Mr.WorldWide
Smugly Inferior
Hey, if it works, don't knock it. 
Windows 8
- Thread starter stfoskey12
- Start date
It's not really as bad as 3.1 in 2004. Vista de facto came out in 2007, so it's more like 3.1 in late 2001 (six years after the successor's release) by that measure. And things aren't changing as quickly in 2007-2013 as they did in 1995-2001 (at least on the PC front), so it's not quite that bad, either.
By marketshare, though, XP is more common now than 98 was in 2004. Looks like it may well have similar or more marketshare in April 2014 than 98 did when Microsoft originally planned to end support for 98 (and then postponed it by 2 years). Which is why I wouldn't be at all surprised if MS extended support by 1-2 years.
Perhaps in an ideal world. Having done some work in real, physical hospitals, there are a lot of computers that interfaces with specialized equipment. And by and large, these computers are connected to the Internet. Usually this is because they're connected to the local intranet (often necessary to access patient records, if nothing else), and they thus usually have some Internet accessibility, too. There probably are filters of some sort at many of these facilities, but in practice, you could probably search for the local Chinese restaurant on many of these computers if it were 2 AM, not much happening, and the nurses on the ward were hungry. And while this probably happens more at the computers at the nurses' station than the ones that will connect directly to medical equipment, I'd expect the same basic sort of computer (including OS) to be in both places - at the very least, they'd be on the same intranet.
I should also mention that I'm talking about large hospitals, not small clinics. Although some of the same challenges would apply, just on a much smaller scale.
In other words, the computers that interface with specialized equipment, by and large, are general-purpose commodity PCs, and not particularly specialized in hardware beyond maybe having a serial port. But by and large, these days, those computers run Windows XP.
The issue with migrating them is that you really need everything they work with to work with Windows 7 (or whatever your target is). If you can't get data from your SpO2 monitor if it runs Windows 7, even if everything else works, you can't use Windows 7 until that's fixed. This also balloons the cost of upgrading, if the equipment has to be replaced. MRI scanner doesn't like Windows 7? That's at least $100,000, probably considerably more, to replace it.
All said, when there are 50 other worthwhile projects being championed as well, it's no surprise that Windows Vista/7 migration has been slow in hospitals. Windows 7 migration wasn't going to be able to compete for funding with projects that can result in better government/insurance company reimbursement, or with projects that will save lives (though with XP support likely ending soon, it might be able to compete now).
That said, by this point there should certainly be plans to transition to Windows 7 in the works. But really, I'm just happy if they're using computerized records today, and I don't really care if they're using XP or 7, or whether they'll be using XP into 2013, 2014, or 2015, as long as the medical care is good. What would have me concerned is if they're still writing everything down on paper and faxing it around - and the percentage of hospitals doing that is probably still as high as XP's market share on the Internet, and possibly higher.
The IT staff being fired? Nah, not unless they were oblivious to the upcoming issues. It's almost certainly a funding priority issue that the IT staff can't really do much about. And as I've said, the funding priorities were probably right to put it low on the list.
What hopefully will happen is that when equipment is replaced, the vendors chosen will be ones who have a good track record with supporting their medical equipment on newer operating systems. That way when the time comes to upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 9, it will be a lot easier and less costly. My prediction is that Windows 8, like Vista, will be essentially skipped in the medical world.
By marketshare, though, XP is more common now than 98 was in 2004. Looks like it may well have similar or more marketshare in April 2014 than 98 did when Microsoft originally planned to end support for 98 (and then postponed it by 2 years). Which is why I wouldn't be at all surprised if MS extended support by 1-2 years.
Perhaps in an ideal world. Having done some work in real, physical hospitals, there are a lot of computers that interfaces with specialized equipment. And by and large, these computers are connected to the Internet. Usually this is because they're connected to the local intranet (often necessary to access patient records, if nothing else), and they thus usually have some Internet accessibility, too. There probably are filters of some sort at many of these facilities, but in practice, you could probably search for the local Chinese restaurant on many of these computers if it were 2 AM, not much happening, and the nurses on the ward were hungry. And while this probably happens more at the computers at the nurses' station than the ones that will connect directly to medical equipment, I'd expect the same basic sort of computer (including OS) to be in both places - at the very least, they'd be on the same intranet.
