3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoI 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 agoOkay, 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 agoAgreed. 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).