Windows XP remains popular, despite its age, its limitations, and its lack of support from Microsoft.
The desire to keep Windows XP shows that users want stable, reliable operating systems that they can install and then ignore. Well, perhaps not ignore, but at least not think about.
Things were not always this way. Early in the age of Windows, corporations, individuals, hobbyists, and programmers all looked forward to new versions of Microsoft's operating system. Windows 3.1 was desired for its networking capabilities; Windows 95 for its user interface (in contrast to Windows 8); and Windows NT for its security. Windows 2000 brought all of those features together, and was eagerly adopted.
I think that the lesson of Windows 8 (and Windows Vista, and Windows 7) is this: We no longer care about the operating system.
In the old days, operating systems were important -- much more than today. Certain applications would run on only certain operating systems; pick the wrong operating system and you could not run your application. Not running your application meant that you could not get your work done, or deliver for your client.
Today, most applications run on most operating systems. Yes, most Microsoft products run only on Windows, but other products run on Windows, MacOS, and Linux. Moreover, web apps run in browsers, and most web apps run in the popular browsers (Firefox, Chrome, IE, and Safari) and care nothing about the operating system.
Applications are not tied so closely to operating systems as they were.
The mobile world has made operating systems commodities, with equivalent apps available on iOS and Android. In the mobile world, very few people care about the operating system.
With less dependence on the operating system, we tend to think of other things. We still think of performance -- although modern processors are fast enough for most tasks and cloud computing can provide computing power for large tasks.
Today we tend to think of portability (an app for my phone) and network connectivity (coverage by mobile service provider).
The operating system, for most people, is a means to an end but it is not the end. We think of it as we think of electricity, or of sidewalks: there and ready for us to use, but nothing distinguishing about them. They are becoming part of "the infrastructure", that part of our world that we use without thinking about it.
To be sure, there are some folks who do care about operating systems. The system designers, to start. And I'm sure that Microsoft's product teams care about the features in Windows (as do Apple's product designers care about features in MacOS and iOS). Hobbyists and tinkerers enjoy exploring new versions of operating systems. Support teams for large organizations, security analysts, and the "black hat" hackers who look for vulnerabilities -- they all care about operating systems.
But walk down the street and ask individuals at random, and most will answer that they don't care. Some may not even know which operating system are used by their devices!
We've moved on to other things.
Showing posts with label Windows XP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Windows XP. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Monday, January 20, 2014
Windows 7 is "good enough" - and that's a problem
A large portion of the Windows user community has complained -- loudly -- about Windows 8 and its new user interface. People, as individuals or as members of a corporation, have made their displeasure known. They have written articles in trade magazines. They have posted blog entries. They have given presentations. (I suspect that there are anti-Windows-8 videos on YouTube.)
Most folks care more about getting their work done and less about the operating system. They don't want Windows 8, or even Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel. They want their invoices, they want their estimates, they want their analyses.
The technology stack of PC hardware, Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, and specialty software are tools. They are a means to the end, not the end.
Changes to that technology stack, when invisible, are unimportant. An update that fixes a security hole is good, especially when it has no effect on the workflow. After the update, Windows boots as usual, applications run as usual, and the work gets done.
Visible changes, such as removing the "Start" button, affect the workflow. The introduction of "ribbon" menus in Microsoft Office were also met with complaints.
The problem facing Microsoft is that their software (Windows, Office, SQL Server, etc.) has become good enough for use in the workplace. It has been good enough for years, which is why people use old versions.
In the good old days, new versions of software were clearly better. Windows 3.1 was much better than DOS. Windows 95 was better than Windows 3.1. Windows XP was better than Windows 95. People could see the benefit and were willing to move to the later version.
But once software becomes good enough, the benefits of a later version are less clear. Windows Vista was not clearly better than Windows XP. Windows 7 was better than Windows Vista, but perhaps not that much better than Windows XP.
