So contrary to the massive amounts of FUD being spread, you know: "WinXP is NOT safe! Win7 has better security!", the problem with staying on WinXP is clearly not related to that at all. Anyone who fixes Windows problems can tell you that. No, the problem is artificial and arbitrary. It has nothing to do home users either, but it has everything to do with corporate licensing. First up, Thurrott ...
Short Takes: May 17, 2013 ( Thurrott 2013-05-17 )
Sticking with XP? It Will Cost You
As we race toward the April 2014 retirement of Windows XP—that’s the date when Microsoft will formally stop supporting the ancient OS—the firm is trying an ever-evolving strategy aimed at getting hold-outs to switch to a new OS (which I think we can all admit will be Windows 7, not Windows 8). The latest (not so new) message? Sticking with XP will be more expensive than upgrading. Based on a 2012 IDC study, the theory goes like this: Using XP today results in lost user productivity time and IT support and Help desk costs that are actually more expensive than the cost of upgrading. “Windows XP users are saddled with 7.8 additional hours of lost time per year compared with their colleagues using Windows 7,” IDC claims, noting that the typical large organization can save an incredible $700 per year by upgrading. I don’t have a handle on these numbers, but I will say this: While I appreciate the notion of stretching out an investment, sometimes you can hurt yourself trying to do the right thing. XP is going away folks. Let it go.
We'll leave aside the typical patented Thurrott sloppy mistake: "ancient OS" ( WinXP SP3 is newer than Vista RTM and SP1, and just a year older than Win7 RTM, you big dummy ). What he is describing here is Microsoft book-keeping, taking another bite out of these companies dumb enough to sign on for support contracts. They haven't yet figured out it would be cheaper to buy them all standalone one-time rather than shoveling money endlessly into the Redmond money pit. Whatever. They will learn eventually. Probably in the interim many Windows XP computers will now be retired without any replacement whatsoever. Folks that live near big companies would do well to watch for discounted computers in their area or be sure to visit the recycling center and bribe the workers for a few units.
Moving on, here is an article with details on Microsoft's extortion operation ...
Microsoft: Staying on Win XP will cost Indian biz ( ZDNet 2013-05-17 )
By comparison, the cost of not migrating will be approximately US$300 per seat/user for the first year, followed by almost double the cost in the subsequent 12 months, should they choose to opt for a custom support contract to stay on Windows XP after Microsoft ends support for the OS on April 8, 2014, the study showed.
IDC said the difference in cost is primarily due to the extended support and additional cost of support due to "incompatible devices/apps/drivers".
Now the endgame is visible - broken drivers from planned obsolescence between Windows versions. It is arbitrary and capricious. I suspect it is also illegal here in the USA, or should be, and now we know why their agreements and contracts are so secret, and why the OEM backroom deals are also kept under wraps. It is to stave off the FTC and Justice Department. The only real difference between Microsoft ( and similar companies ) and the Sopranos is that one is fictional on TV. The fictional family distributes garbage collection services and Microsoft distributes IT services. This move against Indian companies is akin to the Sicilian enforcer they brought in to rough-up un-cooperative local businessmen.
The point is that there is no real reason for anyone to move from a Windows version that works, unless you are easily cowed into submission by corporate FUD. Home users have no excuse to fall for it though, you own your computer, keep it and all the software. There will come a time when you won't be able to easily own one again. For the corporates I recommend you call their bluff if you can manage them yourselves ( and why shouldn't they? ). Oh yeah, if you read the articles there are "regulations" requiring businesses to have computer systems that meet certain criteria, specifications that Microsoft no doubt had a hand in writing and had supporting whitepapers that they financially sponsored. How convenient. Am I the only one that sees all the conflicts of interests here? Allegedly these regulations keep everyone's data and finances safe. Well how's that working out in real life? Can we see a report of all the thousands of hacking cases, passwords, credit cards, customer data lost in just the last couple years. Guess what, they will have no doubt all met the vaunted Microsoft standards and regulations yet were still utterly compromised. So the upgrading cycle becomes nothing but a self-serving make-work job-security scenario that benefits one institution ... wait for it ... Microsoft.
EDIT: typos, clarity
Edited by CharlotteTheHarlot, 20 May 2013 - 07:45 AM.