The Government's attitude

Eponymous

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I am currently in a government department and there are very few XP machines about. They are also planned to be upgraded anyway. I don't think PWC do IT services.

Either way they don't use consulting firms for such things that is the internal IT department.

So basically you don't know what you are talking about.

You're probably right re PWC, but aren't Deloitte involved in the ongoing (and behind schedule) Shared Financial Services Project?

Who is working with D/PER on the Peoplepoint project?

Two centralised ICT projects, NOT internal IT departments...

How about PPars?

PULSE?

But yeah, what would I, a humble anonymous poster on the internet, know about government IT projects at all at all...?

Amirani

jimgoose wrote: »

He is the man responsible for all the information the Government holds about you. This includes Revenue, HSE, Social Protection, the whole kit-and-caboodle. His immediate response to imminent End-of-Life of virtually every workstation and probably server (knowing those clowns) under his command is basically "Nah biy, they're on'y havin' a laugh!!". I don't trust him to reboot a laptop, he's a furken moron.

You can be guaranteed that workstations that genuinely need a more modern OS probably have one. A stroll around TCD, UCD or DCU will show you that.

jimgoose

NiallSparky wrote: »

You can be guaranteed that workstations that genuinely need a more modern OS probably have one. A stroll around TCD, UCD or DCU will show you that.

And what do TCD, UCD or DCU have to do with this?

Phoebas

jimgoose wrote: »

He is the man responsible for all the information the Government holds about you. This includes Revenue, HSE, Social Protection, the whole kit-and-caboodle. His immediate response to imminent End-of-Life of virtually every workstation and probably server (knowing those clowns) under his command is basically "Nah biy, they're on'y havin' a laugh!!". I don't trust him to reboot a laptop, he's a furken moron.

You're just not paying attention, are you?
There is an upgrade underway:

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I am currently in a government department and there are very few XP machines about. They are also planned to be upgraded anyway.

Amirani

jimgoose wrote: »

And what do TCD, UCD or DCU have to do with this?

That this isn't something that's really affecting any intensive IT user in the public sector. TCD, UCD and DCU are run all publicly run, and have very modern IT equipment. I'm sure it's the same in Revenue and the Department of Finance and so on.

shane7218

NiallSparky wrote: »

That this isn't something that's really affecting any intensive IT user in the public sector. TCD, UCD and DCU are run all publicly run, and have very modern IT equipment. I'm sure it's the same in Revenue and the Department of Finance and so on.

Its is vital for all workstations as one infected computer is all it takes inside an internal network for a disaster to start

jimgoose

Phoebas wrote: »

You're just not paying attention, are you?
There is an upgrade underway:

You'd be surprised how much attention I'm paying. And they can upgrade the whole lot to AIX 7.1 for all I care, I am talking about the publicly-elucidated attitude of the CIO:

“You’d have to ask whether Microsoft really will turn off their support,” said Mr McCluggage. “There are organisations larger than us [in government] that won’t be fully switched over by then. So the question is whether they mean what they say.”

ScumLord

minotour wrote: »

he's only in the door. he inherited the issue and he's dealing with it. We dont know what the plan was or if there even was one. Hardly fair to call incompetence in this instance.

I guess, and I suppose seeing as this information is coming through the newspaper filter it's probably been worded to sound as bad as possible but the statement he made sounds like he just hasn't a clue about software evolution. It just reeks of ignorance.

For the record I say competent in relation to his knowledge of the field,

Thats yet to be seen, I'm going to be confidently working from the assumption that he's ignorant of the details of the technology he's in charge of and isn't really educated enough to make anything other than a politically motivated decision based on other peoples work.

Phoebas

ScumLord wrote: »

Thats yet to be seen, I'm going to be confidently working from the assumption that he's ignorant of the details of the technology he's in charge of and isn't really educated enough to make anything other than a politically motivated decision based on other peoples work.

