Slashdot Log In
83% of Businesses Won't Bother With Windows 7
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Apr 13, 2009 09:34 AM
from the count-me-in dept.
from the count-me-in dept.
Olipro writes "Most enterprises stated they won't bother with Windows 7 for at least a year as they simply continue to distrust that compatibility issues won't occur with their mission-critical software ... The Million Dollar question will be whether the fact that XP upgrades to Windows 7 requires a clean install will prove to be Microsoft's undoing." I suspect that will change before they actually release the OS.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
xp does the job well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:xp does the job well (Score:5, Insightful)
Security? Although software doesn't wear out, one must keep updated against the newest vulnerabilities.
Perhaps Microsoft should consider adopting a six months interval between updates, like Ubuntu does. That would make for less marketing glitter, since updates would become trivial happenings, but would also make for less traumatic failures.
KDE 4 was a terrible mistake, but it's no big deal, we don't need Ubuntu 8.10, just keep 8.04 and wait for 9.04, or 9.10, or whatever update will have a usable KDE.
Parent
Re:xp does the job well (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:xp does the job well (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:xp does the job well (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:xp does the job well (Score:5, Interesting)
So basically, yeah, why would they upgrade, especially when their profits aren't that good. What's bizarre here is what happens now? We have a huge entrenched monopoly operating system that nobody really wants to give up, do we just keep buying new computers and put old software on it? Do businesses end up like the aircraft traffic controllers with software 20 years and more out of date just because that's what works?
For myself, since I'm a dual rabid apple and linux fanboy, I certainly don't mind reading about how MS can't get people to buy their new product, but I don't see how this situation really helps apple or linux either. (I'm actually not an apple fanboy, I just think they make good hardware and software that isn't too annoying to use.) If they're worried about software compatibility migrating to vista, what makes anyone think they'll pick a non-windows OS? More likely they'll just keep putting band-aids on old systems.
Maybe what Microsoft really needs is an XP emulator, like the classic mode in OS X or rosetta for running PPC software on Intel, or an independent implementation of the XP API, like what's in wine. I haven't haven't heard anything about Microsoft designing such a thing though, has anyone else?
Parent
Re:xp does the job well (Score:5, Interesting)
why upgrade when the current software provides everything you need
1. What you said.
2. Nobody has the money to upgrade anyway.
3. Nobody's coming up with anything new to justify throwing everything out.
4. Netbook phenomenon is finally putting emphasis back on getting more for your dollar rather than writing bloaty code and throwing horsepower at it.
5. Repeat point 2, nobody has the money to throw out perfectly good hardware just to get a new OS that does pretty much what the previous one did.
I know predicting the death of Microsoft is good fun and we've been doing it for years. I won't say this is the death knell but this is certainly a bit of a pickle. The plural of anecdote ain't data but a lot of people I know are going Mac out of frustration. Those who haven't are still adamant about keeping XP.
Parent
Re:xp does the job well (Score:5, Insightful)
Because XP will stop being supported with the release of Windows 7.
Maybe it depends on your definition of being supported, but Microsoft is going to provide security updates for Windows XP until 2014.
Then Microsoft will stop pushing all new copies of XP and accidentally invalidate all "genuine" XP keys.
Can you provide a citation for that? Or is it just mindless BS spouted out by the "M$" haters?
Parent
As to the last line of the post... (Score:5, Insightful)
...MS hasn't often demonstrated an ability to make major functioning software improvements at the last minute. I suppose we'll see, though.
Re:As to the last line of the post... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not improvements businesses want, its stuff that works with the stuff they've got. Who cares about running a new OS if the old one still works, and the new one would cost you for the new OS but also new hardware, new versions of your existing software (if its available).
Some businesses moved to Vista and found that MSs plans to drop backwards compatibility (in favour of new .NET everything) meant lots of applications stopped working. I think this is a big reason why they're very cautious this time, and also why XP is the 'top of the pile' as generally it tried to keep that backward compatibility going as much as possible.
Parent
Re:As to the last line of the post... (Score:5, Interesting)
Some businesses moved to Vista and found that MSs plans to drop backwards compatibility (in favour of new .NET everything) meant lots of applications stopped working. I think this is a big reason why they're very cautious this time, and also why XP is the 'top of the pile' as generally it tried to keep that backward compatibility going as much as possible.
