Erik
No favorite files added yet
(Jun 17, 2005 - 12:45 PM)
It is funny, everyone here seems to hold the exact same opinion, back it up with factual evidence, and support one another. So why is it that crap like the survey in the article get more publicity than the real circumstances and situations? It is a sad day when IT outlets online, such as this and /. turn into marketing and office politics. Here's to those of you that see these problems. I wish i had funding to do my own survey to show the real reasons behind the slow move to xp, rather than the scrape the surface crud that we get out of these "researchers".
(Jun 16, 2005 - 4:11 PM)
The fact of the matter is that although XP Pro does support advanced networking, many software apps refuse to run on advanced systems. I work for a hospital chain in the Minneapolis area; we have critical care systems that REQUIRE Office 97, as well as a bevy of other server-based delivered thin client apps that just don't blend well with XP's infrastructure. These "knowledgable" studies take their data to point fingers, and are designed to pressure into conversion, not just for their own findings' sake, but for microsoft. 30,000 new XP licenses are a pretty penny, and with any conversion the costs outweigh the benefits. Also, they refuse to explore the fact that in many instances IT budgets are disgustingly low. For a hospital, we generate no actual income whatsoever. We allow the hospital to make money, but we don't, and that stigma weighs in heavily in budgeting for upgrades.
Frankly, I have grown tired of the pseudo-intellectual tech community spouting their rhetoric about corporations not keeping up with increasing technology. The fact of the matter is that studies like this never take the time to weigh: Cost, Benefit, Compatability or a bevy of other issues, and yet they feel as though their data can be used to point fingers at corporate IT. For shame.