NAB walks path to Windows 7

By Liam Tung, ZDNet.com.au

20 April 2009 04:30 PM

Tags: bank, cba, centrelink, commbank, operating system, windows 7, windows xp, bennett

National Australia Bank (NAB) is testing Windows 7 to assess its viability for an upgrade from Windows XP, which it finished migrating to last year.

A spokesperson for the bank today confirmed to ZDNet.com.au that Windows 7 tests with Microsoft were proceeding under the software giant's Application Compatibility Factory. NAB currently supports around 700 applications.

The bank is a key partner to Microsoft, according to the spokesperson, who said NAB was the "only organisation in the Asia-Pacific region" which was a member of the so-called global Microsoft Deployment Council.

"This provides NAB with the forum to provide input on product strategy and development and deployment plans," the spokesperson said. "NAB has a strong strategic relationship with Microsoft, so we can remain current and leverage Microsoft innovations to best support the bank."

NAB was one of the last Australian banks to move to Windows XP. Last year it completed the migration of 28,000 desktops from the unsupported Windows NT operating system. NAB's desktops were until recently managed by Telstra; however, it ditched the telco last year for IBM, under a deal that is set to expire in 2010.

Any future upgrade of NAB's desktop operating platform is likely to be a low priority compared to broader changes occurring within the bank. NAB last month announced it would replace incumbent CIO Michelle Tredenick, who was heading up its $1 billion core banking system overhaul and overseeing its IT offshoring efforts, which were thwarted by the financial scandal its major IT outsourcing partner Satyam recently underwent. Incoming CIO Adam Bennet is expected to start this month.

The spokesperson said NAB "welcomed" the announcement that Satyam's fellow Indian outsourcer Tech Mahindra will take a majority stake in Satyam, but added that NAB had no plans to hand over any further processes to the company.

NAB's Windows 7 tests put it ahead of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in terms of testing Microsoft's new system. CBA recently revealed it had not tested the new operating system in its production environment because Windows 7 was still in beta.

Welfare agency Centrelink is the only other large Australian organisation known to have tested the new operating system, with the agency giving an enthusiastic response to tests so far.

Other federal agencies such as the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship are yet to test Windows 7, while the Department of Defence and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service — the only major Australian organisation to adopt Vista — both claim to have no plans to migrate to Windows 7.

Talkback (36)
Print
E-mail
Share
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Reddit
- Slashdot
- StumbleUpon

Talkback 36 comments

Add your opinion

This doesn't make sense. Gavin Bollard -- 21/04/09

The bit about the Commonwealth Bank "CBA recently revealed it had not tested the new operating system in its production environment because Windows 7 was still in beta." makes perfect sense.

What NAB is doing doesn't. Why would you test an unreleased beta operating system in your production environment? What's the rush to move to it? Surely they've got better things to do.

Windows 7 Beta NAB Test Anonymous -- 23/04/09 (in reply to #320130794)

Gavin -

I understand your point. Though I would see some benefit in a limited production test (eg. half a dozen non-business crtical machines) to get an early indication of likely issues and to be able to raise them with Microsoft. I suspect there is also some pressure on NAB to participate in this given their close relationship with Microsoft, which undoubtedly offers some pricing concessions for their beta participation

It does make sense. Anonymous -- 23/04/09

The article pointed out that the tests "with Microsoft were proceeding under the software giant's Application Compatibility Factory". The testing isn't happening in a production environment at NAB, rather in Microsoft's lab's and is to determine application compatibility.

A better idea Robert McK -- 27/04/09

Why don't Comm Bank and NAB et al migrate to Linux, like the German government and the French Police Force, and save themselves a packet?

Actually,,,, a worse idea Anonymous -- 01/05/09

Linux is not always the answer, unless of course you are a linux fanboy, and NAB are not. Total cost of ownership is significantly lower in Windows environments when it comes to desktops.

Linux support technicians are harder to come by and hence more expensive, supported software is thinner on the ground (and likely to be totally incompatible with anything they are currently running, so there are HUGE migration costs), and retraining staff to use an unfamiliar environment is VERY expensive.

A corporate linux environment only makes sense on the server side, not the desktop side - they would be saving NEGATIVE millions of dollars by running linux.

Where is the evidence? Anonymous -- 02/05/09 (in reply to #320133472)

"they would be saving NEGATIVE millions of dollars by running linux."

Really? Facts please.