I should also mention that I'm talking about large hospitals, not small clinics. Although some of the same challenges would apply, just on a much smaller scale.
In other words, the computers that interface with specialized equipment, by and large, are general-purpose commodity PCs, and not particularly specialized in hardware beyond maybe having a serial port. But by and large, these days, those computers run Windows XP.
The issue with migrating them is that you really need everything they work with to work with Windows 7 (or whatever your target is). If you can't get data from your SpO2 monitor if it runs Windows 7, even if everything else works, you can't use Windows 7 until that's fixed. This also balloons the cost of upgrading, if the equipment has to be replaced. MRI scanner doesn't like Windows 7? That's at least $100,000, probably considerably more, to replace it.
All said, when there are 50 other worthwhile projects being championed as well, it's no surprise that Windows Vista/7 migration has been slow in hospitals. Windows 7 migration wasn't going to be able to compete for funding with projects that can result in better government/insurance company reimbursement, or with projects that will save lives (though with XP support likely ending soon, it might be able to compete now).
That said, by this point there should certainly be plans to transition to Windows 7 in the works. But really, I'm just happy if they're using computerized records today, and I don't really care if they're using XP or 7, or whether they'll be using XP into 2013, 2014, or 2015, as long as the medical care is good. What would have me concerned is if they're still writing everything down on paper and faxing it around - and the percentage of hospitals doing that is probably still as high as XP's market share on the Internet, and possibly higher.
The IT staff being fired? Nah, not unless they were oblivious to the upcoming issues. It's almost certainly a funding priority issue that the IT staff can't really do much about. And as I've said, the funding priorities were probably right to put it low on the list.
What hopefully will happen is that when equipment is replaced, the vendors chosen will be ones who have a good track record with supporting their medical equipment on newer operating systems. That way when the time comes to upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 9, it will be a lot easier and less costly. My prediction is that Windows 8, like Vista, will be essentially skipped in the medical world.
Pretty much everything you mentioned regarding equipment compatibility can be dealt with using virtual machines. I've also worked at a hospital, and the IT department had hundreds of pre-configured VM images on hand for most of the hardware.
This is horrifying.
I specifically worked in a department where a ton of faxing happened as a function of the work, and it drove me nuts. Especially maddening was that a huge proportion of faxes were computer things which were printed off, written on by hand, and then faxed via a fax to an online faxing service which other people received as emails.
I refused to accept anything in this manner.
IT management, not staff. If you haven't been able to get rid of XP yet, and aren't currently in the process of a migration, you've failed at managing.
This is horrifying.
I specifically worked in a department where a ton of faxing happened as a function of the work, and it drove me nuts. Especially maddening was that a huge proportion of faxes were computer things which were printed off, written on by hand, and then faxed via a fax to an online faxing service which other people received as emails.
I refused to accept anything in this manner.
IT management, not staff. If you haven't been able to get rid of XP yet, and aren't currently in the process of a migration, you've failed at managing.
I gotta to say that I prefer win7.....
warpus
In pork I trust
My new laptop came preloaded with windows 8 and so far it's been decent enough.. The lack of a start menu isn't bugging me too much, but what's annoying is getting to the "new start menu", or whatever it is, and seeing all that clutter that you don't give a crap about. I never need to see 95% of that... Would be nice if I could get rid of it.
Another annoyance - I wanted to install Skype.. So I go to download it.. It takes me to the "windows store" or whatever.. I go in there, click install, and.. nothing.. Did it install it? I have no idea.. I try to launch skype, and it's nowhere to be found.. I try to install it again - it says that I "own the app".
Wtf? So I walk away from my laptop for a couple hours and later return to it.. and I get a popup that says "Skype has been installed"
Wtf windows? I don't really mind you, but that just doesn't make any sense. Least user friendly experience I've had installing something this year.
