XP downgrade program may continue to hurt Windows 7

Most people know that come the release of Vista, most businesses chose to hang onto to Windows XP due to lacking reviews of the new OS, and the fact that XP did everything they wanted. Of course, many plan to make the move to the upcoming Windows 7, bypassing Vista entirely, but according to InfoWorld, this could be harder than expected.

An analyst for Gartner, named Michael Silver, said that, "[Microsoft's upgrade policy is] a disaster waiting to happen." The current plans for enterprise upgrading is as follows: businesses that purchase computers before April 23, 2010 that come with Windows 7 pre-installed can choose to downgrade them to Windows XP; at a later date, they can upgrade them to Windows 7, when users are ready to be switched over. However... if a business purchases a PC after April 23, then they can only choose to downgrade to Vista; XP is out of the question. Microsoft's PR company said to InfoWorld, ""It looks like Microsoft hasn't made any announcements around timing for downgrade rights from Windows 7 to Windows XP yet," but apparently they have actually already discussed it with Silver more than once. Additionally, a slide from Microsoft shows their plans, included below (courtesy of InfoWorld):

Two firms, Forrester Research, and Gartner, both recommend that companies wait about a year to a year and a half before upgrading to Windows 7, to ensure maximum compatibility with all drivers and applications, as well as with hardware, but this policy from Microsoft could affect that. If a company chose not to install Vista, it means they have to be quick on the upgrading/downgrading process. However, there is a backup solution; a company can be enrolled in Microsoft's Software Assurance program, which means that (for a fee of about $90 per machine, per year) they can have any operating system they like installed. So, businesses can either buy excess machines now, and have extra XP downgrade licenses in stock, or purchase after the cut-off date and have to force users to use Vista or 7. Regardless of the solution, it will be difficult for IT systems to track which computers have downgrade rights and which don't, Silver notes.

"Well, Microsoft have already done something about this," you say. "What about XP Mode?" Good question. Well, Silver explains that by making businesses use XP Mode with a Windows 7 installation, it means they will essentially have to deploy twice as many operating systems. To add to this, many computers apparently can't run the Virtual PC technology that is required, so it would cause a few problems.

Last of all, Microsoft has yet to announce details about their Technology Guarantee program, which is designed to allow users to upgrade free to a new operating system if they buy a machine after a certain date. Businesses need this information so they can begin planning ahead for the switch, aiming at keeping costs to a minimum. Once this has been announced, then things should become a bit easier.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Editorial: Why don't we like video calls?

Next Story

HP Technology Forum & Expo POD tour

71 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Well there is no issue... Windows 7 will not get the negative press that Vista did so XP downgrades will be few and far between. The ONLY reason people downgraded to XP was because of what they had 'heard' about Vista, not from actually using it themselves. Vista was a perfectly good OS.

Windows 7 is the future, XP is long dead!

if it's cost, go with win7. it's cheaper than XP...according to the latest reports on cost of win7 here on neowin.
win7 loads on all those xp machines that businesses use, most of them are hp's ,dells or some other branded PC and they have to make drivers for these machines just to get xp to run on them(why do both xp and 7?). so your IT dept has to get off their lazy asses and get to work!

MulletRobZ said,
Microsoft should seriously cut off all downgrade rights and support for Windows XP once Windows 7 becomes available. Keeping an operating system alive for eight years is downright ridiculous, given that Windows 7 addressed most complaints associated with Vista and it also has XP Mode (for the Pro and Ultimate editions).

Hell no! XP has been stress tested for 8 years, stable as hell. Vista sucks, I am worried that the new UAC on W7 has new issues, overall I am wary of W7 too now.

We have 300 work companies, all XP sp2 and IE 6. Miraculously the idea to downgrade to Vista was scrapped. Our software is temperamental enough already, seriously do not use Vista to f-k things up even more

Alley Cat said,
Hell no! XP has been stress tested for 8 years, stable as hell. Vista sucks, I am worried that the new UAC on W7 has new issues, overall I am wary of W7 too now.

