The Life and Death of Microsoft Software 187
coondoggie writes "With Microsoft aiming to release Vista real soon now, they've been retiring older versions of the Windows OS. For IT outfits it's yet again time to evaluate what stays and what goes, and make plans for the future. Network World discusses the life cycle of Microsoft's software." From the article: "'Generally, it is a bad idea to run unsupported software, but there can be a business case to run it,' says Cary Shufelt, Windows infrastructure architect at Oregon State University, in Corvallis. The university still has some NT machines running in isolation in its labs. But Shufelt says there are security risks in allowing connections to legacy machines and that the university makes sure to minimize those risks. 'We don't allow [Windows] 9.x clients to connect to our Active Directory,' he says. 'But we try to stay current with technology so these issues don't typically come up.' Others say they also stay current to avoid headaches and fire drills."
All NT here (Score:4, Funny)
All our Windows PCs run NT, from NT 4.0 to NT 5.2.
Re:All NT here (Score:2)
Perhaps they mean Windows 9x.
Re:All NT here (Score:2)
Heres a complete list of the version numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#.27NT.27_d esignation [wikipedia.org]
Joke (Score:5, Funny)
The Life Cycle of Software
1. Programmer produces code he believes is bug-free.
2. Product is tested. 20 bugs are found.
3. Programmer fixes 10 of the bugs and explains to the testing department that the other 10 aren't really bugs.
4. Testing department finds that five of the fixes didn't work and discovers 15 new bugs.
5. See 3.
6. See 4.
7. See 5.
8. See 6.
9. See 7.
10. See 8.
11. Due to marketing pressure and an extremely pre-mature product announcement based on over-optimistic programming schedule, the product is released.
12. Users find 137 new bugs.
13. Original programmer, having cashed his royalty check, is nowhere to be found.
14. Newly-assembled programming team fixes almost all of the 137 bugs, but introduce 456 new ones.
15. Original programmer sends underpaid testing department a postcard from Fiji. Entire testing department quits.
16. Company is bought in a hostile takeover by competitor using profits from their latest release, which had 783 bugs.
17. New CEO is brought in by board of directors. He hires programmer to redo program from scratch.
18. Programmer produces code he believes is bug-free.
19. See step 2
You forgot: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Joke (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Joke (Score:2)
Re:Joke (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Joke (Score:2, Funny)
The risk is not just direct (Score:5, Insightful)
It does this by (during the export process) loading the software X. Don't ask me why, I didn't write it.
Microsoft app X+1 is now available. App Y *will not export* to app X+1 because the executable has been moved and it can't talk to the new version anyway.
The App Y developers could fix this... but they wont because they have moved onto App Y+1 which we don't want to buy (not yet mature enough). App X is no longer available in the company and we cannot buy licenses for a variety of reasons (mostly due to integration and the fact that version X and X+1 running together cause major problems). There are no other export options except to pay for monkeys to retype all the data - on a weekly basis.
Software upgrades and end of support can attack you in the posterior in unexpected ways, and sticking with old software may not be an option. If you have given away the ability to make your own modifications, or put your data into formats you cannot read, you better make sure it's in your risk register.
Re:The risk is not just direct (Score:4, Informative)
I visited the Mercedes museum in Germany a while back. One thing that struck me was the display of old fashioned factory equipment that was based on the then-new Otto cycle engine. The machine would have a leather drive belt that went up to a rotating drive wheel hanging from the ceiling. It seemed that there'd be one engine turning a row of linked drive wheels and each separate machine would have a leather drive belt that powered it.
I am sure that at some point, that engine broke, or a leather drive belt broke, or a machine broke. Supposing that any of the companies involved had moved on (think about the rapid pace of engine development during the earliest years of internal combustion engine deployment into factories) and would no longer offer parts or replacement units for any of the peices of this big moving puzzle.
