Only 3 M$ patches in 2 mths???

Rather than add this to my existing thread about the latest 3 patch bulletins, I wanted to start a new thread to spur a discussion about some concerns I have about M$ and the lack of patches released.

Is anyone else suspicious about M$ only releasing 3 patches in 2 months?
Is this ALL they fixed?
And where are the IE patches to the some odd 30 vulnerabilities discovered by security research groups?
We haven't seen an IE patch for a long time, is M$ giving up on IE?

Wha'd ya think AOers?

--signed: suspicious

Well they must be only fixing what they think its critical. They might not think that a security bug found by a researcher is exploitable in the "real world."

I have to agree with ric-o here! The lack of information about all those IE vulnerabilites are bad! Does this mean M$ cannot fix Ie anymore? (Too much patching = Broken Software). I'm really surprise also, After I read those 3 bulletins, I was looking for more! Remember the time where you had 2-3 patchs very Tuesday? I think M$ is hiding something.

I feel Microsoft is not hiding anything, but are fine tuning their patches. While yes, there are updates few and far inbetween, those updates always cover a very wide range. This means that one update patch may fix 3 or 4 things. Keep in mind that Service Pack 2 will be released very soon, fixing more glitches and exploits (not real world ones, only achedemic) than you could imagine. In this SP2 IE will also be updated to 6.05, and include popup blocking configuration built into it, as well as the IE patches you are concerned about SDK.

So in short, MS is on the ball, but doesn't want to redo work when the wheel is invented. Wait for SP2 (for XP) and things will change. I beta tested SP2 and the improvement upon internal security, code security, and IE were astounding.

On a side note of their release cycles being long, that's just the way it is. They would rather release a lot of fixes at once than one every week. There are a few reasons for this:

* With a new patch every week, customer and tech service agents would be going nuts trying to keep up with the amount of information they must relearn in order to assist those calling in from any problems they may experience. By releasing them in larger, cumulative packages the tech and sales agents have much more time to understand the fixes and then assist the customers with a much more specific problem. (ie. without worrying "well i wonder if it was last weeks package.. or the week before that did it") This is a buisness stradegy, and one that is crucial I feel when it comes to assisting customers on support.


SP2 reference documents

- http://www.computerworld.com/softwar...,00.html?f=x72

- http://www.arstechnica.com/wankerdes...p2-beta-1.html

- http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...umentation.doc

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu
[B]...Keep in mind that Service Pack 2 will be released very soon, fixing more glitches and exploits (not real world ones, only achedemic) than you could imagine. In this SP2 IE will also be updated to 6.05, and include popup blocking configuration built into it, as well as the IE patches you are concerned about SDK.

So in short, MS is on the ball, but doesn't want to redo work when the wheel is invented. Wait for SP2 (for XP) and things will change. I beta tested SP2 and the improvement upon internal security, code security, and IE were astounding.

---

Pooh: I appreciate your opinion but am concerned because you are forgetting another very popular OS (at least in corporate world)... Windows 2000. You only mentioned XP (re.; SP2 reference).

Quote:

---

By releasing them in larger, cumulative packages the tech and sales agents have much more time to understand the fixes and then assist the customers with a much more specific problem.

---

Yep, I totally agree...however I do not consider 3 patches in 2 months a large cumulative patch.

Keep in coming AOers...I really want to hear everyones thoughts here...is M$ really working to fix their OS or did they take a "holiday" in Dec & Jan???

As far as I know XP will be the only one receiving the newer updates, as 2000 is old for it's time. To be blunt, the features, hypthreading, and processing handling in XP has surpassed 2000. It is thus time to move on, and like 98, 2000 will soon be losing support. XP for home use is an excellent choice, and I have run personal benchmarks to test the differences, find XP superior in all of them. Server 2003 for server use, instead of 2000 server, in which I too benchmarked and it surpassed 2000 once again.

The reasoning behind 2000 slow updates is that 2000 is trying to be phased out. It is a 3 year old (4 almost) operating system that need to step aside for the continuing product. Sure, we could start a flame war about which OS is better, but numbers counter, and so do benchmarks. By upgrading to a newer OS, support and patches will be supported much more often.

