4 ms·

I personally think that if the users are too dumb and lazy to upgrade themselves to better alternatives (either Windows 8/10 or Linux distros), then you can't b

I personally think that if the users are too dumb and lazy to upgrade themselves to better alternatives (either Windows 8/10 or Linux distros), then you can't blame Microsoft for billing on their slumber. In fairness, even Red Hat might be doing the same thing to their RHEL clients who are "locked" into it and can't move on to Ubuntu or something.

wang_li 11y ago
To get access to patches from Red Hat you have to purchase an annual service agreement, for a two socket box it's around $300. If you bought a copy of Windows XP at release it likely cost you around that much and patches and fixes were available to you for fourteen years at no further cost. The equivalent from Red Hat would have run $4200.
- callinyouin 11y ago
  While this is true, you're comparing a desktop OS to an enterprise OS. You're mostly paying for support from Red Hat for that $4200 price tag, something you definitely don't get with a retail copy of XP.
  - wang_li 11y ago
    Actually the $350/year price does not include support. If you want support during normal business hours you're looking at $799/year and for 24 hour support it's $1299/year. The only thing you get at the low price point is access to patches, ISOs, and their KB/bug tracker.
- mordocai 11y ago
  Redhat is also only intended for enterprise use (unlike windows XP). You should be comparing redhat to windows server if you want a valid comparison. In addition, with redhat you get excellent support included (that's what you are really paying for). No such luck with microsoft, you just get crappy bottom tier tech support. Finally, if you don't like paying redhat switch to centos. Free and no support.
  - herewulf 11y ago
    Or you pay someone else for support. I don't know how many options are out there but where I work, we have Oracle Linux (which is basically RHEL) and get support through Oracle.
krylon 11y ago
It's not that simple, unfortunately. For run-of-the-mill desktop usage, i.e. Office stuff, eMail, Internet access, yes, not upgrading is either lazy or stupid. But there are quite a few companies out there who have built applications that are critical to their operations and which do not run on versions of Windows more recent than XP. To be fair, that is just as big a problem, relying on proprietary APIs without even thinking of an upgrade path. It's not like Microsoft ending support for XP came as a total surprise nobody could have foreseen. But sometimes, for example in industrial automation, once an installation has been certified, you cannot simply upgrade to a newer version of Windows. If the automation software does not run on newer versions of Windows (and it's an all-Windows game, as far as I can tell), upgrading means you also have to newer automation software, which means spending tons of money and then spending tons more for reprogramming the whole thing. Some automation engineers at the company where I work still have to deal with DOS for a few installations (at least on DOS, the lack of security updates is not an issue, but getting it to run on newer hardware is hard if not impossible, and keeping aging hardware going is a nightmare).
- cm2187 11y ago
  I work for one of these large companies. Legacy software does play a role. But I think most of the delays have to do with the state of lethargy of the IT dept. I work in a part of the organisation where IT doesn't even have a plan to upgrade us from Windows XP.
  - krylon 11y ago
    Okay, that is bad. Microsoft made their schedule for ending XP support public years before it actually happened, and, say, three years should be enough even for a large company. And even if one has to support legacy software, eventually hardware support becomes an issue as older devices start dying. If upper management vetoes a migration/upgrade for cost reasons, that is one thing, but not having a plan at all is... kind of frightening.
    - scholia 11y ago
      Agreed. Any company that was paying attention knew that they had a migration problem as soon as Vista appeared in beta. That was 10 years ago. "After Longhorn was named Windows Vista in July 2005, an unprecedented beta-test program was started, involving hundreds of thousands of volunteers and companies. In September of that year, Microsoft started releasing regular Community Technology Previews (CTP) to beta testers from July 2005 to February 2006." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista For comparison, that was before Twitter was founded (March 21, 2006) and before Facebook was opened to public access (September 26, 2006).

wang_li 11y ago

To get access to patches from Red Hat you have to purchase an annual service agreement, for a two socket box it's around $300. If you bought a copy of Windows XP at release it likely cost you around that much and patches and fixes were available to you for fourteen years at no further cost. The equivalent from Red Hat would have run $4200.

callinyouin 11y ago
While this is true, you're comparing a desktop OS to an enterprise OS. You're mostly paying for support from Red Hat for that $4200 price tag, something you definitely don't get with a retail copy of XP.
- wang_li 11y ago
  Actually the $350/year price does not include support. If you want support during normal business hours you're looking at $799/year and for 24 hour support it's $1299/year. The only thing you get at the low price point is access to patches, ISOs, and their KB/bug tracker.
mordocai 11y ago
Redhat is also only intended for enterprise use (unlike windows XP). You should be comparing redhat to windows server if you want a valid comparison. In addition, with redhat you get excellent support included (that's what you are really paying for). No such luck with microsoft, you just get crappy bottom tier tech support. Finally, if you don't like paying redhat switch to centos. Free and no support.
- herewulf 11y ago
  Or you pay someone else for support. I don't know how many options are out there but where I work, we have Oracle Linux (which is basically RHEL) and get support through Oracle.

krylon 11y ago

It's not that simple, unfortunately. For run-of-the-mill desktop usage, i.e. Office stuff, eMail, Internet access, yes, not upgrading is either lazy or stupid. But there are quite a few companies out there who have built applications that are critical to their operations and which do not run on versions of Windows more recent than XP. To be fair, that is just as big a problem, relying on proprietary APIs without even thinking of an upgrade path. It's not like Microsoft ending support for XP came as a total surprise nobody could have foreseen. But sometimes, for example in industrial automation, once an installation has been certified, you cannot simply upgrade to a newer version of Windows. If the automation software does not run on newer versions of Windows (and it's an all-Windows game, as far as I can tell), upgrading means you also have to newer automation software, which means spending tons of money and then spending tons more for reprogramming the whole thing. Some automation engineers at the company where I work still have to deal with DOS for a few installations (at least on DOS, the lack of security updates is not an issue, but getting it to run on newer hardware is hard if not impossible, and keeping aging hardware going is a nightmare).

cm2187 11y ago
I work for one of these large companies. Legacy software does play a role. But I think most of the delays have to do with the state of lethargy of the IT dept. I work in a part of the organisation where IT doesn't even have a plan to upgrade us from Windows XP.
- krylon 11y ago
  Okay, that is bad. Microsoft made their schedule for ending XP support public years before it actually happened, and, say, three years should be enough even for a large company. And even if one has to support legacy software, eventually hardware support becomes an issue as older devices start dying. If upper management vetoes a migration/upgrade for cost reasons, that is one thing, but not having a plan at all is... kind of frightening.
  - scholia 11y ago
    Agreed. Any company that was paying attention knew that they had a migration problem as soon as Vista appeared in beta. That was 10 years ago. "After Longhorn was named Windows Vista in July 2005, an unprecedented beta-test program was started, involving hundreds of thousands of volunteers and companies. In September of that year, Microsoft started releasing regular Community Technology Previews (CTP) to beta testers from July 2005 to February 2006." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista For comparison, that was before Twitter was founded (March 21, 2006) and before Facebook was opened to public access (September 26, 2006).