Do you still use XP? (multiple choice)

White Heart Loon

Xp dies soon, I'm curious as to how many boards users still use it everyday

White Heart Loon

Could a mod please edit the 3rd poll option to "Yes, but I'm/employer is intending to upgrade before April"

allthedoyles

Is xp going to be dead and buried in April , or is it just that there will be no support / upgrades available ?

allybhoy

I work in IT, from what ive seen there are thousands of XP machines still out in the workplace and a lot of companies have no plans to upgrade \ replace. The budget just isnt there to replace every desktop \ laptop. Obviously we are advising all our customers to replace before April and some are but a lot simply dont have the capital.

White Heart Loon

allthedoyles wrote: »

Is xp going to be dead and buried in April , or is it just that there will be no support / upgrades available ?

Microsoft end their support, they will forget they ever made it and remove all their documentation and knowledge bases. Security experts have predicted that there are thousands of vulnerabilities being sat on ready to be released when support ends. It could be D-Day for malware and would be unwise for any business to continue to use it.

TheMilkyPirate

I still have it on my desktop at home, It's nearing the end of it's life anyway so will be time for a new machine by April.

Mr. G

I know a lot of businesses and schools still on XP, many still on Office 2003 and Microsoft Works.

I've moved away from XP when Windows 7 came out. It's understandable why they haven't moved away.

yoyo

White Heart Loon wrote: »

Could a mod please edit the 3rd poll option to "Yes, but I'm/employer is intending to upgrade before April"

Poll Edited!

professore

Was in Tullamore hospital last week with my mum. At least one consultant there still uses XP !

endacl

They should have just stopped at xp. It works, and works well. Suppose I'll have to move on up to one go the new-fangled annoying ones now...

The OH has W8 on her netbook. Bloody annoying. Her computer thinks its a phone.

White Heart Loon

yoyo wrote: »

Poll Edited!

Thanks, but you were supposed to replace option 3

Mr. G

endacl wrote: »

They should have just stopped at xp. It works, and works well. Suppose I'll have to move on up to one go the new-fangled annoying ones now...

The OH has W8 on her netbook. Bloody annoying. Her computer thinks its a phone.

The only Windows operating system that is worth using now is Windows 7. W8 and Vista are not great, XP was a nice OS to be fair.

White Heart Loon

Mr. G wrote: »

The only Windows operating system that is worth using now is Windows 7. W8 and Vista are not great, XP was a nice OS to be fair.

Windows 7 is the new XP

practice

Still use and will continue to use XP.
Best system to come from microsoft.
Will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to new system will only change if computer blows up sometime in April.

People should remember the Millennium bug and the disaster that was supposed to happen as long as anti virus supports xp all will be ok.
If I do change I may just go back to the Commodore 64

MarkR

I know quite a few places with tills running on windows 2000. :eek:

Amirani

endacl wrote: »

They should have just stopped at xp. It works, and works well. Suppose I'll have to move on up to one go the new-fangled annoying ones now...

The OH has W8 on her netbook. Bloody annoying. Her computer thinks its a phone.

XP has a lot of problems. Windows 7 is a far better OS, the best one they've made.

White Heart Loon

practice wrote: »

Still use and will continue to use XP.
Best system to come from microsoft.
Will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to new system will only change if computer blows up sometime in April.

People should remember the Millennium bug and the disaster that was supposed to happen as long as anti virus supports xp all will be ok.
If I do change I may just go back to the Commodore 64

Just because nothing happened the time of the millennium bug doesn't mean it wasn't an issue. Millions of hours were put in ensuring that it didn't cause problems and guess what, it worked, they prevented the problems

An antivirus is only as good as it's definitions, the makers of antivirus software are advising people not to use Xp beyond the deadline

bonzodog2

White Heart Loon wrote: »

An antivirus is only as good as it's definitions, the makers of antivirus software are advising people not to use Xp beyond the deadline

The AV definitions will be updated after April though? I know thats not the only security issue with unpatched XP after then.


Back on-topic, I use XP on several machines for Folding@Home. Runs nothing else, so I'm not too worried!

White Heart Loon

bonzodog2 wrote: »

The AV definitions will be updated after April though?