This would apply to someone running 98 as well. It's time to move foward. MS took no holiday, but is creating longhorn and supporting XP to help surge the users foward towards better, faster, and much more stable operating systems.

Once again, I'm not looking to turn this into a "which os is better argument", but like a linux user, they will and should upgrade to RH 9 from RH 6 since 9 has come out.

I think they are globbing all their patches now purely to save face, it looks bad for them when every week it hits the news that there is a new patch/vulnerabillity out. Is it good for customers? ,probably not for those who get screwed due to the lack of a patch. Probably yes for ms and their shareholders. One day some one will write a nasty worm for an exploit that "is not going to be patched till next months release" and you know what will happen......

Faster? Are you on crack? Windows 3.X was faster than 95, on some machines 95 is faster than 98....ME is terrible no matter what....XP has the system requirements of a damned Cray, I can't wait too see the finished Long Horn....

Long Horns minimum system requirements:

At least dual 3.06 GHz processors

2 GBs RAM, 4 recommended

19 inch LCD flat screen

Sound card from any hardware company that will only make drivers for Windows

Video card from anyone but the Linux friendly Nvidia corp

It makes sence to me:

Microsoft tells hardware makers that they will sell only Windows on desktop machines, or they will not do business with them....Most people know Windows so they buy it. The hardware maker is scred into selling only Windows on desktop machines and laptops.

Then, as a thank you for selling only Microsoft products on the hardware, Microsoft releases a new OS every 2 years or so that has WAY bigger system requirements then the last one, which makes people have to buy MORE newer hardware to run it on, and in turn, this circle jerk continues as Microsoft keeps making resource whores for OSs, and the hardware makers only sell dektops with Windows.

For proof of this:

Windows 9X runs on a 486 as a minimum, Windows ME however will not. Yet both still rely on DOS, which will run on a damned talking whiz kid/ Calculator.

Windows 2000 has to have at least a Pentium 133, well, thats more than double the power the others needed. By this time, almost everyone ran Windows, so Microsoft could actually get away with this ****. Microsoft wants you to throw away your 486, your Pentium, and your pentium 2. Why? Because if they keep making money for the hardware makers, they keep selling nothing but Windows.

A 486 is still very much usefull. Most people throw them away because all they know how to use is Windows. Now look at XP... Not something you'd load on older hardware right? Even more needs than 2000 had. Now, don't get me wrong, XP is great, but why so many damned resources?

Also:

Have you ever noticed how you can run Widnows 98 SE with a fresh install fast as HELL. But then after you update it with patces it starts lagging? Well, that would be Microsoft making you think your hardware just "slows down" for some reason.

If anyone has ever done a fresh install of Windows 98, booted it up, used it for 10 minutes, then installed all security and big fixes, and then booted it up and use it for 10 minutes again, you can easily note that the system has a much slower responce time.

Now, this COULD be because the patches were released in a time span made to make you not notice right away. And with the track record the clear glass bastards in redmond havem, this isn't exactly a shocking theory.

Why upgrade to Redhat 9? Just because it's out? That's stupid! 7.X is a fan favorite, and it has less resource hogging than 9. You really are a sheep. "Oh!!!!!!! The new version is out! I simply MUST spend all of my money on it because it's new, meaning the old one is now worthless! It's new so it is better!"

Redhat is killing support for the users anyway, you might as well dump their asses like I'v been saying for a year.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by gore
Faster? Are you on crack? Windows 3.X was faster than 95, on some machines 95 is faster than 98....ME is terrible no matter what....XP has the system requirements of a damned Cray, I can't wait too see the finished Long Horn....

Long Horns minimum system requirements:

At least dual 3.06 GHz processors

2 GBs RAM, 4 recommended

19 inch LCD flat screen

Sound card from any hardware company that will only make drivers for Windows

Video card from anyone but the Linux friendly Nvidia corp

---

I have to respond because you are giving out misinformation. I ran build 4051 of Longhorn on my Pent III 800 mhz with 400 megs of RAM on an nvidia GEForce 2 MX 400. It ran like a dream. My Soundblaster live ran perfectly. I don't know where you get your stats from, but that's no where near what I tested and ran beautifully, but that's no where near close to the specifications in the readme for the Longhorn release.

