Slashdot Mirror
The Death of Windows XP
bsk_cw writes "Although many Windows users intend to hold onto their copies of XP until it is pried from their cold, dead fingers, Microsoft fully intends to phase out the OS in favor of Vista. If you're unwilling to move to one of the alternatives, and really don't like Vista, the least you can do is be aware of what's in store. David DeJean offers a rundown on Microsoft's timeline for Windows XP, why the company does things that way, and what you can do about it."
This will be very satisfying. I've had so many people tell me they absolutely HATE Vista, but they're stuck with it when they bought their new computer. They frequently ask me to put XP on, no matter what it takes (buy it, hack it, put their mothers key on).
Killing XP off finally, while I love the idea of killing Windows will really hurt Microsoft. Since people hate Vista so much, they'll start being more open to other options.
Maybe it'll mean friends and family will be asking me to do more Linux installs. I like those better anyways, they go a lot faster and they don't involve 2 hours of install plus 2 days of Windows Updates.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I doubt they know though if they would install XP or Linux on there the laptop would absolutely fly and that's why they don't seem to have problems with it, if they would install XP or Linux and compare it to Vista they would find Vista is a major slow down on their computer.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
Microsoft should recognize the Vista fiasco and then put all the eggs in the Win7 basket.
I can not imagine all corporate users migrating to vista just because MS want so.
Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
Why not? Generally the reasons that people use Windows when they know there is Linux is because of legacy apps, if they don't work in Vista there is no need to move from XP and not move to Linux/OS X. On most other OSes unless there has been a major change (Like 9X to NT, major changes in scripting languages such as python, PPC to x86) you should expect backwards compatibility. With Linux you don't have that problem, most apps written 3 years ago for the first Ubuntu will work fine with 8.04 or any other distro. With OS X the OS had such a major change from PPC classic mac based to x86 Unix-based you can't make a claim of backwards compatibility but in general there's no reason to expect that NT X App shouldn't run on NT X+1. MS killing backwards compatibility is killing the entire MS monopoly and moving people to OS X or Linux.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
There's plenty of good reasons to bash microsoft; this isn't one of them.
---Dedicated Ubuntu user
Umm.... what about the Eee PC? It's creating a new, very successful niche in the computer industry in the last six months, yet it's not powerful enough to run Vista. Is Microsoft going to end licensing of XP for the system, and give the whole market to linux? That would seem like an utterly stupid move on their part.
Given that the article sites June 30 as the cut-off date for pre-installed XP from the likes of HP and Dell, does anyone think that these guys are going to see a bunch of sales right before that date? I know that my brother's business needs about three more laptops and that when he hears that June 30 is the drop-dead date for XP machines from Dell, he's probably going to start ordering.
I wonder if XP will get a reprieve before or after the 30th of June. It _will_ get a reprieve. That's my bet. I just don't know for sure when.
Of course, I'm feeling a bit smug typing this on an Eee PC without Windows and knowing that my wife is about to buy a MacBook. I use Windows at work, but in every place where we make the decisions, we've given up on it.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
This incipient consumer rebellion is a relatively new phenomenon, even in the short history of PCs. For most of the '90s, Microsoft couldn't bring out new products fast enough to satisfy customers.
This is sort of empirical proof, to me at least, for what I have long thought, and I'm sure a lot around here thought as well. The days of an OS revolutionizing or vastly enhancing the way someone, especially a consumer, computes are long behind us. The OS has suffered from feature bloat for forever, and for the most part, a successful new OS is one that just doesn't hinder the work to be done. For most people, their computing needs have been satisfied, but they are pushed into a perpetual cycle of upgrading for upgrades sake. This "rebellion" is a symptom of this. XP satisfied people, and some of them are starting to realize what the terms "lock-in" and "monopoly" actually mean.
We're coming to a point where freedom in software is gaining in market value. I know it's cliche, and people have been spouting it for a over a decade, but I suspect that the general populace has come to a point where they can see that dollars and cents are in favor of not being tied to a corporation that makes money by selling solutions for the same problems over and over again. I don't know what iteration of "free" software will fill this void, but this mess with XP is not good for them. It won't be the downfall of Windows, they are far to crafty and firmly positioned for that to happen. However, the old business model of theirs is losing its effectiveness.
