- Wed, Apr 10 2019 at 5:15 am #1113129
Do you stick to Windows XP, or are you a Windows Insider?
Are most of your servers still on Windows Server 2003, or are they running with Windows Server 2019?
Is everything On Premise or most of your infrastructure in the cloud?
Or maybe you are just in the middle of all this…
- Wed, Apr 10 2019 at 8:20 pm #1115430
Or maybe you already moved on to a more reliable and advanced OS… 😉
Seriously, what does this chasm in the diagram stand for?
Generally speaking, I think this diagram is too optimistic. Even in the age of smart phones, the vast majority of people only adopt a new technology once they have seen others use it. Only very few people use something new just because it makes sense. This is the main reason for the chicken-and-egg problem.
Microsoft thought the solution to the problem is to simply force customers to install new updates which of course doesn’t work at all. Actually, it makes things worse because you even strengthen conservatism. If you force people to adopt something new, which they don’t really need, and then crash their systems with untested updates, users only confirm their prejudices and you leave them more convinced than ever that it’s better to stick with what you know.
- Wed, Apr 10 2019 at 9:12 pm #1115432
Interesting opinion Michael 🙂 definitely a point about the force by MS.0
- Wed, Apr 10 2019 at 9:25 pm #1115435
Leos, thanks. You know, if you want to find me in the diagram, you have to search in the very far left. That is why Microsoft’s patronizing strategy annoyed me so much. You can improve tech adoption only if you convince customers with compelling new features and not by force.
- Wed, Apr 10 2019 at 11:00 pm #1115578
- Thu, Apr 11 2019 at 12:17 am #1115585
This diagram is a general diagram including all technologies.
But I asked this question in a specific SysOps context.
And maybe, if we could make a study about Microsoft’s customers, this diagram could potentially be different…0
- Thu, Apr 11 2019 at 12:00 am #1115582
Id like to consider myself somewhere around Innovators, but my current work place does not fit there much – automotive colossus with high latency :)) I hope this will change a bit this year where we plan to start upgrades to 2019 (from 2012 R2).
A bit off MS topic, but I like a lot what VMware is doing – a lot of new stuff each update. On the other hand Im a bit disappointed with the HTML5 client. The fields are just too big, then the inner windows, like list of tasks, are quite small. Some things still dont work properly in HTML5 even tho VMware says its fully operational, like a bug to add domain user/groups. If you have large domain, the HTML5 client just cant properly query the list and you cant add what you want. Flex client is the only solution.
- Thu, Apr 11 2019 at 12:33 am #1115588
I am like you, divided… 😀
My personal type is “early adopter”. However, in practice, it depends on which customer I work for…
But sometimes you are able to improve things:
- With one customer we went from never installing updates, to installing them every two months, and finally ton installing them every month.
- With the current customer were there were only Win 7 and Win 2012R2 computers a few months ago, we have started installing Win 10 computers and we will finally start installing Win 2019 computers in two months. This customer is going from “laggard” to “early majority”. Not so bad… 🙂
- Thu, Apr 11 2019 at 12:43 am #1115591
Yes it really depends, company by company. It also depends how the company use IT. For example:
Production companies (like automotive) – mostly consider IT as needed thing, that only consumes money. Their primary focus is production and due to that they often do not even allow downtime to apply updates (not only OS but also Application). Usually dont want to invest to new versions etc.
Companies like Banks – IT is a big player here, they invest and usually use the latest technologies.
I guess it is also quite common, mainly for smaller companies, that they wait with upgrades, leading to skip of a version.
- Wed, Jul 10 2019 at 1:25 pm #1290227
Interesting topic here though. What I have seen from my pretty young career – not even 2 years old yet, is the lack of thinking behind the idea. I will explain myself because I already know it will cause a debate. Most of the time, when I ask why do we have an older operating system running the answer is really often: because the application is not made to work on newer version. Other answers like it’s to expensive, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it… Goes on and on ! But really, I can’t understand why the company has not yet hired someone to review/update the needs ? On short term, it costs a lot, on long term, it is awful. Knowledge from older version become more a strength than knowing Windows 10 nowadays for some companies.
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 3:07 am #1290844
Steven, you basically said it correctly. It is about outdated apps and companies wanting to save money :))
For example if you have very special machine, like PLC, or a special medical software, sometimes the companies or people who developed such things do not exist or live anymore. It is very common even today to have Windows XP inside a production machine, and the company did not even know its there! it was discoverred after Wannacry attack 🙂
I guess its quite normal, if you have fridge at home which still does the job, you dont want to waste money just to buy better looking one, or one with less power consumption, where the savings on power will not even return to you for the investment.
- This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Leos Marek.
