HEXUS
In case you're wondering why running an OS that Microsoft no longer offers support for, the announcement offered the following warning

Eh?

Anyway, the only thing that surprises me is that it's been supported as long as it has. I personally think they should've stopped supporting XP SP2 about 1 month after SP3 came out, but I guess some corporate clients fear every kind of update going.

Cor only seems like yesterday I was on Xp & Vista. Does seem a bit sooner, even though it really isn't.

I shall miss you XP!

I still have an XP lappy & refuse to fork out for Win7 to put on it when XP just works with less memory demands.

Even tho I've had win7 working ok with low mem systems. Time for Linux perhaps…

I want to know when MS will stop activating XP by phone or online. That is the day I will poop my pants.

snootyjim
Eh?

Anyway, the only thing that surprises me is that it's been supported as long as it has. I personally think they should've stopped supporting XP SP2 about 1 month after SP3 came out, but I guess some corporate clients fear every kind of update going.

It has to do with hardware requirements (specifically RAM), I know companies that are still using XP (SP0) because their machines run ‘fast’ with 128mb of ram, try that with SP3 and most people won't even get logged into their workstations before its home time.

I can understand dropping support for a really old OS, but why are people getting upset? Hardware prices are so low how can anyone still expect 128mb to be enough? Corporations have no excuses as productivity will increase if the systems are faster, it's just a cost that they should factor in these days….I mean you can get a system for less than £50 that will be 2ghz, 512 mb ram etc. Factor in another £20 and you could have 1gig ram+

:surprised:

cordas
It has to do with hardware requirements (specifically RAM), I know companies that are still using XP (SP0) because their machines run ‘fast’ with 128mb of ram, try that with SP3 and most people won't even get logged into their workstations before its home time.

Any company doing that deserves to go bust. Preferably due to data loss through a malware infection.

No argument from me about that… I have quoted them prices for upgrading most of their machines (some are still Pentium 2s) and I would welcome the work.

However the company has the attitude that as long as they do the job why spend money to replace them, and I must admit that from their point of view I can understand why they ain't splashing the cash, the PCs do the jobs they want them to do increasing the RAM wouldn't do anything to increase productivity as they run the companies software just fine, they are on an internal LAN with no outside access so they don't need to worry about malware, and they have a program in place for replacing machines that break.

cordas
No argument from me about that… I have quoted them prices for upgrading most of their machines (some are still Pentium 2s) and I would welcome the work.

However the company has the attitude that as long as they do the job why spend money to replace them, and I must admit that from their point of view I can understand why they ain't splashing the cash, the PCs do the jobs they want them to do increasing the RAM wouldn't do anything to increase productivity as they run the companies software just fine, they are on an internal LAN with no outside access so they don't need to worry about malware, and they have a program in place for replacing machines that break.

Just shows how some companies attitudes aren't very forward thinking. I used to work for a large supermarket chain beginning with “M”, and there IT setup is a good 10 years out of date. Problem is that it does affect productivity because people know the setup is rubbish and have little faith in the companies ability to move forward, or even with the times. Yes it might run their software fine, but even so, when a five year old laptop that can be picked up for £50 is faster, it is bound to have a detrimental effect on workers moral.

How many people use XP SP2 anyway?

0iD
I still have an XP lappy & refuse to fork out for Win7 to put on it when XP just works with less memory demands.

Even tho I've had win7 working ok with low mem systems. Time for Linux perhaps…

XP isn't going away just yet, just SP2 and fixes based on that service pack, install SP3 and you can carry on. Linux however is a good call at anytime!

Linux is not for everyone though. I can't get on with it at all!

golwg
Linux is not for everyone though. I can't get on with it at all!

Then you have not be properly introduced to it. I set up 12 (another 8 to got) linux boxes at work, should have heard the complaints that they should be getting windows and microsoft etc.. Blah… but its all Ldaped, kerberos authenicated, all the systems have shared home directories etc, no data stored on client machines, build don't via the network/kickstart, so a machine can just be replace. All of the compaints have just melted away, and now I am asked … can more we do with the machine..* and they get it! If they were on windows we probably would not be able to afford the additional software.

