

    If you are stuck with certain business or application requirements or a budget I would understand the reasoning.

    • highlandr
    • 9 years ago

    They didn’t specify, but I wonder what percentage of the infrastructure they’re referring to when they say they’ll stick with XP. I work for a school district, and when we upgrade, we just shuffle the machines down the line. We still have a LOT of P2 450 machines running Win2k, and only last summer did we get rid of all our Win98 boxes.

    We haven’t started the Win7 transition, but for our IT dept the writing is on the wall, we just haven’t figured out how to get there with our budget yet.

    BTW, I write this on a P4 2.8 Ghz GX260, which is the norm for workstations we’ve got in the district right now ๐Ÿ™

      • kc77
      • 9 years ago

      Holy crap a GX260?!? Sorry bro… sorry.

        • paulWTAMU
        • 9 years ago

        we used those until the start of this year. Sucked!

      • BlackStar
      • 9 years ago

      Desktop Linux makes more and more sense…

    • swaaye
    • 9 years ago

    Ooops……….

    • BlackStar
    • 9 years ago

    Windows is a beast to upgrade. Make upgrades fast and painless and most will undoubtedly switch when the time comes. As things stand, large corporations will need to format and re-image thousands of machines – this is an effing nightmare.

      • zgirl
      • 9 years ago

      how is this a nightmare? I’ve imaged thousands of machines in less then a week all with one image and fourteen different hardware platforms with Windows XP as the OS.

      Do your home work and this can and is possible. The real question is the infrastructure in place to handle everything including the bandwidth.

        • UberGerbil
        • 9 years ago

        Exactly. It can be as hard as BlackStar says, but that just means you’re doing it wrong.

        • BlackStar
        • 9 years ago

        The point is to provide an in-place upgrade path that doesn’t take 2-12 hours and doesn’t botch the system afterwards. Right now, imaging is the lesser evil – and that is simply wrong.

        You shouldn’t need to wipe a system in order to upgrade it. The fact that we are accustomed to this doesn’t make it right, either.

    • LoneWolf15
    • 9 years ago

    I won’t stick with XP after support expires. But, there are pros and cons in the current situation. Security-wise, going to Windows 7 doesn’t mean you can do away with enterprise-level security software, so I don’t see security as a huge argument for either (everything that affects XP for us would affect Win7 as well).

    Pros:
    -Runs on older hardware; and I mean older (e.g., P4-non-HT) that budget cuts have forced me to keep going
    -Known imaging process (we will need training and new hardware expenses for Win7 deployment)
    -Good application base and compatibility
    -Doesn’t require costly new licenses (both client and Server 2008R2 for best operating experience)

    Cons:
    -Win7, when combined with Server 2008R2, has a ton of new great group policies and features only available with Vista and later, such as Favorites redirection back to the server and the ability to push out printers as default (right now, I need fancy scripts or users must set the printers we distribute as default on their own)
    -Windows 7’s taskbar and Jump Lists are far superior for multi-taskers
    -Windows 7 allows for creation of hardware-agnostic images, greatly cutting down on the amount of storage space needed
    -Server 2008R2 has some great advances in backup technology (which seems minor unless you’re on a shoestring budget like we are)

    I run Windows 7 myself at work (and have switched the home network to it entirely) but I doubt we’ll adopt it until we’re forced to by support ending for XP. I don’t see our administration wanting to spend the money.

    P.S. The Ribbon is another matter entirely. I hate it in Office 2007, and think it’s semi-tolerable in Office 2010; but Office 2003 still does it better. I shudder to think of what our jump to `07/`10 (whichever we go with) will be like, as our staff is experienced with 97/2000/XP/2003.

    • PetMiceRnice
    • 9 years ago

    The 48% figure is not too surprising given how long of a run Windows XP had and how poorly Vista was received after launch. Microsoft only has themselves to blame for all that.

    Where I work, they only just got rid of the last of their Windows NT computers a little over two years ago.

    • Lianna
    • 9 years ago

    I have nothing against the Ribbon and it may be much better for some types of usage, but anyone’s gotta admit it breaks the single thing that was best in all versions of Windows – the same interface in all standard programs. If every interface and menu in Win7 was ribboned, it would be all-new, but at least coherent. Now it’s not and this is what makes people refuse ribbon – not ribbon itself but a lack of coherent interface between standard software.

    FWIW, I use Win7/Office2k7 and I’m happy with them.

    • Bensam123
    • 9 years ago

    Sadly, choices like these have little to do with the OS or even the software that runs on it.

    Anyone who has had any experience with tech support knows how hard it is to get the older generation up and running on new software. They take years and some still don’t get it. In most lines of work it isn’t very feasible to just upgrade everything even if it’s newer, faster, more secure, offers more features, or such. The list to upgrade goes on.