We have 300 work companies, all XP sp2 and IE 6. Miraculously the idea to downgrade to Vista was scrapped. Our software is temperamental enough already, seriously do not use Vista to f-k things up even more

Uh, Vista is an UPGRADE, genius, not a downgrade. Just because you share the sentiment of a very vocal (and most times idiotic) minority on Neowin doesn't make you right.

Microsoft should seriously cut off all downgrade rights and support for Windows XP once Windows 7 becomes available. Keeping an operating system alive for eight years is downright ridiculous, given that Windows 7 addressed most complaints associated with Vista and it also has XP Mode (for the Pro and Ultimate editions). In fact, the only thing Microsoft needs to address now is to get rid of some of this legacy crap and save gigabytes of disc space as Apple's upcoming Snow Leopard accomplished.

To cover all the posts...

XP is NOT a valid answer in 99.9% of the circumstances, even the ones given above. Even in the organizations where you are funded by donations, you still have IT people. It is time for YOU to PUSH for your IT people to either do their jobs or find IT people that can and will do them. PERIOD.

The era of the 'keep the old horse cause the IT guy knows how to ride him' is as over as it is as insane.

I have watched too many companies pushed around (often by their own cheap hiring or ignorance) by bad IT people. If the golden rule was to keep buying and using old CRAP because that is all the IT people understand or it might 'break' something, we would all still be using DOS with Novell 2.x servers.

It is the JOB of your IT people to fix the 'problems' or incompatibilities they find. (Often problems they have created by adhocing their ignorant solutions instead of doing things right in the first place.) If your IT people cannot get something to work, find people that will.

I can't believe the people that are even pro moving to Win7 and in the same paragraph talking about using IE6 for their Intranet solutions. Holy freaking cow. IE6? Really? Maybe it is time you or your IT people took ten minutes to fix the rendering problems on the Intranet for IE7/IE8. This is stuff that should be part of regular maintenance and updates.

There are a few 3rd party applications that do fail outside of XP used or created for business segments. So you virtualize and then SCREAM at the vendors - that you are probably paying maintenance fees to anyway. Almost 3 years after a major OS update release and they haven't 'fixed' their problems is no longer an excuse. Additionally, good IT people could use their 'tools' to find why the software fails and locally fix it. Have people ever ran Process Monitor here, or 20 other admin tools that will tell you why the software is failing and how and with a few searches could implement quick work arounds. (Most of the time it is a security issue - meaning the software you are using is crap for security anyway - and you can easily add security exceptions or force user/registry virtualization for the software.) And this is IT level work, not even needing a programmer.

As for business and IT people advising, if a solution or software product you are looking to purchase ONLY supports XP, call them idiots and find another solution. But be sure to tell them why they are not getting your business.

I work with tiny companies to several thousand system deployment corporations. If XP after one year of Vista's release was mandated by an incompatible piece of software or some crap Intranet design needing IE6 I would start rolling heads, and fire anyone that was stupid enough to belive this was STILL acceptable.

If the company is strapped for money and still running 200mhz Pentiums with 64mb of RAM, then XP can stay.

Outside of that, 1GB of RAM is chicken feed, and that is where Vista and XP's performance meet - even on a 1999 700mhz PIII. If your computer was made in the last 10 years, there is NO credible reason to be using XP or anything older. (This does not mean you HAVE to upgrade, but if you can and choose NOT too for some myth or OS religious reason you are insane.)

As for other 'little' excuses like 'image size' and some of the other IT crap I have read in these posts are just that, CRAP and bad IT at its finest.

