Government pays Microsoft £5.5m to extend Windows XP support

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/microsoft/1074...

Ugh.

What would you prefer? To pay for extended support or pay for a large number of new PCs? There are a vast number of XP machines in all sectors and upgrading them with some specialised application that they run could cost significantly more. Yes, they will be updated, but in a timely fashion.

Several of the companies I deal with still have systems that run Win3.11 and Win NT - the equipment is from one source and support is still provided for those. The total cost to the end users of an upgrade would be measured in hundreds of millions of dollars whereas the support is probably around $1m.

I would have preferred them to migrate to a newer version of Windows long before now. It's not like Microsoft sprung the XP EOL date on everyone 6 months ago, we've known about this for years.

It isn't always that easy. There is lots of business software out there that still hasn't been changed to support later versions. Or, the company no longer supplies the software but as it does what is needed the alternative could be to spend thousands on something to replace it.

The knock on effect on back end servers and software contracts can be enormous and can take years to get everything sorted. This is especially the case in some areas of government due to the vast array of different services provided there are a lot of different systems (and those systems may also talk to each other so changing one could break another).

The planning behind this is enormous - and also very expensive at a time when most government bodies are having to cut back. And those costs mean that politicians generally won't want to be seen diverting money to upgrading PCs from delivering front line services.

In reply to a post by MHC:

Several of the companies I deal with still have systems that run Win3.11

Hmmm... - must be a hell of a company

I just read the article. Quite staggering (incompetence?).

(Edit - re governmental systems).

Edited by RobertoS (Fri 04-Apr-14 13:27:41)

The system is stable, it has no connections to the outside world - apart from CDs. If you had a choice of spending $50m to update the works adequately and still has many years of life or spend an extra $100k per annum for 10 years for additional support - what would you do?

The company that provided the original platform is large and could provide a full hardware update - not an issue, but cost is.

$1m at $200 non-discounted per machine = 5000 machines.

$200m, (the lowest possible value for "hundreds of millions of dollars") = $40,000 per replacement. (Kit plus labour/conversion/testing).

Hmmm.

It does seem that with seven years notice they could have upgraded before now. I don't think the argument about keeping old systems running holds water. Surely even Government departments write off computer equipment in less than seven years.

I don't think the argument about keeping old systems running holds water. Surely even Government departments write off computer equipment in less than seven years.

It's not the computer but often the (very) specialist (and expensive) and often bespoke software it's running and the (often very expensive equipment) to which it is connected. That is certainly the case in some hospitals. The problem in many cases is that the authors of the software either refuse or cannot update it or have moved on to other areas.

So in another 12 months they end up in the same situation? Not good. Let's hope that at least they will learn the lesson for the future that a good maintenance plan is as important for essential software as the initial purchase.

In reply to a post by MHC:

The system is stable, it has no connections to the outside world - apart from CDs. If you had a choice of spending $50m to update the works adequately and still has many years of life or spend an extra $100k per annum for 10 years for additional support - what would you do?

The company that provided the original platform is large and could provide a full hardware update - not an issue, but cost is.

So this company you know is using Windows 3.1.1 and it would cost $50MILLION to replace the s/w application???
Almost seems unbelievable...

I've found the biggest problem is most (sorry, all) my database and accounting programs are 16bit which may run on 32bit.
The authors have either gone out of business or moved on.
My data base is a real problem as it allows notes to be appended to a record and does not get exported if you try to move to a different program.
That's only a one-man business with data going back 20+ years, so I can sympathise with larger organisations with millions of records.
By accident I found that Windows starter edition works the old programs well - but you can't actually buy it.
Now about my old serial port data transfers. I've tried a USB to serial link, but it's too fast.
The jury is still out with that one!

Well although whilst it's not quite on topic, I feel microsoft are out of order, Why because when people bought their XP o/s there was no date set for end of support ,
It wasn't until microsoft released several other o/s some which flopped, that they changed the goal posts because not many where buying the newer o/s , but for some that's personal choice, I think microsoft should continue to support it's o/s XP

Especially when they omit things like sound hardware acceleration for pc games
This broke games sounds for some games in Win 7 , they left it up to the sound card vendors to come up with a solution, this has been hit & miss ,
for most win xp does all they need , why should they upgrade, o/s or hardware or both just because microsoft want to sell their newer o/s?

Edited by tommy45 (Fri 04-Apr-14 16:10:00)

I think Microsoft have had a long standing timescale for supporting products. It is usually a certain numbers of years following the successor.