    The fact still remains the old generations have extremely hard times coping with new things. I’ve seen a lot of impressive stuff when it comes to someone with a drive to learn and explore, but most honestly don’t care.

    Upgrading everything would be a huge headache for tech support, productivity would tank, and you would have to spend lots more on teaching seminars that probably still wouldn’t teach them how to do it because they’d just call the magic tech support guys to do it for them.

    Too many people consider only the technical portion of things, I highly doubt this choice is based exclusively on that. Even at the highest level there is probably still someone going ‘god I have to learn how to use the internet all over again?’ who sadly still makes all the choices.

    I’m guessing this trend will continue for the next half a century or so as people who didn’t grow up around computers and have absolutely no capability, desire, or care to learn die off.

    Computers changed EVERYTHING. Stuff like that doesn’t take it’s full effect over night.

    • dragmor
    • 9 years ago

    XP is not the problem, Internet Explorer is.

    Microsoft need to make an IE that works in IE6 / 7 / 8 Mode for the sites /apps that IT determine. Not a compatibility mode (which isn’t even close in IE8), but really works as IE6 used to.

    At Office has a ribbon that sets the menus back to what they should be.

    Although XP is noticeably faster than Win7 on pretty much all hardware.

    • Anomymous Gerbil
    • 9 years ago

    Reply fail

    • burntham77
    • 9 years ago

    I wish my company would move up from XP. The OS just bugs the crap out of me. I far prefer Vista or Win7. Heck, after being a little annoyed by the Win7 libraries and Home Networking features, I almost want to go back to Vista.

    • l33t-g4m3r
    • 9 years ago

    l[

    • albundy
    • 9 years ago

    heh, so i have a great chance of replacing one of these 48% senior citizens…thank you TR!

    • blastdoor
    • 9 years ago

    I guess if a company employs a lot of mindless drones who are able to do their mindless drone work on a 2001-era PC, then there is little point in upgrading. But for companies that employ people whose job involves some level of creative problem solving, then constraining those employees with an ancient operating system is very shortsighted, to say the least. Heck, a lot of conventional IT policies are shortsighted in a company like that.

      • Anomymous Gerbil
      • 9 years ago

      It’s about the apps, not the OS. Tell me how XP stops most firms from doing what they need to do?

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 9 years ago

      Mid 2006 – Peak of housing bubble and begin of decline
      November 2006 – Vista’s release, and first new Windows since 2001. It didn’t exactly go over well…
      2007 – Start of recession
      2009 – End of recession
      October 2009 – 7’s release
      November 2010 – Only a year’s time for 7 to prove itself and take a foothold.

      Four years between Vista’s release and now – Bazillions of modern computers sold, running XP, in a time when large businesses could not be bothered with thousands upon thousands of installs of what was either a known problem (Vista), or an unproved, shiny new toy (7).

      What in the world that possibly has to do with “mindless drone work” and “2001 era PCs” is beyond me. Those seem like very self serving things to say, Mr. Blastoise.

    • herothezero
    • 9 years ago

    We’re rolling out W7-64 on 12K systems globally, and I’ll be so glad to be rid of XP. None of my techs are missing XP as we’re replacing systems (no inplace upgrades). Complaints about the Ribbon interface have come from the same idiots that panic when shortcuts on their desktop get moved or deleted.

    q[

      • axeman
      • 9 years ago

      You’re lucky to either have minimal legacy crap dragging behind or the budget to upgrade or redevelop it. We need millions on millions of dollars just to break free of IE6. OTOH virtualization is a big help.

    • spigzone
    • 9 years ago

    2 days with Win7 64 RC and I couldn’t kick XP into the gutter fast enough.

    I can run Win 7 for months without no slowdowns or glitches accumulating.

    Keeping XP sounds like a job security program for that 48%.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 9 years ago

    IT at most companies is a joke, take mine for example. I just got solid works 2010 on my machine last week and when they hired me over 6 months ago they where saying how I’d be working on 2010. HA!

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 9 years ago

    As a 32 bit OS I think that xp is great but 32-bit is so 4 years ago. 64 bit adoption needs to tick up a bit so we can see more widespread adoption.

    • indeego
    • 9 years ago

    The article mentions 950 “IT Professionals” in the interview process but it intersperses “Enterprise” within the article itself as a coclusion. There’s a difference that isn’t clear without reading the actual studyg{<.<}g

    • anotherengineer
    • 9 years ago

    Reminds me of the old saying “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”

    I still dual boot, xp pro and w7 pro, and more often boot to xp, I find CSS runs better on XP with my setup (dual monitors, diff res and refresh rates)

    CSS would crash on W7 initially, but it works better now, although the monitors both flicker 10 times before it loads.