What politically motivated decision do you think he made?
I've never heard of a CIO who wouldn't just love to spend millions of Euro on big upgrade projects - if the money was there. I think that we can assume that he doesn't have the money and he's having to prioritise.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

What's this old fart doing in charge of IT. Christ on a bike...

seamus

shane7218 wrote: »

Its is vital for all workstations as one infected computer is all it takes inside an internal network for a disaster to start

Disaster, not really, the primary problem is that of the information on the infected machines being compromised and the network itself being compromised by these machines firing stupid amounts of information around. Other machines shouldn't really be affected if they're being properly managed. That said, if your network contains windows XP machines, then you're probably in a pretty crappy place overall.

The vulnerabilities could more specifically be used to gain a foothold, as if the attacker was physically sitting at a machine located inside the government's network. Which obviously is a big cause for concern.

Microsoft don't extend their support. There are far bigger and more powerful organisations than the Irish government and even they don't get any reprieve from this.

This is clearly a case of a civil servant speaking before checking his facts. A simple email to a member of IT staff in his organisation could have given him the actual facts.

yoyo

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

XP is still a great ****ing operating system.

2000 was also a great OS, why didn't they stick with that, sure NT4 was grand as well like.. Time to move on, XP had its day (and it was a very poor OS at launch a lot seem to forget the viruses, worms, stability issues that plagued XP pre-SP2), and yes Microsoft will stop supporting XP next year. I think you can "buy" support from them for a few hundred grand for another year, I think I'd prefer they upgrade to 7/8 instead though as it's the "better" value in the long run option. I mean fair play to Microsoft for supporting it for over 12 years, do Apple even support OS's that are over 3 years old? I know someone who cannot run the new iTunes on a 4 year old MacBook as it needs an OS upgrade..

Nick

Eponymous

Phoebas wrote: »

What politically motivated decision do you think he made?
I've never heard of a CIO who wouldn't just love to spend millions of Euro on big upgrade projects - if the money was there. I think that we can assume that he doesn't have the money and he's having to prioritise.

Upgrades within individual departments are out of those departments own budgets. Most departments will buy new hardware every five years as budgets permit.

He doesn't need to worry about any budgets save the one for his own office. There is a centralised section that green-lights any IT spending for departments, be it hardware, bespoke software or even OS upgrades.

ScumLord

Phoebas wrote: »

What politically motivated decision do you think he made?

See that's the thing, technology has a clearly definable path that everyone understands. Faster, cheaper, smaller. You just have to know what your doing to achieve that, you can't politics a computer and that's why he's going to fail at his job. Well maybe fail is a strong word but I'll be shocked if he excels.

Ray Palmer

Eponymous wrote: »

You're probably right re PWC, but aren't Deloitte involved in the ongoing (and behind schedule) Shared Financial Services Project?

Who is working with D/PER on the Peoplepoint project?

Two centralised ICT projects, NOT internal IT departments...

How about PPars?

PULSE?

But yeah, what would I, a humble anonymous poster on the internet, know about government IT projects at all at all...?

Just a lack of understanding on your behalf. A consultant company is brought in to write software. Hardware and OS upgrades are not part of what they are doing. That is the internal IT departments.

The proposals are decided by the department and then put out for tender. A consultant company then submit their tenders. If the initial proposal is flawed it is not the consultant companies' fault.

Deloitte have an IT consulting division and do work on government sites. Why they would be behind on a project may also be no fault of their own. Scope creep is the biggest delay on any IT project and normally down to senior staff being unaware of the details of work carried out on the floor.

jimgoose

Ray Palmer wrote: »

...normally down to senior staff being unaware of the details of work carried out on the floor.

In other words, they are incompetent. And they are incompetent for the same reason most government departments are incompetent, i.e. there is no accountability, just an "endless" pot of taxpayer's money.

Phoebas

Eponymous wrote: »

Upgrades within individual departments are out of those departments own budgets. Most departments will buy new hardware every five years as budgets permit.

He doesn't need to worry about any budgets save the one for his own office. There is a centralised section that green-lights any IT spending for departments, be it hardware, bespoke software or even OS upgrades.

