Firms time their switch to XP

With Microsoft planning to ship its new client operating system in the fall, IT staffs are debating what to do about migrating their users. When is it the right time to make the big switch?
Written by Karen D.Schwartz, Contributor on

No sooner had Rick Kelley made the painful decision to migrate his division's 4,500 desktops from Windows 95 and NT to Windows 2000 than he had to stop and consider Microsoft's latest, greatest operating system -- Windows XP.

It took an entire year of intensive testing and a lot of convincing before Kelley, desktop and asset manager for the Orlando-based Missiles and Fire Control division of Lockheed Martin, felt the time was right to start migrating the division's desktops as each finished its two- to three-year life cycle. The migration to Windows 2000, which began in February 2001, is about one-third complete, with completion scheduled in about two years.

Kelley is now facing an even more daunting decision -- whether to discontinue migration to Windows 2000 at some point in favour of a direct migration to successor Windows XP. Microsoft promises XP, scheduled to be released this fall, will be even more stable, have more robust security features, and be more reliable than its predecessors.

But Kelley is withholding judgment until his engineers dig into the operating system in another extensive round of testing. "The engineering environment alone has more than 200 applications in use, many of which had to be reworked for the Windows 2000 environment. We'll have to go through the same detailed process with XP, and it could take as long as a year unless there are less compatibility issues than there were moving applications to Windows 2000."

Engineers at PeopleSoft, a Pleasanton, California-based collaborative software company, are facing a similar decision. The company has been in the midst of porting a large portion of its thousands of desktops and laptops to Windows 2000 since early 1999, with the goal of creating a mixed Windows 2000 and NT environment.

"We have a very aggressive plan to migrate our domain structure and working environment to Windows 2000, and throwing XP into the mix makes it more complicated," says Erik Beer, a workstation engineer in PeopleSoft's IT Engineering group.

"We would need to see some sort of tangible return on investment before we would move to a completely new operating system. For us, that means things like better manageability, improved stability, less systems crashes, better application support and better power management for our laptops. It remains to be seen at this point whether XP can provide that functionality."

Part of the problem, says Dan Kusnetsky, vice president of systems software research at IDC, is the awkward timing of XP's potential release. By following so closely on the heels of Windows 2000, Microsoft is putting many corporations in the untenable position of having to decide whether to switch to Windows XP midstream.

"Organisations tend to not just adopt new software, but to take the time to test it with their applications and procedures, gain some experience with it, and then start rolling it out in a very measured and careful way. Because of that process, the adoption of Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server has been relatively slow," he says. "If you are a chief information officer and you have just decided that the benefits of upgrading to Windows 2000 are worth the expense and pain, and Microsoft starts banging the drum for Windows XP, it might arrest every effort you have to move to Windows 2000."

For many organisations, it's not a question of whether they will migrate to XP, but a question of when. Despite the unfortunate timing, many believe it's simply inevitable.

"You've got two situations -- companies that have already migrated to Windows 2000 or are in the middle of it, and those that are just beginning," explains John Minnick, manager of technology development in the corporate IS department of Siemens Energy & Automation, and project manager for the Siemens Whistler Architecture Team. "For the group that has already gone through a substantial amount of upgrade planning, moving to an XP client is more of an incremental upgrade in terms of effort. For the group still on Windows 95 or 98, the amount of effort will be much more substantial, but it can and should be done."

Minnick, who has spent a great deal of time as a member of Microsoft's Joint Development Program for Windows XP, is committed to the new operating system, although Siemens Energy & Automation is staying on target to move its clients and servers to Windows 2000 by September 2002. Minnick says, however, that some divisions will begin implementing Windows XP this fall and others will migrate next year, necessitating a probable change in the business goals of the company.

Beer, on the other hand, says PeopleSoft will wait until the operating system has been officially released and engineers have had time to thoroughly test it. "Technologically, we don't feel we need XP at this point. Until it's customer driven and we can determine a good return on investment, we don't feel there is a need to rush."

Kelley also prefers the wait-and-see approach. Not only does he want to take the time to thoroughly test the operating system, but he wants to wait until third-party application vendors create Windows XP-compliant drivers for many of the company's applications. But when he does make the inevitable decision to migrate to Windows XP, Kelley plans to use the same product he is using to help migrate to Windows 2000 -- Desktop DNA from Miramar Systems, software that helps organizations port existing settings and some data from one operating system to another.

MIT: First things first For the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, deeply mired in its first installation of Windows 2000 on a campus that has spent decades as a Unix-only environment, it's simply a matter of first things first. "There are people on campus who aren't too keen on Windows at all, but as we work with them, they are beginning to see that Windows brings us something we don't have," says Danilo Almeida, a systems programmer in MIT's information systems department.