    • elmopuddy
    • 9 years ago

    Win 7 runs quite well on older hardware, as long as there’s at least a gig of ram, and the videocard is supported.

    My work machines are stuck on XP, they are working on Win 7 images, most likely 32bit unless Cisco makes a VPN client that works on 64bit.. 30k employees, changing OS is a really slow process.

      • zgirl
      • 9 years ago

      Cisco does make a 64bit VPN client we have been using it since early this year in beta. IIRC it went gold in the spring sometime.

      • evilpaul
      • 9 years ago

      The IT guys need to read up on the User State Migration Tool. You can roll out Windows 7 ridiculously quickly if you want to.

        • axeman
        • 9 years ago
    • sschaem
    • 9 years ago

    In 2015, IT will give you a choice

    a) Get a used laptop on Ebay so its compatible with XP.
    b) Go work somewhere else

    My bet is when management realize that IT put them in a trap by using defunct HW and seeing how their utility bill are not going down will the media keep showing how company Z,Y,Z cutting their power expanses by half, they will wake up.

    • Chrispy_
    • 9 years ago

    I’m somewhat surprised that the number is 48% for 2014.

    Any serious IT department should be using an Enterprise License Agreement which means the latest software costs nothing. You’d pay the same for another year of XP as you would for windows 7.

    Given that XP is likely to be incompatible with a lot of things in 2014, added to the fact that the x64 version of XP is poorly supported, means that 48% of IT professionals are, IMHO, dumbasses. Ask me what I think of 31-bit application memory limits now, and I’ll use more expletives than are safe to print. Ask me what I think about them in four years time and I suspect I’ll just dismiss the question as a mockery of days gone by, in much the same way that I’d like to download the whole internet onto a floppy disk.

    I’ve been bumping up against the memory limitations of 32-bit OS’s since about 2005, it’s been a major issue for the majority of our power users for at least three years now.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 9 years ago

      q[<48% of IT professionals are, IMHO, dumbasses. <]q Amen to that!

      • djgandy
      • 9 years ago

      This is an important point actually. The memory limit is in fact 2GB for most apps and this is not likely to change for many. The problem is a lot of apps rely on the user space being under 2GB due to pointer arithmetic and signedness.

      If you are to fix these bugs, you are going to fix all the bugs that need fixing to make your application 64-bit compatible also, aside from storing pointers in ints ๐Ÿ™‚

      2GB can be used up quite quickly these days.

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago
      • Anomymous Gerbil
      • 9 years ago

      “Any serious IT department should be using an Enterprise License Agreement which means the latest software costs nothing. ”

      Apparently you don’t work for a large firm. Do you have any idea how much time, people and money it takes to port and test a few thousand applications onto a new OS? Especially when you have other real priorities, like developing the applications that provide the competitive edge that keeps you in business in the first place.

      And have you considered the cost for new hardware to run the new OS, in many cases? The cost of the OS itself is (mostly) irrelevant.

      Sooner or later there will be a good reason to upgrade the OS, and that trigger point will be different for every company. But to claim that people are dumbasses for making carefully considered decisions is just ignorant.

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 9 years ago

        Well, you are obviously a proponent of the dumbass agenda because you can’t see the merit of spending $100 million to be able to slide your taskbar icons around.

          • Arag0n
          • 9 years ago

          Yeah, and the ability to look for any document in less than 10s…. That alone is worth for the update in most of scenarios, where people expends most of the time just looking for the different documents and information that it’s spreaded.

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 9 years ago

            Funny, I just pressed Windows key + F, search window popped up, it found the song I wanted the instant I pressed enter…and I did that on an XP computer!

            *Cue cries of “HE’S A WITCH! BURN HIM!”*

            • axeman
            • 9 years ago

            The windows search in Windows 7 doesn’t magically index everything in the universe. It indexes local content, of which there is close to none of on a corporate desktop. Let me see if Windows 7 magically made searches on a remote NAS happen in 10s… nope. Did Office 2010 and Windows 7 magically make searches on my exchange server happen in 10s… nope. Gee, why would anyone stay on XP? We have 1000s of in-house applications. Some of them will costs tens of millions of dollars to upgrade. Even if we need to do NOTHING with the application, testing has to be done, and that takes time and money.