The factory would be in a position to
- create the needed replacement parts themselves
- pay the original creator to fix the problem
- pay some new person to fix the problem
- abandon some or all of the systems and retrofit something else in its place
Now, you might say "ok, but if the engine had failed, wouldn't any engine work as long as it had a shaft outout and spun the same direction at the same speed?"
Probably, with some work. I assure you, i cannot go and put my BMW's engine in my Audi and have it all just "work". Engine swaps even when you're taking an identical engine from an identical car are non-trivial. Once you have different interfaces, lots of custom work has to be done to make things work, and it is a painful laborious process.
This would tend to suggest that retrofittability is critical in selecting the components that make your business run, which, when taken to the software analogy would suggest "demand documented open interfaces with open source software".
Yet the question arises - are any of the machines I've described still in use? Is using a leather belt still the best way to transfer power to a factory machine? Or do thinigs become obsolete not because of abandonware, but because progress has truly taken place? Now power is distributed via electricity, not leather belts and drive wheels. And the power doesn't come from a gas engine installed on site, the production of power has been outsourced to the power company. every part of this original system has become obsolete, irrespective of the simplistic, logical, obvious interfaces and boundaries.
Sometimes, it makes sense to just throw the old stuff away because the cost of evolving outweighs the cost of leaping.
And often times, the cost of compatability is high. Everyone seems to understand that one big reason Microsoft gets into security trouble is due to the desire to maintain backward compatability... the need to maintain interfaces and expected behaviors. Compatability/retrofittability/ease of integration are sometimes at odds with innovation and progress.
As an aside, if you're interacting with Microsoft Application X and require the binary, it usually means COM. Newer versions of X often include a backward compatible COM interface. Have you tried App Y with App X+1? Or are you going off of what the vendor says -- that to use X+1 you need Y+1?
Re:The risk is not just direct (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The risk is not just direct (Score:3, Interesting)
The situation we have today with software - even open source software - is that even if you have the source code it is not feasible fo
Re:The risk is not just direct (Score:2)
Are they in use now? I can't answer that, but I can tell you that my father's factory used this type of setup until well into the '80s. Earlier, they had converted from
Re:The risk is not just direct (Score:2, Insightful)
They worked with power sources like windmills and water wheels, then steam engines, and later electric motors.
If driven equipment had a stoppage, the belts could slip and spare the drivetrain. New parts were simple to make on basic lathes.Speeds were easy to change by swapping pulleys. Bearings were easy to make (and recycle, in the case of Babbit metal).
New belting was as close as the nearest cow.
Wo
Re:The risk is not just direct (Score:4, Insightful)
- create the needed replacement parts themselves
- pay the original creator to fix the problem
- pay some new person to fix the problem
- abandon some or all of the systems and retrofit something else in its place
Now, you might say "ok, but if the engine had failed, wouldn't any engine work as long as it had a shaft outout and spun the same direction at the same speed?"
Probably, with some work. I assure you, i cannot go and put my BMW's engine in my Audi and have it all just "work".
So, how did we answer these questions? Or at least we try?
Open standards and interchangeable parts.
Sure there is always going to be some degree of customization because the standards or interchangeable parts will never satisfy every situation and every case, but an engine swap would be impossible if it were not for standard hex nut sizes, and things like that.
Computers are still new, and they are becoming more commodity and interchangeable over time. For the most part, you can have the hardware and software of your choice and share things like the web, email, pictures, music, movies, etc. Tons of stuff.
Now, there are custom apps or environments that do not always conform to standards because there is not one, nor is there enough of a market to create one. And that is where you pick an environment, for good/bad/indifferent, block it off from the outside world, and then DON'T TOUCH IT.
Re:The risk is not just direct (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Complicated Case to Spend Money (Score:2, Interesting)
Introducing planned obsolescence into your comment(are any machines....) sidesteps the career limiting risks a system administrator faces when her PHB wants a shiny new software application.