Windows 8 is clearly different from Windows 7 (and Windows XP). But is it better? People perceive Windows XP and Windows 7 as good enough.
Which is ironic, as Microsoft built their empire on software that was good enough. They shipped products when those products were good enough to compete in the market. They improved products to become good enough to deliver revenue.
Microsoft Windows 8 must compete against Windows 7, and Windows 7 is good enough.
Two observations:
The current users of Windows believe their current systems to be good enough, and they are unwilling to change without clear benefits. The features of Windows 8 are insufficient to warrant a change.
A vendor cannot force products upon the market. (This lesson was made earlier with Microsoft "Bob" and IBM "Topview".) Users must see benefits, not merely features, in a product.
Most folks care more about getting their work done and less about the operating system. They don't want Windows 8, or even Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel. They want their invoices, they want their estimates, they want their analyses.
The technology stack of PC hardware, Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, and specialty software are tools. They are a means to the end, not the end.
Changes to that technology stack, when invisible, are unimportant. An update that fixes a security hole is good, especially when it has no effect on the workflow. After the update, Windows boots as usual, applications run as usual, and the work gets done.
Visible changes, such as removing the "Start" button, affect the workflow. The introduction of "ribbon" menus in Microsoft Office were also met with complaints.
The problem facing Microsoft is that their software (Windows, Office, SQL Server, etc.) has become good enough for use in the workplace. It has been good enough for years, which is why people use old versions.
In the good old days, new versions of software were clearly better. Windows 3.1 was much better than DOS. Windows 95 was better than Windows 3.1. Windows XP was better than Windows 95. People could see the benefit and were willing to move to the later version.
But once software becomes good enough, the benefits of a later version are less clear. Windows Vista was not clearly better than Windows XP. Windows 7 was better than Windows Vista, but perhaps not that much better than Windows XP.
Windows 8 is clearly different from Windows 7 (and Windows XP). But is it better? People perceive Windows XP and Windows 7 as good enough.
Which is ironic, as Microsoft built their empire on software that was good enough. They shipped products when those products were good enough to compete in the market. They improved products to become good enough to deliver revenue.
Microsoft Windows 8 must compete against Windows 7, and Windows 7 is good enough.
Two observations:
The current users of Windows believe their current systems to be good enough, and they are unwilling to change without clear benefits. The features of Windows 8 are insufficient to warrant a change.
A vendor cannot force products upon the market. (This lesson was made earlier with Microsoft "Bob" and IBM "Topview".) Users must see benefits, not merely features, in a product.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
The Future of your Windows XP PC
Suppose you have one (or several) PCs running Windows XP. Microsoft has announced the end-of-life date for Windows XP (about a year from now). What to do?
You have several options:
Upgrade to Windows 8: This probably requires new hardware, since Windows 8 requires a bit more than Windows XP. If you want to use a touchscreen, you are looking at not upgrading your PC system to Windows 8 but replacing all of the hardware.
Windows 8 uses the new "Modern/Metro" UI which is a significant change from Windows XP. Your users may find the new interface unfamiliar.
Upgrade to Windows 7: Like Windows 8, Windows 7 probably requires new hardware. You are replacing your PC, not upgrading it. (Perhaps you keep the monitor, mouse, and keyboard.)
The UI in Windows 7 is closer to Windows XP, but there are still changes. The user experience is quite close to Windows XP; the system administrator will see the changes.
Switch to Mac: Instead of upgrading to Windows 8 or Windows 7, you can switch to an Apple Macintosh PC running OSX. This requires new versions of your software. Now you are replacing hardware and software, hardly a simple upgrade.
The user interface and administration of OSX is different from Windows, another cost of conversion.
Switch to Linux: Instead of upgrading to a version of Windows, you can switch to Linux. This is one option that lets you keep your current hardware. There are several Linux distros that are designed to run on limited hardware.