            Search feature? Tell me another joke, that one was funny. As someone else pointed out, it’s about the applications. It has nothing to do with whether we want to move away from XP or not, whether we think it is a good idea, whether we like XP, it has to do with COST of the applications which is orders of magnitude greater. Microsoft has generated a mindset where the bits of the OS are seen as being terribly important, as a big part of some overall “eXPerience”, when really they’re there just to get the important bits (applications) something to run on. Seriously, how much time do you spend using the OS? I’d hope this is as minimal as possible. You say that indexed search is such a great feature (I’m not saying it isn’t), but your reasoning is l[< people expends most of the time just looking for the different documents and information that it's spreaded.<]l I'm pretty sure for most people work consists of _working_ rather than looking for stuff, otherwise you're an unproductive disaster, and content indexing is probably the least of your worries.

          • Anomymous Gerbil
          • 9 years ago

          Whoosh!!

          Wow, you *completely* missed my point, *and* you threw in a totally unnecesary ad-hom. Way to go.

            • Palek
            • 9 years ago

            Double whoosh? (I think you missed the sarcasm – directed at the originial poster – dripping from his post.)

            • Anomymous Gerbil
            • 9 years ago

            Oh dear, you’re right.. the dreaded double whoosh. I thought it was the OP replying to me… I hate that ๐Ÿ™‚

        • axeman
        • 9 years ago

        All the users think the IT guys are just sticks in the mud who won’t give them the new hotness. In reality we’d like to ditch all the old garbage, but we don’t have the money, and the bean counters want to *CUT* budgets.. so long to upgrading apps. In the budgetary process, IT is often just seen as an expense that needs to be shrunk, nothing more.

        • Chrispy_
        • 9 years ago

        Cost? Puh-lease.

        If you have an asset register that doesn’t write off old hardware, then your business model is so archaic that you might as well use a 10Mbit ring network and run WFWG 3.11

        Practically all business class hardware released in the last 5 years can run W7 and by 2014, the chances of you still having 9-year-old W7-compatible hardware is even lower.

        As for costs – you missed the single biggest part of the picture:
        Software purchase costs = 0 (enterprise agreement)
        Software and hardware testing costs = Lower than XP. Do you honestly think that compatibility problems will be with W7 and not XP in 2014?

        If you answered yes to the above question, then my original comment that you belong in the 48% of dumbasses holds true.

          • axeman
          • 9 years ago

          How hard is it for you to understand the majority of software costs are not the operating system? Very, apparently. It doesn’t matter if Microsoft PAID us a hundred bucks per machine to switch from XP, it still wouldn’t be feasible. Software that is ALREADY tested with XP doesn’t cost “less” to test on Windows 7. Tools like ACT are only valuable for applications other people have already tested, which doesn’t apply to custom ones. In our organization we literally have 1000s of in-house applications that need to be tested. Even if 1 of those needs to be upgraded it may cost millions of dollars to redevelop. It’s not “stupid” to stay on XP, it’s a financial necessity in most cases. Do you think I like fixing the same old dumb crap year after year? Does anyone? Your argument that switching operating systems SAVES money is ludicrous. If it does save money in support costs over time, that’s great, but it doesn’t magically spit out millions upon millions to upgrade all the applications in the short term. We can only do what our budget for the here and now allows us, which isn’t much.

            • paulWTAMU
            • 9 years ago

            And don’t forget compabatibliy with other organizations >.< We have to use a reporting tool to report calls to the state; the reporting tool they mandate does not work with anyting but XP (WTF??). this isn’t under our control. And we sure can’t justify setting up machines to dual boot. And apparently our Cisco software doesn’t like W7 either. And that’s also required.

            It’s not like IT departments act in isolation.

          • cphite
          • 9 years ago

          /[

    • swaaye
    • 9 years ago

    Well hey at least they didn’t adopt Vista. ๐Ÿ˜€ Maybe Windows 8 will make Windows 7 look ridiculous too.

    • indeego
    • 9 years ago

    Windows 7, Office 2003 shop here. One person that took a Office 2007 class asked for Office 2007, but no dice.

    In my tests Outlook 2003 is the fastest version. It starts the fastest, and is the most stable. I did the beta for 2010, and liked it, but felt so relieved when it was over and could go back to my trusty 2003.

    We also somewhat ironically use OpenOffice for Microsoft Word documents that Word itself cannot open (usually International in scope. This happens about 2-3x per year.)

    Not saying we won’t ever move to 2007/2010, just that the price is way out of whack with what we think it should costg{<.<}g We think $40-$50/seat is much more realisticg{<.<}g

    • Suspenders
    • 9 years ago

    This, to me, reflects the need to justify the expense involved in moving on from XP with something more concrete than “Win7 is more modern”.

    “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it”.

    • swaaye
    • 9 years ago

    As long as the hardware support is there anyway. When new PCs won’t run it without workarounds galore, I imagine that will be the end of it for sure.