To run Vista or Windows 7 on 1gb machine? You're insane if you think that's the option.. To answer your question. Upgrade for like 300-400 PCs costs money, possibly new hardware, etc. For company is not worth it and it can't be justified cause XP already runs ie8, office 2007, visual studio 2008, citrix, lotus, websphere etc. Performance is good and no stability issues. Why would they go with Windows 7, give them one reason...maybe AERO? lol

jjrambo said,
To run Vista or Windows 7 on 1gb machine? You're insane if you think that's the option.. To answer your question. Upgrade for like 300-400 PCs costs money, possibly new hardware, etc. For company is not worth it and it can't be justified cause XP already runs ie8, office 2007, visual studio 2008, citrix, lotus, websphere etc. Performance is good and no stability issues. Why would they go with Windows 7, give them one reason...maybe AERO? lol

Windows 7 has been tested and confirmed to run fine on 512 MB of ram and a 1 Ghz Atom processor, so that argument is null and void.

I've been using Vista for the past few years, with SP1 it is just as fast and stable as XP, in fact even more so than XP. From testing the RC of Windows 7 I'd have to say it is much better than Vista performance wise, it's like running a souped up version of XP.

Windows 7 has even got a lot of positive feedback and press, from those who were hesitant to move to Vista. A lot of the complaints with Vista are addressed in Windows 7, and it will only get better before the it is available for retail.

Companies should only need to support software up to a year after a new version is released. All Microsoft is doing is wasting valuable time and resources by supporting old products to make a select minority of people happy when they should be focusing and improving upon their latest software.

Their software could be a lot better by not wasting time and resources supporting old or outdated products for years down the road and focusing on only the latest versions. Companies have had more than enough time to prepare, Vista has been out for over three years now.

It reminds me quite of the DTV fiasco, unless people are forced to switch they'll never be prepared no matter how long the inevitable is delayed. This is why I was glad when it was announced there would be no further delays.

You may not see the need to upgrade because rust ol' XP still does everything you need. I myself would see a need to upgrade if I were head of an IT sector for a company, the improvements in security and new features the new operating systems bring are well worth an upgrade.

Since I switched from XP to Vista, the new features have allowed me to be more productive and get things done faster. The search in Vista and Windows 7 is namely one of the most productive features. Have you ever tried searching for a file located in a directory that contains hundreds of files? It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack, with the search feature in Vista all I do is navigate to the directory, type a few letters of the file I am looking for in the search pane and I instantly find the file I am looking for.

Is it not worth it to companies to be more productive and get work done faster, I would presume that this would be very important to any company or business?

Xtreme2damax said,
Windows 7 has been tested and confirmed to run fine on 512 MB of ram and a 1 Ghz Atom processor, so that argument is null and void.

Yes, it sure CAN "run fine" on such limited hardware. I dont' see why I should not trust you or the tests you are referring to, but...
The real question is, whether it WILL do so on MY OWN particular set of hardware, you know. And my experience shows, that it MAY or it MAY NOT. So, this argument above may as well be next to "null or void" in certain situations.

However, to tell the truth, I'm afraid they all WILL have to upgrade to Windows 7 sooner or later. This was decided at the very moment they decided to depend on MS Windows as their OS of choice. And that decision was made at the time, when MS Windows really had advantages over the contemporary Linux distros; such time is now in the past.

Today the only advantage MS has is that many have chosen MS Windows in the past. On the other hand, distributions like OpenSuSE/SLED or Ubuntu or Debian offer everything one may need, which is confirmed by the fact, that many governmental structures have switched to Linux already. For them upgrade will not cost money to pay for the OS. Add to this a lot of free software for every average operation you might need to do.
And if someone needs MS Office or AutoCAD, he can run Windows in VMware -- the most harmless solution, where all the "vulnerabilities" of MS Widnows are limited to the virtual environment.

jjrambo said,
To run Vista or Windows 7 on 1gb machine? You're insane if you think that's the option.. To answer your question. Upgrade for like 300-400 PCs costs money, possibly new hardware, etc. For company is not worth it and it can't be justified cause XP already runs ie8, office 2007, visual studio 2008, citrix, lotus, websphere etc. Performance is good and no stability issues. Why would they go with Windows 7, give them one reason...maybe AERO? lol


jj, until Monday of last week, I ran Windows 7 (the 64-bit version) on a 1 GB machine. And gamed on it. I also ran Microsoft Office on it. (Both 2007 and the leaked Tech Preview of 2010, in 64-bit, no less). I lost exactly ZERO stability compared to Vista or XP; in fact, I gained (not lost) stability over both (in 32-bit form) and even over 32-bit Windows 7, especially when running multiple applications at once.