He is the CIO with overarching responsibility for IT policy including upgrade cycles i.e. one of the key people involved in that green lighting of IT spending.

So I guess he has difficult decisions to make - should he prioritise an expensive upgrade to a non critical system over some other more urgent IT requirement.

minotour

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Just a lack of understanding on your behalf. A consultant company is brought in to write software. Hardware and OS upgrades are not part of what they are doing. That is the internal IT departments.

The proposals are decided by the department and then put out for tender. A consultant company then submit their tenders. If the initial proposal is flawed it is not the consultant companies' fault.

Deloitte have an IT consulting division and do work on government sites. Why they would be behind on a project may also be no fault of their own. Scope creep is the biggest delay on any IT project and normally down to senior staff being unaware of the details of work carried out on the floor.

You are inside the tent, why dont you give us your opinion on what the new CIO is saying and doing???

Is there a reason that he is challenging them?
Have ye got an uipgrade path?
Is it ongoing, what are the challenges to meeting the EOL deadline?
Do you have enough budget?
Can you ensure all current applciations are compatible??

Come on man, help us understand

Oh and get back to work!!:D

Phoebas

Braydon Gentle Kleenex wrote: »

What's this old fart doing in charge of IT. Christ on a bike...

I guess its his years of experience as CIO of Northern Ireland and deputy CIO for the UK Cabinet leading the development of the UK's ICT strategy that swung it for him.

ScumLord

Phoebas wrote: »

He is the CIO with overarching responsibility for IT policy including upgrade cycles i.e. one of the key people involved in that green lighting of IT spending.

So I guess he has difficult decisions to make - should he prioritise an expensive upgrade to a non critical system over some other more urgent IT requirement.

The OS is one of the most critical systems, the fact the OS the government is using is vulnerable makes it even more critical. I would also assume overall costs could go down as they'll open up a greater range of software. Once Microsoft stop supporting XP you'll probably find a lot of other software providers will stop supporting XP too as they won't be able to give any kind of guarantees on how vulnerable their software will be on an XP system.

What could be more urgent than that. Remember it's your information that's being protected here, are you honestly willing to risk your personal information on outdated software? Hackers will be like a moth to a flame knowing there's a government system so vulnerable.

Eponymous

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Just a lack of understanding on your behalf. A consultant company is brought in to write software. Hardware and OS upgrades are not part of what they are doing. That is the internal IT departments.

The proposals are decided by the department and then put out for tender. A consultant company then submit their tenders. If the initial proposal is flawed it is not the consultant companies' fault.

Deloitte have an IT consulting division and do work on government sites. Why they would be behind on a project may also be no fault of their own. Scope creep is the biggest delay on any IT project and normally down to senior staff being unaware of the details of work carried out on the floor.

Consultancy firms are also brought in to help define the scope of projects, not just write software. But for what it's worth, consultancy firms will happily consult on hardware/OS upgrades too once they get their Euros!

I've seen enough of what some firms do to know that they can be just as culpable as the civil servants in allowing "creep".

But I do agree that it can often be the case that heads of departments can be so out of touch that they just parrot any old crap they hear at a project board meeting in the hopes of sounding clued in or shifting the goal posts at a critical time on a project.

Ray Palmer

jimgoose wrote: »

In other words, they are incompetent. And they are incompetent for the same reason most government departments are incompetent, i.e. there is no accountability, just an "endless" pot of taxpayer's money.

No different from a private company if anything they are often better as their budgets are watched more closely. The media like to over blow and comment on it when it is the government. Unions block improvements is probably the bigger issue in the public services but older companies with unions are similar.

Real examples.
Private company 2 years late of software delivery 50% over budget
Government body 2 months delay and 15% over budget.

I know one company that has gone 200% over budget and 5 years late and still nothing to show for it.

Phoebas

ScumLord wrote: »

The OS is one of the most critical systems, the fact the OS the government is using is vulnerable makes it even more critical. I would also assume overall costs could go down as they'll open up a greater range of software. Once Microsoft stop supporting XP you'll probably find a lot of other software providers will stop supporting XP too as they won't be able to give any kind of guarantees on how vulnerable their software will be on an XP system.