Quote:

---

Microsoft tells hardware makers that they will sell only Windows on desktop machines, or they will not do business with them....Most people know Windows so they buy it. The hardware maker is scred into selling only Windows on desktop machines and laptops.

---

This is called running a buisness and having partners. Nothing wrong with it. That is their buisness practice.

Quote:

---

Then, as a thank you for selling only Microsoft products on the hardware, Microsoft releases a new OS every 2 years or so that has WAY bigger system requirements then the last one, which makes people have to buy MORE newer hardware to run it on, and in turn, this circle jerk continues as Microsoft keeps making resource whores for OSs, and the hardware makers only sell dektops with Windows.

---

This is because computers are improving faster than the rate of the OSes being developed. Better, more resource intensive OSes that use more features, more eyecandy, and more in general configuration can now be created because our computers can handle them. Old doesn't mean better, and neither does newer mean better. But faster computers means we as programmers can do more, include more, and give the option to more. Take Gnome 2.4 for example. XFree, even. Both are going to be developing true layer transparencies very soon. This will require more resources, but it is there because they understand computers nowadays can handle it, and because people like it.

Quote:

---

Windows 9X runs on a 486 as a minimum, Windows ME however will not. Yet both still rely on DOS, which will run on a damned talking whiz kid/ Calculator.

---

I <3 dos too. But have moved on. 486 is how long ago? Newer OSes are meant to run on newer systems.

Quote:

---

Windows 2000 has to have at least a Pentium 133, well, thats more than double the power the others needed. By this time, almost everyone ran Windows, so Microsoft could actually get away with this ****. Microsoft wants you to throw away your 486, your Pentium, and your pentium 2. Why? Because if they keep making money for the hardware makers, they keep selling nothing but Windows.

---

That is true, but also because the hardware and power computers were beginning to become mainstream. At that time, pentium 4's were a hit, and pent III were dirt cheap. Meaning MS as well as the users were very ready for eyecandy, beautiful interfaces that their hardwarecould take advantage of. No sense in letting 4 ghz and 2 gigs of ram going to waste on an OS and it's applications won't use a 10% of it.

Quote:

---

A 486 is still very much usefull. Most people throw them away because all they know how to use is Windows. Now look at XP... Not something you'd load on older hardware right? Even more needs than 2000 had. Now, don't get me wrong, XP is great, but why so many damned resources?

---

I agree. 486's are amazing little servers that can accomplish a great many things. XP is meant for newer computers (pent III and IV), but not for older computers. That's fine, as people who have older computers know to stick to lower OSes, while those with newer computers know to stick with newer OSes.

Quote:

---

Have you ever noticed how you can run Widnows 98 SE with a fresh install fast as HELL. But then after you update it with patces it starts lagging? Well, that would be Microsoft making you think your hardware just "slows down" for some reason.

If anyone has ever done a fresh install of Windows 98, booted it up, used it for 10 minutes, then installed all security and big fixes, and then booted it up and use it for 10 minutes again, you can easily note that the system has a much slower responce time.

---

I have never noticed this, and it seems far too conspiracy theorist for me. When an OS is upgraded that simply means tweaking needs to be done, both for Linux and Windows OSes.

Quote:

---

Why upgrade to Redhat 9? Just because it's out? That's stupid! 7.X is a fan favorite, and it has less resource hogging than 9. You really are a sheep. "Oh!!!!!!! The new version is out! I simply MUST spend all of my money on it because it's new, meaning the old one is now worthless! It's new so it is better!"

---

No, I am not a sheep. The primary reason for upgrades to a new level is because they always contain a very large, cumulative area of patches and fixes. It will almost always include new features, new ways of doing something, and for the sheercuriosity of learning the new version. In my experience, RH 9 and RH 7 are very similar. However, if you configure 7 wrong it can run as slow as 9. If you configure 9 good it will run as good as 7.

Quote:

---

Redhat is killing support for the users anyway, you might as well dump their asses like I'v been saying for a year.