So the one gigabyte Windows 7 PC is certainly possible.

That is in fact one MAJOR reason to upgrade from XP - stability, stability, stability.

And I'm talking about spending NOTHING on new hardware.

However, if you have ANY PCs that use DDR2 DIMMs, you aren't upgrading the RAM *why*? DDR2 is, literally, the cheapest type of PC memory to upgrade (especially for desktops; 2 GB of generic PC-6400 is about $35USD retail average, and it can be found for less, even retail). Even DDR (for those older P4 destops) is about $50/GB, and that's the *most expensive* (DDR3, the newest type, roughly splits the difference). However, I was not even talking about upgrading ANY new hardware, but just a straight OS change.

Well I imagine at some point IT has to do their job. It's their responsibility to figure out what, when & where they want operations to go. Life's messy -- big deal... corporates not still having sales drive 50's DeSotos for company cars, and I bet the corporate jet isn't a Sopwith Camel biplane. ;-)

It's no mystery or surprise that someday MS would stop selling XP. If you or your company sells something, chances are it sells new products or versions regularly. It's no surprise nor mystery why every PC was not upgraded to Vista, and those who didn't upgrade were well aware of the savings, in not just $, but time & effort. So now it's time to work -- big deal -- you can blame MS for a lot of things but not IT's lack of planning or laziness.

If it's supported with patches and updates (maintaince, not new features) and it does what you want it to, why move on? Microsoft will be releasing update till 2014.

I still have a lot of games that don't play well, or have odd issues if running within Vista.

jstillion said,
If it's supported with patches and updates (maintaince, not new features) and it does what you want it to, why move on? Microsoft will be releasing update till 2014.

I still have a lot of games that don't play well, or have odd issues if running within Vista.



Names, please. Give me names.

The only games I know of that have issues with Windows 7 *at all* have one of two issues:

1. PunkBuster (which, until recently, had 64-bit-specific issues with Windows 7-based clients).

2. Any game that uses a 16-bit installer will not install in any 64-bit version of Windows (therefore, not a 7-specific issue).

Any game that is plagued with *either* issue, I refuse to hold on to, and will not play, nor will I recommend that anyone else do so. Here's my running known hotlist:

Unreal Tournament (every single version)
Command and Conquer Generals (and forward)
Doom 3/Quake III Arena (and forward)
Microosft Rise of Nations (and forward)
Madden NFL 2004 (and forward), NHL 2003 (and forward), and PGA Tour 2005 (and forward)
Sim City 4 (and forward)
Stardock Galactic Civilizations II (and forward)
The entire catalogue from Gas Powered Games
All games distributed via Steam

These *all* are known to work with Windows 7 64-bit (specifically, build 7232), as I've personally run them. Note that Unreal Tournament (the original one) is on the list. Note that Steam is on the list. And I'm talking about the *most difficult* version of Windows 7 (the 64-bit version), and on minimum-class hardware (remember, I was running on just a single gigabyte of RAM until this past Monday). Give me that list of problem games.

With Windows 7 Business and Ultimate editions having the option of XP Mode I fail to see the need for XP downgrade rights. Just my opinion.

Sadelwo said,
With Windows 7 Business and Ultimate editions having the option of XP Mode I fail to see the need for XP downgrade rights. Just my opinion.