Honestly, I don't think you are a position to say that the full XP upgrade is more critical than every other IT project vying for resources.

ScumLord wrote: »

What could be more urgent than that. Remember it's your information that's being protected here, are you honestly willing to risk your personal information on outdated software?

Yep. If I had a choice of upgrading my OS over putting food on the table, I'd put food on the table.
In work, if I had a choice of delaying the upgrade of an OS running a non mission critical system over maintaining a mission critical system, I'd go for the mission critical one.

ScumLord wrote: »

Hackers will be like a moth to a flame knowing there's a government system so vulnerable.

Bit dramatic. There is an upgrade ongoing - its just not going to be completed across the whole of the public service by the EOL. The sky doesn't fall in on that day.

Alan_P

Back in the real world, Windows XP market share is actually growing, and it still has 37% usage share.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/02/windows_8_v_windows_xp_july_data/

XP's growth may be blip, but it's share has only dropped 2.3% since January.

http://www.browsium.com/2013/08/01/july-windows-xp-share-decline/

So it will inevitably still have significant market share by Microsoft's April 2014 EOL date, so inevitably Microsoft will be forced to extend at least security support, as they have in so many other cases where they threatened to EOL products.

So the head of Government IT is making perfectly reasonable points.

Phoebas

Even if MS don't extend full support for XP, there is an option to buy a custom support plan from MS, which would include security patches.

Chicken Lickens can breath a sigh of relief.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9237019/Microsoft_gooses_Windows_XP_s_custom_support_prices_as_deadline_nears

ScumLord

Phoebas wrote: »

Honestly, I don't think you are a position to say that the full XP upgrade is more critical than every other IT project vying for resources.

No, I'm not. But what are these other critical projects that usurp a secure operating system?

Eponymous

Alan_P wrote: »

Back in the real world, Windows XP market share is actually growing, and it still has 37% usage share.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/02/windows_8_v_windows_xp_july_data/

XP's growth may be blip, but it's share has only dropped 2.3% since January.

http://www.browsium.com/2013/08/01/july-windows-xp-share-decline/

So it will inevitably still have significant market share by Microsoft's April 2014 EOL date, so inevitably Microsoft will be forced to extend at least security support, as they have in so many other cases where they threatened to EOL products.

So the head of Government IT is making perfectly reasonable points.

The growth is lower than the margin of error and seems to be easily accounted for if you read the comments.

ScumLord

Phoebas wrote: »

Even if MS don't extend full support for XP, there is an option to buy a custom support plan from MS, which would include security patches.

Chicken Lickens can breath a sigh of relief.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9237019/Microsoft_gooses_Windows_XP_s_custom_support_prices_as_deadline_nears

I wonder what that'll cost though. One or two years of that kind of support might cost as much as the upgrade and they'll still have to do the upgrade in the end. Why couldn't they just have prepared for this, the likes of the government could have had a contract that included these upgrades. I'm sure Microsoft would have loved to have the government as an early adopter and had engineers on standby to ensure everything went smoothly.

Sofiztikated

ScumLord wrote: »

I wonder what that'll cost though. One or two years of that kind of support might cost as much as the upgrade and they'll still have to do the upgrade in the end. Why couldn't they just have prepared for this, the likes of the government could have had a contract that included these upgrades. I'm sure Microsoft would have loved to have the government as an early adopter and had engineers on standby to ensure everything went smoothly.

We're not very good at planning for the future.

And **** future Governments, we mightn't be in charge then.

Phoebas

ScumLord wrote: »

No, I'm not. But what are these other critical projects that usurp a secure operating system?

Well, for example, any of the Revenue system changes required to implement budget changes would be more important than some XP desktop upgrades used for work processing well inside the firewall.

ScumLord wrote: »

I wonder what that'll cost though. One or two years of that kind of support might cost as much as the upgrade and they'll still have to do the upgrade in the end.