Another annoyance - I wanted to install Skype.. So I go to download it.. It takes me to the "windows store" or whatever.. I go in there, click install, and.. nothing.. Did it install it? I have no idea.. I try to launch skype, and it's nowhere to be found.. I try to install it again - it says that I "own the app".
Wtf? So I walk away from my laptop for a couple hours and later return to it.. and I get a popup that says "Skype has been installed"
Wtf windows? I don't really mind you, but that just doesn't make any sense. Least user friendly experience I've had installing something this year.
If you right-click on things on the start screen, you can unpin them.
When you click "Install" on something in the store, the tile is added to the start screen with a progress bar showing the install progress, Skype should take maybe 30 seconds before the tile is clickable to launch it.
Or just install the regular desktop Skype from skype.com, there's not much point to the Metro one.
When you click "Install" on something in the store, the tile is added to the start screen with a progress bar showing the install progress, Skype should take maybe 30 seconds before the tile is clickable to launch it.
Or just install the regular desktop Skype from skype.com, there's not much point to the Metro one.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,060
There is no ROI if the system is meant to do the exact same thing. There is only expense, no return.
You don't have any experience with specialized systems, do you? Commodity software and hardware is the only thing that can be upgraded easily. Specialized systems can be tremendously difficult to upgrade, and some systems cannot be upgraded, the manufacturers won't support it. Hospitals were mentioned but the situation is identical in industries and indeed any place using large and costly hardware. Similar also in many services subject to regulatory constraints. Many of those systems will not be upgraded.
Only good thing about Microsoft, they do support some of their OS for a long time.
Windows XP systems are expensive to support, you generate an ROI simply from decreased support costs from upgrading to a modern OS.
I covered all of this this already, these things fall under the category of systems that shouldn't be connected to the internet. I don't have any problem with a laser that's only controllable by a Windows NT 4.0 system, but you haven't provided any reason it should be connected to the internet.
Yes, this is very clearly the only good thing about Microsoft.
Mr.WorldWide
Smugly Inferior
Oh don't worry, I'm sure MS will phase out back version OS support soon by forcing all users to adopt subscription based OS solutions.
I'm guessing if MS ever made that move we would see Zelig in the grandstands cheering.
I'm guessing if MS ever made that move we would see Zelig in the grandstands cheering.
I would cheer any software company forcing users to adopt subscription based solutions. As I've explained, it incentivizes developers to make their software better, instead of incentivizing them to make people want to stop using old versions.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,082
I'm not a fan of subscription-based software, simply because I can't afford to shell out per month.
The idea is that the cost with subscription-based software is lower.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57...-adobes-creative-cloud-subscription-not-very/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57...-adobes-creative-cloud-subscription-not-very/
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,082
Not so much for people on tight incomes. If you pay for a software, you usually only need to pay once.
The only way you come out ahead is by using old versions of software, at which point you shouldn't be paying for software anyway. I literally cannot think of a single piece of six year-old software which I would choose to use over a free alternative.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,082
89% of the software I use anyways is freeware or open-source. There's only three or four major commercial softwares I have installed, other than games, and one of them the developer gave me a license for free as I did a lot of beta-testing (though I'm under non-disclosure, so I'm not allowed to say what it is).
Mr.WorldWide
Smugly Inferior
Maybe we can all get that second job now just to pay for the ever increasing number of costly subscription based virtualware software solutions.
Oh well, greedy software companies will be greedy.
Oh well, greedy software companies will be greedy.
Mr.WorldWide
Smugly Inferior
How about that terrible old graphically outdated Civ 3 or 4 vs Civ 5?
Yes you are right, we should never use old software because software made today is so much better than it was 6 years ago.
Offline games are an obvious exception.
Yes you are right, we should never use old software because software made today is so much better than it was 6 years ago.
It is. Six years ago we were on Firefox 2.0, IE7 and Chrome hadn't been released in beta yet.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,082
Similar threads