Actually a worse idea Anonymous -- 04/05/09 (in reply to #320133472)

Sure, in the short term and if you don't count productivity losses largely specific to Window's environments which continue to be incurred from Windows generation to generation, platform to platform. Changing to Linux is a hard pill to swallow, operationally and (short-term) financially. The real question is how the ongoing indirect and distributed (i.e. user productivity) costs are quantified - or not.

Bwahaha Anonymous -- 04/05/09 (in reply to #320133472)

And all linux users are long haired, smell ridden, acne invested social failures, right?

You're way out of touch, mate. Linux is not just popular, it's growing in popularity. The latest Ubuntu desktop is on a par with/better than the Windows 7 RC 7100 release for end user usability. The next release of Gnome promises to eclipse any current user experience on the market, including Windows 7.

Database support? Postgresql.

Web Serving? Apache

Web Applications? Glassfish, Tomcat, Websphere, etc etc. All enterprise quality.

Firewalling? Built right into the kernel as a module, along with a superior network stack.

Enterprise directory services? LDAP, or if you want to use exchange, Evolution or Crossover.

Kerberos mutual authentication? Right there buddy.

Advanced scriptable system maintenance and scheduling? Above and beyond.

Secure environments? Runs off a live CD.

Enterprise quality spam filtering? Yep. Virus scanning? yep, not that it's necessary.

File systems with journaling, encryption, and built in ACL support? yep.

Windows application compatibilty? Yep, Xen or KVM parallised if you want to virtualise it, or Wine which will run pretty much most stuff the banks would be using without any issues.

TCO? WAY less than windows environments. Most of the cost in deploying Linux are one off costs of training of staff, ironicaly, about the same price as deploying windows environments (those licenses aren't free you know, and support contracts? Whooeee MS charges by the pound of flesh!). Linux ongoing costs are marginal, not so for windows.

Yeah, I think that's enough for now.

Fan boy Anonymous -- 04/05/09 (in reply to #320134479)

Nearly everything you just listed is server platform technology and not relevant.

The original poster is right, Linux is staggeringly expensive in manpower and resources to implement and manage. I know, I just watched it happen at our org in the server space and that involved relatively good IT staff.

Desktops:
Centralised group policy style management of the OS is a must (RHEL Satellite). A consistent, controlled SOE that can be managed by low skilled techs reduces costs like you would not believe. When HR says they want their innovative "motivational screensaver/wallpaper" pushed out to 3000 distributed desktops you need a solution that gets it out there by the end of the month. No you can not "Just write some scripts"!

If the C class guys dont like it because his favorite app to integrate his nokia isn't there or his kids cant run WoW you have no chance. If their secretaries dont like the formatting options and font support in Open Office you have no chance. If the sales guy cant get his windows video to run in his powerpoint presentation you're toast.

HR and the CFO better see the money. Retraining 3000 people to do basic activities they can already do because the last employer showed them is going to cost a LOT. Its going to put a lot of strain on the corporate helpdesk and those IT staff are going to have to be retrained. Whats more you are going to have to train EVERY NEW EMPLOYEE you hire because no one else is teaching them. If you have even moderate churn your costs go on forever.

IE is a fact of life for most corporates. The Intranet they built on .net/activex or Domino that cost a million dollars developing must run.

The collections of bizarre legacy apps the company has must run without migration costs. Having just dug through config files full of references to C:\ or entries in the registry I've seen this first hand. Now imagine doing that for hundreds of apps. No thanks. The corp dev team will kill. If they (and they will) have an investment in the existing apps/language you have no chance. Migrate developing platforms? Retrain the dozens if not hundreds of developers? I dont think so.

Finally Linux is not free. No enterprise is going to take a free unsupported application. They must have risk management and a legal scapegoat to escalate to. Which leaves you with RHEL5 and they bleed you dry with licensing, scoping, migrations and 3rd level support.

Linux desktop might be feasible for small business but even then your stretching it. I cant imagine the pain of working with it in a place that has 28,000 desktops.

Stick to using it for Apache.

Interesting Points Rex Alfie Lee -- 05/05/09 (in reply to #320134486)

I wonder how the ongoing costs of deploying M$ is going to cost. NAB & the other banks have all spent huge volumes of money over the years developing their own software & each one almost replicates the others. They used to do it on Unix & most of the processing software would still be available if necessary. Developing a central enterprise control application wouldn't be cheap but it'd be a damn site cheaper than M$'s ongoing costs. It would also be a sales outlet for them if they wanted. I'm pretty sure there are versions around anyway but as you say you have to know how to use them & that takes training. The difference here is that you can make a script & upload it to every one of 23000 computers if need be & with a little less running around from site to site as is needed by the M$ version.