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 3:19 am #1290859
As to my experience, organizations rarely keep using old Windows versions to save money. In most cases, employees and IT just don’t care. As long as it works, they see no reason to invest time. This also applies to apps that don’t run on newer Windows versions. Often there is a much better app from another vendor that works fine on the latest Windows version. Many organizations simply underestimate the importance of modern software for productivity. IT is a necessary evil for them, and not something that really matters (as Nicholas Carr put it).
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 3:24 am #1290864
Yes that is correct, but from my experience on the other side, I have really seen medical companies running very special software to do some measurements in lab which was simply not possible to replace… and I have also seen automotives companies having PLC machines for example to bend iron tubes, with PC inside they did not even know its there.. 🙂
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 6:49 am #1290901
That is often what you hear. End users usually rely on the fact that admins don’t know much of the user’s field and can’t really know if there is a replacement. However, whenever I took a closer look it was never true. If you then confront users they will find all kinds of excuses why the software that hasn’t been updated for 10 years is much better than the new one from another vendor. Often if you then check the features that the new software allegedly lacks, you will find that not only the old software, but the entire workflow is outdated. Sometimes you even find that the corresponding task has become totally obsolete.
The thing is if there really is a need for a certain type of application, someone will build it. And if there is no new application for the task, it is a good sign that forward-thinking organizations not only have replaced the software, but also the task. You will find it hard to replace an old ox plough because most farmers have moved on and use tractors.
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 7:07 am #1290905
If you have a machine that was created 15 years ago, cost you millions of euros, and still does the job, you will not just replace it because its old. The same goes for medical things, the software was created for an instrument, that is many years old (a lot of them analog with only limited digital output) the company will not like to spend hundreds thousand euros for new, digital machine, which in MANY cases is providing worst measurements than analog one….
For example, the communication protocol most PLC machines are using, never took care about security, as it was build in 1990’s. This could lead to fatal things, like any user (with only User permissions) connected to proper server, operating the PLC remotely and possibly make the machine grip even if operator has hands inside. I have seen this, its really not difficult… 🙂 And then when you come to the vendor of the machine, they will claim another thousands/millions of euros for upgrade.
I guess, as with everything, there are at least two, or sometimes more sides of the coin 🙂
Great weekend guys!0
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 7:42 am #1290923
The question is if you really have the background to verify the claim that the 15 years old machine is still good enough or did you just accept what users told you?
If you still have analog machines where a digital replacement exists, it is very likely that the organization is already in big trouble without realizing is. Remember Kodak, the former world leader in analog cameras? They seriously believed that the analog technology is superior to digital. Look what happened to them.
Whenever a technology goes digital, progress in the corresponding field grows exponentially. Companies who don’t make the move to digital early enough are usually quickly out of business. I highly recommend reading Bold by Peter Dimandis and Steven Kotler and Exponential Organizations: Why new organizations are ten times better, faster, and cheaper than yours by Salim Ismail. You will get a sense for my argument.0
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 7:57 am #1290925
as I said, I perfectly agree with all the progression stuff and so on. But the reality is really different.
If you consider that you purchased a machine to bend tubes, which is 10by10 (or 20by20) meters on the ground large, and it still does the job as 15 years ago, why would you replace it? And really, sometimes those machines are not even produced today… the company would need to hire completely new development not only software, but also hardware.
Simply put, for some specific production areas, there was something built years ago. And there is no replacement (or is still in development or extremely exepnsive).
I see it really greatly in the company I have left. So called Digital Enterprise 4.0, was mainly about “displaying” the current production situation, getting rid of papers. It was never to replace the real machine that operators use.0
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 8:10 am #1290932
If you consider that you purchased a machine to bend tubes, which is 10by10 (or 20by20) meters on the ground large, and it still does the job as 15 years ago, why would you replace it?
I tell you why. Because your competitor who has the new digital version will soon be 10 times faster, 10 times cheaper and 10 betters than your company. Why do you think are so many Europeans and Americans whining about globalization these days? Why did so many once great companies in South Europe disappear in the last 20 years? Because of the evil globalization or because they believed that their 15 years old machines are still good enough?0
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 8:15 am #1290934
Ehm, is that why the company, which still has these machines, is number 2 in the world of car components production? Its not like replacing a PC. Such machines are not produced in thousands, but they are a sensitive property sold in single pieces 🙂0
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 8:25 am #1290936
“Still” is the keyword in your sentence. Kodak was once the undisputed number one with no rival in sight and then they crashed literally over night. There are countless other examples of smaller companies you have never heard of. Companies that missed the digital revolution are still crashing as we talk here. Read the books I recommended. You will be surprised how many industries are affected.0
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 8:39 am #1290938
Kodak, yes. Because there was a big customer drive for new technologies and this demand was easily accomplished by companies. But this cant be taken as general approach. In some areas its hardly imaginable, that there will be new competitor every day or month. Even such companies invest in general stuff, like O365, integration, user satisfaction, and so forth, they will never replace working production machine.