Allow me to play pundit here for a minute: This is going to turn out to be Microsoft's downfall. People expect their antiquated, crap software to run on Windows no matter how much newer it is. For the most part this has worked out for people because they have been forced into buying new hardware every so often and encouraged to make a break from the old -- on the rare occasion that something won't work (at least mostly work, heh heh) there's usually something new and cheap to free.
However, Microsoft has finally reached a point where they're stuck making major breaks in compatibility or being left very, very far behind. And since Microsoft has always been the compatible operating system, that's expectation number one. Everyone out there pretty much expects their old Windows software to run on new versions; Try running some old 16 bit stuff on Windows XP sometime, odds are it will work fine. Now try running some ~Windows 95 software on Vista. Fun times! While Microsoft has improved compatibility significantly with Vista SP1 it's hard to believe that they aren't taking a fundamentally wrong approach somehow.
If Microsoft has to break compatibility then it opens the door for competitors. I don't think too many businesses are seriously considering moving to an all-Macintosh environment any time soon, but there certainly has been some of that in the SMB space. More seriously, it opens the door for Linux on the corporate desktop, which is definitely the first step towards dominance of the home desktop. It worked for DOS, and it worked for Windows...
Parent
they will if they don't want to pay for support (Score:5, Interesting)
Mainstream support for XP ended last week. It's dead, Jim.
2003 to 2009 is longer than any version of Ubuntu is supported. It's had a nice life. Shoot it in the head, and move on :-)
Re:they will if they don't want to pay for support (Score:5, Funny)
I just did exactly that. Now, does anyone know of a good deal on a new monitor?
Parent
Re:they will if they don't want to pay for support (Score:4, Interesting)
When I upgrade Ubuntu, its painless, just about everything works the same, same data, same everything just newer versions of some software which generally work the same as the prior versions. Everything is still reasonably fast (though it might be a tad slower), on the other hand, performance is almost non existent on Vista and you will notice a drop in speed and a loss of money in your wallet.
Parent
Re:they will if they don't want to pay for support (Score:4, Interesting)
And the other side of the coin. In some very specific applications, there are Linux systems based on the 2.0.x kernel still running and doing their job well. In those rare instances where upgrades are out of the question, nobody has to sweat bullets wondering if the vendor will declare them dead. Affordable support will exist for as long as they want because they have the source code.
The source for kernel version 1.0 is still on kernel.org for anyone interested. With a bit of net archeology, install media from the '90s can be dug up and used to install a new legacy system and nobody will scream about license violations or anything.
It's really amusing for several reasons and on many levels watching corporations begging MS (like the lapdogs they are) to not EOL XP.
Parent
Re:they will if they don't want to pay for support (Score:5, Funny)
Shoot it in the head, and move on :-)
That's how I've always dealt with XP machines in zombie networks. [what-is-what.com]
Parent
Dubious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dubious (Score:5, Interesting)
First it's 84% of IT pros [zdnet.com] and now it's 83% of businesses? Might have something to do with these surveys being carried out on a submission basis, where the only people who respond are a minority that are either passionate "must-have-the-latest-version" fanatics or passionate "anything-other-than-XP-sucks" fanatics. The apathetic majority isn't taken into account.
Yup, this is why I prefer to base myself on real market statistics. People often don't know what they'll do until its time to buy.
My reasons for not wanting to move to Windows 7 is pretty much the same reason for not moving to Vista:
- Windows 7 feels like a Vista 2
- Windows XP works well enough
- I get the feeling that real people weren't taken into account with some of the UI changes
- I don't see the "must have" features (maybe someone can convince me otherwise?)
- I don't want to reward a company that needs 6 versions of the same release
I am probably expecting too much from the OS and maybe I'll have a change of heart in six months. I can't say I'm someone who doesn't want the latest and greatest since I tend to keep up to date with whatever the latest version of my Linux Distro or MacOS X, when then there hardware is covered. These latter two probably have their own issues, but apparently I am capable of overlooking them for whatever reason.