It may well be expensive to buy support next year, but I guess if the money for the upgrade money isn't here this year then its a moot point. I'm happy to defer to the CIO on decisions like like in the absence of full information.

ScumLord wrote: »

Why couldn't they just have prepared for this, the likes of the government could have had a contract that included these upgrades. I'm sure Microsoft would have loved to have the government as an early adopter and had engineers on standby to ensure everything went smoothly.

I'm sure MS would only love to have more big government contracts - they make a fortune out of them.

Duggy747

I still use XP on my work machine but it's had it's day and Microsoft announced ages ago that next year was the kill switch for support. When that comes the inevitable ceasing of support from 3rd party companies and their software will follow suit.

XP was good in it's day but really pales in comparison to the stability and features of Win 7, rose tinted glasses say otherwise.

I'm guessing McCluggage is going by how MS extended XP's life cycle during Vista's not-very-popular introduction, but likely the government's funding to it's own IT areas too.

Microsoft won't budge or make a compromise, considering they have a service for continuing security updates which cost a hell of a lot of money to sign up for. Money which would be better used on newer software / hardware than keeping older ones alive.

Even so, I'd be interested to see how many XP machines actually still exist in government offices. A lot of those XP machines were probably downgrades from Vista, too.

**Vai**

Taoiseachs dept and most of agriculture are XP machines. No downgrades either, Vista was never even considered afaik. XP gets the job done and its the most stable (plus cost effective) Windows OS.

ScumLord

**Vai** wrote: »

Taoiseachs dept and most of agriculture are XP machines. No downgrades either, Vista was never even considered afaik. XP gets the job done and its the most stable (plus cost effective) Windows OS.

It's not that cost effective when the software you're buying doesn't support it anymore. We've been running into that problem on some XP machines.

Duggy747

XP is good but is far from being the most stable OS, a lot more can go wrong with it and result in major problems than the later operating systems and can be trickier to deal with when using newer software.

Phoebas

Duggy747 wrote: »

Microsoft won't budge or make a compromise, considering they have a service for continuing security updates which cost a hell of a lot of money to sign up for. Money which would be better used on newer software / hardware than keeping older ones alive.

I read a figure of $200 per PC for a full year support - which obviously adds up to real money if you have thousands of machines.

But the cost of the OS upgrade isn't just the OS. Often it will require a hardware upgrade and it will also need some level of testing of all of the systems that run on those machines. And if there is software that doesn't run anymore (which can easily happen when something that was designed for a less secure environment is deployed on a more secure one), then there can be the expense of getting software patches written (and ever more extensive test cycles).
In the past there would have been money to throw at external consultants to help with big upgrade projects, so it may well be very cost effective to delay the full rollout, pay for the additional support and use in-house resources to do it over a longer timescale.

Ray Palmer

Eponymous wrote: »

Consultancy firms are also brought in to help define the scope of projects, not just write software. But for what it's worth, consultancy firms will happily consult on hardware/OS upgrades too once they get their Euros!

I've seen enough of what some firms do to know that they can be just as culpable as the civil servants in allowing "creep".

But I do agree that it can often be the case that heads of departments can be so out of touch that they just parrot any old crap they hear at a project board meeting in the hopes of sounding clued in or shifting the goal posts at a critical time on a project.

That's just part of the development of software. They of course will consult on whether the equipment can handle the new systems. They don't do it themselves

Scope creep is something no consultant company wants as they loose money. Additional chargeable work is something they will push for as it means more money. Not the same thing.

Have you actually been and a top level project meeting? There are different levels and the people in charge of the budget are very quick to stop scope creep. It doesn't matter what the head of a department says. The lower meeting are like that for sure but that is often just to appease them.

yoyo

**Vai** wrote: »

Taoiseachs dept and most of agriculture are XP machines. No downgrades either, Vista was never even considered afaik. XP gets the job done and its the most stable (plus cost effective) Windows OS.