Yes, but antivirus definitions are only for nasties and zero day exploits they know about, it can take some time before new malware and zero day exploits are recognised and added to definitions. It would be very foolish to think just because you have an antivirus getting updates that you are immune. Every security expert worldwide is advising to make the change.

maki

White Heart Loon wrote: »

Microsoft end their support, they will forget they ever made it and remove all their documentation and knowledge bases. Security experts have predicted that there are thousands of vulnerabilities being sat on ready to be released when support ends. It could be D-Day for malware and would be unwise for any business to continue to use it.

This isn't true. Previously released updates will still be available for download (manually or via Windows Update) and the knowledge base will still be there.
Microsoft have ended support of plenty of operating systems over the years and this won't be any different.

Ash.J.Williams

professore wrote: »

Was in Tullamore hospital last week with my mum. At least one consultant there still uses XP !

yeah it's all over the public sector....imagine the cost of upgrading the whole place...

White Heart Loon

I found this article explaining what happens
http://www.zdnet.com/windows-xp-what-to-expect-once-microsoft-shuts-down-support-7000025348/

allybhoy

maki wrote: »

This isn't true. Previously released updates will still be available for download (manually or via Windows Update) and the knowledge base will still be there.
Microsoft have ended support of plenty of operating systems over the years and this won't be any different.

Exactly, i know plenty of companies who are running legacy software packages on Server 2000, simply because the software company that made it is gone out of business or dont support it anymore and it cant be transferred to another server and obviously they cant do a P2V on server 2000. Running fine with no issues apart from the odd HW failure here and there.

XP has been out for 12 years now and there have been very few cumulative updates for it now over the last few years, i think there was only one update for it on the latest patch tuesday and that was related to IE, the last service pack for it was 5 years ago, its about as "stable" as an OS can get.

Dont believe the hype that every xp machine will suddenly stop working and become a hackers dream on 8th of April, that wont happen. Think about it logically, why would a hacker spend time trying to hack an OS that's 12 years old, would it not make more logical sense to try and develop an exploitation for windows 8 seeing as though thats a newer OS with possibly undiscovered vulnerabilities and the majority of bluechip companies will be or have already migrated to Windows 8.

28064212

allybhoy wrote: »

XP has been out for 12 years now and there have been very few cumulative updates for it now over the last few years, i think there was only one update for it on the latest patch tuesday and that was related to IE, the last service pack for it was 5 years ago, its about as "stable" as an OS can get.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-IE/security/dn481339 - Put in Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 3, and view the most recent updates. Just last week, there was a critical patch: "Vulnerability in VBScript Scripting Engine Could Allow Remote Code Execution (2928390)".

And here's the real problem: If that patch was published in May, for just Vista and higher, a hacker knows that there is a strong possibility the vunerability exists, unpatched, in Windows XP. Updates now become a source of attack information for XP.

White Heart Loon

allybhoy wrote: »

Exactly, i know plenty of companies who are running legacy software packages on Server 2000, simply because the software company that made it is gone out of business or dont support it anymore and it cant be transferred to another server and obviously they cant do a P2V on server 2000. Running fine with no issues apart from the odd HW failure here and there.

XP has been out for 12 years now and there have been very few cumulative updates for it now over the last few years, i think there was only one update for it on the latest patch tuesday and that was related to IE, the last service pack for it was 5 years ago, its about as "stable" as an OS can get.

Dont believe the hype that every xp machine will suddenly stop working and become a hackers dream on 8th of April, that wont happen. Think about it logically, why would a hacker spend time trying to hack an OS that's 12 years old, would it not make more logical sense to try and develop an exploitation for windows 8 seeing as though thats a newer OS with possibly undiscovered vulnerabilities and the majority of bluechip companies will be or have already migrated to Windows 8.

Because it's everywhere, banks, schools, offices, government buildings, even the white house is still using XP

200motels

I had it on an old PC but that died recently, XP was and still is an excellent O/S but it is a bit dated now and not as secure as Vista or 7, I have Vista, 7 and Linux Mint as a triple boot, and before anyone asks why Vista and 7 well I happen to like Vista for all it's faults and I had a retail key for it, but I still prefer Linux to Microsoft as it's way more secure and it's free.

allybhoy

28064212 wrote: »

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-IE/security/dn481339 - Put in Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 3, and view the most recent updates. Just last week, there was a critical patch: "Vulnerability in VBScript Scripting Engine Could Allow Remote Code Execution (2928390)".

And here's the real problem: If that patch was published in May, for just Vista and higher, a hacker knows that there is a strong possibility the vunerability exists, unpatched, in Windows XP. Updates now become a source of attack information for XP.