I am not saying everyone can just jump into administering a linux distro, however for an end user who does not know how to look after a machine is great. 64bit, flash works, iplayer works, java works, firefox, thunderbird, openoffice, audacity… Great.

* and yes they are those low cost acer atom 230 machines someone else mentioned.

3dcandy
Just shows how some companies attitudes aren't very forward thinking. I used to work for a large supermarket chain beginning with “M”, and there IT setup is a good 10 years out of date. Problem is that it does affect productivity because people know the setup is rubbish and have little faith in the companies ability to move forward, or even with the times. Yes it might run their software fine, but even so, when a five year old laptop that can be picked up for £50 is faster, it is bound to have a detrimental effect on workers moral.

I don't know, I suspect most of the workers there are just glad to have jobs and that those jobs seem relatively secure at the moment (fingers crossed). All the points you raise are valid as far as they go, but to replace about 30 machines with 5 year old anythings (even if 10x more powerful) would cost far more than £50 per machine, and would still leave them 5 years behind the times in obsolete hell when it came to repairs, leaving them in no better or more productive state than they are now with a big hole in the bottom line. The company has a policy of replacing old with new when things break beyond repair, but they also cannibalise and maintain to cut down on unnecessary spending.

As I said I wish they would replace all their machines with new (and I know they could benefit from doing so) as I know who they would come to and ask for advice, and I could do with the work. However its very easy to get caught up in the ‘new is better’ mindset that actually has little do with the needs of the company, if what they have does the job well then why spend thousands/10s of thousands to do the same job.

I have been replacing serial terminals (with software flow control) and SGI machines, which the previous IT people had not touched in years.

I'm actual in partial agreement with cordas here, if you're only running a few very specific bits of software, you don't need a gig of memory or a superfast processor esp when the bit of software is well written and streamlined.
And why would you want to run a simple streamlined bit of software on an OS which is far more demanding?
It's a bit like using a lorry to just pop to the shops because it can carry more.

And if you're buying multiple computers for a company the last thing you want to do is get lots of old 2nd pc's each of which will be different, even if they are faster than your current ones.

The danger thoe of just replacing one when it breaks is that you will often end up in the same mixed bag of pc situation because stuff goes EOL so quickly these days.
speaking from experience here. :(

Pob255
The danger thoe of just replacing one when it breaks is that you will often end up in the same mixed bag of pc situation because stuff goes EOL so quickly these days.
speaking from experience here. :(

I have warned them of the risks of doing this, and done everything I can to help them do this as well as they can.

At the end of the day it all comes down to the bottom line and what are the real priorities of the company… As far as the owner/MD is concerned the IT system is just another tool, like the machines in his workshop. You don't throw away a working machine simply because the manufacturers have come out with a new model with go faster stripes (his words). The PCs he has do the job he bought them for over 10 years ago, a couple of years ago I upgraded them all to 128mb of ram for pennies (seem to remember I bought a job lot of RAM for about £10 per machine) which improved their boot up speed and made their software run a bit smoother. He recently bought a couple of Core2 machines with 1GB ram, and they don't run the software any faster so I talked him into giving them to the secretaries who use Open Office which they appreciated for all of minutes until they realised he now wanted them to do more work.

If he subscribed to the obsolete/EOL ideas and kept his PCs he would have replaced the whole lot 2 maybe 3 times at the cost of 10s of thousands and have what to show for it?

We have some rigs here that are decidedly old, but they are still working, and happilly controlling about £30K worth of kit each. Upgrading wouldnt offer any benefits, they are on 24/7, and upgrading the PC would speed up the task the instruments do. We recently replaced our oldest rig that was running win 3.11, it was used for bulk printing labels. In the end the only reason it was upgraded was that the printer died and couldnt be fixed.

Good old WinXP SP2. The best service pack Microsoft ever released.

mrochester
Good old WinXP SP2. The best service pack Microsoft ever released.

But is also the reason that we haven't rolled out SP3 at work.
When SP2 was rolled out it killed about 100 PCs that had to be bought back in and re-imaged.
Our dept. (mainly management) is now a little concerned about rolling out sp3.

Mind you, I remember installing NT4 SP6a on a few machines and it killed one of them. :(

golwg
How many people use XP SP2 anyway?