The training required is minimal for the teller operators. Most of this is done by server anyway & works on the screen. IE is not a must as you say. That statement is full of it. Firefox is more secure for starters.

The cost of security within an M$ shop is incredibly high whereas the same is not true in a Linux shop. There is no comparison here other than the dollar cost. The absence of real issues here for Linux is immense in the security game & most of the issues that Windows brings will never be contained because of networking not being the basis of the computer. The UNIX-likeness for Linux means that many of the vulnerabilities are inherently not there because these have been dealt with over the past 30 to 50 years by the UNIX folk & Linux folk since then.

If you want the support from a major corp then that is par for the course that you will pay for it. I still believe that you will find out that using Linux improves upon the expense of using Windows to a large degree. It will take a bank to make Linux perhaps or maybe a Govt in Oz.

Rexie Babeee Strikes again Anonymous -- 11/05/09 (in reply to #320134529)

Interesting assertions Rex. I'm assuming this is based on your massive experience? I keep finding lots of Linux people writing this crap are flat out supporting some small business. Ever worked in an IT dept supporting more than, say, 100 users? Or are you a hobbyist?

What a load... Anonymous -- 05/05/09 (in reply to #320134486)

"A consistent, controlled SOE".. Consistent? In what respect? Its ability to reduce users to tears? Controlled? Yeah, but by whom...

Retraining staff to move from MS office apps to e.g. Open Office? Missing formats and fonts? What arrogance. Anyone who can live with MS Word et al can be fully productive with OO. IE a corporate fact of life? Ever wandered down an aisle and seen how many of these implied 'need to be retrained users' run other browsers? Retrain hundreds of developers? What do you think they are? Stupid?

Linux for small business users? Alas, here we see the true arrogance of the self-proclaimed ivory tower IT guru. Get a life, look around and divest yourself of the fear of becoming an obsolete MS advocate.

Interesting comment Jack Bauer -- 11/05/09 (in reply to #320134486)

Did you have a price comparison for:

A) The Linux solution + support you mention in your post

B) A Windows solution which Implements the same functionality?

ignorance and accuracy are mutually exclusive Anonymous -- 12/05/09 (in reply to #320134486)

You have one, and not the other.

Linux had group policy management and in-built access control long before enterprise even thought of bringing it to windows. Hardened linux/SEClinux goes not just one step futher, but many steps.

Linux supports hosted desktops natively, through the XOrg graphical server, and can handle connections by named pipe, tcp, ssh'ed tunnels and a number of other technologies. In this day and age, there is no reason nor excuse for providing local desktop services to the majority of staff.

Training people to use Linux is NOT the cost it used to be - in fact, reviews of Ubuntu 9.0.4 put it at a grade of usability above that of the incoming Windows 7. Most people who were raised on XP or 98 still have to be trained to use Vista, by the way, and that device that won't work under linux? Sorry, no Vista drive for it either, better hope like hell you're not using Vista 64. Linux device support is superior to every other operating system on the market, unless you're buying right on the bleeding edge, in which case as we are discussing enterprise "You're a damned fool!".

Open Office presents an interface that requires no retraining. It is an accurate match to the comfortable Word97, PP97 etc interfaces that everyone is used to, and that are almost universally prefered over the confusing Ribbon design of the later office products. A lot of companies had to soak the costs of retraining their staff to use the new office products after the interface changed so radically.

IE can be run through WINE if you really need it, but again, in this day and age, there is no excuse for running an well acknowledged buggy and inferior browser. Domino? Domino on Linux has been available for over 7 years. Apache can run almost every .NET web application via mod_mono. If you're coding active-X then that is your fault. No one does ActiveX any more. Spend the money and upgrade your tech, rewrite what you have to - it is cheaper in the long run than trying to maintain a flawed system in an increasingly security hostile environment. But hey, if you want to deploy an ActiveX enabled web application, that supports neither accessibility, nor Mac, Linux, or Mobile users, in the modern digital world, well... hey, it's your corporate suicide, not mine.