---

Hail gentoo, and I agree. But keep in mind one thing, please. Newer hardware makes room for better, bigger, more feature filled OSes that a lot of people enjoy. Some enjoy, some don't, and that is their opinion.

Ummm, the requirements I listed were a complete joke....I assumed peopel would see that and get a laugh out of it....Damn you kill the fun in it.

As for a 486, I still need one, I want to set up a few things and play.

And for the record, the newest version of Slackware will run on a 486. So newer OSs can still be put on older hardware. I'll leave Linux on this box, and use that 128 MB Vid card for what it should be used for, Unreal Tournament, Tux Racer, and Quake, and Doom 3 when it comes out.

I'm thinking you are starting too realise I'm not seriouse....At least I hope so. Windows is great for a desktop, but as for servers, I'm partial to *NIX. And *NIX also makes a great desktop.

Everyone says how Macs are the greatest at Graphic designs.....Which they obviously have never used UNIX. An SGI running IRIX would OWN a Mac.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by gore
Umm, the requirements I listed were a complete joke....I assumed peopel would see that and get a laugh out of it....Damn you kill the fun in it.

---

-hands you A fun back- (MUD joke)

Quote:

---

a 486, I still need one, I want to set up a few things and play.

---

Don't we all! They make killer wargaming systems.

Quote:

---

thinking you are starting too realise I'm not seriouse....At least I hope so. Windows is great for a desktop, but as for servers, I'm partial to *NIX. And *NIX also makes a great desktop.

---

I agree 100%. I've battled back and forth between installations of different OSes to test which benifits which reasoning the best. Windows has always come out on top for the fastest and best desktop/workstation OS. Need I mention the best gaming support (WineX exists of course, but let's be honest :) ) And while windows can handle a server decently (once configured) a UNIX based OS handles it 10x better. That's been my rule of thumb for a very long time now. Windows for desktops, and UNIX for servers.

Quote:

---

Everyone says how Macs are the greatest at Graphic designs.....Which they obviously have never used UNIX. An SGI running IRIX would OWN a Mac.

---

Well, the latest macs are built off of the UNIX code (BSD?) and thus have the same system capabilities as IRIX. However, I think purchasing a $2,000 computer just because advertisements say photoshop looks better, makes me shiver. Just my opinion, but even as a former web designer Mac would never be able to do what I feel a fully functional workstation/desktop should be using. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu
I agree 100%. I've battled back and forth between installations of different OSes to test which benifits which reasoning the best. Windows has always come out on top for the fastest and best desktop/workstation OS. Need I mention the best gaming support (WineX exists of course, but let's be honest :) ) And while windows can handle a server decently (once configured) a UNIX based OS handles it 10x better. That's been my rule of thumb for a very long time now. Windows for desktops, and UNIX for servers.

---

Generally I agree with this completly. I think Linux as a desktop is great and I use it daily, but Windows has them with support for hardware. Windows server 2003 is nice, but still, I'd use *NIX. I play Unreal Tournament, Doom, Quake, and Tux Racer. All of them can be used on Windows OR *NIX, or DOS even, so I don't worry about game support much.

Quote:

---

Well, the latest macs are built off of the UNIX code (BSD?) and thus have the same system capabilities as IRIX. However, I think purchasing a $2,000 computer just because advertisements say photoshop looks better, makes me shiver. Just my opinion, but even as a former web designer Mac would never be able to do what I feel a fully functional workstation/desktop should be using. :)

---

Yup, they are built with BSD at the very base. It's modified but it's BSD.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu
The reasoning behind 2000 slow updates is that 2000 is trying to be phased out. It is a 3 year old (4 almost) operating system that need to step aside for the continuing product. Sure, we could start a flame war about which OS is better, but numbers counter, and so do benchmarks. By upgrading to a newer OS, support and patches will be supported much more often.

---

I understand your reasoning, as it matches M$ however I disagree with it. It isn't grounded with reality in the corporate world or the home world. While many corporations DO set the life of their PC desktops to 3 years that doesn't mean they necessarily write a blank check to replace it come end of year 3...not to mention the BUSY I/T shop having time to replace all this hardware. And servers are replaced even less frequently for not just monetary reasons...migration of legacy software can be very hard.

