What is the longevity for XP?

[Bizman]

The company in question uses those old rigs in their shops. If my memory serves me right, the shopkeeper doesn't even have access to the Internet with those rigs. They are used on the selling desk for Intranet use to find product details and maybe also for their appointment calendar. Now that I think about it, they might not save anything on the local hard disk. Remotely administrated closed network with strict management rules. Safe and cheap.

Actually I have stumbled upon another international chain of gamer's shops who have a similar concept. They had to visit the Internet operator's shop in the next pit if they needed to google for something. 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The company in question uses those old rigs in their shops. If my memory serves me right, the shopkeeper doesn't even have access to the Internet with those rigs. They are used on the selling desk for Intranet use to find product details and maybe also for their appointment calendar. Now that I think about it, they might not save anything on the local hard disk. Remotely administrated closed network with strict management rules. Safe and cheap.

Actually I have stumbled upon another international chain of gamer's shops who have a similar concept. They had to visit the Internet operator's shop in the next pit if they needed to google for something. 

Wow, sounds awful for work ergonomy

Then again I used to work in a company that had a Windows 3.1 computer and a dos or unix based selling system, couldn't say which from the terminal. That was all that was needed for the shop. Was a pain in the bellybutton since you couldn't do much anything with the 3.1 - but luckily we didn't need to do much either. Orders were printed to a dot matrix printer directly etc.

The old sales system was about 10 times better than the new system that replaced it. The new system was sooo slow and lacked features, it wasn't even funny.

[Skuzzy]

Usually when a large company migrates to a new OS it means getting new hardware in the process

The IT management of the company bizman mentioned has to be seriously inept if they skimp cost by getting junk hardware (at least for any desktop use). Desktop work productivity has been shown to increase so much with current hardware and large double screens that the investment pays itself off in a few months.

Inept, or frugal?  

I'd like to see that study and who paid for it.  I can categorically state the Windows desktop is more of an impediment to me than any other single thing on my computer.  It digs into my productivity, in a huge way.  I am dreading when I have to switch to Windows 7 as it gets in the way of my productivity even more than XP does.

I have a very old 800Mhz P3 Linux system, at home, that I can get more done, faster, than I can with my state of the art Windows computer.

[Bizman]

I'd say frugal. They don't need to worry about malware or BHO's or toolbars at all. I guess the main reason for upgrading from NT to 2k was unavailability of motherboard and printer drivers for newer hardware.

As for productivity, I can't see any difference between an old workhorse or a brand new TD style dedicated rig when all that has to be done is to scroll an online product catalogue, check product availability in stock or manage bookings in the Intranet. Facebook status updating or watching funny Youtube clips don't add sales when there's a queue behind the desk. And on the ergonomic side, they can choose whatever type of a mouse, keyboard and monitor they wish.

[Gatr]

It's simple  !!!! I say we all go back to Windows ME and call it a day  lol… I really liked ME... I had a heck of a time giving up on it... although it saved me from the hell they called VISTA.. talk about a POS WOWIE
I won't bring up the 8 bata I am running.. :0
Salute
Gatr

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Inept, or frugal?  

I'd like to see that study and who paid for it.  I can categorically state the Windows desktop is more of an impediment to me than any other single thing on my computer.  It digs into my productivity, in a huge way.  I am dreading when I have to switch to Windows 7 as it gets in the way of my productivity even more than XP does.

I have a very old 800Mhz P3 Linux system, at home, that I can get more done, faster, than I can with my state of the art Windows computer.

When people do a desktop job like coding or text processing, it's hugely beneficial to be able to open up several documents, web pages etc. to the screen at once. That's why antique hardware with tiny screens is going to give a major blow to productivity.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I'd say frugal. They don't need to worry about malware or BHO's or toolbars at all. I guess the main reason for upgrading from NT to 2k was unavailability of motherboard and printer drivers for newer hardware.