The Linux UI is different, but closer to Windows than Mac OSX, and can be tuned to look like Windows. Software may or may not be a challenge. The major browsers (except Internet Explorer) run on Linux. LibreOffice can replace Microsoft Office for most tasks. Commodity software be replaced with open source packages (GIMP for PhotoShop, for example). The WINE package can run some Windows applications, so you may be able to keep your custom (that is, non-commodity) software. (Or perhaps not; some software will run only on Windows.)
Keep Windows XP: This option may be missing from some consultant recommendations, but it is a possible path. There is nothing that will prevent you from running your existing hardware with your existing software. Windows XP has no self-destruct timer, and will continue to run after the "end of life" date.
But staying with Windows XP has costs. They are deferred costs, not immediate costs. They are gradual, not sharply defined. It is the "death by a thousand cuts" approach. You can keep running Windows XP, but small things will break, and then larger things.
Here's what will probably happen:
You get no updates from Microsoft, and you don't have to apply them and reboot Windows. You may think that this is an improvement. It is, in that you don't lose time applying updates. The downside is that your system's vulnerabilities remain unfixed.
As other things in your environment change, you will find that the Windows XP system does not work with the new items. When you add a printer, the Windows XP system will not have a driver for the it. When your software update arrives (perhaps for Adobe Acrobat), the update will politely tell you that the new version is not supported under Windows XP. (If you are lucky, the update will tell you this *before* it modifies your system. Less fortunate folks will learn this only after the new software has been installed and refuses to run.)
New versions of browsers will fail to install. Stuck with old browsers, some web sites will give you warnings and complaints. Some web sites will fail in obvious ways. Others will fail in mysterious and frustrating ways -- perhaps not letting you log in, or complete a transaction.
Problems are not limited to hardware and software -- they can affect people, too.
Job candidates, upon learning that you use Windows XP, may decline to work with you. Some candidates may decline the job immediately. Others may hire on and then complain when you direct them to work with a Windows XP system.
Windows XP may be a problem when you look for system admins. Some may choose to work elsewhere, others may accept the job but demand higher rates. (And some seasoned sysadmins may be happy to work on an old friend.)
It may be that Windows XP (and corresponding applications) will act as a filter for your employees. Folks who want newer technologies will leave (or decline employment), folks who are comfortable with the older tech will stay (or hire on). Eventually many (if not all) of your staff will be familiar with older technologies and unfamiliar with new ones.
At some point, you will want to re-install Windows XP. Here you will encounter difficulties. Microsoft may (or may not) continue to support the activation servers for Windows XP. Without an activation code, Windows XP will not run. Even with the activation servers and codes, if you install on a new PC, Microsoft may reject the activation (thinking that you are attempting to exceed your license count). New hardware presents other problems: If the PC uses UEFI, it may fail to boot the Windows XP installer, which is not signed. If the PC has no CD drive, the Windows XP CD is useless.
You can stay with Windows XP, but the path is limited. Your system becomes fragile, dependent on a limited and shrinking set of technology. At some point, you will be forced to move to something else.
My advice: Move before you are forced to move. Move to a new operating system (and possibly new hardware) on your schedule, not on a schedule set by failing equipment. Migrations take time and require tests to ensure that the new equipment is working. You want to convert from Windows XP to your new environment with minimal risks and minimal disruptions.
You have several options:
Upgrade to Windows 8: This probably requires new hardware, since Windows 8 requires a bit more than Windows XP. If you want to use a touchscreen, you are looking at not upgrading your PC system to Windows 8 but replacing all of the hardware.
Windows 8 uses the new "Modern/Metro" UI which is a significant change from Windows XP. Your users may find the new interface unfamiliar.
Upgrade to Windows 7: Like Windows 8, Windows 7 probably requires new hardware. You are replacing your PC, not upgrading it. (Perhaps you keep the monitor, mouse, and keyboard.)