I get your point but i don’t entirely agree with it. You are talking about reverse engineering but Vista onwards uses a different architecture to XP, so a recognized vulnerability in Vista or 7\8 mightn't exist in XP. Also, Just because a patch is available on windows update, it doesn’t automatically mean that clients have installed that patch on release date. So your logic hackers could also reverse engineer the vulnerability for Vista\7\8 the minute they are identified and exploit machines that haven’t been patched. How many companies do you know run WSUS\SCCM to deploy updates as soon as they land. They don’t, a competent IT dept will install updates in test environments first to ensure stability before deploying. An incompetent IT dept mightn’t run WSUS or have automatic updates enabled on clients….how many companies in Ireland operate under this basis? From my experience quite a few.

Look im not saying I dont recognise there is a higher risk with XP and there won’t be some exploitations but personally I don’t buy the notion that on April 9th every XP machine out there suddenly becomes a ticking time bomb. Like everything, with the correct systems administration I personally believe the risk is minimal, bad or non existent administration on a windows 8 environment is much riskier than a well maintained XP environment. Obviously we are advising our customers to remove this risk by replacing \ upgrading their XP clients and some are, but in the real world this simply isn’t an option for a lot companies who are struggling to pay their staff wages and keep the business running…as an IT provider we cant turn around and say because Microsoft wont support your OS, neither will we. If we did that we’d have to close our doors in the morning.

White Heart Loon wrote: »

Because it's everywhere, banks, schools, offices, government buildings, even the white house is still using XP

I don’t support large public enterprise environments with unlimited IT budgets such as the White House, but if I did I would obviously be migrating away from XP. Im talking about the real world, small to mid level businesses. Microsoft will still be developing patches and support for XP after April 8th nd I would imagine that any enterprise environments that absolutely need XP will be paying for custom support.,

28064212

allybhoy wrote: »

I get your point but i don’t entirely agree with it. You are talking about reverse engineering but Vista onwards uses a different architecture to XP, so a recognized vulnerability in Vista or 7\8 mightn't exist in XP.

They still share a huge code-base. Look at the link I posted, and check how many of the recent patches for XP are also applicable to Vista and up

allybhoy wrote: »

Also, Just because a patch is available on windows update, it doesn’t automatically mean that clients have installed that patch on release date. So your logic hackers could also reverse engineer the vulnerability for Vista\7\8 the minute they are identified and exploit machines that haven’t been patched

Yes, this is a known problem. And it happens regularly. However, there is always a gap between discovery and reverse engineering, and identification of vunerable machines. The risk becomes exponentially higher the longer the machine is unpatched

allybhoy wrote: »

Like everything, with the correct systems administration I personally believe the risk is minimal

The problem being that systems with bad administration are exactly the type of systems that are likely to still be running XP.

Cuddlesworth

Mr. G wrote: »

The only Windows operating system that is worth using now is Windows 7. W8 and Vista are not great, XP was a nice OS to be fair.

I've worked in Enterprise environments and have experienced upgrades from xp to Win8.

Vista was a fine OS. It just needed ram which at the time manufacturers and companies were happy to still ship/buy the usual 512mbs and then complain about it afterwards, when 2 gig should have been the bare minimum. Drivers became a issue, mainly because most peripherals makers decided to try cash in and refuse to release drivers for relatively new equipment. I haven't seen them try that recently with either Win7 or 8.

Windows 8 is a fine OS, with many back end improvements in performance again. They made a mistake trying to change the basic UI layout when it doesn't suit non-touch devices and have since backtracked.

I can tell you now, for the all the headaches we had with legacy applications, the people still on XP have made it so much harder for themselves through ignorance and laziness.

My last company found it difficult to move from XP to Vista, Vista to Win7 was a breeze and Win 7 to Win8 has proven to be effortless. Thats not because of the differences between the OS's but actually due to the fact that the company is used to changing every few years. Applications have to have active maintenance contracts, staff have to have a machine replacement every 2.5-3 years and legacy apps with no support get left in the dust and replaced if necessary.

GTE

I selected the work option. I only upgraded from it as the software I use stopped working on it. I'd still be using it now however, having gotten 8 and then 8.1 I would be more than happy to upgrade.

All windows 8 needs is the Classic Shell start menu and the idiots to moan about the personality split of windows 8 can become happy.