You don't understand how Business works, by the way applications under virtualized XP run like crap especially since it is powered by MC Virtual PC.

jjrambo said,
You don't understand how Business works, by the way applications under virtualized XP run like crap especially since it is powered by MC Virtual PC.


As I asked before, jj; - who has you hostage?

I've *been* where you are now (and like you, virtualization was not an option), and thus we found out the hard way (as an enterprise) the hidden (and high) costs on relying on lick-and-a-promise third-party applications written under-the-gun. Situations like yours (undisclosed and often undisclosable) are, most often, the real reason smart and sensible hardware and operating-system upgrades within ANY enterprise get delayed or even don't happen at all. (While it's most noticeable with Windows, Windows is FAR from alone; I know of three credit unions that are trapped two versions back with Solaris because of a vertical application having issues with not a newer version of Solaris, but a *driver* for that newer version of Solaris. This is not even Solaris for x86, but Solaris for SPARC.)

So that's why I asked.

Sadelwo said,
With Windows 7 Business and Ultimate editions having the option of XP Mode I fail to see the need for XP downgrade rights. Just my opinion.

It's Professional in 7, not Business.

There's a BIG difference between Vista and windows 7, the latter being a hell of a lot better, and doesn't have the bad press as vista does, therefore no people WOULDN'T downgrade to windows xp like they did with vista

rdmiller said,
And, there are a lot of companies out there that don't know what Twitter is.

Twitter has nothing to do with this and I bet if most companies knew their employess were screwing around with that stupid stuff, they'd fire them.

I KNOW I would!!

Computers have been fast enough for most uses for a long time now, so most people see absolutely no need to go out and buy a new PC. So XP is obviously still going to be used by a lot of people and I really don't see anything wrong with that since it's still supported and works perfectly fine (despite all the "outdated" nonsense people throw around).

A good friend of mine is working as a programmer for different middle-sized and bigger companies.

Actually there are software versions of some programs needed, that don't run under Vista,
or some that behave different under Win2k and XP.

There is the question, on what system runs your customer? For which system was the software programmed?

And if your system runs smoothly like hell, why change, if it's really not needed,
if it's just for toying around with new tech?

Like Chicane-UK already wrote, the terms of support are often enough.
And it is that, which I experience myself a lot in corporate reality.

Soldiers33 said,
why they just cant end support xp i do not understand.

Because in this recession, it's hard to upgrade all the legacy hardware and software to Windows 7 capable. Regardless, I see some work computers here still use Windows 2000 on Pentium III's..

Gibletz said,
Because in this recession, it's hard to upgrade all the legacy hardware and software to Windows 7 capable. Regardless, I see some work computers here still use Windows 2000 on Pentium III's..

Vista ran bad on old hardware, but 7 runs on machines that would barely run win98 from what I've read. And so far I have not seen any apps that refuse entirely to run in 7 32 bit, at that includes apps developed for win95.

mikiem said,
Vista ran bad on old hardware, but 7 runs on machines that would barely run win98 from what I've read.

That's an exaggeration. 7 won't run on machines that can barely handle Windows 98. You're talking like Pentium 1, 32-64 MB RAM era computers.

This is important in business sometimes, not because of the lack of willingness of the administrators to upgrade but because application vendors are so, so, so behind in terms of what they support.

A lot of the applications we maintain at work run on an MSSQL backend and you'd be astonished at how many have only just come round to SQL Server 2005 as even existing - forget about SQL Server 2008! I'd imagine there are many backwards, timewarp desktop applications which still won't play nice with Vista. Just off the top of my head I know that the VMware VCentre client is horrendous on Vista when you have the Aero effects enabled - performance slows to a crawl, and every time you switch to a new window you have to wait whilst it redraws every box / frame. As soon as you turn off Aero it's much quicker. If you run it on XP rather than Vista at all, it runs much MUCH faster.

It's reasons like this why people still aren't upgrading. XP is the baseline in terms of support in a lot of cases. Thats enough.

