"Windows XP costs 5X more than Windows 7 to support"

[TheMan100]

Anybody else seen this article? (Microsoft warns Windows XP costs 5X more than Windows 7 to support | VentureBeat)

 

I know XP is a bit dated now, but 5x more expensive to support? Would you agree?

[Michael]

I'm not entirely sure how they measure of calculate these findings, but it is fair to say that 7 is comparable with XP, although 7 is without doubt more resource hungry, but not to the same extent as Vista.

 

I suppose from a deployment perspective, 7 is better than XP. If you were to install both from scratch (7 SP1 and XP SP3), then patch up-to-date, XP does have considerably more security updates due to its age. 7 also includes .NET 1.1 to 3.5 by default and only requires .NET 4 installing. XP needs all five of these installing which is incredibly time consuming.

 

7 can also be deployed over different hardware out the box, whereas XP cannot without additional third party software, which is going to cost more money. There's also lots of hardware which don't have XP drivers, so companies may be forced to buy hardware that is XP backwards compatible.

 

I think the thing to remember is each company or educational establishment is different with different requirements. It is possible many companies adopted XP from day one and still use it today. They understand how it works, what it can and cannot do and how to make it work as required.

 

It's a fair assumption that when Windows 8 is released, Windows 7 will be classified as 'inferior'. Windows 8 probably will be quicker and probably will be easier to deploy but it's to be expected. It's also possible however that Microsoft themselves are their worst enemy releasing an OS like Vista. It was awful, it damaged consumer confidence and this is why there are still many sites on XP, slowly migrating to 7 (generally the current trend).

[alttab]

if your a business, and you've waited this long still on XP, why would you upgrade to 7 with Windows 8 just round the corner.

 

Especially if, from a 'user productivity' perspective, the previews indicate win8 to be better performing in a number of areas. Plus it doesn't have

more demanding minimum system requirements. Obviously they'd like to convince all about these supposed productivity benefits from moving to 7, well presumably companies want their users to remain productive that's why they've stuck with XP rather than disrupt. Wonder if they've factored in the cost of implementing training and the time taken to test, learn and fine tune the processes and infrastructure for Windows 7 when coming up with this x5 figure....

 

Companies have a timetable to work to if they want as far as moving off XP and will have a good enough idea of the merits of windows 8 well before the 2014 end of security updates for XP.

[teejay]

The problem with Windows 8 is the Metro interface, that will put a lot of enterprises off straight away, tbh I've no plans to be moving to it after testing preview as it looks like it could well be Vista mk 2. I do tend to skip every other release of Windows anyway, got better things to do with our network.

As for XP support costing more, I can see where they're going with that, our W7 client infrastructure has been rock solid compared to our previous XP clients, which needed an intricate spiders nest of patches, hacks and workarounds to get things to work properly.

[alttab]

The problem with Windows 8 is the Metro interface, that will put a lot of enterprises off straight away, tbh I've no plans to be moving to it after testing preview as it looks like it could well be Vista mk 2. I do tend to skip every other release of Windows anyway, got better things to do with our network.

As for XP support costing more, I can see where they're going with that, our W7 client infrastructure has been rock solid compared to our previous XP clients, which needed an intricate spiders nest of patches, hacks and workarounds to get things to work properly.

 

i just don't get what all the fuss is about Windows 7. Sure, it's an improvement over Vista, but that was improving on an abomination. The bar was low, and i have to say i may feel better about windows 7 deployment from a sysadmin point of view, but as a user i find my user experience and responsiveness is better by far when i'm using OSX on mac hardware. I still feel navigating around XP is more intuitive and personally i can do without the bloat that's been added to win7. Maybe i'm one of those users who's crying out for the performance increases of win8, the nice UI enhancements like ribbon in explorer, and it potentially having less resource requirements....and everyone else is just grateful that Windows 7 is not vista, that they've got their aero nonsense and fewer patches to deploy than XP sP3 ?

[Arthur]

tbh I've no plans to be moving to it after testing preview as it looks like it could well be Vista mk 2.

Don't you think it would be better to base your opinion of Windows 8 on the final version when it ships? Microsoft will have made a huge amount of changes between the Developer Preview and RTM. Even the forthcoming Release Preview won't have everything the RTM version will have.

 

Perhaps Microsoft would have been better off doing what Apple do and only allow developers access to betas etc.?

[SimpleSi]

B*******s Edited May 28, 2012 by witch

[SYNACK]

Maybe not to that degree but I'd agree. XP is a giant freaking ant hill, a nest of more patches than OS at this point. Primative as hell from a deployment and recovey point of view.

 

When we went to Vista our support time dropped by about 50%, yes it used more resources as it did more. There were way more GPOs which were more reliable in their application. Smart healing of registry and system files which fixed many issues transparently (the only way you knew is if you checked the event logs - same kind of fault killed XP). Monitering of SMART built right in to the OS giving the user an error generally in time to save data. There was not the massive effort of adding in drivers for every little thing as it was to new for XP to know about, drivers started to be easily grabbed from hardware manager driver search or just automagicly. Drivers were in general more stable as they were generally re-written. Malware and viruses became less of a hassle as the security model was better even comparing fully patched systems. Windows installer became much faster as the later versions were baked in. Offline files became even better (we had it working alright on XP but Vista/7 did improve it).

 

Windows 7 improved on that further by upping the speed of some machines.

