Mother lode area still use window XP


Recommended Posts

elenarie, on 06 Apr 2014 - 09:23, said:

If those techies are incapable of doing their job, they are free to leave. Stop trying to find excuses, IT folks should always be up-to-date on everything that happens in the IT world, especially with things that directly or indirectly relate to their jobs. For those that are incompetent, the door is that way. ->

 

Dude. Go to www.zdnet.com and read comments from any story with XP? 90% are filled with IT WORKS FINE!! MS SCREW YOU. I run XP at work and know better. They are secure ... etc

 

Seriously these are not grandma knitting websites but FOR IT PRO's. Zdnet owned pcmag, computer shopper and other publications in the 1980s and 1990s so the users are in their 40s now are set in their ways. They love XP and prefer it at work. They will even state it is more stable than Win 7 and how terrible bloated it is. What do you mean it needs more than 512 megs of ram. Sigh

 

Should they be out of a job if they are proactively choosing to be lazy? Yes. But many cost accountants see this as XP works just fine and why go through the hassle if what we have already works and leaving introduces great costs, pain, and risk? I waited on XP too even if it was less secure as my employer is loosing 10's of millions upgrading to Windows 7. But, it does need to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude. Go to www.zdnet.com and read comments from any story with XP? 90% are filled with IT WORKS FINE!! MS SCREW YOU. I run XP at work and know better. They are secure ... etc

 

Seriously these are not grandma knitting websites but FOR IT PRO's. Zdnet owned pcmag, computer shopper and other publications in the 1980s and 1990s so the users are in their 40s now are set in their ways. They love XP and prefer it at work. They will even state it is more stable than Win 7 and how terrible bloated it is. What do you mean it needs more than 512 megs of ram. Sigh

 

Should they be out of a job if they are proactively choosing to be lazy? Yes. But many cost accountants see this as XP works just fine and why go through the hassle if what we have already works and leaving introduces great costs, pain, and risk? I waited on XP too even if it was less secure as my employer is loosing 10's of millions upgrading to Windows 7. But, it does need to be done.

Corporate planet is conservative to the point of being CHICKEN - how many times have we heard - on Neowin, no less! - "If it isn't broke, don't fix it!"  That is the attitude regarding 7, XP, even NT4 back in 1999/2000.

It is that same attitude that leads to "expense shedding" and BYOD (bring your own desktop).

The spew forth against the banishment of the Start menu in Windows 8 has the origin in the same place - a very conservative-to-chicken "it works fine" argument from the pointing-device-centric.  Never mind that it mostly did NOT "work fine" to the keyboard-centric - it was the "power mousers" that held sway (mostly in management).

 

It would literally take their computer imploding to get some folks off XP.

 

And by the by - I am fifty-two, started in IT before the PC even existed, yet run Windows 8.1 happily, despite having neither a touch-screen OR a Start menu bringback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't wait to see what happens?

 

Many and I mean MANY PREFER XP and are loyal and spew crap on zdnet.com how XP was the pinnacle that all that is holy and the BEST OS EVER and win 7 is vista crap relabeled etc.

 

Older users set in their ways also prefer XP. It is familiar. Neophytes do not know what a security update is and view their computer as a fridge. They use XP. Corpoations like mine like it because it works and cost over runs and losses and productivity lost due to bugs and GPO issues prefer XP and would stay on it for another 13 years to avoid the headache if given. Last, most do not even know about EOL or care. They think their 2007 trial of Norton will protect them.

ZDNet is the Wild West of comments. My IQ drops 15 points each comment I read there. Also, aside from Ed Bott, and Mary Jo, their writers are just as questionable.

 

Whatever people say, XP is old, and needs to go. Quit making excuses for people, it's time to move forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude. Go to www.zdnet.com and read comments from any story with XP? 90% are filled with IT WORKS FINE!! MS SCREW YOU. I run XP at work and know better. They are secure ... etc

 

Seriously these are not grandma knitting websites but FOR IT PRO's. Zdnet owned pcmag, computer shopper and other publications in the 1980s and 1990s so the users are in their 40s now are set in their ways. They love XP and prefer it at work. They will even state it is more stable than Win 7 and how terrible bloated it is. What do you mean it needs more than 512 megs of ram. Sigh

 

Should they be out of a job if they are proactively choosing to be lazy? Yes. But many cost accountants see this as XP works just fine and why go through the hassle if what we have already works and leaving introduces great costs, pain, and risk? I waited on XP too even if it was less secure as my employer is loosing 10's of millions upgrading to Windows 7. But, it does need to be done.

 

Well, there is a difference between an IT professional, and an "IT professional". I guess those folks fall into the second group, as the first one do their jobs professionally and objectively, and always try to improve the state of the machines they take care of and their knowledge.

 

EDIT: Or maybe I am just being silly in my "always strive to improve" mentality. They are the ones with jobs, I'm just a poor student.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there is a difference between an IT professional, and an "IT professional". I guess those folks fall into the second group, as the first one do their jobs professionally and objectively, and always try to improve the state of the machines they take care of and their knowledge.

 

EDIT: Or maybe I am just being silly in my "always strive to improve" mentality. They are the ones with jobs, I'm just a poor student.

I wouldn't call the commenters on ZDNet "professional" in any sense of the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U.K. getting an extra year so I read.

