[PCW]Aged Windows XP Costs 5x More to Manage Than Windows 7 - Page 3

All you guys still praising XP as if it's current are just silly. You mean all the house wives with corp laptops love XP because they know how to work it for what they need and that's why they don't want to switch? Get your facts straight.

Any tech enthusiast still on XP should sell their computer.

I dont' think MS realized how solid and stable XP turned out to be. As much as people want to cry about how outdated, weak, unsecure, etc etc XP is today...the fact remains that the majority of companies have developed software, tools and support that they're 100% sure works on XP. Their admins are trained for XP and server 2003 (migrating to server 2008).

There is no genuine reason to throw out XP and upgrade to 7 just yet because we haven't run into any technological "walls". Atleast not here in Telecom NZ which is the largest ISP in the country (NZ tee hee), the entire infrastructure of thousands upon thousands of workstations are all running XP. Heck we recently replaced all our desktops with brand new laptops - laptops which came with win7 pre-installed - and the tech/admin team replaced win7 with XP lol.

yep tippy this is the main issue!when corp invest a lot of money on something they want their moneys worth!i ll give my isp as exemple,they recently switched the cable mobem to a new cisco,after how many years oh if i recall 8 or 10 years we arent talking os here just modem,so imagine an os etc!ms better have an insane feature for them to switch!and i bet average user are the main user base for xp!why they stick to it!because it is as good as w7 speed wise,and when they go see their friend with w7 they find w7 user run their os in classic view because for java it is required to enable acceleration of java among other!so they see w7 64 bit in classic view and are like why?because my system run faster!they re like why would i go to w7 if i am gona have to disable feature to get the os and thrid party to run as fast as it can lol!
yep!ms never learn they think if they force feed stuff people will like it!why did they prevent java acceleration via aero is beyond me!it discredited ms for a lot of user ,and as we all know java is one of the most popular program on the planet!so user need to be able to accelerate it lol!
so far i heard live tile work differently then aero so live tile should work and java is supposed to be accelerated without having to disable live tile!we ll see i havent had the time to install w8 and test it!

XP is still a great OS, provided you know how to maintain your system. Security reasons would be the main concern using XP today, instead of Vista or W7. Other than that, XP is a great "basic" OS that gets the job done and doesn't require a powerful setup to run.

As far as costing x5 times more to manage. Total BS.
Edited by *ka24e* - 6/4/12 at 4:22am

Numerous crashes? Well, it's clear you and your friend did not know how to build a PC and setup it properly. The only real problem with Vista was the hardware manufactures and some software developers/manufactures. They failed to support their own products (Legacy) in a timely manner. One of the main reasons is they wanted people to upgrade (AKA Buy More Hardware/Software) their hardware/software.

I had Vista from start to final release and never experience a crash. Windows 7 = Vista re-visioned! There were a few tweaks that were done to Windows 7 = Vista re-visioned and Vista. None of them had anything to do with hardware requirements. Windows 7 and Vista require the same hardware, even use the same drivers (90% of the drivers that work on Vista work on Windows 7). Only reason Nubs think Windows 7 seems better is because hardware manufactures and some software manufactures finally got off their blank and started offering support. And right around the Windows 7 release most people finally updated their hardware and new improved hardware (Such as better ram, HDs, GPUs, ETC.) was introduce to the market.

The average person will never notice a different between Windows 7 performance and Windows Vista performance. Put the Windows 7 skin on Vista and the Vista skin on Windows 7 and I bet most people will claim the Vista with the Windows 7 skin performs better. Tried it and you will see. I did the same thing with XP and Vista. Both systems running 4 Gigs and most of the users said the Vista with the XP skin performed better.

As for XP, it's dated and need to die. Also, the article is right about the cost. Most of the service calls I get are associated with a Windows XP system (At least 80% of them). It has been proven that Vista and Windows 7 are much more secured! Not only are they more secured, they are more user friendly and visually stunning! Those are two things Apple fear about Windows.