I can tell you from discussions with many corporate I/T types ranging from CIOs to system admins: Microsoft must extend the life of their software (not just OS's)...people are getting fed up with the constant upgrades.

Quote:

---

This would apply to someone running 98 as well. It's time to move foward. MS took no holiday, but is creating longhorn and supporting XP to help surge the users foward towards better, faster, and much more stable operating systems.

---

And the home base is even worse. What AVERAGE (note: average, not us _power users_ ha ha) user upgrades or even replaces their hardware every 3 years? Very very few, would be my guess given many of my non-technical family members with OS's ranging from 95 to ME. Many reasons for this: too costly, dont care, dont know, yada yada yada. There really isn't a good incentive for them to upgrade except maybe to run new software that only runs on the newer OS's. Hey, even Gore (and myself too) has older OS's running.

Hey, I'm not a M$ basher, I like their products...but I'm a I/T person who has to deal with them on a multitude of levels and am one of those tired of the upgrade merry-go-round.

(Thanks for the good dialogue/discussion.)

Oh, poor Microsoft -- will they ever win?

If they dont release enough patches they "dont care"; if they release too many it "speaks of how crap Windows is".

Would everyone be content with 4 patches a month or part thereof?

rico,

I have noticed you are focusing a lot of this on server IT maintanence. While that is fine, my base argument was for OSes and MS patch news in general. If you are worried about expenses, time, and having to upgrade 50+ computers at one time then I suggest a linux based distro. Gentoo or Redhat, of course, Redhat being easy to setup and install while Gentoo takes a bit more to install, but upgrades are newbishly easy. Servers, in my humble opinion, should always be UNIX based for a multitude of reasons.

1. Much cheaper
2. Much easier to upgrade in terms of system critical applications
3. A much more proven history of stability and reliability in terms of server use.

So, while it may seem like I am trying to avoid the origonal question by offering a completely seperate solution, my origonal posts here about MS updates still stand firm. I merely think you would save yourself a ton of sleepless nights in an office/server senario using UNIX. Rule of thumb: Windows for desktops, UNIX for servers :)

Quote:

---

As far as I know XP will be the only one receiving the newer updates, as 2000 is old for it's time. To be blunt, the features, hypthreading, and processing handling in XP has surpassed 2000. It is thus time to move on, and like 98, 2000 will soon be losing support. XP for home use is an excellent choice, and I have run personal benchmarks to test the differences, find XP superior in all of them. Server 2003 for server use, instead of 2000 server, in which I too benchmarked and it surpassed 2000 once again.

---

1) M$ just continue supporting Windows 98 again! I don't remember how much time they said Win98 will end and then, change ship and support is continuing.

2) Windows 2000 should be discontinued in 2007 but don’t except anything before 2009 because Windows 2000 computer don’t run Longhorn. Windows 2000 is still more secure that XP right now and I'm not sure SP2 will change that.

3) IE Patch’s are independent of OS. They can include them in a SP2 but what about Windows 2000?

4) I’m still running over 20 computers with Windows 98 in my company for an overall 66 computer. I don’t have money to buy 20 new computers. Most company doesn’t either.

Gore, I used to maintain a kick ass silicon graphics work beast. Those things fking rocked. Took up a whole room but man that was cool.

Don't like Microsofts IE patch policy? Quit using it. :D <- that too is a joke.

Quote:

---

1) M$ just continue supporting Windows 98 again! I don't remember how much time they said Win98 will end and then, change ship and support is continuing.

---

Unless they continue with the upgrading patches, then it is not supported. Supporting it over the phone does not count.

Quote:

---

2) Windows 2000 should be discontinued in 2007 but don’t except anything before 2009 because Windows 2000 computer don’t run Longhorn. Windows 2000 is still more secure that XP right now and I'm not sure SP2 will change that.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Windows 2000 came with the same default insecure settings as XP, and the same configurations to make it just as secure as XP. In no way, was 2000 any more secure than XP.

Quote:

---

3) IE Patch’s are independent of OS. They can include them in a SP2 but what about Windows 2000?