To be fair, Windows 7 is at least as good as XP and 8 is a better then the lot. Very happy. Vista though, rubbish.

200motels

bbk wrote: »

I selected the work option. I only upgraded from it as the software I use stopped working on it. I'd still be using it now however, having gotten 8 and then 8.1 I would be more than happy to upgrade.

All windows 8 needs is the Classic Shell start menu and the idiots to moan about the personality split of windows 8 can become happy.

To be fair, Windows 7 is at least as good as XP and 8 is a better then the lot. Very happy. Vista though, rubbish.

Don't forget you wouldn't have 7 and 8 without Vista. Vista is not rubbish, with at least 2gb of ram and a good processor Vista runs extremely well in fact it runs as well as 7 on my PC but Linux Mint beats the two of them hands down.

sawdoubters

amazon has windows 7 oem 50 pounds

White Heart Loon

sawdoubters wrote: »

amazon has windows 7 oem 50 pounds

That really isn't an option, most XP computers are not good enough to run Windows 7 to any reasonable standard, would be better put that money towards an upgrade to a faster system

PropJoe10

I was at the dentist last week and the dentist was using XP on her computer. She was hot though, so I didnt say a word. Didnt want to upset her.

JustAddWater

No option for Atari XP?

Hugh 2

I have been considering a MAC for a while
If XP becomes unusable I don't think I will go to 8 (or 7)
My iphone and ipad may well become joined by a iMAC

Have one essential program that only runs on PC other ways I would be long gone

White Heart Loon

Hugh 2 wrote: »

I have been considering a MAC for a while
If XP becomes unusable I don't think I will go to 8 (or 7)
My iphone and ipad may well become joined by a iMAC

Have one essential program that only runs on PC other ways I would be long gone

So, if you cannot use XP you will spend three times the price of a new Windows PC on a new Mac as you've already been captured by the Apple ecosystem and are convinced they get updates forever

PropJoe10

Hugh 2 wrote: »

I have been considering a MAC for a while
If XP becomes unusable I don't think I will go to 8 (or 7)
My iphone and ipad may well become joined by a iMAC

Have one essential program that only runs on PC other ways I would be long gone

Each to their own but Windows 8 with Classic Shell is absolutely fine. In fact, its better than fine, its great. Snappy, secure and stable.

Mr. G

W8 is better than Vista and performs better than W7 on machines with small amounts of memory.

Moving from XP to W8 would be a nightmare. I'm involved in a move at the moment and while I would love all PCs to be on W8, I just know it would be a nightmare. The main problem I see is that for computer-illiterate users, they would miss the desktop they're used of, so Windows 7 is most practical. Granted you can get the classic start menu on W8, but still.

I think the design of W8 will grow and it would be interesting to see what path MS take on the next version.

Regarding Vista, just no. Too many crashes, and it is fair to say (in my opinion anyway) that Windows 7 beats it hands down.

State agencies and educational institutions get special licenses with MS, how much cheaper they get licenses I don't know, but for schools there is a difference anyway.

Holsten

I still have it on two older laptops that don't get used.

I use Win 7 Ultimate for nearly everything else.

Hugh 2

White Heart Loon wrote: »

So, if you cannot use XP you will spend three times the price of a new Windows PC on a new Mac as you've already been captured by the Apple ecosystem and are convinced they get updates forever

Thanks I suppose I am impressed by Apple the laptops here has never been used since the iPad arrived.
I keep the PC just for Farm software program that just will not run on MAC.
In honesty if it comes to it I would buy most basic PC just to run this software (if I really have to) rather than shell out for MAC (I was surprised as to how expensive they are)

I will stay with XP till the for as long as I can.

Hugh 2

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Each to their own but Windows 8 with Classic Shell is absolutely fine. In fact, its better than fine, its great. Snappy, secure and stable.

Thanks I will have a look at 8 in classic shell -when I saw 8 in shop it looked like it was just designed for touch screen without a touch screen pc

Duggy747

I'd take Win 7 any day over Win XP, no question about it.

I still use XP at work but I'm going upgrading it to Win 7 before the week is out..........it's a Win 7 machine that was downgraded to XP for some software reason before I started the job.

Gyck

I've got a bunch of VMs running XP (and Win95 and DOS). Use it for legacy games.

janeparker

In my opinion, it is best operating system for work and office both.

the_syco

Use it on one of the home machines, as it's needed for some software. Use W7 on my main gaming machine, and use W7 on my work machines. Have put XP on a few of the older laptops, as it's faster, and can be set to use a lot less RAM.