This is far from the truth. As long as the user has access to personal email or USB memory sticks the system is just as vulnerable as any. The only protection they have is against information leak if they're really disconnected from general internet.

This, then will require either dedicated copper (very very expensive) or a private subnet which artificially blocks everyone from the internet. If the users can't even access their e-mail on their machines ... well I'd say that's pretty huge pitfall in terms of functionality too.

If they can at least select their monitors and input devices, then it makes a little more sense I guess. But they're still dealing with aged hardware that has run thousands of hours - those old boxes must be unrealiable as hell causing support cost to rise.

[Skuzzy]

When people do a desktop job like coding or text processing, it's hugely beneficial to be able to open up several documents, web pages etc. to the screen at once. That's why antique hardware with tiny screens is going to give a major blow to productivity.

I do coding, text processing, database design, network applications, and so on.  A lot of it.  I have no problem, at all having a dozen, or so, things going on at one time using a CLI.  UNIX has had virtual screen switching far longer than Windows has been around.  I also have job/task notification between screens, which does not interfere with what I would be currently doing, unlike Windows which insists on switching focus when an application issues a popup.  I can move a job to run in the background or bring it to the foreground in any screen I want.

I can do all that on a 19 inch screen and again, far more efficiently than Windows does it on a 55 inch screen.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I do coding, text processing, database design, network applications, and so on.  A lot of it.  I have no problem, at all having a dozen, or so, things going on at one time using a CLI.  UNIX has had virtual screen switching far longer than Windows has been around.  I also have job/task notification between screens, which does not interfere with what I would be currently doing, unlike Windows which insists on switching focus when an application issues a popup.  I can move a job to run in the background or bring it to the foreground in any screen I want.

I can do all that on a 19 inch screen and again, far more efficiently than Windows does it on a 55 inch screen.

That's a matter of personal preference. You can get multiple desktops for windows also. It saves time and helps focusing on the work when you can have two or three documents open at the same time without having to switch from a desktop to another. I always work with 2 screens when possible.

You also have to realize that while you, a long time computer expert, have no problem switching through multiple desktops and whatnot, an average office worker who doesn't master even control+c/control+v shortcuts is not going to zoom past desktops. He needs a large real estate to work with.

[Skuzzy]

That's a matter of personal preference. You can get multiple desktops for windows also. It saves time and helps focusing on the work when you can have two or three documents open at the same time without having to switch from a desktop to another. I always work with 2 screens when possible.

You also have to realize that while you, a long time computer expert, have no problem switching through multiple desktops and whatnot, an average office worker who doesn't master even control+c/control+v shortcuts is not going to zoom past desktops. He needs a large real estate to work with.

No, the difference is I took the time to learn how to use a system in the most efficient manner possible.  Windows is an extreme impediment to that.  Windows forces everyone to work how Microsoft thinks you should work.  UNIX is the opposite of that.  With UNIX, you can tailor/configure a system to do exactly what it needs to do, thus helping the person become more efficient at using it.

I used to work in an engineering department which used Apple computers.  After a year I had everyone switched and trained on UNIX systems.  Productivity was off the scale.  All the other engineering departments were forced to UNIX because they could never figure out how our department got so many things done, so quickly, and with fewer mistakes.

[Bizman]

This is far from the truth. As long as the user has access to personal email or USB memory sticks the system is just as vulnerable as any. The only protection they have is against information leak if they're really disconnected from general internet.
If they can at least select their monitors and input devices, then it makes a little more sense I guess. But they're still dealing with aged hardware that has run thousands of hours - those old boxes must be unrealiable as hell causing support cost to rise.