---

I already answered this in my posts above, please read them.

edit: I even pulled up that specific part for you:

Quote:

---

origonally from pooh sun tzu

As far as I know XP will be the only one receiving the newer updates, as 2000 is old for it's time. To be blunt, the features, hypthreading, and processing handling in XP has surpassed 2000. It is thus time to move on, and like 98, 2000 will soon be losing support. XP for home use is an excellent choice, and I have run personal benchmarks to test the differences, find XP superior in all of them. Server 2003 for server use, instead of 2000 server, in which I too benchmarked and it surpassed 2000 once again.

The reasoning behind 2000 slow updates is that 2000 is trying to be phased out. It is a 3 year old (4 almost) operating system that need to step aside for the continuing product. Sure, we could start a flame war about which OS is better, but numbers counter, and so do benchmarks. By upgrading to a newer OS, support and patches will be supported much more often.

This would apply to someone running 98 as well. It's time to move foward. MS took no holiday, but is creating longhorn and supporting XP to help surge the users foward towards better, faster, and much more stable operating systems.

Once again, I'm not looking to turn this into a "which os is better argument", but like a linux user, they will and should upgrade to RH 9 from RH 6 since 9 has come out.

---

Quote:

---

4) I’m still running over 20 computers with Windows 98 in my company for an overall 66 computer. I don’t have money to buy 20 new computers. Most company doesn’t either.

---

I already answered company situations in my posts above, please read them.

edit: I even pulled up that specific part for you:

Quote:

---

origonally from pooh sun tzu

rico,

I have noticed you are focusing a lot of this on server IT maintanence. While that is fine, my base argument was for OSes and MS patch news in general. If you are worried about expenses, time, and having to upgrade 50+ computers at one time then I suggest a linux based distro. Gentoo or Redhat, of course, Redhat being easy to setup and install while Gentoo takes a bit more to install, but upgrades are newbishly easy. Servers, in my humble opinion, should always be UNIX based for a multitude of reasons.

1. Much cheaper
2. Much easier to upgrade in terms of system critical applications
3. A much more proven history of stability and reliability in terms of server use.

So, while it may seem like I am trying to avoid the origonal question by offering a completely seperate solution, my origonal posts here about MS updates still stand firm. I merely think you would save yourself a ton of sleepless nights in an office/server senario using UNIX. Rule of thumb: Windows for desktops, UNIX for servers

---

Actually, according to my MS OEM SystemBuilder Info, MS is pulling support for Windows 2000 Server, AS and Datacenter Server around August of this year.

P.S. - Sorry, pooh. I forgot to get back with you. I'm gonna PM you with the specs.

Hi,

I answer to ric-o's question. I seem to recall reading that Microsoft have stated that they will concentrate on releasing "service packs" rather than patches and fixes? did anyone else come across that. I believe they said they would only provide patches for major security problems?

Win95 will run on a 386 (12Mb RAM)............I have not tried it on anything less.

I disagree with the comments on Win2000, as 4 years is not "old" in a commercial setting. We are not in a world boom at the moment, and many organisations cannot afford major IT investment in replacing stuff. Win2000 will run on a PI/133 :)

As we have seen in the past few days: MS have backed down over the 9x family. I would expect them to do the same there.

Another consideration is that commercial IT users tend to be cautious, so a lot of Win2000 implementations are nowhere near 4 years old. They will not be pleased if MS try to force change on them..........the problem of legacy software has also been discussed.............up till 2 years ago I was still supporting Lotus 1-2-3 for Dos and Excel2 !!! (Win3.1x)

My personal feeling is that the problem with legacy equipment is not so much the processor as the memory. It was very expensive in those days, and has become so again because it is obsolete. So upgrading isn't really a viable option in a lot of cases?

I also think that legislation will also play its part.............if you sell hardware in Europe you have to support it for 10 years............I can see operating systems being put into the same classification, and MS cannot afford not to do business in Europe ;)

Just my £0.02 worth

1) Windows 2000 Extended Support will end the 31-Mar-2007. But except that it'll push like they are pushing support for Windows 98 and Windows Nt 4.0.

Note : Difference between Extended Support and Mainstream Support is :
Mainstream Support : HotFix and new feature
Extended Support : Hotfix Only.