Diverting attention away from Microsoft's security woes by throwing up backward compatibility is a fallacy.
The big reason microsoft gets into security trouble is the organization has no incentiv
Re:The risk is not just direct (Score:2)
The BMWS and Audi are from 87, 88, and 88, respecively. The VW is a '00 and is my wife's car, and cost me more than the other 3 combined
I could make the same analgous argument about car maintenance. I do _all_ of the maintenance on all of our vehicles. There are a lot of times when i drive or work on my 88 Audi and think "supporting this outdated thing just isn't worth it any m
Re:The risk is not just direct (Score:2)
If so I'm going to your house and stealing it and the M3
two of the cars on my "I'd love to own and could potentially financially do so" list... if only I could find them for sale... can't even find junkers around here.
Re:The risk is not just direct (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider the following scenarios - all fictional, but all perfectly conceivable in any sizeable organisation:
Re:The risk is not just direct (Score:2)
Or if it is just the location of the executable you couldn't you just put a link from the old location to the new one?
I predict a quick death for XP after release of V. (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, there's the big black cloud of DRM that hovers over Vista, where pretty much nobody really knows yet just how dark it will be. Many people will abstain until that fog cleared, definitly something neither MS nor the content industry would enjoy. So, another incentive will be that certain content will only be available to you if you use Vista and its stronger DRM.
Another thing that doesn't bother companies too much. Actually, yet another incentive NOT to migrate, so your employees can't waste their time watching youtube.
What does bother companies, though, is support. So the faster support for XP ceases to exist, the faster companies will migrate. So, let the spinning start.
Whoopsie, already started.
Re:I predict a quick death for XP after release of (Score:3, Interesting)
It may not 'look' that much different, but has as many differences as NT4 to Win2k did.
I find articles like the one posted quite suspect. Legacy hardware can easily run WinXP as well, and there is Virtual PC for the hard core legacy apps that can be tightly wrapped in the new OSes security...
Re:I predict a quick death for XP after release of (Score:2)
Unless it increases productivity, he will not shell out the dough for new software. Even if you have a corporate license, he will shun the downtime for the
Re:I predict a quick death for XP after release of (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I predict a quick death for XP after release of (Score:2)
Re:I predict a quick death for XP after release of (Score:2)
This isn't just a MS-hatred-induced unwillingness to upgrade. 2k/XP are orders of magnitude more stable than 9X was - so stable that I don't feel like g
Re:I predict a quick death for XP after release of (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a lie and you are spreading FUD. Support for hardware comes in the form of drivers from the software companies. Just because microsoft writes some of their super special drivers doesnt mean that the os is devoid of support if those super special drivers arent there. No major hardware company has dropped support for windows 2000. Theres a good reason for that too, the underlying layer hasnt changed. In win2k its just not loaded with all t
Re:I predict a quick death for XP after release of (Score:2)
Seriously. If the majority of your staff have a clearly defined role and only need their computer to do one or two tasks, what better way to guarantee that this is all their computer does than to nail what applications can be run in a GPO? Of course, it's been possible to lock down Windows quite a lot through policies for some time, so arguably it's not providing anything the business shouldn't have already
Re:I predict a quick death for XP after release of (Score:2)
2. Most businesses already don't allow users to run as admin. The legacy apps that require writing to HKeyLocalMachine, etc., are the problem here. Not Windows. If users are already running as limited accounts, it's really no change at all.
Another big impediment to adoption b
Re:I predict a quick death for XP after release of (Score:2)
Re:I predict a quick death for XP after release of (Score:2)
True, but XP has more drivers bundled with it, which means you don't have to dig around for the driver CD or check the manufacturer's website for a driver nearly as often when you go to connect some random bit of new (to you) hardware. In some
Re:I predict a quick death for XP after release of (Score:2)
It's a nice idea, but I have never once seen XP already have or download a driver
Hardware and Software lifecycle (Score:4, Insightful)
I do understand the concept of legacy hardware and software, and that if it ain't broke... However, almost EVERYTHING has a given lifecycle. I don't think that software should be any different. People are going to complain that M$ stops supporting their older OS'es (especially close to a new OS release) but honestly, how long should they be responsible for maintaining the code?
