I've been in IT for 25 years. I'm a consultant that is often retained by some of the largest organisations around the planet. I have degrees in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. My speciality is performance Engineering of distributed systems. And I don't live with my parents.

I can confidentially say I do know what I am talking about in this regard. :)

Here is the current estimate of installed and running XP systems. In excess of 500,000,000. You have stated that you believe there are hundreds of thousands of systems that as you say can not be upgraded. Lets out that at an even 500,000 systems. That is 0.1% of the install base pessimistically can't be upgraded. Now world wide the estimated number of PC operating is, 1,630,000,000. So that 500,000 is now actually 0.03% of the world wide PC install base can not be upgraded.

This is considered an edge case in my profession. And extreme edge case. One of the principles in making large distributed systems ( The internet being the biggest ) faster, more efficient, more robust, less error prone is to remove far flung edge cases. As the cost of maintaining edge cases is ridiculously huge. It's because you are not just maintaining the edge case in isolation. You are also maintaining all of the potential interaction points associated with the edge case. The cost being almost invisible on a per node basis becomes and astoundingly large cost when you take into account the whole system. These costs are worn by everyone involved, not just Microsoft. Even those with up to date systems still pay extra to fund the maintenance of ageing architectures.

And you are correct, newer does not mean better all the time. However if you restrict your vision to just the function of the device you care about. It is easy to say newer is not necessarily better. The problem is you took a far too narrow look at the problem space. You need to accept the fact that the function you care about in the device is not the only function it is capable of doing. In the Case of windows XP the number of "other" potential functions is very large. If you include in the list of functions, malware, virus's & trogans that are designed not only to disrupt that system but to spread and further disrupt others you realise that if you replace the device with all it possible functions with a more robust device you will see that the sum total of the negative functions drops. Which in turn reduces overall impact on adjacent systems. So now we clearly see that the impact of the 0.03% of systems is vastly greater than it's diminutive count. In some cases 0.03% of cases it is possible that the cared about function when upgraded is either dimensioned or non-functional. But the net impact is still positive.

I have done analysis after analysis and I have very very rarely found a system that can not be migrated. The cost is no that much usually. Dramatically less that what is thought to be the cost. It's just that people are just too afraid to try. For what every reason. Almost always they are afraid of failure.

You know what would be sensible. How about placing all the code of your un-upgradable application in the public domain as well as the OS. I'm very much in favour of that. Linux being a huge success in this regard.

What you have to start really worrying about is the physical age of the system you so dearly depend on. If it's pushing 5 years plus I would start to worry. If it's 10 years I would start to panic. Once system components start to burn out you are really faced with a stop the presses kind of challenge. Because that's exactly what's going to happen, business stops. In most of these cases backups and proper documentation of the critical system are also missing. Now you are really screwed.

If you are in a business that is purchasing customer software or highly specialised software for a purpose you have to be including in the contract that the source of the software is to be handed over in the case where the software is either discontinued or the organisation owning the code goes bankrupt. To not have this clause in your contracts is just plain stupid.

At the end of the day. The planet has had YEARS to get ready for this. It is only the completely naive , stupid, or cheap that are sitting in this position where they can't upgrade. I feel nothing for the people or organisations that did nothing to prepare for this point in time. I'll of course help them resolve their issues, as that is what I do.

Reading is one of my skills. I have read the sob stories of people and organisations that have not prepared. Still I have no remorse for those who think they have been painted into a corner by the evil empire. It all just sounds like "But it's not my fault" cries to me. If you are in this position it is absolutely your fault. Take ownership of the situation and do something about. Stop asking for a warranty repair YEARS AND YEARS after it expired.

You should feel extremely thankful that MS did extend support this long. They didn't have too. You had a number of extra years to fix the issue. But sadly for 0.03% of system you are now stuck.

Have fun :)

If you express the reason in this forum you might actually get some assistance between the flames to solve your issues.

There really is no good reason what so every not to upgrade.

You actually admit you stopped updating an OS so it stays in the same state. The only way this is going to happen is not to network it. Even then Entropy in the OS will eat away at it's stability. I really can't think of any good reason why not to upgrade. The only reason that holds any sort of water is cost. But guess what you you saved just $10 a month for the last 3 years you could buy a whole new computer with Win7 or 8 on it. If you are a pensioner you can get even more discounts. Which is still a few years after MS announced it's killing off XP.