Parent
Distrust? What about testing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most enterprises stated they won't bother with Windows 7 for at least a year as they simply continue to distrust that compatibility issues won't occur with their mission-critical software...
First off, whoever edited that sentence needs to get a clue-by-four -- "distrust that issues won't occur" is just terrible English.
About the content, why would any IT person ever have to resort to "trust" anyone for their software compatibility? You'd almost think they can't grab a VM image of Windows7 and test their software to see if there are compatibility issues.
If I were a CIT and someone came up to me with this dribble, I would tell them to build a testbed and actually report on compatibility issues, possible savings, and so forth. Windows 7 probably won't be worth the money but deciding that before you actual evaluate it is madness.
This is normal (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been working in software development for 35 years. No company I've ever worked at jumps on new versions of Windows, they all have a policy of waiting at least until SP1 regardless of whether its an improvement or not.
The only news here is that the figure is that 17% might move straight away. From my own experiences I would have thought nearly all, if not all companies would wait at least a year.
I've worked out the answer to MS's problem! (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft has announced the infrastructure for its cloud computing service Azure, formerly (and presently) Windows Vapor [today.com].
"We want to be more responsive to your needs," said Sam Ramji of Microsoft during a Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit panel this week as he wiped rotten tomatoes off his suit.
"We want all open source innovation to happen on Windows 7. In practice, Windows is too slow, and just putting Linux underneath the same software stack triples performance. So we're running the Windows versions of the software on Linux using Wine. We'll also be funding the Wine on Windows initiative."
The new Microsoft Amazingly Open And Genuine Public License allows you complete freedom to use, modify and redistribute the software provided that every copy comes with a DVD of Windows Vista Ultimate, you acknowledge that Microsoft's FAT patent protects a remarkable and valuable innovation in computer science and all accompanying documentation is in OOXML. Also, all your data belongs to Microsoft.
The overwhelming dominance of Microsoft was assured, he said, pointing to their success in paying netbook manufacturers to use Windows XP and paying US retailers not to stock the Linux versions of the computers. "We're also enforcing our patent on right-clicking. And on the number seven."
Get daily email alerts [slashdot.org] of new News of the News — home delivery via Feedburner [slashdot.org]!
Businesses are cautious: News at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this basically the exact same story Slashdot ran before Windows Vista was released? Guess what guys: Businesses tend to be conservative by nature, and aren't going to do a massive upgrade without a good plan. For any reasonably large business, it will take several months to certify all of their internal software with any new OS release, not to mention the actual time it takes to execute the switch. They would be saying the same thing if you asked them when they would be switching from RHEL 5 to RHEL 6.
The answer is 'no' (Score:5, Informative)
The Million Dollar question will be whether the fact that XP upgrades to Windows 7 requires a clean install will prove to be Microsoft's undoing.
The Million Dollar answer is "no". Because when you upgrade a corporate desktop, you don't upgrade in place. You create an image and you reimage your desktops en masse. Anyway, Microsoft will find a way to spur Windows 7 adoption, probably by making Windows XP slower with a required security update again.
Doesn't require clean install (Score:5, Informative)
Also, don't most people want to do a clean install of a major OS version?
A Clean Install Is Very Crafty (Score:5, Insightful)
Often, that clean install makes for a much faster system after years of cruft building up on a system.
Although there may be compatibility issues, MS making a clean install mandatory might be one of the most clever marketing tools they've had in a while. Then again, it could backfire.
Word of mouth from those who migrate and see how fast a clean build of Win7 is vs XP might breathe new life into the Windows brand.
They're probably waiting for Mojave! (Score:5, Funny)
I know I am, I hear it's quite popular with test groups.
Buzz words removed, non-story (Score:4, Insightful)
Most PEOPLE stated they won't TRY A NEW OPERATING SYSTEM for A year BECAUSE THEY THINK IT won't WORK with their software...
Re:Buzz words removed, non-story (Score:5, Funny)
Ooo...you must work for Microsoft. I see your sneaky subliminal messaging.
PEOPLE! TRY A NEW OPERATING SYSTEM! A. BECAUSE THEY THINK IT WORK.
I'm onto you and your nefarious schemes...