Where I work, we built our networks on Netware, and have just migrated to a new infrastructure - managed exchange and document hosting, support for secure VPNs from home and on the move/on site, virtualised desktops and application serving. Not only can it be done, but it should be done if you value your company's ability to compete in the modern digital economy. Dinosaurs will be left in the dust as their insecure, out dated, out moded, and disfunctional software and hardware infrastructure becomes a legacy consideration to the rest.

The end point of all this is just this: "You don't have a clue." - tell you what, get some real time experience working with the latest linux products and distributions, and linux based solutions on the market right now, then come back and discuss.

We just moved from Delphi7/J2ee to bare metal virtualisation of C#/.NET appliances, from Netware4 and Lotus Notes to hosted exchange and document management, from individual desktop machines to thin client infrastructure served over gigabit networking, 3G modems, and individual laptops that are automatically upgraded every year as part of the supply contract.

Has this had a cost? Yes, of course, but that cost is nothing compared to the ongoing maintenance costs of legacy networks, legacy software design and development infrastructure, legacy security controls, et al.

Finally, you opened with "Nearly everything you listed in server platform technology and not relevant". That is the most ridiculous statement I have read in this discussion. Enterprise is almost exclusively concerned with server technologies - whether it's mobile services, exchange and email, web applications, client-server software archite

Linux Total Cost of Ownership gets LOWER in volume Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 12/05/09 (in reply to #320135931)

I've used every M$ OS since PCDOS 1.0 in 1982,.. but I agree that it was wrong to claim that Linux distributed to a large number of workstations in a large organisation would be more expensive than the M$ proprietary route. The larger the number of workstations involved, the MORE sense it makes to run a friendly GUI Linux like Ubuntu.

With an M$ 'rebuild' you need to source original OS disks (where are they kept?) or dig around for just the right sub-species install disks with a Certificate of Authenticity number.. it takes ages to re-establish just the OS. Then you have to do the same with each proprietary application. And the whole process requires an IT tech to be present. In comparision, with Linux, you can have a $12 device (4GB USB stick) in each branch, and if the PC has major problems, you simply reboot the PC with the stick inserted and it will boot off the stick and then dupe install Ubuntu and all the apps, including open office to make the PC 'like new'... and if that doesn't work you know it was a hardware problem. With M$, you can't do thinks like that in an identical way, simply because you need to have each installation done 'de novo' to put in the serial numbers as part of the install process.

And on user training, I've found that Open Office with the Australian Spelling Dictionary plug-in, and one-click PDF conversion is FAR better for users than saving things in DOCX format. As to OS training, Ubuntu is truer to the familiar Win98/XP interface than any later M$ OS.

And teller PCs in a bank branch do almost ALL of their functionality as dumb terminals (or at most have 'smart terminal' status), with all the transactions actually stored elsewhere, and all on-screen (except some viewing templates) being retrieved from elsewhere... so they are in fact perfect candidates for a simple/robust Linux use....

But kiddies, why worry about what the banks will do. Let's remember that they will never be hot-beds of innovation... (arguably for good reason). Remember the banks changed from EBCDIC character coding to ASCII some decades after most people had changed. Banks are slowly changing from point-to-point 'leased line' telecom links to IP-based networks about 15-20 years later than most. And for decades after others had shifted to 'servers', the big banks were running almost exclusively on mainframes, claiming servers could never play a role in the type of work banks had to do. Banks have in fact always been at the very tail end of IT innovation. Yes, they have IT budgets many times larger than most, but for them to change a major database or accounting system, they report development costs in the hundreds of millions (with a negligible hardware component), whereas other organisations with comparably complex environments might feel embarrassed to report a similar changeover costing a hundredth of that cost! So don't ever assume banks are about IT efficiency - yes they have economies of scale in sheer transaction volumes, but hopeless efficiency ratings on most other measures.

So in short, it is purely academic to argue if a bank ought support Linux.... They will do so about a decade after it first seemed sensible to do so... but when do make the change, they will big-note how innovative they've been!

NSW DET Anonymous -- 14/05/09 (in reply to #320135968)

Well NSW DET came to a far different conclusion Graeme! Time to get off that horse and into a car..

Original source OS disks .. product keys.. bollocks .. you haven't kept up with much in the past few years have you? With half a brain & a day up your sleeve - all dealt with.

