Printable View
Heh this didn't surprise me one bit.Quote:
Microsoft can stop selling older operating systems, and it can even stop supporting them, but that doesn't mean that customers won't still use them.
to read more about it
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5121458.html
This is one place where linux would be great people won;t use the new stuff cuase it costs money.. but after my 3 day wrestling match with linux there aint no 'custemer' of mine that would be interested in using linux niether
I've been in some libraries to fix their computers and i've come across some win 3.1 that they were using. They were offline though so no harm done :)
I think I would be laughing to hard to even use or fix the computer if it was running Win 3.1
Well most users hate change, even if it means they could be at risk because the company doesn't support it anymore. I know some people that will not let go of Windows 95. It is very sad, but true. Most people that do that do not have the technical ability to run Linux. I definately don't think it is a money issue, it is just not wanting to change. How many people do you remember from back in the day that had Windows 98 and never purchased it? Lol.
I purchased mine :(
wow, 15+ percent of coporate systems still using win9x systems, thats such a huge security hole, i can't believe they would let that happen, then again i couldn't believe people would steal millions of dollars of corporate money (enron), so i guess anything is possible
quote systmin770 : "most users hate changer" indeed sad but true
/me runs Win98 on one box because money issues :D
My old workplace ran Windows 98 on a P4 Dell with nice LCD monitor. This was part of a big company also... At least it was behind a NAT and they used Novell something-or-another for shared dirs.
My previous school last year upgraded all of their ancient WinNT4 machines to brand-spanking new P4 machines with WinXP, but imaged all of those machines as Win2K. I don't quite think any of this is anywhere related to money, but rather easier management of the computers, keeping users comfortable without letting Windows be too friendly (XP), and moving between the new OS. I'm not exactly sure how smoothly the NT4 Server transition to Win2K Adv. Server went..., but some places need older versions of the OS for compatibility reasons or another.
It took me a year to finally upgrade to WindowsXP Professional, but I still have Windows 98, Windows 2000 and (ghasp) WindowsME OEM's still in the sleeves with the books and license keys. I like haveing the latest and greatest things, but only when the appropriate service packs come out and a lot of the bugs are resolved.
lol nice avatar DoD.
By the way alot of work places don't like change because some of the employees have a hard time adapting to new things. And having to adapt to new things reduces productiviti, and a reduction in productivity produces profit loss
Yesterday We Shipped 6 Brand New Boxes W/98SE to The Faculty at one of our school accounts, ..their reasoning was because "that is what everyone was used to" and they didnt want to pay anyone to train their teachers... Sad Huh..
Cheers
I guess that a lot of organisations still prefer the "devil they know" as it saves a lot of training effort and cost. Remember that you have to cross-train the support staff as well :(
The other issue has to be hardware? if you change OSes as a global action you have to upgrade all systems to the minimum specification for the new OS.
I have worked on OS roll-outs, and to do it across 1200 desktops is quite a task with your regular resources.
It is interesting that the "prime resource hog": Windows Me is not on the list :D
Given the "slack in the Global Economy" it is not surprising that there is a reluctance to re-invest in new operating systems? In the UK, you would be looking at about $1,250,000 to go to XP on 1200 machines? plus attendant training costs.
OK you can amortize the hardware over 3 years but the training, installation and software goes straight on the bottom line.
There is still the memory of the great Y2K scam in the minds of "beancounters" and when times are hard it is their voices that are listened to?
BTW Dead Addict is have supported WIN 3.11 up until recently. It sits on top of DOS and supports Office 4.3 (Access 2.0 applications) As we were doing a major ERP implementation, these "in-house" apps were due to be replaced anyway, so I could not cost justify upgrading the apps independently (Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS as well!).
I think that laptops are another factor, as they are still relatively expensive and older ones certainly won't support XP?
Just a few thoughts
Cheers
Yee, that´s bad.
It could be good if microsoft makes simple freewares of old OS that thay dont support anymore.
And other programs. It is nice/funny to play with them.
Working as the Head of I.T. for a local library, I got really tired of playing the Windows upgrade game. Upgrading to the latest OS also involved upgrading hardware. With over 300 public access computers, not to mention the staff computers, this costed us tens of thousands of dollars. Solution, run linux on all 300+ public access computers. Now are are able to use older hardware for much longer, and eventually increase the number of computers we offer for the library patrons to use. The next task is to migrate/upgrade all of our servers to linux, and perhaps one day, a majority of our staff desktops as well.
Linux just makes sense, and it will save us (and our taxpayers) thousands.
He He.. not to mention the money being saved to replace all them computers your library patrons slammed around because Windows(ME specifically) crashed lol. Millenium is the worst I have ever used and will never go there again. I love my Windows XP.
PS I love your mood and avatar David Anasco, that is so sweet .awww
Hi All,
WOW!
I did somthing like that in 95' ...only I had to do all new systems, went from Dos Ps/2's to Win 3.1 Boxes.. and setup training for Office also. Then if that wasnt enough, they wanted me to use the ps2 boxes to setup a WAN with LantaASStic for "distance Connectivitity" All with out the internet, and with ancient hardware..I finally called one of my friends who writes grants, and Got the money via Lots of red tape and a municipality grant.. to do it the right way..Quote:
BTW Dead Addict is have supported WIN 3.11 up until recently. It sits on top of DOS and supports Office 4.3 (Access 2.0 applications) As we were doing a major ERP implementation, these "in-house" apps were due to be replaced anyway, so I could not cost justify upgrading the apps independently (Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS as well!).
But those were the good old Days.. :)
Cheers
Everyone probably clings to the old OS's because they're so much cheaper.
My college, up until about 4 weeks ago was still using windows 95, the only reason we upgraded was becuase on the CISCO network acadamy course that i am on now requires some wireless equipment and it just plain and simple refused to work on windows 95.