The UI in Windows 7 is closer to Windows XP, but there are still changes. The user experience is quite close to Windows XP; the system administrator will see the changes.
Switch to Mac: Instead of upgrading to Windows 8 or Windows 7, you can switch to an Apple Macintosh PC running OSX. This requires new versions of your software. Now you are replacing hardware and software, hardly a simple upgrade.
The user interface and administration of OSX is different from Windows, another cost of conversion.
Switch to Linux: Instead of upgrading to a version of Windows, you can switch to Linux. This is one option that lets you keep your current hardware. There are several Linux distros that are designed to run on limited hardware.
The Linux UI is different, but closer to Windows than Mac OSX, and can be tuned to look like Windows. Software may or may not be a challenge. The major browsers (except Internet Explorer) run on Linux. LibreOffice can replace Microsoft Office for most tasks. Commodity software be replaced with open source packages (GIMP for PhotoShop, for example). The WINE package can run some Windows applications, so you may be able to keep your custom (that is, non-commodity) software. (Or perhaps not; some software will run only on Windows.)
Keep Windows XP: This option may be missing from some consultant recommendations, but it is a possible path. There is nothing that will prevent you from running your existing hardware with your existing software. Windows XP has no self-destruct timer, and will continue to run after the "end of life" date.
But staying with Windows XP has costs. They are deferred costs, not immediate costs. They are gradual, not sharply defined. It is the "death by a thousand cuts" approach. You can keep running Windows XP, but small things will break, and then larger things.
Here's what will probably happen:
You get no updates from Microsoft, and you don't have to apply them and reboot Windows. You may think that this is an improvement. It is, in that you don't lose time applying updates. The downside is that your system's vulnerabilities remain unfixed.
As other things in your environment change, you will find that the Windows XP system does not work with the new items. When you add a printer, the Windows XP system will not have a driver for the it. When your software update arrives (perhaps for Adobe Acrobat), the update will politely tell you that the new version is not supported under Windows XP. (If you are lucky, the update will tell you this *before* it modifies your system. Less fortunate folks will learn this only after the new software has been installed and refuses to run.)
New versions of browsers will fail to install. Stuck with old browsers, some web sites will give you warnings and complaints. Some web sites will fail in obvious ways. Others will fail in mysterious and frustrating ways -- perhaps not letting you log in, or complete a transaction.
Problems are not limited to hardware and software -- they can affect people, too.
Job candidates, upon learning that you use Windows XP, may decline to work with you. Some candidates may decline the job immediately. Others may hire on and then complain when you direct them to work with a Windows XP system.
Windows XP may be a problem when you look for system admins. Some may choose to work elsewhere, others may accept the job but demand higher rates. (And some seasoned sysadmins may be happy to work on an old friend.)
It may be that Windows XP (and corresponding applications) will act as a filter for your employees. Folks who want newer technologies will leave (or decline employment), folks who are comfortable with the older tech will stay (or hire on). Eventually many (if not all) of your staff will be familiar with older technologies and unfamiliar with new ones.
At some point, you will want to re-install Windows XP. Here you will encounter difficulties. Microsoft may (or may not) continue to support the activation servers for Windows XP. Without an activation code, Windows XP will not run. Even with the activation servers and codes, if you install on a new PC, Microsoft may reject the activation (thinking that you are attempting to exceed your license count). New hardware presents other problems: If the PC uses UEFI, it may fail to boot the Windows XP installer, which is not signed. If the PC has no CD drive, the Windows XP CD is useless.
You can stay with Windows XP, but the path is limited. Your system becomes fragile, dependent on a limited and shrinking set of technology. At some point, you will be forced to move to something else.
My advice: Move before you are forced to move. Move to a new operating system (and possibly new hardware) on your schedule, not on a schedule set by failing equipment. Migrations take time and require tests to ensure that the new equipment is working. You want to convert from Windows XP to your new environment with minimal risks and minimal disruptions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)