Your computers are just breeding ground for virus's. Please unplug them from the net.

The cost of supporting windows XP is actually climbing. As the architecture ages it gets harder and harder to duct tape over the issues without a whole sale re-architecture or evolution. Which by the way is exactly what VISTA, Win7 and Win 8 are. All of which have better architectural foundations making support cheaper.

WinXP can be thought of as 3 generations older. It's done it's service. The vast majority of the net would be safer and benefit greatly if XP was removed from the net. There would be a considerable drop in Virus/Malware related traffic.

The number of bits for the processor has nothing to do with security. Never did.

XP architecture has major security issues. And it's purely irrelevant that's it's both a 32 and 64 bit OS.

But 128 bit does solve a few other architectural issues :)

This argument keeps coming up.

"What if something doesn't work after?" Thus less than some small minority of the populous is inconvenienced.

How about What if the world is exposed to increasingly harmful malware infections that threaten financial, systems control, hospitals etc.

Guess what. This is exactly the same ridiculous argument that occurred in the 1970's when seat belts were made mandatory around most of the world. "You can't make seat belts mandatory the pensioners can't afford to install them" And yada yada and such. Seat belts are now mandatory in most regions of the world. Where ever this law went in we saw a dramatic reduction in injuries and fatalities.

Windows XP is the seat-belt less world of desktop computing.

I really do not feel any remorse for siding with a policy that will bring far more good than it will bad. Seriously it's not like there wasn't enough warning. Those of you out there caught with software that won't operate on something newer are just plain lazy, cheap and quite frankly stupid. You have been warned about this for years. YEARS.

Frankly I think MS should be working on Ending VISTA as well very soon. Also putting a kill switch out there for older browsers.

Operating systems are the consumables of the desktop computer. They have use by dates. Printer ink has a use by date. Food has a use by date. Even bloody gasoline has a use by date. This is the mind set we need to be in.

Apple has some how made it cool to buy the upgrades. ( I haven't quite figured our how they did that. ) Despite my hatred for all things Apple you have to respect that they get people to upgrade.

I'm a UNIX person and I have to agree. What horrible fad was happening when gnome3 and Unity came out. Some sort of cult mental infection leading normally very intelligent people down a garden path. To a garden filled with snakes, spiders and die flowers.

Someone sees an iphone and all of a sudden it has to be the UI of the desktop? Gnome 3, Unity, Win 8 all caught the bug.

That one two punch of Unity and Gnome 3 set back the Linux UI at least 2 years I reckon.

OK X has to go. I can understand that. But X isn't the window manager.
Yes UI designs have to start adapting for other input metaphors.

But to completely disregard 2 decades of UI design in one non-negotiable release, was just plain idiotic. Note all of them did this by the way. It's like all the design people at once fell into a cauldron of apple sauce.

No real attempt was really made at all to construct a bridging metaphor between windowed, mouse-keyboard fullscreen, touch UI design. Just screw we are now touch only.

Thankfully there is now the early taste of sanity building in UID design again. We see both camps take baby steps toward each. A more sensible evolutionary path is taking form. At the same time as fundamental graphical engines are being rebuilt from scratch to be natively friendly with alternative input metaphors.

Absolutely not.

This just makes the whole thing worse. Extending XP will simply result in more infections for longer.

Absolutely the death of support for XP will result in a spike on infections. This is with out a doubt. However it is a spike. Basically XP machines will become so un-usable the spike will end. With the machines death.

What MS should do is offer an amnesty and allow people to download and install a scaled back version of Win 7 or 8 for no charge. With the option of buying a 1 year subscription every year for it for next to nothing.

That way MS looks better and with luck security gets better. Also MS might actually retain some market share as a result. Otherwise it's all going to poorly maintained linux distros. ( Yes linux can be up to date. But lets face it most people never run updates of their own free will. Linux package managers in all the distros still require consent in order to proceed. Which people don't like or understand. )

XP needs to die. OR infections will keep spreading.

So got some pent up issues mate?

One letter in a post and you go off like a Roman candle. You must be Mr. Fun bags at home. The girls must be dying to crawl all over your overly critical ass.