I agree with grasshopper, and what I am angry about is the fact that they have this assurance program. I think its just outrageous.

there shouldn't be any downgrade rights to any edition.
if you want that. go to a mom an pop shop and by an older "new" machine.
this crap is getting ridiculous.

With VirtualXP and rave reviews claiming Win7 is the second coming, I doubt this issue of businesses refusing to upgrade is going to be an problem (well not like it was with Vista at least). Win7 is poised to rock the world and not even rusty old XP is gonna stop it :P

Xerxes said,
With VirtualXP and rave reviews claiming Win7 is the second coming, I doubt this issue of businesses refusing to upgrade is going to be an problem (well not like it was with Vista at least). Win7 is poised to rock the world and not even rusty old XP is gonna stop it :P :)

No but rusty old IE6 intranets might slow it down :P

ascendant123 said,
No but rusty old IE6 intranets might slow it down :P


Haha, that is one reason my employer hasn't switched up to IE7/8 as our proxy settings and internal pages do not work correctly yet... sure it's a simple workaround though... Suuurely.

Dave_ek said,
Haha, that is one reason my employer hasn't switched up to IE7/8 as our proxy settings and internal pages do not work correctly yet... sure it's a simple workaround though... Suuurely.

Not even close. I mean, I can't speak for your company because I don't know it's size or use, but at least the clients I consult to have some seriously deep-rotted IE6/legacy software issues that can cost in the order of millions in at least one case (an extreme case) to move away from. In most of the clients we work with the average is in the order of ~$200,000 ($AUD).

ascendant123 said,
No but rusty old IE6 intranets might slow it down :P

I've been using IE6 from the VirtualXP feature of Windows 7 to manage all of our IE6 only intranet apps/sites. Works great.

Xerxes said,
With VirtualXP and rave reviews claiming Win7 is the second coming, I doubt this issue of businesses refusing to upgrade is going to be an problem (well not like it was with Vista at least). Win7 is poised to rock the world and not even rusty old XP is gonna stop it :P :)


It shouldn't have slowed up the migration from NT 4 to Windows 2000 Professional, either. The issue in *that* migration wasn't the hardware, and it wasn't even NT 4 die-hards (I was in a national enterprise that upgraded every desktop over two weeks and by and large changed no hardware, except due to more employees and where hardware needed replacing); the issue was *one* vertical application (which wasn't even on every desktop) which was not ready for Windows 2000 without a DLL change (which the developer wanted to BOHICA us for).

The Burning Rom said,
I've been using IE6 from the VirtualXP feature of Windows 7 to manage all of our IE6 only intranet apps/sites. Works great.

I do the same when I need to manage the sites but the problem is the majority of users are in the general user base and we aren't interested in managing 2x as many operating systems.

ascendant123 said,
I do the same when I need to manage the sites but the problem is the majority of users are in the general user base and we aren't interested in managing 2x as many operating systems.

If you make it part of your image deployment, they don't have to manage virtualxp. All they have to do is have the icon in the start menu to launch IE6 when they need it.

Microsoft also has application virtualization solutions available that would accomplish the same thing...no end-user management required.

Wow, Microsoft and their never ending confusion of software licensing. For a company with soo many smart people, why can they never seem to have more logical licensing schemes? I think it's rather unfair to dangle to carrot of XP downgrade rights in front of business clients for a limited time before backing them into either a downgrade path incompatible with their current environment or a high cost per unit licensing agreement.

I really hate this attitude that people won't upgrade, or shouldn't upgrade, or whatever. I'm an enterprise system admin by day (editor by night) and I fight this all the time. Makes me want to tear my hair out sometimes :P

Some apps are strictly tied to IE6 still in some places. Children's Hospital for example where I volunteer, they can't finish the new building early because of lack of donations. The domain setup works fine with XP, if it ain't broke why fix it? Thats why some people are held back, the regular customer is a whole different story though. The machines aren't even updated to SP3 to avoid breaking compatibility for some things, I know it sucks but it works. That is the least of their worries too.

