I am a systems architect and work with Windows Server day-in and day-out. As hesitant as I was to go to 2012, my company put me through the MS400 blue book classes to get my MCSE in 2012, and I will say I like it. It’s incredibly fast compared to Server 2008 R2. The Metro interface took a little getting used to, but I like that I can pin tiles to the start menu to get to my MMCs.
I love that I can create server groups in Server Manager and install roles from a single machine. That’s going to make our domain upgrades from 2008 R2 to 2012 R2 very easy, and I’m excited to start playing with some of the newer features like their split-role DHCP!
While I use Win7 at home on my gaming PC, I’m a majority Linux household. I run VMware ESXi 5 on a ProLiant server and run 100% Ubuntu 12.04 servers for my home environment. Windows has its place, but Microsoft is increasingly pushing out the run-of-the-mill home user due to clumsy deployments and upgrades that take half a day to complete.
I really don’t blame half of the FReepers in their complaints about Win8. I’ve used it in a lab environment, and it’s such a drastic change as to be off-putting. People do not like to have change foisted upon them so quickly, and since most folks on XP refused to go to Vista (can’t really blame them), they didn’t get exposed to the new desktop style, and then Win8 came out so soon after Win7 that when users looking to upgrade saw their only option was to go to Win8, many balked and are looking for adequate replacements.
Word from our MS TAM is that Win9 is going back to a more familiar style with Metro being available as an installable feature for tablets and touchscreen computers. I think this is a better way for them to go. Microsoft has always led the pack with their desktop operating systems, and most users are familiar with it. This idea that touchscreens were going to catch on like wildfire was a gross miscalculation on Microsoft’s part, and it’s nipped them in the tail. As with Microsoft’s usual deployment timelines, the odd-numbered operating systems seem to be the most well-received.
At the core of it, Microsoft has made enormous improvements in their kernels. They’ve made ground-breaking code changes to their OS core, and the MS kernel is now more secure than it ever has been. Adding an abstraction layer between the kernel and the operating system proper has made it very difficult for hackers to code to kernel exploits, thus hardening the OS overall. If you’re still using Windows XP, you’re going to regret it in the very near future, as 0-day exploits will not be patched, putting XP on par with Win98 as one of the most dangerous operating systems to deploy on a network. (If you don’t believe me, try to run a freshly installed Win98 computer on a high-speed network for more than 5 minutes. You’ll have no fewer than a dozen kernel- and driver-mode viruses.)
Microsoft gets a public black eye for their radical changes, but the truth is that you have two mainstream options: Apple with their overpriced hardware or OEMs like Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, etc. with cheap hardware running Windows. If you don’t want to go through the effort of blowing away a new install and using Linux, you’re going to have to learn how to love the purported evil that is Microsoft even though it does get the job done for a majority of users.
I have two desktops and one laptop. I have two hard drives for the laptop, one is XP and other is Windows 7. I use the W7 hard drive 99.999% of the time. The only reason I got a hard drive with XP on it is say "I have one." Once the last updates come out and Microsoft no longer patches it I'll still be able to say "I have a laptop with XP." I know, pretty vain.
On one desktop I run W7 64-bit exclusively. It's my main system. I have a hard drive rack that enables me to plug in a 2nd hard drive. It's not hot-swappable but it gives me the ability to insert different drives depending on the need.
The 2nd desktop has two hard drive racks. One hard drive rack is for the OS, W7 64-bit and XP 32-bit, and the 2nd one there for the same reason as the primary tower, to use as I see fit. I have two separate hard drives for the OS's. Sure, I could dual-boot but I prefer it this way. If I need XP, I insert the correct hard drive and turn it on. Same with W7. I plan on purchasing a 3rd hard drive to program a Linux OS but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
This computer is mainly use for three purposes: 1). recoding video (W7), 2). scanning documents using a Fujitsu scanner that will only run on a 32-bit OS. Hence the need for XP. Sure, I can use Windows 32-bit but I only have one legal license and I use it on the laptop. The 3rd function is one of maintenance. I use it with diagnosing problems with hard drives from other systems.
Both of my desktops are connected with a DVI KVM device. It's a pretty cool setup.
All that being said, when XP is no longer supported I'm going to have to be really careful what I do with it. Granted, I don't normally browse the Internet with XP, but I'll need to be careful all the same. All my computers are behind routers and have Internet Security software, so hopefully I'm relatively safe.