Ash.J.Williams

The government have signed a 3m deal with Microsoft to protect XP....the UK are doing the same.

JustAddWater

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The government have signed a 3m deal with Microsoft to protect XP....the UK are doing the same.

Bit misleading... They couldn't get their arse in gear more like and now face a €3m bill to Microsoft to get support for what is now going to be a legacy OS

If they had upgraded properly like most other businesses....

Here's a link
http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/state-must-pay-33m-security-bill-after-missing-windows-xp-deadline-30021556.html

BionicRasher

After the next upgrade to Window 7 I believe a lot of large companies (and hopefully small too) will start to look at Platform as a Service, Infrastructure as a Service and Software as a Service – PaaS, IaaS and SaaS - or the ‘CLOUD’

It’s a massive cost for a company to upgrade hardware and to put resources in to going to every machine and updating the OS. In 5 years time I believe most forward thinking companies will be running thin clients, Web Browsers on mobile devices or BYOD etc.

It would be much easier and less painful to push a new OS via the Cloud rather than having all the hassle that goes with a major upgrade currently

Irish Steve

BionicRasher wrote: »

After the next upgrade to Window 7 I believe a lot of large companies (and hopefully small too) will start to look at Platform as a Service, Infrastructure as a Service and Software as a Service – PaaS, IaaS and SaaS - or the ‘CLOUD’

It’s a massive cost for a company to upgrade hardware and to put resources in to going to every machine and updating the OS. In 5 years time I believe most forward thinking companies will be running thin clients, Web Browsers on mobile devices or BYOD etc.

It would be much easier and less painful to push a new OS via the Cloud rather than having all the hassle that goes with a major upgrade currently

For the manufacturer maybe, for the end user, there are MASSIVE risks, in a number of areas, which are being conveniently avoided by the proponents of "the cloud". My attitude towards the cloud is that I've seen it all before, it was called bureau processing 40 years ago, and it can be fraught with real problems for the end user, and can be very expensive if not properly managed by the end user.

The first issue is the issue of access to the data and programmes, both in terms of physical connection, and in the event of a problem with the cloud supplier. The last week is a case in point. Many people have had no power for a week. A company can't turn round to the workforce and say "sorry, our broadband has been out for the last week, we can't process the payroll this week", people depend on their money on time.

Then there's the issue of getting access to the data and the programs in the event of the failure of the cloud supplier, which means that there either has to be a cast iron guaranteed escrow system or similar for ALL backups, or the customer has to make local backups of the entire cloud. If you're making local backups, why pay for a cloud?

Some cloud suppliers don't own the hardware they operate on. Do you really fancy trying to get access to your data and programs from the company that's pulled the plug on the cloud supplier because they haven't paid the bill to the hardware supplier? Good luck with that one, there's only one way out of that, pay the possibly large outstanding bill, or pay the possibly large legal bill to enforce the agreement that you have with a different company that may no longer exist or be trading, and having negotiated that minefield, find a new supplier that can host your data and programs and provide access to them, and do it all in a matter of hours to avoid the problem becoming much larger when your payroll is not paid out on time.

No thanks, that scenario doesn't appeal to me at all! There could be very significant consequences for the directors of a company that fails if it is deemed that the directors acted recklessly, and using "the Cloud" without adequate safeguards against the failure of "the cloud" could well prove to be a VERY expensive mistake for some.

The Cloud LOOKS cheap, but when you factor in the very necessary extras that the snake oil salesman conveniently doesn't mention until after you've signed, the total cost of the cloud will be very similar or possibly even dearer than having your own operation in house, the problem being that "the cloud" at first sight appears very attractive to small companies that don't want to have the cost of support of in house computers and systems.

Then there's the hidden costs, both in terms of access, and support, which can be increased by the supplier, who can be comfortable in the knowledge that moving to another supplier can be very difficult. Nice for the supplier, not so nice for the customer.

The bottom line is to remember what a cloud is. It's water vapour that has condensed and become visible, but a very small change in the environment can mean that the cloud disappears as quickly as it formed, and there's no trace to be found of it. If you look at cloud computing in the same way, and treat it with that degree of scepticism, you may stay safe as others rush headlong into what could prove to be a very expensive mistake, which in the worst case scenario could destroy any companies that have not taken the right level of precautions to protect their data.