 

Not "getting", paying for.  Which is an option everyone has after Tuesday.  MS are a company for profit, they don't want to have to keep wasting resources on an OS that most of the market no longer uses, so it's entirely up to them to cease providing free support for it.

 

From Tuesday, if you want support you'll have to do exactly what every corporate Linux user does; pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Tuesday, if you want support you'll have to do exactly what every corporate Linux user does; pay.

 

NO! Switching to Linux and supporting it for 13 years is free! /s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If those techies are incapable of doing their job, they are free to leave. Stop trying to find excuses, IT folks should always be up-to-date on everything that happens in the IT world, especially with things that directly or indirectly relate to their jobs. For those that are incompetent, the door is that way. ->

Most industries that have certifications, ie: IT, Medical, Law, etc.have to re-up their certs at certain intervals. An A+ certification from 1995 would certainly not apply today. Would it?  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

XP Was awesome in 2001.

 

Psshhh XP was horrendous when it first launched, it wasn't great to be honest I don't think until Service Pack 2 in 2004.

Not "getting", paying for.  Which is an option everyone has after Tuesday.  MS are a company for profit, they don't want to have to keep wasting resources on an OS that most of the market no longer uses, so it's entirely up to them to cease providing free support for it.

 

From Tuesday, if you want support you'll have to do exactly what every corporate Linux user does; pay.

 

And here was me hoping for some shiny new updates at work. The irony being most of our Computers here at my current RAF base are new and were shipped with Vista or 7, and downgraded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If XP was soo bad in 2001 then name one OS that was better?

 

WinMe didn't have a firewall. Win2000 didn't. Win98 was dos based and worse. Xp worked for me day 1. App compatibility was it due to being NT based.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If XP was soo bad in 2001 then name one OS that was better?

 

WinMe didn't have a firewall. Win2000 didn't. Win98 was dos based and worse. Xp worked for me day 1. App compatibility was it due to being NT based.

 

People don't care why it's incompatible, just that it is. People didn't care that Vista changed how drivers worked, they just cared that their printer or scanner suddenly didnt work. People dug their heels when XP first launched, Tech sites wrote articles called "is it worth upgrading" and many ended the article with "No". 

 

People despised the new Start Menu, people despised the theme. It was hilariously susceptible to malware, was incompatible with so many DOS-based programs. 

 

Many people would have argued that 2000 was better etc, it's all down to personal opinion and experience. I would argue that Windows 8 is better than 7, people on here will argue that 7 is better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If XP was soo bad in 2001 then name one OS that was better?

 

WinMe didn't have a firewall. Win2000 didn't. Win98 was dos based and worse. Xp worked for me day 1. App compatibility was it due to being NT based.

Windows 98 and Windows 2000 were the tried and true operating systems still in use in 2001. Hell, my high school was still on Win2K when I graduated in 2004, they then went to Vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows 98 and Windows 2000 were the tried and true operating systems still in use in 2001. Hell, my high school was still on Win2K when I graduated in 2004, they then went to Vista.

 

Windows 2k Will go down  as one of my favorite version of Windows. I love everything about it. I love the barebones no glitz login.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows 98 and Windows 2000 were the tried and true operating systems still in use in 2001. Hell, my high school was still on Win2K when I graduated in 2004, they then went to Vista.

 

The military was still using Windows 2000 when I left in 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If XP was soo bad in 2001 then name one OS that was better?

 

WinMe didn't have a firewall. Win2000 didn't. Win98 was dos based and worse. Xp worked for me day 1. App compatibility was it due to being NT based.

XP didn't have a firewall until SP2.  Windows 98 SE was a better OS up until SP2 came out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows 2k Will go down  as one of my favorite version of Windows. I love everything about it. I love the barebones no glitz login.

Looks like you and I can finally agree on something. Windows 2000 will always be one of my favorite releases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except it was the technically inclined that killed both Vista and 8 with unnecessary scaremongering because they had experienced an issue or didn't get along with its UI.  Neither was of worse quality than XP when it was released, even Vista despite its bugs.  The technically minded hold a lot more sway with the less technically minded than they realise.

 

I have to agree with this. Everyone I've shown 8 to is at least ok with it, if not outright positive. They might still prefer the more familiar classic UI, but they don't hate Modern or think it's worthless.

 

I just tell them why I like it, and some of the differences, and encourage them to try it and make up their own minds.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got a call from a customer who said he bought a computer from my competitor down town. Apparently as late as 2009 he was putting XP on Computers that came with Window 7, telling at least this customer that "You'll like Windows XP better than 7"

 

Now he's bringing the computer over and I"m using that product key on the side of the computer to upgrade him to where he should have been the ENTIRE TIME!

 

I would bet my life on the fact that he has never even touched Windows 8. In fact he told me one time that if customers come in his office ask as to be upgrade to "Windows 8" he said he won't do it. *face palm*

 

I talked to him in his office a few months ago and at that point he had still never even seen or used an SSD yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, one of my clients still has 2 XP PRO machines, and its April 10th!

Eh if they haven't upgraded after three major versions have been released, they never will, a date on the calendar probably won't change that.

 

To be honest I'm guilty as charged as well. All of my Windows systems in the house are a mix of 7 and 8... except this one junker tablet which will be forever stuck on XP Tablet Edition due to the hardware.  (And frankly it barely runs XP too.)  Not that I ever actually use the thing anymore, powered it up yesterday to do the final updates, probably the first time it's been used in a year at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.