XP itself has been extended more than once due to people not wanting to move to Vista and then having a large task to move to W7. So, I think MS have been pretty clear.

That is true. We already know when Windows 8 support will end.

Microsoft support old software far longer than many other vendors. For example, I think the oldest supported version of OS X was released in 2007.

In reply to a post by tommy45:

Well although whilst it's not quite on topic, I feel microsoft are out of order, Why because when people bought their XP o/s there was no date set for end of support ,
It wasn't until microsoft released several other o/s some which flopped, that they changed the goal posts because not many where buying the newer o/s , but for some that's personal choice, I think microsoft should continue to support it's o/s XP

Especially when they omit things like sound hardware acceleration for pc games
This broke games sounds for some games in Win 7 , they left it up to the sound card vendors to come up with a solution, this has been hit & miss ,
for most win xp does all they need , why should they upgrade, o/s or hardware or both just because microsoft want to sell their newer o/s?

I don't pretend to understand much of this but I liked XP and did prefer it to vista , I bought a second hand lap-top with XP just to run a particular prog, as a new desktop came loaded with Vista which wouldn't run that prog , however would'nt it be possible for Microsoft to Sell or lease the rights to an outside organisation to carry on maintaining and supporing XP if they found enough people willing to pay a modest annual fee to carry on using XP on their computers , simple folk like what I am !

In reply to a post by Anji:

For example, I think the oldest supported version of OS X was released in 2007.

Later than that- support for 10.6 (Snow Leopard, released August 2009) effectively ended a month or so ago, 10.7 (Lion) was released in July 2011 and is the oldest supported version.

Apple don't operate on time for support, but more on versions- they support the current one and the last two.

Edited by billford (Fri 04-Apr-14 16:44:50)

What some folk (home users) I've spoken to find somewhat annoying is that their home computer can't be upgraded to handle the newer Windows OSs so it means having to purchase a new PC.

I couldn't see why this couldn't be done, apart from greedy microsoft not allowing it maybe

My PC will run win 7 , i could add more ram mobo supports more, but for me to be able to play games with no sound issues ,i would need to buy a PCI sound card that has it's own CPU so can do it's own hardware sound acceleration , but my CPU may be a little too slow, according to the system requirements, ok i could buy a faster cpu, but why should i or anyone else have to do this, all because they microsoft didn't include hardware sound acceleration,a dumb move microsoft

I'm not with you. Microsoft don't build motherboards. If they don't have hardware sound acceleration that's the fault of the hardware manufacturer, not the operating system vendor.

When I first worked with the NHS in the early noughties, I came across systems using Win 3.1 and Win 95 was not uncommon at all. The standard IT security induction days used Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer (IE6 as it happens, and it was considered state of the art...)

IT departments and GPs get the gadgets and the up to date systems. Then managers, then departments that require better kit. Then it's standard users, then front line staff, then clinics. It trickles down.

I was using XP on a laptop and backing up to a server over network, or to a CD Rom. Others backed up their data to 3.5 floppy. They run systems into the ground (saving us all a lot of money, but costing us a packet on their terrible procurement practices).

Barking & Dagenham Council goes for Chromebooks, initially with Citrix. Linky.

As an incidental question, am I having a mental failure with the following paragraph?

To remain compliant with the CESG, users would be able to log in through a virtual private network (VPN) to a proxy server hosted by the council, which would then cone into the cloud.

"Cone"?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

As an incidental question, am I having a mental failure with the following paragraph?

To remain compliant with the CESG, users would be able to log in through a virtual private network (VPN) to a proxy server hosted by the council, which would then cone into the cloud.

"Cone"?

"Come". Maybe.

I think this is the key. Early digital publishing was a bonanza for suppliers, designed obsolescence ensuring that each new release required a suite of new programmes. For example, printers had to upgrade each version of Quark at £560 per machine, keeping all the old versions in order to handle old documents for reprints etc. Same applied to Pageplanner which I think became InDesign (memory probably dodgy here, but I remember only too well forking out £000s for gear we didn't need. Then there were bugs galore to be fixed, and just as we had staff and equipment working well, guess what came along ... usually the benefits were not worth the outlay.

Complex NHS software must have cost millions but does seem to work reasonably well, if it's not broke why fix it?

Windows Vista/Win 7, Microsoft have decided to remove the Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) for DirectSound and DirectSound3D. alot of games needed this support to work correctly, I do belive that they have re introduced it in win8 ,but no doubt the games won't run on that, infact there are few newer games that run on win8

Not that would buy the newest microsoft flop

Edited by tommy45 (Sat 05-Apr-14 13:55:52)

Since Vista appeared many years ago I am surprised that the games programmers are still using such outdated techniques. I must admit that I have never encountered a problem with games running on Vista or Windows 7. There are probably more modern games that won't run on XP than the other way round.