A significant number of companies that lose their data and systems through flood, fire or systems failure do not survive long term, due to the problems of recovering, and I know what I'm talking about here, I had to recover the entire accounting system for a £15 Million turnover company in the early 80's after a flood, and it wasn't easy.

The Cloud for computing is the latest version of buzz words being peddled in a lot of cases by snake oil sales people, and the very real and substantial risks are being totally glossed over. Don't be caught by it, the consequences could be very serious if you don't make very sure that you are safe and secure.

BionicRasher

Irish Steve wrote: »

For the manufacturer maybe, for the end user, there are MASSIVE risks, in a number of areas, which are being conveniently avoided by the proponents of "the cloud". My attitude towards the cloud is that I've seen it all before, it was called bureau processing 40 years ago, and it can be fraught with real problems for the end user, and can be very expensive if not properly managed by the end user.

The first issue is the issue of access to the data and programmes, both in terms of physical connection, and in the event of a problem with the cloud supplier. The last week is a case in point. Many people have had no power for a week. A company can't turn round to the workforce and say "sorry, our broadband has been out for the last week, we can't process the payroll this week", people depend on their money on time.

Then there's the issue of getting access to the data and the programs in the event of the failure of the cloud supplier, which means that there either has to be a cast iron guaranteed escrow system or similar for ALL backups, or the customer has to make local backups of the entire cloud. If you're making local backups, why pay for a cloud?

Some cloud suppliers don't own the hardware they operate on. Do you really fancy trying to get access to your data and programs from the company that's pulled the plug on the cloud supplier because they haven't paid the bill to the hardware supplier? Good luck with that one, there's only one way out of that, pay the possibly large outstanding bill, or pay the possibly large legal bill to enforce the agreement that you have with a different company that may no longer exist or be trading, and having negotiated that minefield, find a new supplier that can host your data and programs and provide access to them, and do it all in a matter of hours to avoid the problem becoming much larger when your payroll is not paid out on time.

No thanks, that scenario doesn't appeal to me at all! There could be very significant consequences for the directors of a company that fails if it is deemed that the directors acted recklessly, and using "the Cloud" without adequate safeguards against the failure of "the cloud" could well prove to be a VERY expensive mistake for some.

The Cloud LOOKS cheap, but when you factor in the very necessary extras that the snake oil salesman conveniently doesn't mention until after you've signed, the total cost of the cloud will be very similar or possibly even dearer than having your own operation in house, the problem being that "the cloud" at first sight appears very attractive to small companies that don't want to have the cost of support of in house computers and systems.

Then there's the hidden costs, both in terms of access, and support, which can be increased by the supplier, who can be comfortable in the knowledge that moving to another supplier can be very difficult. Nice for the supplier, not so nice for the customer.

The bottom line is to remember what a cloud is. It's water vapour that has condensed and become visible, but a very small change in the environment can mean that the cloud disappears as quickly as it formed, and there's no trace to be found of it. If you look at cloud computing in the same way, and treat it with that degree of scepticism, you may stay safe as others rush headlong into what could prove to be a very expensive mistake, which in the worst case scenario could destroy any companies that have not taken the right level of precautions to protect their data.

A significant number of companies that lose their data and systems through flood, fire or systems failure do not survive long term, due to the problems of recovering, and I know what I'm talking about here, I had to recover the entire accounting system for a £15 Million turnover company in the early 80's after a flood, and it wasn't easy.

The Cloud for computing is the latest version of buzz words being peddled in a lot of cases by snake oil sales people, and the very real and substantial risks are being totally glossed over. Don't be caught by it, the consequences could be very serious if you don't make very sure that you are safe and secure.

Yes I am in agreement with a lot of your points.
The Cloud needs to be managed correctly and you cannot solely rely on it for things like a Payroll application or a critical application that requires 99.9% uptime. What I believe many larger companies will do is have their own private cloud (datacenter) that deploys the OS and software and maybe has a connection to an external cloud as a fail over etc.
From a OS upgrade point of view pushing a new OS to thin clients from your own private cloud is way easier and more cost effective that the current model. I am not saying move everything off to some fly by night cloud operator but I am saying it is a serious step forward if you can consolidate your systems in to some sort of central hub. This cuts down on things like hardware costs, desktop support visits, upgrade deployments can be managed, inventory can be tracked and everything can be centrally managed which will help especially for larger companies that might have offices in multiple locations.