Don't worry, I was losing mine too. Especially when a client would request a new PC deployment and then the sales weasels/management talk them into an XP downgrade behind your back.

Marshalus said,
I really hate this attitude that people won't upgrade, or shouldn't upgrade, or whatever. I'm an enterprise system admin by day (editor by night) and I fight this all the time. Makes me want to tear my hair out sometimes :P

I'm an MCITP by day, Enterprise Administration, and I'm part of a team who still insist we use XP in our current deployment... and we'll be doing the same for about a year after W7 is released. It's not about the server software -- it's all already 2008 -- but we use a lot of legacy hardware and a lot of legacy applications in an environment with 20,000 PCs varying in nature (the variation was not by choice or design, however; simply a penalty of the previous sysadmins).

I hate the idea of "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". Haven't people ever thought of preventative measures? Sure its not broken, but if you sit with a 7 year old OS forever, it will eventually break and that break could be huge in terms of data loss or security breaches. Its like having an old dam. Sure its not broken and leaking, but if you don't maintain it and upgrade the dam infrastructure, it will eventually break in a big way.

Chrono951 said,
I hate the idea of "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". Haven't people ever thought of preventative measures? Sure its not broken, but if you sit with a 7 year old OS forever, it will eventually break and that break could be huge in terms of data loss or security breaches. Its like having an old dam. Sure its not broken and leaking, but if you don't maintain it and upgrade the dam infrastructure, it will eventually break in a big way.

Agreed. Once, a coworker and I were called over to a chemistry lab to pull "critical data" off of a machine hooked up to a spec. It was running Windows 95, no network, no working CD or floppy drive, no USB drivers. That machine worked until it stopped, and then we were all screwed.

Chrono951 said,
I hate the idea of "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". Haven't people ever thought of preventative measures? Sure its not broken, but if you sit with a 7 year old OS forever, it will eventually break and that break could be huge in terms of data loss or security breaches. Its like having an old dam. Sure its not broken and leaking, but if you don't maintain it and upgrade the dam infrastructure, it will eventually break in a big way.


You couldn't be more correct... fair enough I don't pay for these things and understand that it is an expensive and difficult process... but surely if businesses planned for these future upgrades instead of just hoping the current OS just lives on forever, then there wouldn't be anywhere near as many issues when the upgrade finally did take place...

My Employer is still on XP and office 2003 and Lotus Notes 6.5 and IE6... the list goes on, and seriously, 9/10 of this list of applications is WELL passed upgrade time..

Eventually an application WILL need to be upgraded for a business and it will be one that works in the new OS not the old one. What will they do then when they have made no plans for the upgrade in OS?

Chrono951 said,
I hate the idea of "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". Haven't people ever thought of preventative measures? Sure its not broken, but if you sit with a 7 year old OS forever, it will eventually break and that break could be huge in terms of data loss or security breaches. Its like having an old dam. Sure its not broken and leaking, but if you don't maintain it and upgrade the dam infrastructure, it will eventually break in a big way.


Well,
I DO maintain my XP very well, thank you. It's called Windows Updates and as long as they're supporting XP, I'm sticking with it.

Not that I may not upgrade to Windows 7 sometime down the road, but there sure as heck is no rush!

Will NEVER upgrade/downgrade to that crap Vista though.

cork1958 said,
Well,
I DO maintain my XP very well, thank you. It's called Windows Updates and as long as they're supporting XP, I'm sticking with it.

Not that I may not upgrade to Windows 7 sometime down the road, but there sure as heck is no rush!

Will NEVER upgrade/downgrade to that crap Vista though.


