Microsoft sounds support warning bell for customers running Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2003, and more
-
oh wow if ever we have 400 computers Windows 7.
Do i need to convince my boss not to use windows for production?
We have 4 years old windows 7 (1oo computers) -
As much as I feel deploying Windows 7 for the past year has been less then ideal, there is no reason to remove them. Windows 7 has another five years of support. This support and what IT pros call support are not the same thing.
-
I really hope MS actually ramps up the notifications on the end of support for Windows 7 (and Vista - though there isn't as much Vista out there so it won't be that big of an impact).
If they start now, when there is 2 years left people (OK, businesses) might actually get off their asses and move or at least start planning to move before the end of security patches, unlike the XP madness we just went through.
-
As expected...and as much of a proponent of Windows 8 as I've been, I've not deployed it beyond mine and two other PC's here. Just causes too many questions from the users...if Threshold (AKA Windows) rumors hold up, I'll for sure be deploying it.
-
@Dashrender windows 7 support is not the same as what just ended for XP. XP just went out of extended support - no more security patches.
Very different things.
-
@scottalanmiller I realize that... What I'm saying is that I hope the MS continues yearly (hell I'd rather quarterly) reminders/announcements of Windows 7 EOL timeline.
Sure MS told those who read their blogs, etc of XP's EOL date years ago... but those in power didn't know what it was, or didn't hear it at all, etc.
I'm hoping that in light of fiasco that was the EOL for XP that MS will start making more public announcements, bringing the mainstream media into it, so that people can be truly forewarned that MS is stopping security updates in 2020 for windows 7.
Also, if MS makes these announcements more publicly, software vendors are more likely to follow suit, either EOL'ing older versions at the same time, or equally important, starting to make updates for their products for the 'newer' versions.
-
Windows timelines aren't moving targets. The dates are published at the time that the OS is first released. Everyone has access to them all of the time. Sending a reminder would be pretty obnoxious. Everyone should be aware of their timelines as a matter of course for supporting an OS. If they aren't using the support timeline as part of their decision process then how are they determining if an old OS is okay to use?
-
Very odd...
-
I think it is less an issue with people buying a new computer and more about those that bought them 5 years ago when window 7 was new. Toys of people will still be using those computers in another 10 and complaining that they have to replace those 10 old computer... Just like the xp users...
-
@Dashrender said:
I think it is less an issue with people buying a new computer and more about those that bought them 5 years ago when window 7 was new. Toys of people will still be using those computers in another 10 and complaining that they have to replace those 10 old computer... Just like the xp users...
Yeah but they knew when they bought it when it would time out. They have like fifteen years to prepare.
-
You give to much credit, especially to the SMB market.
I can honestly say that I never considered mentioning the EOL of an OS to a client when I used to consult (unless it was looming). Back then I was ignorantly expecting most companies would be replacing their computers long before the EOL deadline, moving onto the next platform.
It's quite clear that places like print shows and manufacturing floors, etc, the people making the decisions are rarely told that the computer that runs the 1 million dollar hardware that is expected to last for 15+ years will need to be replaced and the software that connects that PC to the hardware updated - but oh.. the manufacture won't be bothering to make an update of this hardware (assuming they are still around) etc, etc, etc.
So yes, in an ideal world, everyone is aware and makes appropriate plans around the EOL for the software/hardware, but in reality this is rarely the case.
-
@Dashrender Yes but you as the IT person knows to install latest versions, to be aware of support dates, etc. The business only needs to follow IT's advice, they don't need to know all if the details behind decision making. Only need to bring out details when they balk at decision processes.
-
Using the example of a piece of equipment that will be usable for 15+ years - who's responsibility is it to be aware that the OS that runs the computer that runs that piece of gear will be EOL'ed in, let's say 5 years?
I actually find myself in this very spot. We purchased a CT machine 7 years ago. The control workstations are based on XP, the vendor has no plans to update them. I wasn't involved in the original decision to go with this vendor, or really much of that project all. Now here are 7 years later, about half way through the useful life of this equipment and we find ourselves using equipment that could be prone to compromise. I have to attempt to provide a way to secure these machines while at the same time not impacting their ability to function.
This type of thing happens constantly - just look at the ATM machines.
-
In some ways, you are way past the halflife of the equipment. If the equipment is tied to XP, it's very arguable that while the machine might physically work, whoever purchased it decided at the time that the truly useful lifespan would end now. The lifespan of gear is more than just how long the mechanical portions will physically last. You have to look at it holistically. If it is tied to DOS or XP or anything, that's part of that machine's lifespan. Choosing vendors based on the support that they give, the components that they chose.
It's not different than if the machine run on Windows 8.1 but the mechanical portion wore out. You wouldn't point to Windows 8.1 and say "it's nowhere near the end of life for this machine because the OS is still supported." It's a holistic thing. All of the parts have to keep working.
The problem is this is a bigger issue than an IT issue. It means equipment is being purchased either without good planning, vendors are being selected poorly, people aren't taking responsibility for their decisions, management hasn't figured out that they are leaving the right people out of the decisions, etc. Something bigger is wrong and should be addressed.
-
@scottalanmiller you realize that there is almost zero choice in the OS of the device operating modern equipment don't you? It is not like there are even 10's of vendors out there making much of this equipment.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller you realize that there is almost zero choice in the OS of the device operating modern equipment don't you? It is not like there are even 10's of vendors out there making much of this equipment.
That means that there is a huge market opportunity. It only takes a single vendor doing a good job and companies voting with their wallets for quality to force the market to correct itself.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller you realize that there is almost zero choice in the OS of the device operating modern equipment don't you? It is not like there are even 10's of vendors out there making much of this equipment.
That means that there is a huge market opportunity. It only takes a single vendor doing a good job and companies voting with their wallets for quality to force the market to correct itself.
This is definitely true, but it's been seen time and time again that the cheapest price often wins out over quality. So if you can't do a better job AND have a better price, you're definitely in a much tougher spot. SMBs going back to another thread, think with the hearts not their logic - If I can spend $20K on this machine today instead of $25K (hell even $22K) I'll worry about that OS problem later ( which means never - or really, when it fails me) and then I'll be upset that I have to spend $20K again, etc.
-
@Dashrender said:
This is definitely true, but it's been seen time and time again that the cheapest price often wins out over quality. So if you can't do a better job AND have a better price, you're definitely in a much tougher spot. SMBs going back to another thread, think with the hearts not their logic - If I can spend $20K on this machine today instead of $25K (hell even $22K) I'll worry about that OS problem later ( which means never - or really, when it fails me) and then I'll be upset that I have to spend $20K again, etc.
And it is not $20k for these machines, we are talking about million dollar plus costs for these machines.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
This is definitely true, but it's been seen time and time again that the cheapest price often wins out over quality. So if you can't do a better job AND have a better price, you're definitely in a much tougher spot. SMBs going back to another thread, think with the hearts not their logic - If I can spend $20K on this machine today instead of $25K (hell even $22K) I'll worry about that OS problem later ( which means never - or really, when it fails me) and then I'll be upset that I have to spend $20K again, etc.
And it is not $20k for these machines, we are talking about million dollar plus costs for these machines.
So going for the lowest cost without doing due diligence is extra bad.
-
@scottalanmiller you are arguing for people to buy a product that does not exist. I have worked for one company and been a consultant for a couple more that do manufacturing. The equipment manufacturers do not update the control systems unless they update the machine also.
In some perfect world, they may do better, but this is reality. Is there a niche there? Yes, but it is not one that could ever be filled by a single company because the control software for every one of these machines is coded specifically for the machine.
