Why are 74% of business computers still running XP

Layback Bear said:

When the employees of a company or government agency start telling them what operating system or programs they will use and there not going to change. Folks you have a management problem. Management and there I.T. with a lot of research should and will decide what operation system and programs will be used and when. Those that don't want to change or learn the new systems will just have to work some place else. Just a little side note. I would not allow any body bring in some thing, (laptop, thumb drive or any thing else) and plug it into the companies net. Any company laptop that is also used from another place will have the programs and operating system the company chooses only. User right will be configured so no changes will be permitted. No programs downloaded, access to many web sites blocked, ect. There is no way to keep a secure company network allowing employees to use a companies net as there personal net. If the employee doesn't need internet access to do there job then don't allow it. This is basic security for what ever operating system is decided to keep or move to.

I think this is one extreme on a scale of how to provide IT support. In most organizations, IT sits under management, and while your method surely keeps a safe network, by locking people out, you encourage circumventing. And the biggest culprits of that are usually the management, those guys that IT reports to.

Again, if you are dealing with state secrets and national security, absolutely, your scenario is a requirement, however, that is not the norm.

I do agree with the statement that employees will not dictate what OS, OS version and software version they will run. Those decisions are IT's, with management approval. However, that also means that when IT does make the change to a new OS or software version, they better be able and available to provide support. Not everyone is computer literate and what we deem a minimal change can be frightfully different for some employees.

What I commonly see is a change to new software and once the update is complete, IT disappears to the server room and lets the employees figure out the new changes. That's not fair either.

Probably because Vista was shit so they thought, what is the point in upgrading when XP is better!

DrWho said:

96accord said:

A few users just got rid of their Mainframe PC's! They were dying!! lol

I don't get confused all that easy, but I must admit, your post has me scratching my head.

A mainframe is a computer that would fill a house and a PC is a little "Personal Computer" than can sit on your desk. They are as different as a VW Bug and a Mack Truck.

But if you were saying that a lot of the HUGE mainframes died and were replaced by much smaller and more powerful systems,,,,then you are 100% correct.
My own home-built PC is many times faster and more powerful than that huge NCR Mainframe that I used to run for the county. The old has to make way for the new.

Cheers mate!

It depends. Not all mainframes are that huge. The IBM AS400's are more like tower PC's today, in form factor. Granted, I believe they have relabled them Miniframes, to distinguish form factor.

Also, while yes, your computing power is faster than the old mainframe, your I/O, which was the primary function of the mainframe, still does not compete with its capabilities.

I suspect, 96accord was talking about older unix workstations like the MIPS4000s, which are way underpowered compared to today. Lot's of CAD work happened using those workstations.

BomberAF said:

Probably because Vista was shit so they thought, what is the point in upgrading when XP is better!

That would work if Vista were shit, but it wasn't. Vista was typical of a new OS release. It required more resources and had poor driver support by vendors. Just like XP when it was first released.

Vista made the money argument far better for businesses, because it was very clear that it would not run on the average hardware on the floor. That investment, during the start of an economic downturn was too scary.

Win7 is actually atypical for an OS release. It actually requires fewer resources to run as well as Vista, and with minor resource upgrades, runs as well as XP.

PhreePhly said:

DrWho said:

96accord said:

A few users just got rid of their Mainframe PC's! They were dying!! lol

I don't get confused all that easy, but I must admit, your post has me scratching my head.

A mainframe is a computer that would fill a house and a PC is a little "Personal Computer" than can sit on your desk. They are as different as a VW Bug and a Mack Truck.

But if you were saying that a lot of the HUGE mainframes died and were replaced by much smaller and more powerful systems,,,,then you are 100% correct.
My own home-built PC is many times faster and more powerful than that huge NCR Mainframe that I used to run for the county. The old has to make way for the new.

Cheers mate!

It depends. Not all mainframes are that huge. The IBM AS400's are more like tower PC's today, in form factor. Granted, I believe they have relabled them Miniframes, to distinguish form factor.

Also, while yes, your computing power is faster than the old mainframe, your I/O, which was the primary function of the mainframe, still does not compete with its capabilities.

I suspect, 96accord was talking about older unix workstations like the MIPS4000s, which are way underpowered compared to today. Lot's of CAD work happened using those workstations.

good post - I suspect a little IBM360/370 background from your post?
Actually the AS400 can be large compared to the newer IBM enterprise servers (IBM speak for Zos 800/900 series mainframes) running Zos and dedicated Linux partitions standard which are about the same size as a dbl-wide refrigerator and air cooled.

Funny how mainframes have gone air cooled while pc's are slowly going liquid cooled. The longer I live the more retro things become.

bobtran said:

PhreePhly said:

DrWho said:

I don't get confused all that easy, but I must admit, your post has me scratching my head.

A mainframe is a computer that would fill a house and a PC is a little "Personal Computer" than can sit on your desk. They are as different as a VW Bug and a Mack Truck.

But if you were saying that a lot of the HUGE mainframes died and were replaced by much smaller and more powerful systems,,,,then you are 100% correct.
My own home-built PC is many times faster and more powerful than that huge NCR Mainframe that I used to run for the county. The old has to make way for the new.

Cheers mate!

It depends. Not all mainframes are that huge. The IBM AS400's are more like tower PC's today, in form factor. Granted, I believe they have relabled them Miniframes, to distinguish form factor.

Also, while yes, your computing power is faster than the old mainframe, your I/O, which was the primary function of the mainframe, still does not compete with its capabilities.

I suspect, 96accord was talking about older unix workstations like the MIPS4000s, which are way underpowered compared to today. Lot's of CAD work happened using those workstations.

good post - I suspect a little IBM360/370 background from your post?
Actually the AS400 can be large compared to the newer IBM enterprise servers (IBM speak for Zos 800/900 series mainframes) running Zos and dedicated Linux partitions standard which are about the same size as a dbl-wide refrigerator and air cooled.

Funny how mainframes have gone air cooled while pc's are slowly going liquid cooled. The longer I live the more retro things become.

The only background was me poking fun at our mainframe guys on the cost of components and their puny CPU capabilities, only to get my nose rubbed into the fact that given their incredible parallellism, they more than made up for the CPU power by being able to process many orders of magnitude more information due to the enormous I/O capabilities.

Cost me a few lunches here and there

PhreePhly said:

bobtran said:

PhreePhly said:

It depends. Not all mainframes are that huge. The IBM AS400's are more like tower PC's today, in form factor. Granted, I believe they have relabled them Miniframes, to distinguish form factor.

Also, while yes, your computing power is faster than the old mainframe, your I/O, which was the primary function of the mainframe, still does not compete with its capabilities.

I suspect, 96accord was talking about older unix workstations like the MIPS4000s, which are way underpowered compared to today. Lot's of CAD work happened using those workstations.

good post - I suspect a little IBM360/370 background from your post?
Actually the AS400 can be large compared to the newer IBM enterprise servers (IBM speak for Zos 800/900 series mainframes) running Zos and dedicated Linux partitions standard which are about the same size as a dbl-wide refrigerator and air cooled.

Funny how mainframes have gone air cooled while pc's are slowly going liquid cooled. The longer I live the more retro things become.

The only background was me poking fun at our mainframe guys on the cost of components and their puny CPU capabilities, only to get my nose rubbed into the fact that given their incredible parallellism, they more than made up for the CPU power by being able to process many orders of magnitude more information due to the enormous I/O capabilities.

Cost me a few lunches here and there

So true!