Parent
Duh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not news. Either they just upgraded to Vista, and see no need to move again, or they're still on XP, and have seen no need to move so far.
No business that's not Windows-centric (producing products for Windows) runs out and upgrades to the new Windows first thing. You wait, you see what the stupid early adopters have to say. You install a couple of desktops, see how the new os behaves in your environment.
Then, if you like it, you begin a phased roll out. That's the right way to do it. You minimize your problems, and you make fewer bad technology decisions.
Myself, I'll probably buy 7 for home use, and I think 7 is a much more serious effort than Vista (yea, it's just Vista with some of the annoyances pulled out, and a lot of driver issues fixed, so what?). Eventually I'll need to know it, so might as well get some experience on it.
Enterprises don't do the upgrade install (Score:4, Insightful)
Only idiots and consumers do actual upgrades. Any self-respecting enterprise makes their own images and deploys them, complete with apps.
In who's interest is this ? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a difference between what is good for the IT market and what is good for business in general. Us IT crowd want to push the latest new thing, for some this means mark up on s/ware, others it is more consultancy. What a business wants is a stable IT system that does what the business needs in a stable way -- boring, not sexy. Once applications are written they stay written; the will be changed when the business requirements change, not because the computer systems change.
MS is also caught up in the sales/upgrades treadmill - to not do so would badly damage its bottom line. What is in the best interests of MS is not in the best interests of its customers.
Linux is based on 35+ years old Unix, I regularly use programs that are essentially unchanged since I wrote them for System V Unix 25 years ago. How old a system is is not an issue unless you need to make money by flogging your customers new versions. In this regard Unix/Linux is a better platform for companies than MS Windows systems.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Huh.... and the same can be said for,,, (Score:5, Insightful)
One could also say, " don't know how most businesses are run, but around these parts, XP works, and works well." followed by, "we don't need the features of Linux [or Mac OS X or insert your favorite OS here])". This is part of the problem with getting alternative OS adoption.
Parent
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Funny)
ya, give Microsoft a chance since they haven't been at this OS release business for very long.
If you really want to go with someone who's had lots of OS release experience, go with Linux and specifically Ubuntu. They have had 10 OS releases already under their belt and their first release was just 5 years ago. Not only that, when they release, they release not only the OS and desktop but also include thousands of applications and drivers with each release. Microsoft only releases their OS and a much smaller set of drivers and applications with their releases so they're no so experienced at it. In about 5 or 10 years they might have the process down but until then, go with someone with more experience. ;-)
LoB
Parent
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if this questionnaire took into account businsses that got Vista. Most likely these companies will not upgrade at all since they just spent a ton of money on Vista. This article is flawed and fails to be news. Wait, it's anti-MS bashing so it is news here.
If software/hardware companies want more early adopters they need to offer substantial discounts. For example "Be the first 25,000 to order our stuff within the first three months and get 50% off software, and 15% off hardware". That will get you more early adopters.
Parent
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
In comparison Windows XP is more similar to Windows 2000 (and Windows XP in "classic mode" is vey similar).
Actually now would be a great time for a Windows XP compatible operating system.
If someone could come up with a decent Windows XP compatible O/S, Microsoft could lose significant market share. Might get even more interesting if it supports DirectX 10
Parent
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
Just don't expect it to be 'finished' for some time.
Parent
Big differences (Score:5, Interesting)
The last I checked, the "start menu" is rather different. Even the shutdown menu option is different. XP shutdown is Click the button on the bottom left called "Start", select "Turn Off Computer...", click on "Turn Off/Restart" etc, vista is "click the four coloured button on bottom left, click on the "triangle pointing right" select "Shut Down" (or Restart). Apparently the "power icon" by default does not cause Vista to shutdown, instead it causes it to Sleep.
There are also extremely big differences in lots of things that the normal users don't normally use but often need "tech support" for e.g. network configuration (maybe someone messed with their config over the weekend, so they call you and you have to fix it over the phone).
BTW WiFi network configuration is a mess too - Intel, Dell, Random Vendor, Windows, all have different ways of doing WiFi config... Very annoying.
