Governments pay Microsoft millions to continue support for “end of life” OS.
I find this article interesting–as in I’m a bit puzzled. I can understand a lot of companies being hesitant to move off of a more stable platform. However, Windows 7 is a fairly stable platform (as compared to Windows Vista, which came in-between XP and 7), and I can understand not wanting to upgrade all the way up to Windows 8.1, since that version is still working out the kinks. If these governments have had lots of forewarning that upgrades to Windows 7 (at least) needed to be done, why didn’t they heed the warning? Similarly, these governments are paying a lot of money just to maintain the status quo. In the long run, wouldn’t investment into new systems be more cost efficient? No special programs needed to be written for workarounds that would cost extra money? And with the US hospitals still using Windows XP–why can’t regulators be able to move on to certify programs compatible with Windows 7?
It seems to me that red tape is in the way of progress and efficiency in the long run. I know that in many cases, we’re talking tens of thousands–if not more–computers and systems that need to be upgraded. But what we expect of our governments and healthcare systems is that they are run smoothly and efficiently to process whatever it is for the public’s needs. When I was unemployed, the online forms used to complete each week to file for claims looked like something from 1992. I think my son could create something more efficient and user friendly, and he’s autistic, 12 years old, and not a programmer.
Resources are available, and there are plenty of IT professionals out there who could certainly help with this process, but “cost cutting” is always the bottom line in the government and at hospitals, isn’t it? But really, there are no real savings. Investment now should yield a better ROI (return on investment) than keeping things status quo. Some good content strategists and project managers are needed.
See on arstechnica.com