    • travbrad
    • 9 years ago

    Maybe “IT pros” know that XP keeps them employed. Think of all the Spyware and crap they have to spend time getting rid of. :p

    I seriously doubt this many will still want to stick with XP in 2014 though, with or without support from MSFT.

      • ManAtVista
      • 9 years ago

      Good point, less need for IT with more secure OSes like Windows 7.

      • A_Pickle
      • 9 years ago

      Yeah, because it’s /[

        • Frith
        • 9 years ago

        He’s a Windows 7 user. He’s the sort of person who finds menus confusing and who can’t even locate his own files and programs without a search facility. For people like A_Pickle keeping his computer free from spyware is probably a major challenge.

        Personally I’ve never had a single virus or piece of spyware on XP, so I think A_Pickle’s comment is just further proof that Windows 7 is the operating system for novice computer users and complete morons.

    • BiffStroganoffsky
    • 9 years ago

    This actually makes sense if it is a response to economic times and the businesses are not updating their hardware on the same cyclic rate as pre-2007. A major consideration for an OS change would be your new hardware doesn’t have XP drivers. So, if times are down and you aren’t buying new hardware, there is less motivation for chucking out the old desktop that is still working. The adage of ‘improving productivity’ rings hollow when you are cutting projections and workers.

      • UberGerbil
      • 9 years ago

      Yes, and it’s worth noting that most enterprise customers don’t /[

        • travbrad
        • 9 years ago

        Indeed if you went back to 1998 and asked IT people if they want to upgrade from NT4/Win95/98 I bet you’d get the same response. Yet a couple years later Win2k came along and the business world loved it.

          • UberGerbil
          • 9 years ago

          In fact there were people who were predicting Win2K would be a failure in the marketplace because it was breaking the old driver model and not offering enough by way of other features (wow, that sounds familiar), that it was basically just Win98 UI on top of a system that had far higher hardware requirements than ’98. John Dvorak even claimed that just the name “Windows 2000” would doom it because it would be forever associated with the looming technological disaster that was Y2K. (Of course given Dvorak’s track record of idiotic predictions, that may have been the best endorsement it could’ve garnered… does that guy even have a job anymore?)

          It’s a good analogy, actually. Ultimately the thing that made Win2K (and later XP) succeed was the 32bit transition: they could take full advantage of it, and Win98 could not (remember the 512KB limit?) The same thing is going to happen with Win7 and 64bit.

            • swaaye
            • 9 years ago

            Windows 9x’s problem was not really 32-bit limitations. I’d call it more a horribly flawed disaster zone that was inherently unstable. There are lots of problems with its memory management. But you can run >512MB (a lot more) with a quick tweak to vcache.

            • UberGerbil
            • 9 years ago

            Well, Win9x certainly had its share of problems, but inherited 16bit limitations were a big part of it — USER and GDI were littered with 16bit data structures. That’s how it ran so well in machines with relatively little memory, of course, but it also put a serious cap on its ability to take advantage of those that had a lot more. Once the base hardware spec had reached the point that Win2K could run comfortably on it (512MB and above), there clearly was no contest (legacy apps aside).

            We’re in the same transition zone with 64bit right now; base spec machines, even laptops, are already hovering around 4GB so there’s increasingly little point in going with a 32bit OS (again, legacy apps/drivers aside). And XP-x64 certainly isn’t the right answer. If you’re planning an enterprise roll-out of upgraded hardware today, it’s beyond shortsighted to be targeting 32bit systems — your legacy hardware situation (outboard peripherals lacking 64bit drivers) isn’t going to get any better in the future, and you’re eliminating any potential for growth potential for future apps. But not many are planning such a roll-out today, which I think is what is driving the results of this survey. A lot of enterprises can certainly limp along for another couple of years until macroeconomic and/or budgetary conditions improve.

    • TheBulletMagnet
    • 9 years ago

    How can these IT “professionals” want to stick with XP when so many exploits and security vulnerabilities are known? I’m not a professional at all but at the place I work we get so many xp users who get viruses from infected ad’s on websites it is ridiculous. These are users who are running with user privledges too. Bump that noise.

    • lilbuddhaman
    • 9 years ago

    r[<48% of IT Pros are lazy / aren't paid enough to put in the work to keep their company's infrastructure up to date.<]r sounds about right. edit: The Ribbon interface or as I call it "horrible POS" thing does indeed suck.

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 9 years ago

      The ribbon is a great Idea but their implimentation kinda blows.

        • Lazier_Said
        • 9 years ago

        The ribbon is a great idea in the same way the Dvorak keyboard is a great idea.

          • oldog
          • 9 years ago

          The Office ribbon is fabulous. Don’t know how I did without it.