The fact is, the user doesn't have access to anywhere else than the product catalogue and the calendar, restricted by user management. If anything needs to be installed, like a printer, the local user puts the installation cd in and calls to the admin, who remotely logs in and does the job. IMO with that policy even plugging a malware loaded memory stick in can't do any harm, unless one is left in place during the very seldom remote administrative tasks. Speaking about support costs, the worst that could happen would be the computer breaking right in the middle of sending/printing the sales report of the day. If that should happen, the admins would send a "new" rig, the shopkeeper would plug it into the net, log in, send the broken one to the admins for digging out the last report and continue as if nothing had happened. Of course their monitors and input devices are neat enough to match their glittery product stands.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

No, the difference is I took the time to learn how to use a system in the most efficient manner possible.  Windows is an extreme impediment to that.  Windows forces everyone to work how Microsoft thinks you should work.  UNIX is the opposite of that.  With UNIX, you can tailor/configure a system to do exactly what it needs to do, thus helping the person become more efficient at using it.

I used to work in an engineering department which used Apple computers.  After a year I had everyone switched and trained on UNIX systems.  Productivity was off the scale.  All the other engineering departments were forced to UNIX because they could never figure out how our department got so many things done, so quickly, and with fewer mistakes.

But in real life people are forced to use windows The general public could never migrate to unix, it would take months of training.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The fact is, the user doesn't have access to anywhere else than the product catalogue and the calendar, restricted by user management. If anything needs to be installed, like a printer, the local user puts the installation cd in and calls to the admin, who remotely logs in and does the job. IMO with that policy even plugging a malware loaded memory stick in can't do any harm, unless one is left in place during the very seldom remote administrative tasks. Speaking about support costs, the worst that could happen would be the computer breaking right in the middle of sending/printing the sales report of the day. If that should happen, the admins would send a "new" rig, the shopkeeper would plug it into the net, log in, send the broken one to the admins for digging out the last report and continue as if nothing had happened. Of course their monitors and input devices are neat enough to match their glittery product stands.

It seems that they have an extremely limited use for the computers. In fact so limited that one has to wonder why they bother with windows at all.

[Skuzzy]

But in real life people are forced to use windows The general public could never migrate to unix, it would take months of training.

People are not "forced" to use anything.  They use Windows because Microsoft has ("had" actually since they have started dismantling it) a world class marketing department who convinced everyone that they needed Windows.

Learning to use a UNIX system is no different that learning to use Windows.  If you are not familiar with either, then you have to learn and be trained.

When I was first plopped down in front of an Apple computer to write drivers for it, I had an Apple engineer help me.  It took a week to teach me enough to keep me from locking it up every 30 minutes.

There is no such thing as an "intuitive" computer system.  My daughter grew up on UNIX and the CLI.  First time she was plopped in front of a Windows box, she just about threw the monitor and mouse out the window.  Her frustration with the "handicapped" way the system operated was overwhelming.

I am not saying Windows does not have a place, but its very design does inhibit productivity.  Yes, you would have to spend more time training someone to be efficient using a UNIX system, but higher productivity pays off in the long term or you can suffer mediocre productivity, right from the start, with Windows.

[FLOTSOM]

People are not "forced" to use anything.  They use Windows because Microsoft has ("had" actually since they have started dismantling it) a world class marketing department who convinced everyone that they needed Windows.

Learning to use a UNIX system is no different that learning to use Windows.  If you are not familiar with either, then you have to learn and be trained.

When I was first plopped down in front of an Apple computer to write drivers for it, I had an Apple engineer help me.  It took a week to teach me enough to keep me from locking it up every 30 minutes.

There is no such thing as an "intuitive" computer system.  My daughter grew up on UNIX and the CLI.  First time she was plopped in front of a Windows box, she just about threw the monitor and mouse out the window.  Her frustration with the "handicapped" way the system operated was overwhelming.

I am not saying Windows does not have a place, but its very design does inhibit productivity.  Yes, you would have to spend more time training someone to be efficient using a UNIX system, but higher productivity pays off in the long term or you can suffer mediocre productivity, right from the start, with Windows.

can UNIX run AH?

what kind of system do you need for UNIX, is it Apple only?