But even Almeida admits it's simply a matter of time before XP enters the equation. In the case of MIT, user demand may simply drive the campus in the direction of XP. "As students coming onto campus have XP on their machines, we'll have to install it so we can handle tech support requirements," Almeida notes. "Windows 2000 will probably end up being the first step toward XP."

The earliest adopters of Windows XP likely will be large companies -- organisations that traditionally have been early adopters of Microsoft technology, says Ken Mackin, president and chief executive of Tranxition of Beaverton, Oregon, a competitor to Miramar Systems. Many smaller companies, however, may choose to wait because of the financial and time commitment associated with a major migration. "The planning requirements for installing a new operating system requires guys with titles like Software Architect, so it's extremely complicated," he says.

It's difficult at this point -- before Windows XP has even been released -- to determine when corporations should adopt the operating system, Kusnetsky says. But if Microsoft wants organisations to consider adopting Windows XP sooner rather than later, it would do well to do everything it can to ensure that the transition path is as painless as possible, which includes ensuring that the most popular applications will run on XP, he says.

"It's not at all clear what the software and hardware requirements will be or what level of procedural and staffing changes will be required. It's not even clear if current applications and peripheral devices will be supported. Almost everything is still open to question," he says. "Most signs right now lean to wait and see."

As a company involved in developing highly technical products for a variety of industries, Siemens has a vested interest in knowing exactly what Microsoft's plans are for its next operating system -- and the next, and the next -- as early in the planning process as possible. By knowing Microsoft's plans for the future architecture of its various operating systems -- and submitting valuable input to Microsoft before the final version rolls off of the assembly line -- Siemens engineers can plan more effectively for the company's 250,000 PCs.

The best way to do that, Siemens executives believe, is to be involved in the elite Microsoft Joint Development Program (JDP) -- a group of engineers and executives from various organizations that help Microsoft test and tweak new software before it hits the market.

Siemens has been involved in the JDP program for several years. In April of 1998, a group of Siemens engineers and executives formed the Siemens Windows 2000 Architecture Team (SWAT) -- a project that concluded in late 1999. Immediately after finishing that project, the group was invited back to join the JDP program for Whistler, Microsoft's next-generation operating system. Siemens new team, dubbed SWAT 2 (Siemens Whistler Architecture Team), has been working with Microsoft on XP, Whistler's current moniker, since September 2000.

By being part of the JDP program, the SWAT 2 team is involved in testing alpha and beta versions of Windows XP, finding bugs that need to be fixed, and making recommendations for changes to the software before it is finalised. During its time with the Windows 2000 JDP program, the Siemens team submitted more than 100 bugs, many of which were fixed prior to the operating system's release, says John Minnick, project manager of SWAT 2 and manager of technology development in the corporate IS department of Atlanta-based Siemens Energy & Automation, the largest Siemens company in the Americas.

As for XP, Minnick says it offers significant benefits over Windows NT and Windows 2000. Chief among the achievements are the Knowledge Consistency Checker, which Minnick says works faster and better than its predecessor in Windows 2000; peer-to-peer networking; and XP's built-in public key infrastructure.

Today, the team is working its way painstakingly through a list of about 400 features of Windows XP involving servers, clients, and security. "We prioritise them as 1, 2, or 3," Minnick explains. "We'll actually produce design principles that will eventually become mandatory for the Priority 1's, while we'll do less due diligence on the Priority 2 and 3 lists." Minnick says one of the main reasons the release date for XP Server was pushed back while XP Client was pushed up was due to input from Siemens.

As project manager of the XP team, "we're doing everything we can to understand people's issues, showstoppers and deployment-blockers so we can turn them into deployment-enablers," he says.

Karen D. Schwartz has written hundreds of feature articles and hard news pieces on a variety of technology and business topics. Notable clients include InformationWeek, Mobile Computing & Communications, Business 2.0, CIO, Datamation, ZDNet, Government Executive, Retail Information Systems News and Consumer Goods Technology. She resides in Potomac, Maryland and can be reached at karen.schwartz@bigfoot.com.

For complete business coverage, see ZDNet UK's Enterprise Channel.

Editorial standards


Southwest Airlines has a big problem and customers may not know it

Southwest Airlines has a big problem and customers may not know it

American Airlines may end a real customer advantage for a sad, twisted reason

American Airlines may end a real customer advantage for a sad, twisted reason

I went to an Apple store and all I heard was bad news
iPhone 14 Pro and Pro Max

I went to an Apple store and all I heard was bad news