Large Govt Depts as Backward as Banks Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 18/05/09 (in reply to #320136214)

Are you seriously citing the NSW government as being innovative, informed or wise at decision-making? Virtually every decision made by NSW since at least Bob Carr's departure has been howled down by the residents. They cancelled the long-planned rail links to the newer suburbs and instead proposed to spend the same amount ($5-6b) building a metro that would deposit all riders to a peninsula (the terminus) just 3km from the CBD, with no on-going transport links. Every transport guru has disapproved, and the Federal infrastructure body refused to fund it.

NSW DET said that the fact that most of their staff was already familiar with Windows was a deciding factor, so I don't think you can assume they really looked at TCO. Besides, as I've suggested, Ubuntu is closer to WinXP than Vista is to WinXP. To get the kiddies hooked, M$ will go to extreme lengths (giving away software they sell to others) to get the kids initially hooked. Some claim that it is the similarities that cause only the software and illicit drug industries to both share the nomenclature of using the word "users" instead of "customers".

As to not needing product keys any more with M$ products, only in the past four weeks did I spend a useless half-hour on the product number phone of M$ seeking to get a legal re-install. Under M$ rules, if you have a valid licence number for a supra-product, you are still not allowed to use it for the base product. I had a valid XPpro CoA# and was trying to get away with using just plain XP install disks on the system, but M$ insisted that XPpro was a "different" operating system to XP and not a supra-set, so the operator could NOT give me a number to get the validly-licenced XP box to work. Of course it was just an issue of what install disks I had to hand, but it is always frustrating installing each product one at a time, based on unique licence numbers.

And as for your suggestion that an M$ OS can be re-installed as easily as Ubuntu, when you can show me the 'just reboot with a USB stick in' and all is restored, let me know, and I will come for the demo!

And finally, if you are to make claims and expect them to be believed, please give your real name and email address, as using 'anon' leads to the natural inference that you are not really standing behind what you say, or that you are coming from a position of bias.

For crying out loud!! Anonymous -- 19/05/09 (in reply to #320136708)

..your initial statements were about corporate environments.. now you are telling me you are dumb enough to lose personal documentation? And take the Windows license sticker off your PC? Left your head in bed? (thank goodnes that's screwed on or you'd be losing that too). Get a filing cabinet. Put the stuff that comes with the PC in it. It's not hard. Just good old fashioned common sense.

And the USB option ain't be be all and end all, give me a network connection, PXE boot, and all is yours... and all with no requirement for IT to be involved .. self service by the end user ... sweeet

Unbelievable. Get over yourself.

SMH article confirms M$ 'nightmare' to reinstall Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 21/05/09 (in reply to #320136797)

The contributor who dare not share his name (anonymous) claims I was incorrect in noting the difficulties of re-installing M$ OS and Office products. Yet just today (21may09) there is an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which (for reasons of copyright) I cite only a minimum extract for research/discussion purposes:

Microsoft's product activation nightmares
- Dave Thompson

Product activation is becoming the norm as companies try to stop piracy. So why do they make it so unpleasant?

It occurred to me recently there is one aspect of computing many users may never have encountered - Microsoft's product licensing and activation system.
...
Microsoft took notice and ... tighten things up so legitimate owners have to jump through even more hoops to prove their copy is genuine, especially if they have had to change their hardware for some reason.
...
I say horrible because the reactivation process often turns into one of those two-hours-on-the-phone-to-someone-who-can't-understand-you deals where at the end of it, all you want to do is commit self-harm.

Microsoft automatically assumes you are trying to drive them to the poor house by installing your software on other machines.
...
I'm not making this up: activation can be an enormously frustrating process and one which, in our line of work, we have to do every other day, usually when we have replaced dead hardware on a machine.

I imagine people using pirated copies don't have to suffer any of this. Mind you, they can't update Windows either and many end up getting hit with nasty exploits.

Even so, after activation nightmares, that may seem appealing.
The Press, New Zealand
[end of SMH partial extract]

Dill Anonymous -- 21/05/09 (in reply to #320137034)

Well my friend - I've rebuilt many XP & Vista PC's over the years and never had a problem.

Huh? Anonymous -- 14/05/09 (in reply to #320135968)

Why is not saving to docx better for users? I'm happily using the Office 07 pdf plug in and saving files to .docx ... and the problem is??