            • axeman
            • 9 years ago

            Yeah, I don’t know how any work was EVER DONE in the entire world, since none of those other programs around had the RIBOON!!! WOOO!!! And to think I only had to shell out a few hundred again to get the ribbons OUTLOOK 2010 too!! I can’t wait to see how they INNOVATE next with their billions of dollars profit this quarter.

    • GTVic
    • 9 years ago

    “much reviled” by idiots! The ribbon is a fantastic improvement over the previous menu system and Windows 3.1 fanatics can suck it ๐Ÿ™‚ I actually do wonder about the sanity of these people who complain about the ribbon. Their reaction is more emotional than rational. Most of their problem is that they are stuck on one way/order of doing things, adjust your workflow to suit the ribbon.

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 9 years ago

      I don’t need that level of complication in mspaint. how they manage to need TWO tabs for that program is beyond me.

      As for office, there are just too many common buttons that are no longer on the mainbar that I now need an added click for just to access. By default the UI is crapstastic, after tweaking, its still a little craptastic.

      • Malphas
      • 9 years ago

      Exactly, the ribbon is more intuitive and cleaner than drop down menus by far. The backlash is simply an emotional response by those that are familiar with the old UI and upset by any change. In fairness those who are performing the same small set of actions often on an everyday basis may be slightly slowed down by the ribbon, but by and large that should be outweighed by the speed increases for the majority of users.

      The only thing that bugs me slightly is that in the 9x days, Windows applications had a standardised UI that most programs adhered to, now it’s turning into a bit of a free for all, with applications using completely different menu sets. Although this started long before the Office ribbon, with things like disgusting Winamp skins and such.

      • flip-mode
      • 9 years ago

      The ribbon is “ok”. I’d say my reasons for not being enamored with it are pretty rational. First – and foremost – in a world of wide screen, vertically-challenged monitors, the ribbon obviously does not make sense. Second, for people who are / were highly productive with the good old menus, I’d say it is rather rational not to want to learn a whole new interface to do the exact same tasks? I don’t hate the ribbon, but I don’t see it as a tremendous step forward either. To me, it’s just a fairly respectable evolution of the bog standard toolbar concept. It got some thing right and some things wrong.

        • Peffse
        • 9 years ago

        to me it seemed a change just to be a change.

          • Madman
          • 9 years ago

          Ribbon is SUPER counterproductive. It’s faster to do some things, but a lot of them are gone, and gone for good, only way to find them is to use F1.

          When I need to do most things, I’m slowed down a lot, newbies still can’t do anything without help, and now I can’t even help them because the office is frigging broken.

          And paint, don’t even let me started on that. Abomination. Still doesn’t do most things, and makes the rest of them 3 clicks further.

          Change because of change is the stupidest idea ever. Multiply that with millions of people who need to be retrained and you get the factor by which this idea is totally wrong.

            • axeman
            • 9 years ago

            change because of change + marketing = profit!

        • ManAtVista
        • 9 years ago

        I’m curious, would you be happier with it if the ribbon had an option to run vertically on the left side of the app instead of horizontally at the top? Might be something MS could add an option for in the future if it was desirable. Personally I dig the ribbon, but everybody has different tastes.

          • flip-mode
          • 9 years ago

          Well, I think it would be great if there could be some of the things put in a vertical “ribbon” (I love how we have to call a souped-up toolbar a ribbon now). But there are other functions that almost need to be displayed horizontally.

          There is the ability to minimize the ribbon. At that point, though, it’s essentially a newfangled type of menu, isn’t it? Heh, I find humor in that.

      • axeman
      • 9 years ago

      It would be better if they actually standardized on it. With 2007, not all of the programs used it, and Outlook used it half of the time. Not a great start if you ask me.

      • Bensam123
      • 9 years ago

      You know the ribbon was designed for people who can’t think about things logically and need a picture to figure out what something does? It is in no way superior or more efficient to a tiered menu system.

      In other words, you adjusted your lifestyle to something that was worse off merely because you thought new = better.

    • flip-mode
    • 9 years ago

    XP was great and all, but IMO, a modern computer deserves a modern OS, that’s all. XP makes lots of sense on older machines with lower spec hardware.

    Then again, XP lacks so much in terms of modern conveniences department that I’d much rather use Ubuntu, if possible, than XP. I really do not enjoy those moments at work when it is necessary to interact with a Windows XP machine.

      • khands
      • 9 years ago

      Once you can’t buy less than 4GB sticks of RAM, I think they’ll probably have to jump ship.

      • axeman
      • 9 years ago

      In most usage Ubuntu seems more responsive on old hardware than XP as well.