I hear the statement that "we paid for the software...so they should support it." In the open source realm, most people don't pay for the software, just for support and updates. So, in that same respect the people that bought windows paid up front for their support and maintenance, but how long should that be for? Is that something that should be included in the license...we guarantee to support this product for X years?
Sorry for the slight rant, but I know how people like to get all uppity about this stuff. But at least in this case I think it is completely justifiable.
Re:Hardware and Software lifecycle (Score:2)
XP already has the potential for being some kind of software with an expiration date. What if MS decides that they won't "activate" your copy anymore after the support ended? So far, I can't see a reason why they could not.
Re:Hardware and Software lifecycle (Score:2)
Microsoft have decided that they don't want my business and they would really prefer it if my laptop were consigned to landfill.
If Microsoft doesn't want my business, then perhaps one of the lightweight Linux dis
What reasoning is that? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What reasoning is that? (Score:2)
Of course, there's always the issue of key loggers harvesting passwords, but that's probably a lost cause anyway, short of a search and destroy mission for all Win9x in position of staff.
Re:What reasoning is that? (Score:3, Informative)
Not actually Kerberos, but an amazing simulation. (Score:2)
Any resemblance to the Kerberos prior to their "embrace, extend, extinguish" effort is entirely coincidental.
That said, I agree with the thrust of your argument.
Bob-
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't want to encourage it on their network (Score:2)
Old code sometimes is the best code (Score:2, Insightful)
Despite Microsoft's Windoze vulnerabilities, we may be running some pretty old code for a while. We're international and pretty reluctant to export technology and software to certain countries, like Russia and China.
Most of our desktops that run Microsoft Office applications are running Windows 2000 Pro. We have a few high-end workstations that run XP and they may be upgraded to XP-64 if we can solve a particular problem with some software (there are no 64-bit Quicktime codecs for Windoze and we're reliant
Re:Old code sometimes is the best code (Score:2)
I believe you meant to say:
Our servers range from pee cees running Windoze to pee cees running Linux to Apple X-Serve pee cees running OS X
Or more accurately, you shouldn't have used the term "pee cee" for any server
Old versions of windows never die (Score:5, Funny)
Virtualization anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Virtualization anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Virtualization anyone? (Score:2)
Fire drills (Score:4, Insightful)
Strange. I always though staying current was a headache and a fire drill.
(Heck, I still use 9.x on my kids' computers. Works fine for their software, and they're usually not on the internet. When they are it's behind a NATed firewall and using firefox.)
Point of Sale Systems (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that alot of companies at this point may actually decide to replace these systems with Linux based POS to save money and as a result of that, they will see the benefit of using Linux elsewhere as well. The big issue will be that these companies will have to upgrade all their terminals and hardware as well as all their software and potentially, if they just switched to Linux and a Open Source POS system, they could save MILLIONS.
Feel free to insert opinions here. I'm interested how others think corporate America will respond.
Re:Point of Sale Systems (Score:2)
Re:Point of Sale Systems (Score:2)
Most folks here on
Companies don't _REALLY_ care what the OS
Re:Point of Sale Systems (Score:2)
The bottom dollar then becomes...
new employees to install all new systems + new POS system + new OS + new hardware
This in comparison to
new employees
Re:Point of Sale Systems (Score:2)
Like I said - they will probably evaluate whatever is available from the terms of the functionality of the POS software, choose 2-3 candidates, get quotes, and go from there
If there isn't a POS program that fits their bill in OSS, guess what? Aka for most companies, the functionality comes FIRST
Re:Point of Sale Systems (Score:2)
Again, the issue still remains that there will mostly definitely be the added cost of the new POS, the new SOFTWARE and the new HARDWARE. Compare those costs
Re:Point of Sale Systems (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Point of Sale Systems (Score:2)
If it ain't broke, why should I "upgrade" and then break it?