DOCX is the latest in a long pedigree of M$-changed doc formats Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 18/05/09 (in reply to #320136215)

The world got tired of M$ simply changing the 'standard' for saving word processing files. Remember all those different standards, all called 'dot doc' but never really compatible? One EU study, noted that there were many incompatible changes in document formats, including the now-defunct RTF format, which was intended to remove the problem, but again it was a 'standard' purely under the control of M$, and M$ could not keep to the standard. The 'Valoris Report' review of open document vs M$ Office formats is at www.europa.eu.int/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=17982 and M$ response at http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=17984 Dec08

After the International Standards Organisation standardised on the Open Office's Open Document Format, M$ panicked, as it seemed that M$ would be kicked out of even US state contracts for not conforming to the world standard. So M$ borrowed from the IBM book and came out with some FUD. They (M$) would also have a format standard. And just to confuse corporates, the M$ standard to compete with Open Office would be called "Office Open" - how better to muddy the waters.

Then multiple-felon M$ went on a corrupt binge, seeking to use as many "Irregularities" (bribes, committee stacking etc) as possible to get the M$ Office Open also approved as ISO standard. The irregularities are all well documented at: www.noooxml.org/irregularities and the response by ISO has been to (belatedly) outlaw all such actions in respect of future standards committee, in that in the relevant countries, such bribes were often not illegal.

Now M$ claims that their standard will be controlled by an external committee... but given they've proven how well they stack committees, many wonder if this means any change at all from the past 25+ years of non-adherence to standards. As one can read in the Halloween Documents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents)
M$ approach to standards is "Embrace, Enhance (and thereby) Extinguish".

And the one-click PDF export function is a copy pure-and-simply from Open Office... Just as IE7 is seeking to copy many of the better features of Firefox. So the proprietary software is playing catch-up in so many respects with the free/open/standards-based software... so I know which one I prefer... besides my general preference to not be associated with nor fund multiple-felons. But I understand that everyone will have different levels of principles in this regard.

Serial Whiner Anonymous -- 19/05/09 (in reply to #320136698)

...the serial whiner Graeme strikes again.. Go tilt at windmills somewhere else ya big jessie.

Uh-huh Anonymous -- 20/05/09 (in reply to #320136698)

So where were these pristine 'principles' of yours when you were busily activating Windows XP? What a pretentious windbag...

Are you for real?? Anonymous -- 19/05/09 (in reply to #320135968)

Have you ever worked in a corporate environment? finding source CDs?? Looking for certificate of authenticity numbers. None of this happens in a true management corporate environment.

Woes of re-installing M$ products Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 21/05/09 (in reply to #320136780)

'Anon' claimed "finding source CDs? Looking for certificates of authenticity numbers. None of this happens in a true management corporate environment." I conclude that he AGREES that the rigmarole involved in re-installing M$ product for "average users" (individuals, small business and medium-sized businesses) IS indeed very frustrating. His comment confirms that very large corporates and M$ alike agree - the proof being that they seek to have 'work-arounds' for the very largest M$ users.

Well, I hate to say it, but the vast bulk of PC users fall into the 'great unwashed' category, who do not have ready access to 'work-arounds' for the most frustrating parts of the M$ total experience. But, if they go with www.ubuntu.com they too need never again worry about an installation licence number or source CDs, etc. In other words, Ubuntu (and other full-GUI Linux varieties) offer the average end-user the type of ease-of-use that M$ extends only to government and Top100 corporates!

As to why I would seek to re-install WinXP, I prefer dual-boot Ubuntu+WinXP PCs, as some older apps were written for a purely-M$ world. Besides, if your PC has TWO front doors, you will never suffer the type of crash that might rob you of your data. With a typical 120GB laptop hard disk drive, I've found it best to format up your WinXP boot partition at around 35GB, and leave all except 20GB of the remainder as another NTFS partition (for your data) THEN install Ubuntu Linux into 16GB of that remaining partition, with a 4GB swap partition. You will then have the simple Ubuntu GRUB menu that lets you boot into WinXP or Ubuntu and both will have full access to your data volume. Moreover, as each OS will be doing all its intensive re-writing of settings etc to its own partition, any crash due to power brownout etc while doing so will never risk your data volume. And if either OS becomes corrupt, you will still be able to fully access all of the data via the other boot option. This is FAR more reliable than 'restore' CDs for a single OS, as there can be a huge range of data corruption errors. [And yes, before anyone claims that all such data is on the same phsical medium, I also advise backing up your data to an external drive routinely.] Further, the EXT3 drive format of Linux introduced journaling of file system changes to protect against power loss. The now standard EXT4 adds checksums to those journals, to further protect against any form of corruption. Aside from being an open standard, this drive format offers significantly better data integrity than NTFS.