        • swaaye
        • 9 years ago

        I really do wholeheartedly disagree with that for many reasons. From first-hand experience with such “old” systems as fairly speedy P4s. ๐Ÿ™‚

        It’s ok for a free OS for a web kiosk if it just happens to work with your particular hardware. Hopefully it’s not too obscure, like some Dell or some such lol. Oh am I tired of fighting with Linux bugs… 845G mouse cursor disappearing at random, S3 standby barely works and won’t wakeup by USB without tweaks, yada yada…..

          • axeman
          • 9 years ago

          Spoken like everyone else that’s spent 1000 hours troubleshooting Windows to 1 hour using Linux. Yes, there are issues with it, but many times they are minor, but instead of addressing the knowledge gap, people dismiss it as “Linux sux”. There are many Windows issues that arise that render the computer useless, yet I’d term them minor, because know how to fix it easily and quickly. When people encounter something like this on an OS they don’t know anything about, they claim it is the software’s fault. Same goes for OS-X.. 99% of people bashing Macs have probably never used one for more than a few minutes, much less owned one.

            • swaaye
            • 9 years ago

            Actually it sounds like /[

          • axeman
          • 9 years ago

          I’ve encountered several of those issues recently, reg hacking to get USB wakeup to work on Vista. S3 was a crapshoot on XP. And well, video issues on 845G… I meant old hardware, not ANCIENT ๐Ÿ˜‰

            • swaaye
            • 9 years ago

            Oh well guess what? XP runs great on machines like this. Part of that is because the hardware has been thoroughly tested to work with it. Part of it is because XP is probably more highly optimized overall and the various hardware drivers are simply superior for Windows. And PCs of P4 vintage are out there in droves doing what a lot of people need/want.

            I’ve been trying many different distros on older and more recent hardware over the past few years because I’ve been curious about the Linux “desktop” and whether it can be a usable, likable desktop OS. What I’ve found is that the popular GUIs are getting slower and slower because they want to add more and more ridiculous effects to emulate the big boys. Bugs are everywhere and features work halfway. Years go by and things don’t really improve. We just get more half completed features. Outside of the web browsers, email apps, and office apps, a lot of the available desktop software is embarrassing. I don’t see how the Linux desktop is in any way superior to what XP offers.

            When a big company like Google, Apple, etc comes in and shapes Linux / BSD up it can be amazing. But IMO the major free desktop distros are vastly overrated.

            • kc77
            • 9 years ago

            “I’ve been trying many different distros on older and more recent hardware over the past few years because I’ve been curious about the Linux “desktop” and whether it could be a usable, likable desktop OS. What I’ve found is that the popular GUIs are getting slower and slower because they want to add more and more ridiculous animations to emulate the big boys.”

            Huh? Apparently you’ve only been using KDE because Gnome hasnt’ added much in terms of animations if anything (which has been it’s biggest complaint actually and is why compiz exists at all). Second in terms of getting slower by adding animations that sounds a awfully like Vista to me. It’s rare that features can be added for free be it Linux or Windows. More code is more code and there will be a performance hit, which is why you can turn it off in Vista and Windows 7.

            “Bugs are everywhere and features are work halfway. Years go by and things don’t really improve. We just get more half completed features. Outside of the web browsers, email apps, and office apps, a lot of the available desktop software is embarrassing. I don’t see how the Linux desktop is in any way superior to what XP offers.”

            How can you say besides “web browser, email apps and office apps” ? That’s what 90% of what users use their computer for. It’s getting to the point where most of that is moving to cloud based services anyway making the OS less important over time.

            In addition to the aforementioned I need SSH, the ability to throw up VM’s, RDP, mount network drives reliably, and a good text editor and Linux for me provides that in spades.

    • djgandy
    • 9 years ago

    Boooo! Why, why, why!

    The difference between 64-bit Win7 and 32-bit XP is night and day, the former being a far superior and more responsive operating system.

    Then again IT pro’s are the people who deploy Symantec products to all their users workstations ensuring that even the most powerful systems are crippled.

      • Madman
      • 9 years ago

      Have you tried XP on the same machine you run W7? ๐Ÿ˜€

      Overall W7 is a huge step forward, and I recommend it over XP, and doesn’t suck like Vista did. But XP is pretty darn solid still.

        • djgandy
        • 9 years ago

        Yes I have. The difference between the two for doing things such as compiling is huge, 50%+ improvement in performance. Granted 64-bit is a huge help too, but I was running a 32-bit app, so the improvement shouldn’t have been that much.

        We really should be ditching the old 32-bit O/S sooner rather than later.
        XP is clumsy, sure it works, but as per this article we are tied to the xp office 2k3 combo. ๐Ÿ™

        Outlook 2k3 EURH.

