If you are still using XP, you are not alone.

you will find alot of large businesses will still be on win xp. Imagine updating your OS to find all your in-house built applications that your business is run on don't work and you have spent millions - billions on them not to mention the lost revenue/time in reverting back.

Or spending millions more just to upgrade it to the latest fad OS (assuming bug fixes aren't on the agenda) and then spending millions more to iron out other bugs from the upgrade.

*shivers at the thought of my workplace upgradin*
 
you will find alot of large businesses will still be on win xp. Imagine updating your OS to find all your in-house built applications that your business is run on don't work and you have spent millions - billions on them not to mention the lost revenue/time in reverting back.

Or spending millions more just to upgrade it to the latest fad OS (assuming bug fixes aren't on the agenda) and then spending millions more to iron out other bugs from the upgrade.

*shivers at the thought of my workplace upgradin*
Are you saying you should stick to Linix based OSs such as Mac?
 
Imagine updating your OS to find all your in-house built applications that your business is run on don't work and you have spent millions - billions on them not to mention the lost revenue/time in reverting back.

*

In my area of a business there is one company who shall remain nameless that has spent near 20 mill on a sw deal that simply doesnt do what it is supposed to ..................there was already good gear around, but no, we have to do our own thing ................


Lets hope the Jan upgrade makes it useable


ta
rolf
 
you will find alot of large businesses will still be on win xp. Imagine updating your OS to find all your in-house built applications that your business is run on don't work and you have spent millions - billions on them not to mention the lost revenue/time in reverting back.

Or spending millions more just to upgrade it to the latest fad OS (assuming bug fixes aren't on the agenda) and then spending millions more to iron out other bugs from the upgrade.

*shivers at the thought of my workplace upgradin*

Ex-ACT-ly! Our company writes specialised retail software, with real-time control applications. We have some customers who have JUST FINISHED updating from NT to XP! And there are still some out there running a full DOS system - hey, if it works, why change it!?

XP will be around for quite a while yet, IMO. Microsoft extended support continues until April 2014 (or May?)
 
I would love to find out what happened with the QH Payroll system as they implemented a SAP system, a system I chosed to base my career around since I first heard of it in uni.

I was placed in charge of supporting SAP payroll without any training at a previous employment and was even able to fix some issues, so to me the system was easy to use. That said, I do believe training should always be provided to use any major system in any organisation.

But reading this, which is always a huge no no for any system let alone SAP:

The report found that the project board decided to go live with the system, despite risks being pointed out to it. Among the board's decisions was to change the definition of severity one and severity two defects so the project could pass exit criteria.

During testing, the board decided not to undertake a full parallel pay run test because of the size and complexity of the task. In January, the testing company suggested the roll-out be delayed until a full system and integration test was completed. If that test was not done, the company said the board would have to accept the risk that untested scenarios might not go to plan.

The board chose to accept that risk over delaying the roll-out, the report said.
(source: http://www.zdnet.com.au/qld-health-payroll-problems-laid-bare-339304148.htm)

I would've sacked that board..
 
Started work with a blue chip that is in the infancy of a 25k+ rollout of Windows 7 workstations.
A big project.
MS makes it very hard to remain on old OS's for the big players which is good for us contractors and bad for the people who have to pay for it. Doesnt always offers advantages as many have pointed out.
 
id still be using XP if i didnt have to keep trying to learn how to use W7 to fix my mates computer every time he stuffed it up
so i got W7 so i knew what to do
i think its pretty good, alot better than vista
i bought my computer with vista and ended up finding a copy of XP to put on it
 
all justification for owning microsoft shares, especially with the high AU$ (so long as the purchase has been in recent times and not for 10 years, share price over 10 years hasnt done much, but earnings have been increasing nicely over this period)
 
all justification for owning microsoft shares, especially with the high AU$ (so long as the purchase has been in recent times and not for 10 years, share price over 10 years hasnt done much, but earnings have been increasing nicely over this period)

Surely you jest? I interpreted this thread to mean that there is no longer any overwhelming reason to upgrade every time Gates (or his successor) tells you to. Had you sold MS ten years ago and bought Apple, you'd be laughin' like a big green frog.

BTW Until very recently MS never paid a dividend. I don't give a rat's about profit held in the company structure to ensure the execs never go without.
 
Surely you jest? I interpreted this thread to mean that there is no longer any overwhelming reason to upgrade every time Gates (or his successor) tells you to. Had you sold MS ten years ago and bought Apple, you'd be laughin' like a big green frog.

BTW Until very recently MS never paid a dividend. I don't give a rat's about profit held in the company structure to ensure the execs never go without.

no not at all, one doesnt need to 'upgrade every time Gates tell you to' but one generally upgrades when they get a new PC. Given the PC replacement cycle is every 3-5 years, this means 'upgrading' every 3-5 years.

Microsofts earnings have been growing nicely on a long term basis, but the earnings growth is not exciting enouugh to capture the 'growth investor population'.

Refer to the attached graph, share price was too expensive 10 years ago relative to growth, hence over time the market price has done nothing whilst earnings are finally catching up to price.

http://www.gurufocus.com/financials.php?symbol=MSFT
 

Attachments

  • msft.png
    msft.png
    19 KB · Views: 54
Top