Going to 98 to 2000 was a change, but you did get significant benefits from it (no longer have that "GDI resources" problem and other stupid flakiness - try pressing winkey on boot just as the windows 98 GUI is starting up ).
Parent
It also just takes time to test things (Score:5, Informative)
I do Windows support for work so one of the things I do when a new version is coming out is test various apps and services and find out what works, what doesn't and so on. Sometimes things don't work and you have to find a workaround, or wait for the vendor to update things. There is NO reason to jump right in and cause problems. You wait and test instead, and then when it is ready, start deployment.
Also many systems you don't really want to upgrade. They are too old to run a new OS well. So you leave them with what they have for their lifetime. The OS upgrade happens when new hardware is purchased, though that isn't seen as an 'upgrade' by normal metrics.
So I'm not surprised that businesses aren't jumping on board. Why would they? In our case (a university department, not a business) my desktop will start running Windows 7 when the RC comes out. Maybe one or two other tech people will do likewise. When the release comes out, only new systems will be purchased with it, and depending on what they are doing they might get XP or Vista put on them if there are 7 issues. We won't start offering it as an upgrade for probably 6 months after release, since I'm guessing it'll take that long to make sure everything is thoroughly tested and there's been time for vendors to issue updates. At that point we'll likely move anyone who wants to over, and try and have all new systems running it, but won't make a big deal if people want to stick with XP. We probably won't start pushing it hard for another year or two. It will have to be gone by 2014, of course, because that's when security patches stop.
There's just no sense in rushing in to a new upgrade. That doesn't mean you are opposed to it, just that you want to do it right.
Parent
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh by the way, here's a single page link [informationweek.com]
Parent
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Hardware costs (servers/pcs)
2) Migration Costs
3) Down time for upgrades
4) Application Testing costs (did Adobe make sure they are 100% compliant with Win7? This includes older versions)
5) Software costs (Will they have to buy Office 2007, or a new version or cant they stick with Office 2003. Will they have to buy a new version of Adobe, Norton AntiVirus, MS
6) Tech Support availability - Does MS have lots of staff well-versed in handling potential issues. Does your vendor offer tech support? Does your own staff offer it?
So far I just named you six potential, and major, issues right off the top of my head. None of these are "trust" related (as far as MS products are concerned).
Other issue, that is more MS concerned, patches. 300,000 testers in limited environments is not as good as 3MM investors in enterprise environments. Now you have malicious hackers you need to concern yourself with who are looking for vulnerabilities and implementing them.
Just because companies held off on Vista does not mean they will not upgrade to 7. It isn't a lack of trust with MS it is a lack of trust in a new product and most companies avoid getting the latest and greatest of ANY product until it has the equivelant of an SP1
Parent
Death by self-competition (Score:5, Interesting)
It's almost funny. Linux can't beat microsoft. But why bother ?
In the department of "clobbering microsoft" the one organisation that's really doing some damage is microsoft.
Perhaps we just need to wait a few years.
Parent
Re:Death by self-competition (Score:4, Interesting)
I've said this for years. Microsoft's biggest competition is themselves. Why upgrade from XP to Vista (or Windows 7)? The new flashy features aren't going to really win that many people over. In the Office arena, why upgrade from Office 97/2000/XP to the latest versions? Chances are, if you're running Office 97/2000/XP, the new versions aren't really going to offer you anything new you can use. The old versions are "good enough."
This used to be Microsoft's strength over Linux/Mac. Yes, Linux/Mac may have been better in many (perhaps even most) areas, but Microsoft Windows was "good enough." This "good enough" status kept people from switching operating systems (and office suites). Now, the "good enough" that kept people on Windows/Office is keeping people on OLD versions of Windows/Office. Microsoft now finds itself fighting against the very strength that helped maintain their monopoly for many years. And if they can't overcome their own old versions of Windows/Office (the major profit centers of Microsoft), the entire company could be in danger!
Parent
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Informative)
As an IT Manager for a small company, I have no reason to move off of XP. Until I am forced, I will not migrate to Vista or 7. There just is no compelling reason to do so. More and more I seek to take functionality AWAY from the desktop. There are applications we use that require us to use Windows on the workstation, but more and more we look to web apps to meet our core business needs.