      • cphite
      • 9 years ago

      /[

        • xtalentx
        • 9 years ago

        /[

          • cphite
          • 9 years ago

          /[

        • djgandy
        • 9 years ago

        By crippled I meant horrible performance. Sure there are plenty of places that don’t need to upgrade, but then there are plenty where users need performance, and companies are downgrading NEW systems to XP.

      • A_Pickle
      • 9 years ago

      It’s really not. XP runs computers and applications just fine…

    • Kurotetsu
    • 9 years ago

    One thing I’m curious about, assuming some of the companies these IT professionals work for actually continue to use XP after support has ceased; does that mean all support and bug fixing has to be handled internally at that company? Do they figure that’s cheaper than just jumping to Win7?

    Or does ‘discontinue support’ by Microsoft have some other meaning besides discontinuing support?

      • sweatshopking
      • 9 years ago

      nope, they’re going to stop support. no new bug fixes. I think security patches will continue for a short time, but not forever.

        • Game_boy
        • 9 years ago

        MS will revise their policy about ending security patches if it ever gets anywhere near the deadline and >10% of users still use XP. Because that’s tens or hundreds of millions of vulnerable computers if they don’t, and the media would make them look very bad when that’s exploited.

          • Kurotetsu
          • 9 years ago

          Given the speed of Win7 adoption I don’t think that will be a problem for consumer machines. It helps that the big OEM computer companies aren’t bundling XP with their machines anymore (I think the whole XP downgrade program was ended). As far as enterprise machines are concerned, rather than continuing to flog XP’s corpse I suspect Microsoft will simply slash prices for Win7 licenses drastically for enterprise customers?

        • bdwilcox
        • 9 years ago

        That’s not true. Security and bug-fixes will no longer be free (and some may need to be custom coded by MS on a contract basis), but Microsoft will continue to support and update the OS well past the 2014 cut-off.

    • mcnabney
    • 9 years ago

    XP came out in late 2001 – so that would be 13 years instead of 15.

    Also, why replace something that still functions and does everything that is required of it?

      • GTVic
      • 9 years ago

      It shows your potential employees that you are not keeping up and they may look for evidence of that in other areas and will probably find it.

      If you are not keeping up you are actually getting behind, there is no such thing as remaining static.

      Are they investing in updating their applications? More likely they are letting those remain static as well and soon they will be in a position where they cannot compete.

      It holds back the industry as a whole, the more people stay behind, the more the industry has to support them, reduces innovation. Why do we still have serial ports and PCI slots in our motherboards? It is because there are a vocal few who refuse to move forward.

      I’m not saying it is all bad but there are plenty of reasons why XP should be replaced.

        • mcnabney
        • 9 years ago

        And replacing 50,000 desktop O/Ss isn’t going to be free. I think the shareholders will be quite happy that money isn’t being thrown away on software that isn’t needed.

        Don’t forget that a new OS isn’t something that IT can set to push-out to the end users. In addition to licensing costs there are going to be massive testing, labor, and hardware costs associated with it.

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 9 years ago

        “Why do we still have serial ports and PCI slots in our motherboards?”

        Because they don’t make your computer any less functional, they make it MORE functional for some people who do still use those things out convenience.

        What a horrible argument…yeah, that is really holding entire industries back.

      • ManAtVista
      • 9 years ago

      Not hardly. XP is insecure in this day and age. When XP came out, it’s security was ok but there was not hardware DEP, and therefore no reason to implement ASLR (address space layout randomization). MS added DEP to XP, but never did add ASLR, without both you are wide open to 0-day attacks. In addition to having both DEP and ASLR, Vista and Windows 7 run the user as standard user by default (well, AAM really, but more or less the same), and sandbox internet apps like IE. It doesn’t sound like much but it goes a long ways towards securing the system, in ways XP never will be. And this doesn’t even touch on x64, better multi-core/SSD support, DX11 (for gamers), gpu accelerated gui (teh snappy) and so on. XP most certainly does not “do everything.”

        • mcnabney
        • 9 years ago

        Businesses don’t care about any of that.

        They will already have comprehensive security profiles and protection in place. Businesses also are most likely to have many custom-made applications that will not port to Vista and Vista SP2 (7). We are not talking about specialty workstations. We are talking about the tens of millions of desktop computers found in mid to very large businesses that typically run Office, email, browser and a dozen or so special applications which at least some of are unlikely to be moved to the newer OS. What possible benefit does 7 offer that exceed the cost and considerable risk of staying with what works?

          • ManAtVista
          • 9 years ago

          Comprehensive security protection, like google had when their XP systems got hacked by chinese hackers? Now I can’t for certain say they would have been safe under Vista/7, but Vista/7 are much more hardened against such a thing, and companies are getting their clocks cleaned by XP exploits.

Pin It on Pinterest