I upgraded my relative to the dizzying heights of SP3 only last week!

I imagine there are quite a few less than fully computer literate people who got a PC with XP SP2 and haven't upgraded.

windows xp SP2 did sort out alot of issues. people forget that. windows vista was great after SP1 and windows 7 is great without a service pack so imo microsoft are creating better products than they used to. SP3 shouldnt cause any issues since its basically the fixes after SP2 rolled in to a single file.

3dcandy
Just shows how some companies attitudes aren't very forward thinking. I used to work for a large supermarket chain beginning with “M”, and there IT setup is a good 10 years out of date. Problem is that it does affect productivity because people know the setup is rubbish and have little faith in the companies ability to move forward, or even with the times. Yes it might run their software fine, but even so, when a five year old laptop that can be picked up for £50 is faster, it is bound to have a detrimental effect on workers moral.

Supermarket IT systems are about far more than just upgrading to a faster system, especially if the old system runs the software “just fine”. For a start, there will be a maintenance contract, and the engineers have to carry spare parts, and that;s not just for the PC but for scanner/scale, for card readers, printers and so on … and they have to be trained. Sometimes a unit replacement is necessary, sand sometimes it isn't.

And, where scales are involved, you are then into the whole arena of metrology legislation, because the entire system has to be verified and certified to be traded on. Otherwise, software could be changed so that when the scale reads 500g, the software charges for 550 but prints 500g. Therefore, software is checksummed and that checksum can be printed and checked, and is, when the system is certified as legal for trade. As soon as you start monkeying with that, you get into a whole minefield of whether the changes you make require that he system is reverified. I was involved in one such change, and the decision ultimately ended up going right up the chain to the Secretary of State, and the decision involved the supermarket in an unanticipated cost than ran comfortably into 6 figures …. and part of a project that was in the 8 figures. Oh, and by the way, if it does require reverification, neither the supermarket not any old computer engineer can do it - it is a function of Trading Standards, or of an independent body authorised by them …. including me.

Changing hardware on the sales floor has a FAR greater potential impact that the relatively modest cost of just the hardware, and they don't monkey with these systems lightly. Once you picked, developed for and tested, for a given platform, including OS revision, changing that is a potentially major undertaking, especially where you have custom software written specifically for an embedded version., supporting hardware like touchscreen sales systems and chip and pin.

cordas
If he subscribed to the obsolete/EOL ideas and kept his PCs he would have replaced the whole lot 2 maybe 3 times at the cost of 10s of thousands and have what to show for it?

That depends on what the company does. If there really is no need to have more than a workgroup and absolutely no need for file sharing, backups etc then maybe that's fine.
However often in these situations the myopic holder of the purse strings doesn't realise just how much more help some modern software can be. It may have cost tens of thousands extra to upgrade the PC's 2 to 3 times but if they had been upgraded, he may well fine he needs one less member of staff, saving tens of thousands per year.

Saracen
Supermarket IT systems are about far more than just upgrading to a faster system,

Supermarket IT systems to all intents and purposes are a completely separate discussion. Due to many of the reasons you have already mentioned, the software and hardware on their EPOS systems is often ancient.
However their offices and servers certainly can be upgraded more often with less hassle. However before doing anything like that there is a lot of due diligence to do. There's no point upgrading if the benefits don't outweigh the costs.

golwg
How many people use XP SP2 anyway?

Disturbing numbers I am sure.

At work there is a system running Windows 95. Boots/shuts down in seconds, not minutes. IIRC, this machine has 16MB of RAM and a 1GB hard disc. Perfectly ok for what it is used for (running a chip programmer).

If you'd any sense you wouldn't base supermarket EPoS infra. on Windows anyway.

aidanjt
If you'd any sense you wouldn't base supermarket EPoS infra. on Windows anyway.

Have you ever used a self service checkout?

I must admit the designers did their level best to hide any sense they may have once had!

About time.

aidanjt
If you'd any sense you wouldn't base supermarket EPoS infra. on Windows anyway.

Tesco EPoS kit all runs XP IIRC. The self Service ones definitely do.

So, tomorrow is the last day then ?

Not really seeing the big issue here.