There is a real business reality that businesses are not in the business of keeping all their software up to date.
There are businesses that exist for whom up to date software is their reason for existing, but most businessess exist to create and product and sell it, and not burn resources on keeping their entire company's software library up to the latest patch ALL THE TIME.
It's an insane waste of time and money.
At my place, we tend to stay with things right up until their end-of-support date because to do anything else would be more expensive than not.
To everybody who hates dealing with oldish software this might sound annoying, but in reality, it's time and money, and that's what business is about.
we only switched from java 1.2 fairly recently (and that was to 5 not 6) because we HAD to upgrade our appserver and it ran on 5.
I don't know if people don't upgrade because of monetary costs or if there's simply a very strong "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude, but if it's the former, just another reason to use open source software. A good compromise are the "enterprise grade" linux distros, like RHEL or Debian for example, where there is both a frequent, low-risk update system and a "IIABDFI" attitude.
Anyway, I know one thing that drove me to try Linux was I was stuck using old Windows 98 and ME, and Linux let me use software that wasn't 5-7 years old (at the time).
Ah, well, I'm probably stating the obvious.
attitude, but if it's the former, just another reason to use open
source software. A good compromise are the "enterprise grade" linux
The cost of the software is the least of the problem.
Salaries are one of the biggeest expenses a company has, and when all your people are working on something that has almost zero ROI, then it's a big waste of money.
Smart people perform cost/benefit analysis to determine whether the cost of staying put is higher than the cost of upgrading.
*Really* smart people know all of the subtle little things to use as inputs to their cost/benefit analysis, such as the cost of downtime/repair due to old software having security problems, lost productivity due to incompatibility with modern web apps, etc.
And it goes without saying that the smartest of the smart have taken that analysis to its logical conclusion and gotten themselves off the Microsoft platform entirely.
I just found out that in order to install Exchange 2010, you have to have the "domain functional level" of Active Directory set to Windows 2003 Native or higher.
This means that if you want to use Exchange 2010, you may not have any Windows 2000 (or Windows NT) servers *anywhere* in your organization.
Way to go, Microsoft. Epic fail, as always.
Fri Mar 05 2010 12:08:24 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored
Way to go, Microsoft. Epic fail, as always.
And you expected anything less?
I'm a little rusty, but if I remember correctly, the big change with Windows 2003 or higher support was to allow hierarchical Windows domain names similar to the DNS naming hierarchy. Windows NT and Windows 2000 can only support flat domain names with a certain length (which I can't remember).
To be fair, MS would have had to go back and patch NT and 2000 to handle the new domain name structure. That would've been a huge investment on their part for little to no ROI. I can't blame MS on that one. It's the nature of commercially created software. Supporting old versions costs money, so at some point, they have to say "no" just to keep their expenses down.
Now if they went ahead and released the source code for NT or 2000 into the public domain, I'm sure someone would have it patched and working within a few weeks.
no IE9 for windows XP:
So they're finaly trying to kill it that way.
It's the Microsoft Way.
I still use Windows3.1 for old DOS games :) though i could just run DOS-Box and do the same thing... obsolete now thanks to activex and IE
pointless anyway, as dos is the best operating system microsoft has ever
Actually, I'm not too thrilled with MS right now (am I ever?). While I will admit that Exchange is pretty stable, as long as it's just a single-server installation, their migration process sucks. Exmerge just sucks sucks sucks.
(Even a single role server requires 4 GB!)
Right now - WTF does a printer need with ODBC???
"Computers are like air conditioning: All is running fine and dandy until windows are opened."
Exchange 2010 server in multi role mode ... minimum RAM requirement is
That is unbelieveable. I never thought I'd see the day that a software package required that much.