 

 

Before I get yelled down I just want to say that this was my experience across multiple schools and computers and we used it to cut the support time required. Yes it took some time to setup but that time has been saved many, many times over. As to training, the teachers got used to it pretty quick and the students did not miss a beat. It actually led to a better base level on knowlege amount the teachers as the change gave them the oppertunity to ask questions they previously may have been embarised to. By going through each OS and Office version in series (all be it delaying some till SP1/2) the staff just had little increments to adjust to. The change from 2007 to 2010 went unnoticed by most staff for a few weeks till we enquired if they had noticed a change.

 

Holding back forever just makes the gulf bigger for when you finally do need to move especially with training. Besides the whole wait till Windows 8 now excuse leads seamlessly into the wait till W8 SP1 and the W8 SP2 then the W9 is almost out argument. At some point you either need to make the jump or be contented crafting horse shoes out of iron with a hammer.

[SimpleSi]

Just a proper tuppence

Xp machines generally start up OK - problems occur with apps not the OS

 

Quite few of my Win7 netbooss are strating up sometimes in some sort of system recover mode (which they fail to recover from) but are fine when switched off and on again - go figure

[Arthur]

XP machines generally start up OK - problems occur with apps not the OS

My experience is similar to Synack's. File system and registry corruption is far more common with XP than 7. XP just dies at the first sign of trouble.

 

I don't think I have ever seen a Windows 7 PC with an UNMOUNTABLE_BOOT_VOLUME blue screen for example.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Arthur

[DrCheese]

Just a proper tuppence

Xp machines generally start up OK - problems occur with apps not the OS

 

Quite few of my Win7 netbooss are strating up sometimes in some sort of system recover mode (which they fail to recover from) but are fine when switched off and on again - go figure

 

By default, 7 will boot into this if it fails to boot up correctly or someone has turned it off without shutting down properly. In a school you'll often get the sprogs doing this.

 

All you need to do is disable it from doing so by typing

 

bcdedit /set {current} bootstatuspolicy ignoreallfailures

 

into cmd.

[SimpleSi]

What a saviour! :-)

[theriver]

if your a business, and you've waited this long still on XP, why would you upgrade to 7 with Windows 8 just round the corner.

 

Large organisations have extremely risk-averse IT departments, and those still using XP will have spent the last year or two building a support infrastructure for Windows 7 that includes compatibility testing applications, devices etc. They won't be able to go to Windows 8 as it takes a long time to gear up for such a big change.

[DrCheese]

What a saviour! :-)

 

Welcome. Annoyingly if you set this setting on your image it won't transfer to a new install, so you have to do it on every computer. Look at doing it as a startup script or something

[X-13]

I'm not entirely sure how they measure of calculate these findings

 

They use the same people who work out the financial "losses" caused by piracy.

[Disease]

if your a business, and you've waited this long still on XP, why would you upgrade to 7 with Windows 8 just round the corner.

 

 

Because Windows 8 Sucks?

[SYNACK]

Because Windows 8 Sucks?

 

Lets be constructive now, W8's UI on a desktop sucks. I'm sure it will work fine for a tablet.

[Davit2005]

Yeah would like to know the metrics Microsoft used to come out with such a statement.

 

 

 

Here's looking forward to the RC version of Win8, along with others I'm not a fan of the Metro Look at all.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Davit2005

[sted]

Yeah would like to know the metrics Microsoft used to come out with such a statement.

 

 

 

Here's looking forward to the RC version of Win8, along with others I'm not a fan of the Metro Look at all.

 

metro is alright IF YOU HAVE A TOUCHSCREEN be it a tablet smartboard or whatever but for a desktop/laptop it is pointless tbh i find dos less anoying than metro with a mouse

[bigfoot780]

Windows 8 = Vista 2.0 (Horrible, just give a GPO to turn that start screen off)

WIndows 7 = Windows XP (moan about the changes since the last version but genrally OK)

[cpjitservices]

Hmmmmmmm Now could be the time to roll out Linux to the desktops

 

 

Wishful thinking of course........

[Davit2005]

Hmmmmmmm Now could be the time to roll out Linux to the desktops

 

 

Wishful thinking of course........

 

Students would adapt quicker than most staff I suspect :-) .

[gshaw]

Tomorrow's article headline... "upgrading to Windows 8 gets you 10 x more girls"

 

Not entirely convinced by the stats but there are certainly features in 7 that make life a lot easier. From an imaging point of view it's streets ahead of XP, even simple things like native support for the Intel AHCI controller saves a lot of time.

 

The 7 usability features are quite subtle but work well (Aero snap etc) although from a support perspective some of the dialog box updates are a bit clunky (e.g. printer settings & network sharing center over complicate things) but compared to the sins of Vista it's a small grumble compared to the positives of 7.

 

As for 8... well... it's a real marmite OS as it stands, I wonder who will be brave enough to go for it on a primarily desktop estate. I doubt those who made the Vista jump early will want to have their hands burnt again...

[Sephiroth]

Hmmmmmmm Now could be the time to roll out Linux to the desktops

 

 

Wishful thinking of course........

 

That's what were planning on doing. I'm currently working on locking down Debian (to see how easy it is, more than anything else) with a view to deploying to every machine that doesn't need Windows specific programs (SIMS, Sibelius et cetera).

[sted]

Hmmmmmmm Now could be the time to roll out Linux to the desktops

 

 

Wishful thinking of course........

 

for non tablet devices it might be the way to go if ms insist on shoving everyone down the touch screen route "cos its pretty" as i see very few uses where a touchscreen is the best option (or even better than mouse) and they all revolve around "watching stuff" rather than "doing stuff"