XP is not cost effective as with support ending next year the special extended support costs run into the hundreds of thousands. Licenses for XP also cannot be purchased any more so if an organization needs new computers they cannot put XP on them, unless they have licenses lying around.
XP the most stable OS? Not really sure if this is fact or opinion, but I'm going to go with opinion unless a unbiased source says otherwise. Because in my experience XP was far less stable than Windows 7, and shock horror :eek: I find Windows 8 to be very stable and have been using it for months and no crashes (I lie some related to AMDs rubbish display drivers, but that's not the OSes fault).

So it will inevitably still have significant market share by Microsoft's April 2014 EOL date, so inevitably So it will inevitably still have significant market share by Microsoft's April 2014 EOL date, so inevitably Microsoft will be forced to extend at least security support, as they have in so many other cases where they threatened to EOL products., as they have in so many other cases where they threatened to EOL products.

Microsoft hardly care, you want XP support after April '14 you pay for it, and even at that they won't be doing this for long I imagine. Just to please the stragglers. If you have outdated systems/software then you either upgrade them or run them off the network or whatever on older machines. Does Windows XP support all Windows 95/98 drivers and software? Nope it does not. 12 years is not a bad amount of time to support an OS, why should Microsoft invest time and resources into patching up such an old piece of software, time that will be taken away from other software projects they could be be working on...

But the cost of the OS upgrade isn't just the OS. Often it will require a hardware upgrade and it will also need some level of testing of all of the systems that run on those machines.

In fairness, if companies are still using hardware incapable of running 7/8 then they are well on the way to needing an update, even from a reliability point of view. I would imagine most companies would have systems which at least meet the minimum requirements for either OS

Nick

**Vai**

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not that cost effective when the software you're buying doesn't support it anymore. We've been running into that problem on some XP machines.

Buying new software is rarely on the agenda in government depts. These days anyway.

Eponymous

Ray Palmer wrote: »

That's just part of the development of software. They of course will consult on whether the equipment can handle the new systems. They don't do it themselves

Scope creep is something no consultant company wants as they loose money. Additional chargeable work is something they will push for as it means more money. Not the same thing.

Have you actually been and a top level project meeting? There are different levels and the people in charge of the budget are very quick to stop scope creep. It doesn't matter what the head of a department says. The lower meeting are like that for sure but that is often just to appease them.

If by high level you mean Sec Gen, then yes I have. Maybe you've only worked on good projects! If so, you've been quite lucky.

**Vai**

yoyo wrote: »

XP is not cost effective as with support ending next year the special extended support costs run into the hundreds of thousands. Licenses for XP also cannot be purchased any more so if an organization needs new computers they cannot put XP on them, unless they have licenses lying around.
XP the most stable OS? Not really sure if this is fact or opinion, but I'm going to go with opinion unless a unbiased source says otherwise. Because in my experience XP was far less stable than Windows 7, and shock horror :eek: I find Windows 8 to be very stable and have been using it for months and no crashes (I lie some related to AMDs rubbish display drivers, but that's not the OSes fault).

Not working in IT anymore so I had no knowledge of the support ending but XP's stability is my own opinion. From home PCs as well as work related, I've rarely had an issue. Definitely disagree about 7. Only recently got a new PC with 7 and I still prefer XP.

Nemeses

That yoyo guy speak sense..

Thank god for that!

Ray Palmer

Eponymous wrote: »

If by high level you mean Sec Gen, then yes I have. Maybe you've only worked on good projects! If so, you've been quite lucky.

Oh I wish I worked on good projects. That level has relatively little bearing on what is actually being done. It is too high a view to get a bearing on what is happening.

Ray Palmer

Phoebas wrote: »

I
But the cost of the OS upgrade isn't just the OS. Often it will require a hardware upgrade and it will also need some level of testing of all of the systems that run on those machines. QUOTE]
Actually the time spent testing systems on lower spec machines with older OS is probably the big part of where money gets wasted.