I would say the opposite, almost every game i have looked at run on xp. infact there is only a minority of games that you need win7 or newer to run them , but they also would require better hardware too, and i ain't going to upgrade my pc 's hardware for some gaming publisher, and win 8 they included what they forgot to add to vista (fail) and win7 , Only they screwed up the rest of win8, it doesn't even read .txt files, without 3rd party sw, maybe win 9 or whatever they are going to name it maybe the next o/s that will be worthwile upgrading to, until then there is xp patches or no patches , and the patches will be leaked by someone, for download of the masses

Edited by tommy45 (Sat 05-Apr-14 16:42:02)

Hmmmm, millions of pounds as a lump sum to Dell or whoever for new PCs and rewriting software or those millions being spent on treating patients.

I think its better the cost being spread over time and most of the money being spent on patients don't you?

Upgrades will happen eventually but better to pay MS a smaller amount to extend support while that happens I think

I don't work in government or the NHS but our migration to 7 from XP was slow as several in house mission critical applications had to be modified and thoroughly tested before 7 could be rolled out along with the applications.

One area that hasn't, AFAIK, been mentioned is the retraining of staff. One of my last jobs before taking early retirement in 2003 was managing an desktop IT training programme for >20,000 staff in a major government department. For many of those staff, whilst usually quite competent to do their job, had real difficulties in getting to grips with the new desktop. There was a lot of 1-to-1 hand holding.

I truly don't know how they'd fare with the Ribbon in more recent Office applications.

Multiply that retraining task by perhaps 10-fold and the implications could be considerable.

I don't get it. This implies that Microsoft will be producing security updates for Windows XP whereas I had assumed they wouldn't be. If they are going to be putting in the work to produce them, they might as well let the rest of the world have them!

In reply to a post by MCM:

It's not the computer but often the (very) specialist (and expensive) and often bespoke software it's running and the (often very expensive equipment) to which it is connected. That is certainly the case in some hospitals. The problem in many cases is that the authors of the software either refuse or cannot update it or have moved on to other areas.

Fundamentally, this comes down to poor contract negotiation - though that's easy to say with hindsight. The contract should have specified that future security patches and o/s upgrades would be supported. One assumes though that in these circumstances there is nothing being being for a support contract either - so the software might stop working at anytime anyway! It's always possible to update the software to run on the latest o/s - though it might end up as a re-write. The public sector IT contracts do seem be a gross waste of money - how many do you hear of millions/billions spent on IT systems which are then canned by the government. If this happened in the private sector, many people would be sacked, and companies would probably go out of business.

I agree with Cheshire_man and Techguy - £5.5 million is a huge chunk of money, but in the context of government it isn't really, and is probably fair value for extending XP support further. However, there does need to be a plan to migrate off XP and I don't really see why it couldn't have been done already - Win7 was released in 2009 - 5 years to migrate most systems was definitely achievable. Perhaps the government are going to wait and migrate to Windows 9 though?

Speaking as someone who was immensely fond of XP, both from a professional (XP desktop support technician was the first MS certification I got) and personal point of view (I ran XP Pro at home from 2005 until I bought my current PC in 2012 which runs 7 Pro) even I except that the OS has had its day and its time to move on.

MS will only be providing essential fixes and support to HM Government, why would it make these fixes available to the public who haven't provided it with revenue for possibly 13 years?

Go and ask Ford for free parts for your Ford Escort.

Edited by techguy (Sat 05-Apr-14 22:56:53)

And according to what has been posted (or linked to), anyone can pay the $200pa to get the fixes .

Makes 8.1 attractive doesn't it? only 85 quid for a full version from Amazon

Edited by techguy (Sat 05-Apr-14 23:33:19)

LOL
Yep.

Just the kit needed to run it, unfortunately.

I do find it rather painful on a mere Intel i3 with 4GB . Sluggish is not the word. On my short-lived i5 with 8GB it seemed fine for a month, before I got rid.

Edited by RobertoS (Sat 05-Apr-14 23:35:11)

In reply to a post by techguy:

MS will only be providing essential fixes and support to HM Government, why would it make these fixes available to the public who haven't provided it with revenue for possibly 13 years?

Go and ask Ford for free parts for your Ford Escort.