There are POS devices that still used DOS, Win 98, Win 95, and some that use paper tape without even carbon copies of that tape.
Re:Point of Sale Systems (Score:2)
Why dumb? It sounds pragmatic to me, especially if they have a vendor in hand which is providing support for those older boxes (as many companies do).
Re:Point of Sale Systems (Score:2)
Dumb is having an OS that no one is writing anti-virus updates for
Dumb is hooking that OS up to the net to transfer data such as daily sales
Dumb is having this operating system installed on hundreds of networks
Dumb is running an OS that no one else can update or patch because it is proprietary and no longer supported.
You see where this is headed. The may not have had an issue before when they still got patches. Now imagine when a machine n
Re:Point of Sale Systems (Score:2)
They have to higher new staff to get these machines up and running on new os's in the stores no matter what. It's part of the cost and part of the equation no matter what they do. But by7 going with open source POS and OS, they will save millions. Plus if their current staff cannot adapt, they can easily be replac
Re:Point of Sale Systems (Score:2)
Re:Point of Sale Systems (Score:2)
The same would aply moving from Windows 9X to Windows XP/Vista.
Is is obsolete beacuse it is old? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Automotive industry is a good example. Suppose you bought a brand new car today, you would expect that you would be able to operate that vehicle for a number of years, after all it is a big investment. However, if the vendor said after 4 years that the engine could no longer be maintained and that it must be immediately replaced at your cost, you would not be very impressed. You would be tempted to perform your own DIY and install your own engine from a different vendor.
Thing is, Microsoft in recent years has tried to market a versions of Windows for embedded applications. When users of these operating systems realise that after 4 years that microsoft will expect you to upgrade a major piece of equipment as they no longer support the software it is based on, the customers are not going to be happy.
An old computer may run old software, but there is every chance that in every other respect that it may still be just as useful as a new one. The computer may have features that are no longer supported such as ISA cards or serial ports that are required to operate certain useful external equipment and embedded applications. In essence the cost of upgrading the computer operating system may be much greater than requesting that existing software is maintained. Unfortuately this is one area where Microsoft are running the risk of loosing the plot.
As for Microsoft saying that Windows ME is 6 years old and is therefore unsupportable, until 4 and a half years ago it was the latest operating system for home computers. XP isn't even 5 years old yet, but one thing is certain, if Microsoft imsists that I upgrade to Vista within the next 2 years, I will upgrade to Linux or OSX.
Minor correction (Score:2)
should be:
"That is something that the IT industry needs to re-learn."
it used to bge called maturity. Maturity doesn't make a lot of money for vendors.
Re:Is is obsolete beacuse it is old? (Score:3, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with age; Windows 2000 came out *before* ME, and IIRC they won't be ending W2K support until 2011. The difference is that W2K actually worked and was widely adopted (especially by business), where ME was largely regarded as the biggest piece of crap OS Microsoft ever excreted and never had a large install base compar
Re:Is is obsolete beacuse it is old? (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is, Microsoft isn't MAKING you upgrade; they're just creating an incentive for you to upgrade. You can go on using whatever software you're using for however longer you want, but don't expect Microsoft to suppor
Re:Is is obsolete beacuse it is old? (Score:2)
Re:Is is obsolete beacuse it is old? (Score:2)
Re:Is is obsolete beacuse it is old? (Score:2)
Re:Is is obsolete beacuse it is old? (Score:2)
I wrote about this last week... (Score:2)
Staying with Windows 2000 (Score:2)
Re:Staying with Windows 2000 (Score:2)
Re:Staying with Windows 2000 (Score:2)
No bothersome "geninue advantage" type crap necessary (yet).