The rest of the main campus is on W2k as far as i am aware and have shiny new Dell P4s we still have some old PIIIs 500s i think they are. Funny our class does the most the technical IT stuff in the college yet we use the oldest machines and the oldest OS. I think far too many people get caught up in the got to have the latest version of everything.
Some companies i do work for do a alot of city bank work and the majority of all of them are still Win NT4 and they have far more ancient versions of weird and obscure stuff than that running. You all seem to focus on the secuirty issues of the older OSs yet i think youll find there are less exploits with the older tried tested and patched OSs than with more recent variants.
I wonder how many of you actually upgraded to the latest OS for a specific function not available in the previous version and how many just upgraded because it was the thing to do.
In my small Lan i run:
1 x P133 32MB Ram dual boot W95 & NT4 box also got another hotswap drive with 98se & W2k pro
1 x P133 32MB Ram with smoothwall
1 x Dual Processor Pentuim Pro 200MHZ compaq proliant server with 256MB ram and a external raid array rackmounted with W2k Server
1 x AMD 2.8Ghz with 1GB Ram running XP pro W2k and Suse 9.0 pro with incidently is the highest pec machine of my machines and crashes regulaly running XP pro
1 x IBM Thinpad R31 dual boot XP pro and FreeBSD 5
1 x AMD 700Mhz 768MB Ram with FreeBSD 4.6
Most of this equipment was purchased 2nd hand at minimum cost and does the job more than efficiently. Why fix what isnt broken?????????
3.1 rocked! I never managed a blue screen of death on that, although thinking about it i only used it when I was 10 for using microsofts games, paint, notepad and some BASIC programming :-)
People have probably clung to the older OS because of the recent viruses that had major media hype surrounding them, SoBig and Master Blaster have given XP and 2000 a bad name, saying that XP professional I have found quite stable, except on the computers at my university, but as MissMitterns said in another post, educational computers tend to be a bit flakey.
Also MS products are so damn expensive, and IMO i dont think that the support provided with them is anywhere near the level of support that can be obtained from the open source community.
Unfortuatly its just the change that is stopping more people moving over to the free OS's and other economical rubbish. The hospital service are doing a trial in this country on Linux because they can no longer afford the costs of the licenceses for MS products, I asked someone i know about this and they said they could hardly get there head round MS products. This is where MS has the distinct advantage, they captured the market early and some would say created a monopoly, thus making people think and learn only on one OS. For the people who arent as into computers as us this will resort in them having to relearn, something non computer lovers tend not to be to keen on.
Another thing that creates great debates in my cricle of friends is about the arguement that MS is better than Linux and Linux is better than MS, personnally if I was given the choice it would be Linux every time, but this isnt because i think its better or wot not. It has the tools and documentation I like, I like being able to play with code, work in real time, have more choice. But then you wouldnt use anything other than a Mac for some graphics work would you? and you might need MS for something...But people are all to quick to jump in and say one is better, admitedly, some have better features than others, if the world combined them all then we'd have an amazing real time os, with RISC archceture, that a large percentage no how to use :-)
i2c
We have applications that were specifically writen for DOS 5. The input stations still work. They are faster then the physical labor involved at that barcode scanning station. The x386 boxes have been turned on forever, we never shut them off. It's an internal network running on ARCNET. It works, it does the job. Why upgrade, why pay extra development costs?
We had training stations running on Apple II's until 3 years ago. Those had to get retired because we ran out of parts.
Stage 3 ?Quote:
Originally posted here by ghostofanonion
This is one place where linux would be great people won;t use the new stuff cuase it costs money.. but after my 3 day wrestling match with linux there aint no 'custemer' of mine that would be interested in using linux niether
;)Quote:
.....With much hubris, you completely ignore the documentation and attempt to
install the OS by the seat of your pants. The installation is a failure;
Linux simply cannot work with the WinModem, WinSoundCard,
WinIDEController, WinPrinter, WinMonitor, and WinDRAM that came with your
"Windows 98 Ready" machine from CompUSSR. You don't realize this however,
since you didn't read the FAQs and HOWTOs. You immediately blame the
problems on Linux and give up. You ditch your Red Hat copy by selling it
on eBay.
After the installation fiasco, you leave fearful, uncertain, and doubtful
about this "alternative" operating system. Windows may have its problems,
but Microsoft will fix them in the next upgrade, you reckon.
STAGE 3. BORN-AGAIN MICROSERF
"Linux sucks" is your new attitude towards life. Windows, all things
considered, ain't so bad. You resolve to become a better Microsoft
customer by participating in the Microsoft Developer Network and the Site
Builder Network. You buy a bunch of "study guides" to pass the MCSE
examination.
You launch a Windows advocacy site on some dinky free webpage provider,
utilizing the latest innovations in VBScript, ActiveX, and other
IE-specific features. Instead of lurking, you now actively participate
in Linux and Macintosh bashing on various Usenet groups. Upon discovering
Slashdot for the first time, you assume the role of the Bastard Anonymous
Coward From Hell by posting countless flamebait posts about how cool
Microsoft is and how much "Linsux" (as you call it) is a crappy OS.
You proudly wear an "All Hail Chairman Bill" T-shirt and display numerous
pro-Microsoft bumper stickers ("Honk if you hate anti-trust laws") on your
car. You never leave home without your Windows CE-based palmtop computer.
You make a pilgrimage to Redmond to marvel at the glory that is the
Microsoft Campus.
The full list of stages can be found here.
http://igloo.its.unimelb.edu.au/Webm.../msg00158.html
For the record the EPoS system we use still relies on win 3.11 for generatig it's reports - Although the bulk of the system, including all the store apps are dos based.
Steve