There's a big difference between Ford and microsoft, Ford and other motor manufacturers sell the rights to other companies to make and supply many after market parts for their cars , if Microsoft doesn't want to continue to write patches for xp, why don't they allow a 3rd party to do this? I'm not saying that it would be free ,but it would most probably be considerably cheaper than what MS are charging

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

LOL
Yep.

Just the kit needed to run it, unfortunately.

I do find it rather painful on a mere Intel i3 with 4GB . Sluggish is not the word. On my short-lived i5 with 8GB it seemed fine for a month, before I got rid.

What are you using now as a PC and the OS is Windows 8?

ASUS S500C upgraded from Win 8 to 8.1.

In reply to a post by techguy:

Go and ask Ford for free parts for your Ford Escort.

The analogy is flawed. Security holes are material defects. My sister has just had a recall notice for her 54 plate Renault Megane Tourer estate because they have discovered a flaw in the upper tailgate panel. She has to take it into a dealer for a free fix - on a 10 year old car.

In reply to a post by warweezil:

In reply to a post by techguy:

Go and ask Ford for free parts for your Ford Escort.

The analogy is flawed. Security holes are material defects. My sister has just had a recall notice for her 54 plate Renault Megane Tourer estate because they have discovered a flaw in the upper tailgate panel. She has to take it into a dealer for a free fix - on a 10 year old car.

I'm not arguing the merits of the analogy. But I would say the Renault Megane Tourer is a current model, but the Ford Escort is obsolete.

I would describe the Escort as obsolescent, as no doubt is a 10-year old Renault Megane Tourer Estate. Neither is still made, but plenty are still in use.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I would describe the Escort as obsolescent, as no doubt is a 10-year old Renault Megane Tourer Estate. Neither is still made, but plenty are still in use.

I don't really like the analogy to be honest. How about product recalls for the Ford Anglia?

I can't see it as a valid analogy. Cars cost tens of thousands of pounds and safety problems with them that merit a recall are normally a matter of life and death. Software such as XP costs a hundred or so pounds. Is it reasonable to expect free correction of any manufacturing defects more than 10 years after the product was sold? And is it reasonable to call the things that require updating manufacturing defects - if the system has worked fine for 10 years with such a "defect" then it can hardly be considered a manufacturing proble. More a question of the inevitable - like brake pads, software eventually wears out; changes in the environment that it works in takes it's toll.

I would say that the proper test is whether you expect, and get, that sort of service on other items costing a similar amount. Do manufacturers of, for example, washing machines or televisions provide free repairs after more than 10 years? I think the result of demanding such support with software would be at the very least a doubling of the purchase price; I don't believe that people would be prepared to pay this.

Anglias. Happy days!

Bad analogy imho. Operating Systems are being expected to be made good from a point of release to a point years later, with evolving threats and attacks.

It's like Iraq blaming the USSR for the T-72 not being able to take on the Challenger.

I suppose you are personally happy to pay for this renewal?

Not all by myself!

Am I happy to pay for, say, the NHS to have up-to-date computer equipment? Most certainly. Don't you think they deserve the best?

I'm not particularly happy to put 5.5 million towards propping up obsolete equipment for just another year.

Thanks, I'm looking around the web for a new system the trouble is there are too many to look and choose from these days

10p per person in England & Wales to keep their data more secure. Versus the cost of the hardware required to run the software (which costs money), and the cost of the training of users to the new software. Not to mention upgrades of all 3rd party software to keep up with the new software and hardware, and all in times of cutting back on spending.

The same reasoning says that there will never be a good time to upgrade. That doesn't bode well for the future of the NHS.

Well there are better times to upgrade than others. For a start it would be better to upgrade when:

a) There's a better product to upgrade to (what advantage will other operating systems bring to general productivity?)

b) There's more money in the pot.

WIth PFI gutting the NHS budget, there might not be a good time for upgrades in the next 25 years.

Just replying here as this is the last post...


I have many XP PCs on the go.
The hardware wouldn't support Windows 8.x

In an ideal world Microsoft could have offered Windows 7 (which would run on many older PCs) at a reasonable price. But this isn't something they've currently chosen to do. MS Reps on Twitter have told me W7 is available and gave Amazon as an example. But economic versions look a bit iffy!

If anyone knows a safe/legit place to but Windows 7 please let me know

Post deleted by camieabz

No products found?

Wrong link. Closed the wrong window (that's irony, that is).

http://www.ebuyer.com/259867-microsoft-windows-7-pro...

In reply to a post by b4dger:

Just replying here as this is the last post...