It is one of the reason there is a push to web based applications. Although most companies will use a very old web browser to not have issues.

yoyo

**Vai** wrote: »

Not working in IT anymore so I had no knowledge of the support ending but XP's stability is my own opinion. From home PCs as well as work related, I've rarely had an issue. Definitely disagree about 7. Only recently got a new PC with 7 and I still prefer XP.

If your having stability issues with a new Windows 7 machine then it may well be faulty, because that is certainly not the norm. Whatever about preferring another OS is a matter of opinion, although in all honesty there is f**k all difference between XP and 7, except 7 being a modern and more secure OS.
I really don't understand how people would expect a software company like Microsoft to support an OS even for 12 years, I'm sure that is possibly one for the record books actually!
I used XP in the early days, so I do have to wonder where people are getting it was the most stable OS line, because this was certainly not the case. There was fairly little difference between XP and 2000 actually, except Microsoft stopped supporting 2000 earlier

Nick

seamus

**Vai** wrote: »

Taoiseachs dept and most of agriculture are XP machines. No downgrades either, Vista was never even considered afaik. XP gets the job done and its the most stable (plus cost effective) Windows OS.

Nah, Windows 7 is far more stable than XP. XP was stable, but was still likely to have a little freak out every now and again where one misbehaving program could pull the whole thing down.

That virtually never happens with Win7 in my experience. A misbehaving program will almost always be isolated and killed by the OS before it becomes a problem.

YMMV of course. My first install of Win7 was horrifically unstable, which I later traced to a dodgy motherboard causing intermittent hardware-level problems accessing the disks.

**Vai** wrote: »

Only recently got a new PC with 7 and I still prefer XP.

It will grow on you. It appears to hide a lot of functionality initially, but once you get into it you realise it actually works really really well.

Windows 8 isn't a bad OS per se, they've just made a really, really big mistake with the UI.

ScumLord

Phoebas wrote: »

I read a figure of $200 per PC for a full year support - which obviously adds up to real money if you have thousands of machines.

That's very expensive. How much would an open license agreement for windows 8 cost per machine? I'd guess less than $100, that leaves €100 per machine to carry out the necessary upgrades which is loads.

Yes upgrading is a headache and there will be problems but that's their job. It's part of IT.

Phoebas

ScumLord wrote: »

That's very expensive. How much would an open license agreement for windows 8 cost per machine? I'd guess less than $100, that leaves €100 per machine to carry out the necessary upgrades which is loads.

Really, it isn't.

ScumLord wrote: »

Yes upgrading is a headache and there will be problems but that's their job. It's part of IT.

.... and it's not free either.

seamus

ScumLord wrote: »

That's very expensive. How much would an open license agreement for windows 8 cost per machine? I'd guess less than $100, that leaves €100 per machine to carry out the necessary upgrades which is loads.

Yes upgrading is a headache and there will be problems but that's their job. It's part of IT.

You wouldn't even work it like that. You'd easily replace every XP machine with a Win8 machine 2/3 times faster @ $400 a pop. That's 10 years of maintained software from MS for the cost of two years of maintenance of WinXP.

yoyo

Phoebas wrote: »

Really, it isn't.

Dated: October 26, 2009, months after when Windows 7 was first released. When XP was first released I can tell you uptake from 2000 (and even '98!) was not instant! It's the same with any OS. Windows 7 now has SP1, it is now more "stable" (being honest I never had any real issues with it) so it is now a fully acceptable upgrade from older operating systems, the same with Windows 8 which is very similar to 7 from a reliability pov, although the small learning curve is putting many people off.
XP will actually be more of a cost now, paying for extended support only delaying the inevitable

Nick

Duggy747

I regularly work with and troubleshoot XP / Vista / 7 machines.

Hands down Win 7 is the better OS to work with for me as a technician, Vista has improved in the years of patches and Win 8 is still in it's infancy but gets too much flak for an otherwise similar OS with a different UI.

It doesn't make sense to put money down on security updates and THEN spend an additional amount on the inevitability of upgrading the machines. Prolonging staff to get with the changes.

That's extra unnecessary work and stress for IT.