However, not all users will want to jump to Linux at this stage. But I strongly urge even staunch M$ OS users to standardise on Open Office (www.openoffice.org), Firefox browser and Thunderbird email app (both from www.mozilla.org), as these are world-leading applications in the major fields of office, web and email apps.... And then they will always have the latest update by way of fortnightly updates. The proprietary approach is that the supplier WANTS your application to get out of date, so that every 3-4 years they can sell you a new version. With Open Source, the suppliers know you will never buy another thing from them, but they want the largest possible userbase, so they give you the latest improvements as a matter of routine update. Besides, if you are on the OO/Firefox/T'bird combo, you keep your OS upgrade options fully open. Whether you elect to go Win7 or Linux, you'll be using precisely the same application set, and would need to 'look twice' to confirm which OS is underneath those apps. It also means that even if your work wants to stay on the M$ treadmill, you can have a fully-equivalent PC at home with similar functionality all for free. With truly free and open software, you have need of neither windows nor gates!

Open Office Anonymous -- 21/05/09 (in reply to #320137049)

Open Office??? You've got to be kidding. It's battling to do what Office 95 does. No thanks.

Open Office meets all normal users' needs Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 24/05/09 (in reply to #320137111)

I've used Office for 25 years, and OpenOffice for 4 years. I believe OO does everything any normal/typical user needs from an Office Productivity Pack and more. The difference is that OO uses the originally-agreed-upon ISO standard format, and does not try to 'stitch up' users by steering them into formats and 'standards' that are lock-ins for continued royalty payments to M$.

Have you ever a[0nv -- 21/05/09 (in reply to #320137049)

...sold software for a profit Graeme me old chum?

Only Anti-Competitive For-Profit is Illegal Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 24/05/09 (in reply to #320137310)

Anon calls me 'chum', but still won't identify himself?

Yes, I've had decades in IT, all in 'for-profit' enterprises. I'm not a communist. My argument is not against 'for profit' per se, but only the illegal excesses of the type for which Microsoft has been convicted as a felon on multiple occasions. None of the software ventures I've been involved with have had felony convictions.

If you google on "Valoris Report" or look at www.noooxml.org/irregularities you will see that M$' more recent behaviour is a re-statement of its approach to genuine standards ('embrace, enhance, extinguish') as first exposed in the Halloween Documents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents

Most of our achievements in IT are based on standards. Most of you will not remember when each manufacturer of dumb terminals had a different set of control characters to control bolding and underlining of text on-screen, so applications had to be built specific to the type of terminal being used. Now that we use the extended ASCII set, no-one even thinks about such stuff. Well, HTML and office document formats are the same... we need agreed-upon standards to progress. But typically, any entity with monopoly power does not like to see a level playing field. For that party's sole interests, 'lock-in' strategies are optimal. That's why IBM mainframes never supported ANSI and ASCII, but stayed on proprietary comms. That's why M$ 'enhances' its HTML, so it is no longer standard.. and why M$ does not try to support OSI's Open Document Text.

But as users, we should fight to have standards implemented, to keep ourselves and our organisations from 'lock-in'. But using a standard open-source package does not put everyone in IT out of work. It just means people have standard skills, to enable people to change jobs. There will still be lots of work implementing solutions, just that time will not be spent chasing licensing numbers.

In answer to my chum's original question, my involvement in commercial software has included:
1. I was on the team of five which developed the original electronic spreadsheet at Harvard Business School in 1978-9, later marketed as 'VisiCalc', credited with getting Apple established.
2. I was co-founder (Joint MD) of most successful health informatics business in Australia, with over 78% of pharmacies using our software, when we sold the business to Dun&Bradstreet in 1994. Implemented the data collection of the then 150+ million PBS prescriptions for HIC/Health.
3. I have developed and implemented major systems into various banks, with all work done by a systems integration company I owned.
4. I developed and implemented the original imaging solution for Passports Australia, whereby we got every passport holder in Australia's 'head and shoulders' photo down to just 7kb filesize, many years prior to JPEG2000, to enable replacement passport visual verification in the Australian Consulates of even the worst bandwidth countries of Africa, Central Asia etc.
4. I have designed and implemented large-scale document scanning, indexing, storage & retrieval suite, currently implemented at Top-100 companies in Australia.
But the fact that I am pro-OpenSource does not mean I think people should not be able to make money from IT work! But the money made should be for 'value add' and not what Dire Straits called 'money for nothing'.