Cheers mate enjoy that piss you call a beer.

And why are you trying to defend a Wanker button? Ah of course you don't have a girlfriend. :)

( If you are going to toss out the smack be ready to take it. )

There is nothing cool about a factory button that shows off for you.

What "skill" and motor head credibility does a big black button give you?

The button should just cause a speaker to blare out "WANKER!" it would have the same effect.

Sure the boss can come up with a solution. But as a boss I would love suggestions / proposals / ideas what every to help solve problems. I definitely would not want to be working in an IT shop when all the ideas come from one guy. That's a company destined for failure.

And what makes this a boss problem?

It's everyone's job to come up with solutions to problems. Because someone else might come up with a solution to a problem by no means the others are lazy.

Guess what if one of my staff consistently comes up with good solutions he or she is a very good candidate for a promotion. And I have no issue what so every that people be promoted above me. I am definitely not arrogant enough to think that someone working for me will never become my boss. Which by the way has happened a few times.

And here is the rub. Most of us who work in IT it is our job to make out own job obsolete. That's what we do, we automate our own jobs away.

You don't make people redundant you make the role redundant. If the individual is able and willing to take on a new role it is generally a promotion or raise. If the person can not fulfil a new role then generally they are given handsome payouts. Which I have now received 3 of over the years. It's basically a big fat almost tax free pile of money. Bills get paid debts are cleared and your standard of living improves.

So what I said was. Get rid of those services that you should most definitely not be managing in house. Thus freeing up resources. Which are people. Which can be used to solve real business problems not just make sure people stay within their ridiculous Exchange mail box quotas.

So I'm would definitely and have said we are making your role redundant. You got some options. A take the money and run or B. take on this more challenging role with a raise. Both are great outcomes for individuals.

It's attitudes like the one you express that I filter out of the organisation as quickly as I can. "It's not my problem, it's so and so's" People who express this attitude are people I know are not helping the company make money. Which means they are dead weight. Typically the method for handling them is straight forward. It's to performance manage them. Generally this process is easy. As this personality type basically makes the whole situation implode in weeks of informing them they are under performance management review. Which by the way generally leads to no payout.

It is rare that someone actually gets fired. You really have to be a walking disaster to be fired. Theft and or interpersonal issues involving threats or actions must be involved to justify be fired. Just being incompetent is not enough.

If he doesn't have the power to decide he can certainly tell the bosses. The goal is more resources. The author is looking for methods of telling the boss they need more help.

Well how about something novel. How about giving the boss the problem and a solution. Not just a problem statement.

I need more people -- Problem
Here is how I can free up some people -- Solution.

The people that come to me with only step one should worry about their jobs.

I was fully plumbed.

All holes had tubes :) I had a feeding tube through my nose.

And it was a full week I was in there. It was suppose to be over 2 weeks.

Of course a JVM out performs assembly. Think about how the assembly was written. True assembly is written by hand. And it's painfully difficult to write.

Java doesn't outperform optimized C or C++ in reality. Java can't even touch languages like perl for manipulating textual data. But you can certainly produce functional code faster in Java than most languages. It really is a great language for getting stuff to market quickly.

My job is performance engineering. This is what I live and breath. Java is a nightmare. Good Java dev's can make it perform very well. But guess what. There not not many of them at all. My simple test is this. When I saw take that JVM that is sitting on a 8Gig heap and knock it back to 2Gig to improve performance and the dev goes "What!!!!!! are you insane." I know the dev most likely knows nothing about performance of Java.

Don't even try to tell me that SOA is a performant way to build distributed architecture systems in Java. XML serialization and de-serialization is a performance disaster. Even the code libraries SUCK. The concept of a GC was great when it first came out. But this is in the days when a Meg was a massive amount of memory. Now we are looking at Gigs to 100's of Gig's of in memory objects. GC just can not cope with this. So you have to start developing models that involve lot of distinct processes to handle the memory and compute footprint. No longer can you fit every thing into one memory space. Languages like Java accelerate this evolution by the simply being horrendous consumers of RAM. ( At this point some one should be barking about pauseless GC in products like Azul. ) Not really seeing this gain traction. Why? Because guess what java is still a horrendous compute beast. With most use cases not matching the profile for things like Azul. Azul excels in really large in memory data stores but relatively low numbers of processing threads across that store. AKA not well suited for web and high transaction envs. What does work really well for large datasets and huge amounts of concurrency in Java is things like TerraCotta with it's off heap memory manager and distributed eventually consistent cache. But this is a pricey option.

