Why don't they give update if end user's are willing to pay. If it drops below a certain level, then just stop altogether.

delshayWhy don't they give update if end user's are willing to pay. If it drops below a certain level, then just stop altogether.

Isn't that basically what the news release says? If you want ESU for WS08, you need to pay, for up to one more year. But it is already being scheduled for EOL stop, since there are too few users. For corporate server licenses paying per user per year, it makes NO SENSE AT ALL, to keep older hardware on these OS platforms. You are paying lots of fees well over the cost of replacing the hardware and installing a more modern OS that is not more expensive per user.

Only people with "free" (you can interpret that how you want) OS installations lose out... by being forced off old serial number registration methods to newer ones where the "free" will no longer apply. Unless they are not concerned about security issues. And for a non-critical server, that is OK. For a critical service server, for heavens sake, update.

I am still running a W2003 server on Atom hardware. It is non-critical. It has received no updates in a long while. I lose no sleep over it.

lemonadesodaIsn't that basically what the news release says? If you want ESU for WS08, you need to pay, for up to one more year. But it is already being scheduled for EOL stop, since there are too few users. For corporate server licenses paying per user per year, it makes NO SENSE AT ALL, to keep older hardware on these OS platforms. You are paying lots of fees well over the cost of replacing the hardware and installing a more modern OS that is not more expensive per user.

Only people with "free" (you can interpret that how you want) OS installations lose out... by being forced off old serial number registration methods to newer ones where the "free" will no longer apply. Unless they are not concerned about security issues. And for a non-critical server, that is OK. For a critical service server, for heavens sake, update.

I am still running a W2003 server on Atom hardware. It is non-critical. It has received no updates in a long while. I lose no sleep over it.

Sorry I meant all previous windows OS, ie covering all windows version from 7 to 8.1. My mistake for not making this clear.

lemonadesodaIsn't that basically what the news release says? If you want ESU for WS08, you need to pay, for up to one more year. But it is already being scheduled for EOL stop, since there are too few users. For corporate server licenses paying per user per year, it makes NO SENSE AT ALL, to keep older hardware on these OS platforms. You are paying lots of fees well over the cost of replacing the hardware and installing a more modern OS that is not more expensive per user.

Only people with "free" (you can interpret that how you want) OS installations lose out... by being forced off old serial number registration methods to newer ones where the "free" will no longer apply. Unless they are not concerned about security issues. And for a non-critical server, that is OK. For a critical service server, for heavens sake, update.

I am still running a W2003 server on Atom hardware. It is non-critical. It has received no updates in a long while. I lose no sleep over it.

If a corporation is still running 2008 or 2008r2, there is usually a pretty good reason for it, and you cant simply "replace the hardware and install a modern OS" in these cases, and I'd bet these are the ones paying for support, especially because paying per user per year is far cheaper then paying perhaps millions to tens of millions to replace systems that work.

"Many customers are forced to join the..."

hahhaha, ¿force what?"here, hold my server...", you're insinuating anyone running a 2008/r2 servers gives a shit about MS patches or support.
Or if they do, that they can do anything about it, and hell no they're not going to pay to MS at all

TheinsanegamerNIf a corporation is still running 2008 or 2008r2, there is usually a pretty good reason for it, and you cant simply "replace the hardware and install a modern OS" in these cases, and I'd bet these are the ones paying for support, especially because paying per user per year is far cheaper then paying perhaps millions to tens of millions to replace systems that work.

I agree with your first sentence. But in such a situation, stick them behind a firewall/airgap.

But disagree with your second. If the hardware is still suitable, then it is just an OS migration. And that does not cost tens of millions. In fact, the latest versions of WS are not just more robust, they are more efficient too, and have more optimal allocation of tasks against CPU resources. It's a no-brainer for a corporation to migrate.

I also question your math. If a server network costs tens of millions to replace, then I would suggest there are a very significant number of users that makes the license and support fees far greater than you are thinking.

TheinsanegamerNIf a corporation is still running 2008 or 2008r2, there is usually a pretty good reason for it, and you cant simply "replace the hardware and install a modern OS" in these cases, and I'd bet these are the ones paying for support, especially because paying per user per year is far cheaper then paying perhaps millions to tens of millions to replace systems that work.

Oh boy... you want to know the good reason?

Lazyness, incompetence and cheapskating. That's basically it. If some production line system has a dos script or some interface or whatever that for some reason is only compatible with some weird version of windows is running fine why spend money and resources to keep it up to date?

What could possible go wrong? - famous last words...

lemonadesodaBut disagree with your second. If the hardware is still suitable, then it is just an OS migration. And that does not cost tens of millions. In fact, the latest versions of WS are not just more robust, they are more efficient too, and have more optimal allocation of tasks against CPU resources. It's a no-brainer for a corporation to migrate.

It would seem so, but there's a whole world of applications and devices that are incompatible (or not validated to work reliably) with new versions of windows. Companies can usually replace a computer easily enough without much fuss, the problem is the instrumentation that might be attached or interacts with it.

Usually and hopefully those systems are all airgaped but it's always an increased liability if for some reason they are mistankely put on a network or just fail at the worse time possible.

Just to make sure we are on the same page: i fully agree if we are talking about workstations or industrial devices. A server though? I’d be grateful for a couple of examples of such edge cases.

lemonadesodaJust to make sure we are on the same page: i fully agree if we are talking about workstations or industrial devices. A server though? I’d be grateful for a couple of examples of such edge cases.

That's the thing, some of those devices run windows server versions

Translation: Win 7 64bit = Alive but we hide it ... Microsoft

The workstations does not need any of these ... updates.

"oh look i make money with my shitty old system and i also dont wanna get hacked but i would never pay for new hardware" -somebody

Waiting for my Win 95 updates!