Source : http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifecycle
Source : ;LifeWin]http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[ln];LifeWin

2)

Quote:

---

Unless they continue with the upgrading patches, then it is not supported. Supporting it over the phone does not count

---

What do you want to patch on that os? The only bug that pop-up for Windows 98 since 6 months (probably more) are related to IE and IE is still support. All the bug are found in the first years usually.

3) Windows 2000 is 4 years old. True... That mean all the bug have been found. We usually said that after SP1, an OS code is gold. After SP4, it's pretty secure to my eyes and most security gurus I talk with. More that Windows XP right now.. Might not be the case after SP2 for XP but NOW, it's the case.

4) Linux! haha! The cost of buying a new computer with Windows XP is ridiculous compare to the cost of support Linux for end-user. Without forgetting the cost of using 2 version of Office (OpenOffice, M$ Office), etc etc. Red Hat move away from desktop. Linux is good for server for now. That it!

5) You're definitely not in the industries! You don’t have a clue that VP and President don’t invest in IT because the ROI (Return on Investments) cannot be calculate. You have no idea how hard it’s to get to change legacy system for an IT guy! God, I’m stuck using a Windows NT 4.0 Workstation on a 300MHz with 256 MG system!

6)

Quote:

---

up till 2 years ago I was still supporting Lotus 1-2-3 for Dos and Excel2 !!! (Win3.1x)

---

I feel good now! I got rid of Windows 95!

Haha...totally totally agree with you SDK....The goverment is a prime example of not staying current. They are in a phase of upgrading and "modernizing" to, get this, M$ 2000. And running Linux, are you kidding me? No way thats gonna happen. They would have to scrap and rewrite all the home grown custom applications that they have now. Some places need to keep older versions of OS's just due to the fact that the Legacy applications can't be rewritten. Plus all of the waivers, testing and politics involved. Not happening anytime soon.....

I know a company that just recently moved their legacy applications off of a DEC Alpha and another that still uses it for a service they provide...talk about an old/unsupported OS!

My company STILL has applications that must be run on W95 and ONLY W95 - ugh.

Like SDK said: upper management (who FUND IT) aren't going to spend $$$$ to upgrade to the latest OS (re.; and replace hw because old wont run it) just because it is NEW and COOL and BETTER.


EDIT:
By the way, during the M$ technet security bulletin webcast on Wednesday I asked what about the IE vulns, where are the patches and they said they have a patch that is in the final QA stages...that's good news!

I am assuming no one read my entire post reply to what a company should do concerning upgrades across company based machines. Please read it, as it offers a solution and easy base idea for a way to upgrade. Linux, not windows, for companies. The reasons why should be obvious, but most are explained in the ORIGONAL post I made here.

And to be quite blunt, if the cost of teaching the new people the VERY BASICS of using Linux (open office, firebird) costs more than a new computer, then you have bad management techniques. Users in the company don't need to be masters of Linux, just like they don't need to be masters of windows. Teach them only what they need to do their job, and it saves money in the longrun. How do I know? Read slashdot, read CNN. Entire government agencies outside of the US (UK, Iraq, Germany, China, etc) have begun the entire switch already from windows to linux. Their reports show massive amounts of money saved, both for hardware and support training. Do management correct and follow the examples of those higher than your current company, and you won't be spending this absurd amount on linux that you think exists.

Keeping the IT department of a company can be quite simple, at least in my experience and point of view. Just keep the wise quote of Sun Tzu, found in my signature :)

Linux is NOT a option for desktop users.

1) The GUI suck compare to Windows. (Even Red-Hat understood that and move away from home user distro)

2) Ever want to try to change a OS that everyone is use, understand and love with something new that nobody understand even the IT tech guy? People don't love when you change the stuff that is working and that they liked. They know little stuff but they are proud to know.

3) You have any idea of the cost of intergration?

Like I said, you're not in the industrie, you have 50 dumps user to support, a management who don't want to invest and like I said before, the cost of moving to Linux is way more important and upgrading machine with Windows XP because at the end, you'll have to upgrade your machine even if you run Linux!