As I said, I am not arguing or not in agreement of the progression idea. But, it simply cannot be applied to everything.0
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 9:02 am #1290944
This is not about customer demand. Customers actually rejected digital cameras in the beginning which is why Kodak gave up on them. The point is that digital technologies progress exponentially mostly because of Moore’s law whereas analog technologies only progress linearly. Humans think linearly and have a hard time to grasp the power of exponential curves which is why so many companies are totally surprised that the change comes overnight. And trust me, every industry is affected. Really smart people have been analyzing this. This is not just my theory. There is overwhelming empirical evidence.0
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 7:13 am #1290908
Cannot agree more with Michael. Changing workflow requires planning. The first thing I ask when I hear the word migration is: can you provide me a before and after ? I like to see from where the users come from. I can be as much innovative as I want, if I can’t understand the laggards, I can’t do my job.
Nonetheless, sometimes you have to put your veto and go forward. Skeptical people can hold you down because of their fear of change.
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 7:16 am #1290910
Honestly guys I do agree with you; but also do not. Not all companies are prepared for such things and sometimes its really about a LOT of millions of euros…
Even I am a fan of progressions, sometimes you just cant tell the CEO to accept investment of million euros “just because its old”.0
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 7:29 am #1290918
Leos, you are right. I won’t change something just because it’s old, you have to look at how much does that change cost and the maintenance required. You can still have an Windows XP running perfectly fine. Depends on how you manage your infrastructure. And sometimes change is not possible because of multiple reason. I have seen a situation where changing the computer meant also changing the machine behind it. Cost was way to high for a computer that was not on the network and didn’t require attention.
I would not have told the CEO: hey buddy, it’s old change it. Instead, we got creative and we made it work.
Healthcare system is really hard to play with. Lots of software, machines, needs that are so complex that changing one thing could impact all the system. We won’t accept that a doctor is not able to perform his duty because the IT department changed all his software and he’s not trained.0
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 7:33 am #1290921
Thats right. Such systems (like WinXP) usually goes down to very demilitarized zone under multiple firewalls 🙂
I guess medical is the hardest scene. From what I heared from the companies we have been working for (Orion, Finish company), it might take up to 20 years, from developing a pill to make it available in your pharmacy.0
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 7:19 am #1290913
And Steven, its not about changing workflow. There are simply some applications in the world, that only few people have made. And there are also NO replacements for such applications. Unless you hire new developer to do it for you. This might take years and cost a lot.
I can tell you example from my career – PLC machine called Haitan (plastic injection machine). There was only 1 company in the world able to communicate with them for years… And the machine cost like 20mil euros. What will be your argument for management to uprade the OS layer there? 🙂
- This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Leos Marek. Reason: typo
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 8:03 am #1290928Paolo MaffezzoliParticipantPost count: 366Member Points: 33,300Rank: Level 1
Absolutely agree about PLC systems, there are several applications running in very old system like Windows XP, I have seen also a Windows 95 with an ancient but needed test bench analysis program. Hard to replace those system , in the industrial world is really expensive update old applications.0
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 11:05 am #1291317
Michael, I understand your point, however changing a Kodak and changing a 10×10 meter machine (this is just an example) isn’t the same. Swapping an older camera for a newer one won’t cost you millions.
I do agree that you have competition. However, the market is completely different from what it was back in 2010. The world is going faster then ever, not for the best though. Updating hardware and software does not guarantee success. Keeping really old stuff neither. There is a in-between. On my side, I rather have my team members able to use almost the full potential of an equipment rather than having what, 5-10% knowledge ?
Like I said, I am all for change, but it has to be planned.0
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 1:42 pm #1293206
Kodak, is just one popular example. There are countless others in every industry. We are in the middle of the digital revolution and you will hardly find an economist who disagrees. You are right that everything is faster now than 10 years ago. The reason for this is the digital revolution. Companies which are too slow to adapt are wiped out. Happens every day. And then the employees wonder why they are suddenly jobless after working for the same company for 20 years.0
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 1:59 pm #1293355
Nice hit there!0
- Thu, Jul 11 2019 at 8:07 am #1290930Paolo MaffezzoliParticipantPost count: 366Member Points: 33,300Rank: Level 1
And in any case it is a must isolate those computers running EOF OS and go ahead with a realistic replacement plan to update to a long Term Support OS version.0
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.