Only a matter of time. They're currently "boiling the frog" with DRM.
---
Unregulated DRM = Total Customer Control = Ultimate Customer Lockin = Death of the free market.
Until software requires it (Score:2)
huh? (Score:2, Informative)
This is a non-issue. Service Pack 1 is not an Operating System, it's a major bug fix/addon revision. Service Pack 2 has all the features SP1 has, plus it's a free upgrade to even pre-SP1 Windows XP. This i
non-commercial linux is not technically"supported" (Score:3, Insightful)
yet I still run it.
Almost everything under the sun (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait a minute... (Score:2, Funny)
old isnt always bad (Score:2, Informative)
Fat chance upgrading all those grocery scanners (Score:2)
Re:Fat chance upgrading all those grocery scanners (Score:2)
I've never seen a U-Scan run anything higher than older versions of NT, some run 9.x. Fat freakin chance trying to upgrade them let alone trying to take them out of service in a supermarket to upgrade them.
Every scanner I see still uses IBM's 4690. What POS/Scanner do you see that runs Windows? A grocery startup who thought they were saving money or a major chain?
Enjoy,
Re:Fat chance upgrading all those grocery scanners (Score:2)
Re:Don't allow? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/1521 4/15214.html/ [windowsitpro.com]
Re:Don't allow? (Score:2)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/288358/ [microsoft.com]
Also note that there is no DSClient for WinME, officially, though "you may be able to install Active Directory Client Extension on a Windows Me computer for testing purposes."
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/276472/ [microsoft.com]
ReactOS? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:stupid comentary (Score:3, Informative)
Re:stupid comentary (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:stupid comentary (Score:2)
Yeah, every Fortune 500 company is at the top of companies because they are dumb. That is why smart people like me don't and won't work for Fortune 500 companies with their stupidity and all of that money and crap.
Re:stupid comentary (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Brings up the question (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Brings up the question (Score:2)
Ahhh... but there's a way around. This doesn't bypass the fact that Windows 98 sucks. Bottom line is these DOS games are your 'killer app'. That's fine, keep it around for that, but for actually getting things done it's generally better to upgrade to something modern.
Re:Brings up the question (Score:5, Informative)
The old machines hare processors and memory which are far to small to run Win2k, and XP is too modern to be considered well enough tested for mission critical work :-)
When I have convinced people that Win98 is a security risk because its EOL'd so all the hackers know its a good virus target, these machines will have NetBSD installed. We cannot scrap them because we need them to support instruments that cost humungous amounts of money, and to run chronically obsolete tool chains to support products with a 30 year life span. - Yes its true - not everything with an embedded process or has a lifespan of 8 months, or even 8 years.
Think about it - some complex systems take two years to specify, and two to build, one for certification, then they take an age to get delivered and installed, possibly requiring a custom designed room, and then users take two years to learn how to use them, after that, people expect a 7 year _minimum_ product life. If you dont believe me, check out diagnostic equipment your local hospital, airport, rail depot, garage, etc.
Re:Brings up the question (Score:2)
It can mean "remote security" - as in, it's harder for someone to screw around with a system remotely.
It can mean "we've already solved the security problems inherent in this, our solutions will break horribly with XP and we're not sure how to fix that" - just because the OS is hideously insecure doesn't mean that you can't write an application which is reasonably secure, and as long as you've not connected it to a network, it's no worse than XP.
It can mea
Re:Article Summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why Microsoft has such a hard-on for virtualization-- they want businesses to buy shiny new Windows 2003 servers and run, for example, their business-critical NT 4.0 legacy app that hasn't been updated, in a virtual machine on that server.
That's exactly why they bought Virtual PC from Connectix.
~Philly
Re:Article Summary... (Score:2)
Isn't it an oxymoron?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Vote for Death (Score:2)
Re:Get out the funeral attire... (Score:2)
I'm getting out my dancing shoes.