Microsoft warns enterprises to upgrade to Windows 10 or be left behind
-
![]()
Look at that this way. Newer technologies do require newer OS and programs to get most out of them. Gone are the days when only MHz/GHz mattered in CPU advance. Many new instructions and capabilities are introduced that are just not supported by older OSes and programs. How long is MS supposed to patch up older windows to take advantage of those new things ?
Yes they would have to patch older windows to match usability of processors and not only processors, there are new chipsets coming with them together with other HW and drivers alone are not going to cut it.
Al of this is nothing new. W95 cut out older HW from use and so did XP. Without Vista and W7 SSDs are practically useless for instance. Even if you stick to XP, newest processors will not provide much more than a processor made at XP's time, the rest of it is just throwing money away.
Companies (other than IT ) are more reluctant to change HW because it's way more expensive than OS even taking training and maintenance into account.
Just look at architecture and instruction set in newest Intel Skylake processors and compare to let's say a 386 processor and if you understand 1% of it you'll see just how much is involved to retain compatibility let alone to take advantage of all of new stuff !!!!
When time runs over something it gets flatter than if steam roller went over it. Go ahead and install XP on a newest Skylake processor you payed 300 - 500 or 1000 bucks for and see if it's going to be any faster than it was on an old Athlon !!!
Here is the problem with this argument. Windows 7, at least for now, runs on the new hardware. About the only difference in support is security. Also, even for the CPUs, Intel normally provides drivers to support new enhanced functions, not Microsoft. That's also true for Windows 10.
The problem with the statement from Microsoft is no context. I work in a global corp with over 200K users. It takes a minimum of 2 years to upgrade, and normally another two years for testing and planning. Many large corps are this way. Not to mention the millions of dollars it costs to do so. Microsoft pushing Windows 10 Ent now to these groups makes sense because it's going to take a long time to get them upgraded.
Now if they were talking to smaller businesses who have around a 12 month cycle, then yea, that seems pretty obnoxious. There is still 4 years left of support for Windows 7, and most companies roll over hardware every three years or so. So there is not a reason for these companies to jump on the upgrade band wagon for at least a couple of years.
-
-
I work in a global corp with over 200K users. It takes a minimum of 2 years to upgrade, and normally another two years for testing and planning. Many large corps are this way. Not to mention the millions of dollars it costs to do so. Microsoft pushing Windows 10 Ent now to these groups makes sense because it's going to take a long time to get them upgraded.
This.
It took us 2 years to get off XP in our enterprise and another 18 months to get everyone Windows 7 current. Does anyone think we are ready to go thru that pain and expensive again.
Today - Windows 10 is simply something we talk about at the lunch table right now at work. It will never be actually used on anything (outside of maybe an isolated test lab) for the foreseeable future.
Sonic.
-
Yeah, businesses don't need DirectX 13 and if you play candy games on the job, you get fired on Friday!
That's only half joking, I really wish Microsoft uses advanced hardware for advancing basic OS functionalities and not squander it for fancy features.
-
Corporations, specially large ones but smaller companies too are run by people in the business of making money not products. Investment to profit ratio is all that's needed to know. Unless there is somebody at the very top interested in innovations nobody would lift a finger to move forward as long as that blasted ratio exists at reasonable rate.
Had many a fight with local company bosses but a moderate influence on main corporation engineer that was a wiz for technology. Even after we managed to have one PC controlling production lines my boss would mock me every time I sat at that computer to adjust machines: "Playing with your toy again eh ?" Believe me or not but first "real" PC company bought went to accounting !! Needles to say I was upset as at that time I was using my own Timex Sinclair to help with machine setups and production control. Even new machines had to at least double production to be considered for buying or making.
-
-
Microsoft could save a lot of money for their clients using the advances in technology.
How about cutting 18 months of testing down to 1 week? That would save $$$ for enterprises.
For small businesses (and you and me) how about glitch-free updates?
For everyone, how about improving the self-healing capabilities of the OS? This alone would make a VERY long list of detail items.
So as not to be lop-sided, Microsoft did a good job on improving Internet security in the past few years. Make it an excellent job, Microsoft!
-
![]()
Well, actually, that is the whole point of the story - it won't continue to work. Some models running Skylake will be supported for 18 months, subsequent CPUs will not be supported.
So (assuming it is true) you will either have to upgrade to 10 or not buy latest hardware even before W7 EOL.
This explains it a bit more clearly I think
Microsoft updates support policy: New CPUs will require Windows 10
Very few people actually *need* new CPUs. The old ones work just fine for 99%. People who need maximum performance on PCs are basically gamers - let's face it, most heavy computer usage (weather forecasts, etc) are not done on PCs. I built my current desktop in 2012 (with i5-3570K) and it works perfectly, I just added a big SSD at some point and some memory when it was on sale. I see no need whatsoever either to get new hardware or to install W10 on that PC.
On the other hand, I recently got a laptop when my old one died. Acer does not support W7 on the model I got, but I still installed it and it works just fine. Again, there is almost no reason to jump ship there.
-
With more and more portable devices being used that are not going to play nice with older windows and HW, their hand jut might be forced.
-
Well, Microsoft cannot abandon installed base either, they would move to other options so as not to lose their investments. This is a mutual dependency that cuts both ways.
-
I think what's getting lost in this discussion is that if anyone or any company that gets new hardware with the latest high end processors they would likely want to get the most out of that investment and to accomplish that would mean using Win10 and not of the earlier OS's. The key here is that not every new PC purchase is going to be of the high end processors that will require WIn10. My guess is that the majority of new gear will be of later generation processors and not say the sixth generation Intel chips.
In this situation the use of Win10 is optional.
-
-
Quote