Too funny Anonymous -- 23/05/09 (in reply to #320137049)

This is the guy that trumpets being a White House advisor - to a single term administration that made the Democrats unelectable for a generation - Hoo Ahhh - well done..

Proud to have advised the Carter Administration Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 24/05/09 (in reply to #320137563)

The comment from 'anon' implies that somehow I contributed to a US election loss, or that I should be embarrassed about that work. I was a Harvard consultant to the Carter Administration on IT only, which had no impact on Carter's re-election chances. It was the US military's botched helicopter rescue of middle-east US hostages (with equipment failures in a sandstorm) which turned public opinion against Carter.

Democrat Carter replaced the corrupt Republican NIxon. Carter promised to bring ethics back to the position of President. At the next election, Republican Reagan then won office on a promise of small government and less regulation. But it was not long till the pendulum swung again and Democrat Clinton won office... certainly not a generation.

However, these days Carter is seen as honest, and plays a significant role in peace talks etc. There is nothing dishonourable to have been associated with his administration. Reagan on the other hand overturned Carter's law to force the US auto-makers to achieve better fleet-average fuel economy. Reagan's arguments were that Detroit would be disadvantaged by Japanese and European competitors who were more fuel-efficient. But putting off such changes (finally just now agreed to by Obama) simply let Detroit fall to its knees, caused the US to pursue more oil-interest-based wars and weakened US balance of payments for decades. Reagan also heralded a 25-year period of under-regulation in the US, which directly led to the GFC. It is Reagan, not Carter who one ought be ashamed to be associated with!

However, the thing about this anon poster, is that the cheap-shots (ad-hominem attacks) confirm that this overtly-pro-M$ person sees no merit in continuing to put forward valid counter-arguments to my posts, so resorts to personal attacks, whilst still refusing to identify himself.

Expense, I'll show you expensive! Anonymous -- 05/05/09 (in reply to #320133472)

Microsoft's math libraries for have significant errors, particularly in the tails of the statistical distributions. This is one of the reasons financial institutions using Microsoft products underestimated risks in their quant (derivatives trading desk) operations. Now that was expensive!

Key banking operations should never have an operating system and software monoculture. It is truly a false economy.
Having some different systems to run backup calculations would have revealed the discrepances which then could have be tracked down. Instead they may broke the bank and they don't even know (or admit) it.

Long Bow Anonymous -- 11/05/09 (in reply to #320134548)

Now that's one long bow to draw. Methinks if this was the huge issue you say it is there would be lawsuits aplenty. Muppet...

cost of features dave b. -- 17/05/09

What most people ignore in TOC, is that it differs from it department to it department. If you have a brilliant windows admin he is going to do his best to get the lowest TOC for windows. Likewise for linux. Now, i am biased but i'm going to say this -> windows is built so that the admin follow the "microsoft" path (there are little options there is the microsoft way or the highway). On linux, you *can* choose what you want how to you do it. You can deliver customised solutions that are a perfect fit for the customer. I will bet you any user who has never used a computer would find linux (ubuntu) easier to use than windows 7. The mac is around / above ubuntu (gnome) 's level of ease of use.

If you don't believe me try both out for your self. I tried windows 7 yesterday for a few hours. Its better than vista but not better than windows xp for a number of reasons. (in terms of the user interface).

The total cost of ownership MUST include how nice a system is to use. I personally would never given anyone a windows other than xp. Vista + windows 7 do not really improve on the user interface from what xp can provide.

Summary, user interface is important + toc depends on your admins

Citing other sources.... Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 27/05/09

Linux mag (www.linux-mag.com) notes:
"Linux Adoption in a Global Recession
Source: Novell
Economic downturns have a tendency to accelerate emerging technologies, boost the adoption of effective solutions, and punish solutions that are not cost competitive or that are out of synch with industry trends. IDC research finds that Linux users are clearly satisfied about their choice to deploy Linux, and during trying economic times, the potential for those same customers to ramp up their deployment of Linux is strong."
That White Paper can be downloaded from http://www.elabs7.com/c.html?rtr=on&s=ax0v,ge52,33o,ft11,eomn,h00p,3v4n

And for anyone interested in the issues of open standards, avoiding vendor lock-in, etc, see the excellent coverage in Wikipedia on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software