The fact is there is nothing in Vista that makes me want to move to it. There are no problems with XP that are making me look for solutions. We are in the process of locking down workstations to the point that even the security concerns become irrelevant. If you asked me what killer feature would make me switch... I couldn't think of it. Certainly not in what I have seen so far.
The only thing that will make me switch is the unavailability of the OS. And even that would take a while. We order standard model PCs, and do disk imaging. If I found out about Dell not being able to offer XP to us any longer, I'd make one last order for 20 PCs of that model, image and be set for two years.
Bottom line is that XP (heck even 2000) meets the needs of most businesses. Microsoft would (and likely will) have to force us to switch. Why screw with what works?
Parent
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
As an IT Manager for a small company, I have no reason to move off of XP. Until I am forced, I will not migrate to Vista or 7. There just is no compelling reason to do so. More and more I seek to take functionality AWAY from the desktop.
I suspect that I am going to get karmically beaten up for this, but here goes...
People keep trying to move applications from the desktop to the web. In many cases, the web is the right medium for those apps. In most though, its not. My general rule of thumb is this: When trying to develop something as a web app, if you find that you are trying to reproduce desktop app behavior, you are doing the wrong thing.
Eventually, we are going to have to pay the piper (in terms of maintenance cost) for web apps with all the convoluted hacks necessary to make them look and feel like desktop apps. Let's start collectively applying some common sense - the web when its the right thing, and the desktop where it fits best.
Parent
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you're talking about data intensive apps like video editing, DTP and the like, most business software is incredibly mundane. The vast majority of cubicle dwellers do not need anything more than a well designed web app. Data entry hardly requires a fat client.
Parent
Re:The norm? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:They don't have a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
This is, of course, precisely the reason so many big companies still use COBOL [slashdot.org], right?
Legacy is a powerful force in industry. It is often perceived that the cost of maintaining the old systems is less than the cost of replacing it, especially when you consider compatibility, debugging, reliability, down time, retraining, infrastructure upgrades, policy changes, etc. etc.
Here's your choice: Stick with what you have. Although it can be a real pain in the ass, at least you're used to it after all these years and can handle the quirks to keep things running. OR you can spend a whole lot of money to scrap everything and start over with a totally new setup that's one big question mark all around, especially when the vendor's reputation is losing ground.
Questionable surveying methods aside, it is not difficult to imagine companies aren't too keen to jump on board.
XP is old. And MS would love to retire it, but the industry is getting fed up with their shenanigans. The individual homeowner might not have the purchasing power to hurt them, but big companies with thousands of licenses do - MS will either give them what they want (which is, apparently, XP) or they will lose the customers.
=Smidge=
Parent
Re:They don't have a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the comparison is rather apt. You have a system that they are reluctant to replace. A good deal of those COBOL systems still run on 70's era hardware, although advances in virtualization are helping there a lot.
The industry has no choice since they cannot force MS to supply XP. What if MS doesn't?
How many times has MS buckled under industry pressure to keep offering XP already? At least twice, but I haven't really been counting. They might do it in an indirect manner ("downgrades") but they only do that to obscure how many people are actually buying their latest product.
If they don't? There might be a lawsuit in there somewhere. Moving to *nix is one possible alternative: If a company will be FORCED to change their *anything*, why would they so readily go with the vendor that just screwed them over? The hurdle is getting them to change at all - once you're past that there is no guarantee they'll change to what you want.
Especially if their applications aren't compatible. If Win7 isn't backwards compatible with applications and drivers written for XP, they'll have to rewrite everything... and at that point they could pretty easily rewrite it for any other platform.
The industry can't force MS to supply XP, but MS can't force the industry to use Win7 either. MS can give their biggest customers what they want or lose them as customers, just like they have been doing. MS will offer XP until there are so few XP users left they can afford to flip them off entirely. NT 4 was supported until three years ago. 2000 is going to be supported until at least the end of 2010. Windows 3.1 was supported up until last November - lasted over 16 years.
Also, one key problem here is the phrase "better tech" - is Vista really better than XP? In ways that businesses really care about? "Newer" is not a synonym for "better."
=Smidge=
Parent