I have many XP PCs on the go.
The hardware wouldn't support Windows 8.x

In an ideal world Microsoft could have offered Windows 7 (which would run on many older PCs) at a reasonable price. But this isn't something they've currently chosen to do. MS Reps on Twitter have told me W7 is available and gave Amazon as an example. But economic versions look a bit iffy!

If anyone knows a safe/legit place to but Windows 7 please let me know

The majority of computers that support Windows 7 will support Windows 8.1;
Cannot see any reason for Microsoft to supply cheap windows 7 when it is still supported.
The government will be paying for "if" support just in case any problems arise. Not for further development of OS.
Unlike the majority of Software Vendors, when you purchase the OS you get free upgrades as long as it is supported.
As a former employee in software industry, we only supplied support if
1) Maintenance was paid and software current or 1 previous release only.
2) OS and spec of hardware was to a minimum specification.
As software gets more sophisticated the more grunt required to run software effectively.
You cannot compare car recalls. These only happen if there is a design fault which could detrimentally affect other user; ie life threatening and insurance liability.

It is unfortunately true that many older processors and/or motherboards will not support Windows 8.1 even though they support Windows 8.0 and Windows 7. Windows 7 is probably the best bet for them (little chance that they will still be working when 7 goes out of support).

But I agree 100% with the rest of your points. It is far more appropriate to compare Windows support with that offered by other OS vendors. Apple is the only real competitor here for the general public and their support lasts for a far shorter period. You can't even buy an OS that will work on a pre-2005 Mac. By comparison Microsoft support is outstanding.

I'm not sure what the situation is with Linux, but I doubt that patches are still being produced for kernels that were extant when XP was released.

In reply to a post by Anji:

I don't think the argument about keeping old systems running holds water. Surely even Government departments write off computer equipment in less than seven years.

When you are looking at things like a change of O/S its not as simple as you at home. Its a massive problem.
We are currently in a change over from XP (works very well) to W7 (does not work as well).
Now I use W7 at home and have done for a while.
The issue is all the other software that is used to do the work. There are databases that departments have built up themselves to do certain tasks. Builder long since left. These do not work on W7....
Cost to get them working is not cheap, as well as get pushed to the back as important issues get raised (only 24 hours in every day for IT department to work)

Testing for our change over has been on going for over a year, and will be for a lot longer as well.

Its all well and good people saying it should have been done years ago... Bet they would soon be moaning about the waste of money on IT upgrades for such as this.

Time that the likes of Microsoft made a O/S that would last longer than a few years that companies could invest in. Knowing that in 5 years they would not have to shell out to upgrade.
Just because Microsoft cease support...

Microsoft got fined by the EU big time years ago...
Bet they have made back for more in the time since from the EU with upgrades that have not been needed.

Windows 7 is a very good OS and works perfectly well with modern software and hardware.

The problem MS had with XP is that with the leaps in hardware the kernel needed a major change to support it. That meant a rewrite to get things working correctly. MS have been supporting XP for almost 13 years - that is a very long lifecyle for an OS (and a lot more than the 5 years you state).

Any software company can only afford to support back versions for so long especially if they don't charge support contracts. Microsoft have gone above and beyond with XP including extending the support twice for customers. Support on MS's normal lifecycle should have ended 3 years ago (ie they support an OS for 10 years normally).

However, moving away from XP is much more difficult than most people think and I agree that getting old software (including browser based apps) to work in Windows 7 can be difficult and expensive. Our own programme has been running for 3 years and we have completed about 90% of rollout and are left with the really difficult ones to deal with to complete.

It can be difficult to replace some pieces of software that are crucial to the business and therefore either you have to change the way you do business or you have to find other ways around compatibility issues.

Terminal server may help in some cases but as Windows 2008 uses the W7 kernel you are left with Win 2003 - which itself goes out of support in 2015 so only gains a little over a year (and that is if the software will even work in a multi user environment and doesn't require direct hardware access).

Working in large environments with tight budgets makes moving from XP difficult. Even with masses of planning it is not an easy process and should not be underestimated. SMEs and tech companies will potentially be able to handle this more easily but large companies with wide ranging software requirements will always find this difficult to do.

yeah I told peeps on here the nhs is still using XP.

I am guessing 5.5million is considered cheaper than replacing hardware, buying new software licenses, retraining staff, reconfiguring software, checking software compatibility etc. But of course this isnt a long term thing its only 12 months so they only deffering the cost of all these things.

to be fair to microsoft competing OS's dont last anywhere near as long.

The world is moving to "rapid release" mainly due to google.