The word is filled with too many sheeple and nubs.
Edited by Horse Head - 6/4/12 at 4:44am

Garbage research funded by MS themselves. What cost? Most people/businesses using Windows XP are running computers built for it. How well do you think Windows 8 will run on a single core CPU system with 1 GB or less of RAM? Not to mention the software the companies are running are usually difficult/impossible to get running on new operating systems. The cost for them is to have to buy new computers and then buy another bloated operating system to do what they do already for zero dollars more.

When I worked for a printing press company their systems were Windows 2000 Professional. Far outdated at the time however, it did everything they needed so there was no need for 'upgrades.' These were workstation PCs, not internet connected but merely networked. They probably still use those PCs today.

As for the Vista vs 7 argument: Windows 7 is Windows Vista with some optimizations. Load up Vista SP2 and voila! You got Windows 7. The drivers are even the same to this day so there was no point to switch.

Nail on the head, there. I think MS should focus on businesses stuck on Server 2003, and the Win7/8 boxes will follow as a natural progression.

Though I do have to say, for as great as Win7 is for productivity and home applications, it's as if three years later industrial, POS and engineering software companies still haven't figured out how to make the switch. I unboxed a brand new register on Friday, whole new model with an April 2012 build date... and it's XP. Where are these people getting the licenses???

I can't remember that far back was quite young when ME was released, didn't own a computer at the time either!

People and their love for Windows XP, clinging to it desperately like their entire sense of pride rests on it. I'll admit I too have fond memories of Windows XP, it was a good operating system. I remember the simple slow days of Windows 3.1, getting a new computer with Windows ME which caused the HP computer my parents bought for me in school crashing every other day (well almost), upgraded it to Windows NT and solved almost all of the issues, then migrated to Windows XP and didn't look back.

As many others have said, most people who seem to hate or talk poorly about Windows Vista seems to fall into two main categories: built their computer incorrectly / bought a "vista ready" computer (which wasn't) and had a bad experience as a result, or have never used it before. The former I could understand somewhat, the latter on the other hand... I had Vista on launch with a dual core (later upgraded to quad) 4GB (later upgraded to 8GB) of ram and it was fine and dandy for anything, everyone that I know that has actually used Vista on a computer that met the requirements (as in didn't have 512mb to 1GB of ram as an example) thought it was great.

The whole hopping on the bandwagon just because it is popular is something that annoys me to no end. People who say things like "oh that sucks", "oh this version is better" and "that ___ is awful" only because they heard it was like that, without actually doing any research themselves is huge error in judgement and reasoning. A good example which has similarities to the Vista debate would be the book/movie series Twilight, a lot of people just hate it because it is popular to hate. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it is a hidden masterpiece or that Vista is terrible, I actually sat down and read the first book and watched the first movie just to see what all of the fuss was about and came to my own opinion, Twilight is bad since the characters are not interesting and the plot is very cliche, but it would probably be enjoyable for it's target audience (tweens); whereas Vista as long as you took the time to make sure you computer met the system requirements, it is a good operating system.

No real reason to migrate off of XP for most of these systems. The OS may be old, but so what? If it still gets the job done, there is really little incentive to move to something else.

If you read the article this supposedly quintuple support cost stems from a variety of factors, factors that are not always dependent on the OS in and of itself. It's based on a survey where there was utterly no effort made to isolate the influence of the OS.

Despite all the arguments to the contrary, I have yet to hear one single compelling reason why XP should not continue to be used in most of the systems it's installed in. And no, staying current for it's own sake is not a valid reason for anything.

...

Regarding Windows Vista, I had a negative opinion of it because, at the time of it's release, it had nearly no practical advantage for me over XP or XP x64, and was a vastly more resource intensive OS, with a vastly larger footprint.

At that time, DX10 was in it's infancy, so there was no reason to bother with it. Vista wasn't any faster than XP and it used quadruple the memory and twenty times the HDD space....all for no gain.

It's not that it was really bad, it just wasn't an improvement over what I already had.

I don't believe this for a second.
Edited by Blameless - 6/4/12 at 7:09am