Have you used Vista extensively?? Just wondering as to the many points you would like to make in order to justify describing it simply as crap.

please entertain me

Vista is fine, man. Don't let people make up your mind for you. With SP2 it runs real smoothly. The only reason for you NOT to upgrade is because 7 is 4 months away.

cork1958 said,
Will NEVER upgrade/downgrade to that crap Vista though.

What an ignorant comment. You DO know that Windows 7 is built upon the foundation that Vista laid down right? And that quite a few of the key components are the same? Just checking....would be nice if you knew what you were talking about before you made ignorant statements.

Marshalus said,
I really hate this attitude that people won't upgrade, or shouldn't upgrade, or whatever. I'm an enterprise system admin by day (editor by night) and I fight this all the time. Makes me want to tear my hair out sometimes :P


The problem is not the enterprise users, or customers, or even corporate IT/IS in this case. The issue tends to be the developer of That Critical Vertical Application that refuses to adhere to proper standards for writing code. Consider how many companies got held up from migrating to Windows 2000 Professional (from NT 4 Workstation), and that was an upgrade that a majority of enterprises *wanted*. Throw in an OS about which there had been a lot of negative press/buzz (which was certainly the case with Vista) and it makes resistance all the easier (as it is, corporate IT/IS is very much of the don't fix what-isn't-broke school).

There are two major problems with that theory: there is not much, if any, real non-FUD-based negative buzz about Windows 7 (as opposed to Vista), and enterprises are running out of reasons not to upgrade the hardware, if not the software.

Forrester and Gartner, on the other hand, have all SORTS of reason to be contrarian - doing so generates buzz/press for THEM!

Marshalus said,
I really hate this attitude that people won't upgrade, or shouldn't upgrade, or whatever. I'm an enterprise system admin by day (editor by night) and I fight this all the time. Makes me want to tear my hair out sometimes :P

With 58,000 machines running Windows XP and Office 2003 there is almost no reason to upgrade and a lot of reasons not too.

1. Need more memory then the 1 to 2 gigs that current machines have.

2. Ghosting the machines creates smaller images with XP then Vista/7. Less time, less hard drive space required.

3. Features threshold: Windows XP gets everything done that is required.

4. Cost: upgrades during a depression don't sell with management at all.

5. Compatibility: Some software would also need to be upgraded and some may takes months or even years to get a Vista/7 version.


In 2014 it might make sense to upgrade finally but in 2009 Windows XP with Office 2003 is perfectly acceptable.

If Windows 7 is built upon the same foundation as Vista, that is one more reason why NOT to downgrade to Vista and choose XP instead until a safe Windows 7 deployment can be acomplished later.

Marshalus said,
I really hate this attitude that people won't upgrade, or shouldn't upgrade, or whatever. I'm an enterprise system admin by day (editor by night) and I fight this all the time. Makes me want to tear my hair out sometimes :P

Why not upgrade all of the systems to Ubuntu Linux and then virtualize the legacy software in VMWare?

Ummm... well, if after Win 7 releases, people still ask for XP - all I can say is good luck with that... times have changed quite a bit over last few years... XP is dated.

Ji@nBing said,
Yep. XP is a dinosaur. Time to move on.

My primary OS is Windows XP, but lately, I have been playing more and more with Ubuntu Linux. I decided that Ubuntu Linux was superior, but things like Microsoft Office and Microsoft Visual Studio kept me from switching even when. Recently, I started playing with VMPlayer and it seems to me that anyone could upgrade from Windows to Ubuntu Linux and then run the old Windows operating system and all of the old software that is still needed in a virtual machine.

Doing this, there is no need for Windows, and the idea that being dated is meaningless because virtualization makes all versions of Windows obsolete, even before Microsoft makes them.

Windows is a dinosaur whose time has come. It is time to move on. :P

I don't quite see the point in these "Downgrade Rights" in general... why buy a new version if you intend to continue using an older version?
Makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Why people still continue to use the most in-secure OS Microsoft ever releaed is beyond me, and especially installing it on new hardware!

Yes, i'm talking about XP.