I'm going to toss out a troll word here. "Websphere". ( Watch as Jave devs shrink into the shadows at the mention of that word. )

The JVM does do some tuning at run time. Granted. But it's only a bandaid and not a very good one, because it just can't keep up to the volume of simply horrible code being pumped out by very low grade java devs.

But it's still better than the situation of the windows platform in the data center. WOW. Windows in the server room just makes me go grey. 2/3 of my performance engineering gigs are for wintel. Magical bandaids are what the customer wants. Rarely can we provide. The ones that are serious always go for re platforming to linux.

You mentioned Exchange. Get rid of it. This is something you don't need to manage. Loose it.

Farm this out. Depending on your Love Hate with Google they do a great job of managing corp email. Make email not your problem.
Are you managing a document respository? If so loose it. Farm this out. Do not settle for some integrated POS.
Are you managing the VM farm? Why? Get rid of it. Go Amazon, Google, Rack Space. You should not be spending more than 10 seconds a day worrying about VM capacity.

OK now you have some people resources back.

PS. Outsourcing your Business IT is a myth. If it is core to your business keep it close to home. If it is managing something silly like email outsource it.

Seriously,

This is the plight of windows ecosystems. Linux/Unix has had abilities in this regard for many many years. It's stable it's rock solid and it performs.

Java is a bit of a nightmare for performance. But a ton of Enterprise is written in Java. Depending on your role you would argue the same thing for python, perl ruby etc. The later languages tend to perform better when calling native libs and vice versa. .NET is an abomination of performance an security disasters. These issues are backed into it's architecture and require far to much skill and background to avoid.

Now compilers are NOT the issue. It's runtime binding that is the issue. Compilers do a great job. Runtime binding is where things really fall down. Again .NET. The more you can resolve binding issues prior to the runtime event the better. For example I'm sure a ton of people on /. can rant about the issue with RMI and the destruction it inflicts at runtime. I call RMI SUPER LATE BINDING. .NET is founded on the similar principles and it SUCKS.

Apps like SWIG allow you to create compile time bindings between libraries. Which though not perfect create far more robust interfaces between high level languages. Something you can actually test. Since interfaces from libs also tend to be stable. The are also robust.

Yes of course it is possible to build robust integrations which bind at run time. But the level of effort is ridiculous and is rarely justified in budgets of medium to small Enterprise.

Back in the 90's I spent some extended time in a sensor deprivation chamber.

Nothing as fancy as this place. Not even remotely close. Just a salt water tank and a really really dark and quite environment.

I can tell you I was Hallucinating in far less than 45 minutes when I was in a sensory deprivation tank. Auditory hallucination was the first. Then physical sensory. Then finally visual. I can't comment on temperature. I had no memory of anything to do with temperature. Pain was there, but I am a bit confused if it was a memory of a memory or if I actually felt in while in the tank.

I was in their for about a week. It was suppose to be longer. But I got pulled out when people got worried. Apparently I was not exhibiting an EEG with in expected norms. What ever that means. I used to know more about the results. But that was 20 years ago.

The hallucinations got so intense that I believed them. This only took a relatively short time. No way of telling how short really. Nothing really weird, or dangerous. I substituted what I believed to be a real world environment. Yes responses from others were to easy and terse. Which was odd. The most unusual thing was travel. Traveling distances took little time at all. Rather I don't remember details of travel. Things that you would normally remember. There is always something about a journey you remember. In the tank I didn't have those memories. I always felt rather dis-connected after travel in my hallucinations.

I was completely freaked out when they started to revive me. They started with light and then some sound in the tank. Apparently I resisted it. I forced my eyes shut and made funny faces when the light and sound started. It really was hard to accept my environment. It felt like it all went down in a few minutes. But apparently the process was over an hour.

What you do for a little Uni cash.

PS. Yes they hooked up tubes to my bits. That was more disturbing coming out than in. I'll never forget that.