I hope I'm right, but even more so I hope I'm not turning into a linux nut that shouts "It's the year..." every time MS slips up.
I got a catholic block.
I doubt they know though if they would install XP or Linux on there the laptop would absolutely fly and that's why they don't seem to have problems with it, if they would install XP or Linux and compare it to Vista they would find Vista is a major slow down on their computer.
Probably, but I don't know that speed is everything to the average user. They'll put up with a bit of slowdown for an OS that feels powerful, looks pretty and has lots of neat little toys. And Linux has certainly had issues with looking pretty, which is understandable as talented designers aren't as generous as programmers,
And yes, I could be talking about OS X here too; only in the last few years has it not been an OS that's slow as molasses.
A whole article, with very informative and concise information about support and sales cycles of XP, but in the end the conclusion is you can put it off but you will bend over and take it.
THIS is what's wrong with proprietary software. If Vista were better - more compatible with existing software, less buggy, less DRM crap, I would WANT to move. I don't, but in the long run I don't have a choice. If you'd told me 3 years ago I'd be fighting to keep XP, and buying older hardware to ensure support for it, I'd have laughed at you.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
The only reason I keep XP around is for gaming anyways. I'm figuring by the time XP really goes the way of the dodo, the 3d support for Windows applications will be there. If that's some version of virtualization, or wine having DX9 support completely that's what I'll use. Both of these options are "mostly there" now. VMware does some 3D, and wine can run a lot of DX9 stuff, just not what I need.
I used Vista, and I don't really like it. I like Ubuntu, but there are some things like games, that it doesn't run. I feel choosing the OS, then the applications is like putting the cart before the horse. When I can run rFactor(a PC driving sim) in Linux, I can migrate to it. I fully believe I'll be able to do this before XP is dead.
I'm old enough to remember...
Here's what you're missing... Win95 did have a number of significant improvements over 3.11. Vista does not have significant improvements over XP. It's a few security fixes, lots of eye candy, and lots of DRM or similar protectionist practices that mean you have to contact MS every time you switch your hard drive.
There is no benefit whatsoever in switching to Vista. There are, however, consequences in terms of performance and in the freedom to change hardware etc. It might have been a different story if they'd delivered the Vista they initially promised -- the one with the new file system etc. The Vista they eventually delivered had none of that -- no significant improvements, no "must have" features whatsoever.
Shilling your own posts. How lame.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
FTFA:
Booom, that was a 486. BOOOM, that was a PI. BABOOMBA, that was a PII with a chrome-spoiler VGA card. How we lived through all that, no one knows.
TFA goes on about Microsoft's problems supporting "a tangle of versions and upgrades" which is almost as funny given when you consider how well DOSBox, Wine and virtual machines deals with all the same problems with none of the inside information. No, it's not new because IBM did Win3.1 inside OS/2 very well. Me thinks the "support" issue is created rather than natural.
But yeah, Windows is dying.
No calls now, I'm
Oh, well, here we go:
DOS is a new-fangled OS. Run CP/M. Completely malware free, since none of the malware is compatible.
Heh, still have one of those on the network too: a 486 running DOS 6.2 and Windows for Workgroups with TCP/IP drivers. It gets booted up once a year or so to make sure it still works. :)
XP users will still get security fixes until 2014. By then MS will probably have put out windows 8 and everyone will be complaining about that. Just like everyone complained about 95, 98, ME, 2000, xp, and vista when they came out, and yet continued to buy MS's operating systems.
Be realistic 13 years of support is amazing long, and if that's not enough XP for you there isn't any rule that says you can't continue to use it after they stop patching it.
Absolutely. Backward compatibility is always blamed as the problem, but these legacy apps cost MONEY for new versions (if they are even available). This is one thing that always irritates me about Microsoft. Even on products they don't make any money on, like IE, they have to re-invent the wheel every time they release it.
With Linux you don't have that problem, most apps written 3 years ago for the first Ubuntu will work fine with 8.04 or any other distro. With OS X the OS had such a major change from PPC classic mac based to x86 Unix-based you can't make a claim of backwards compatibility but in general there's no reason to expect that NT X App shouldn't run on NT X+1. MS killing backwards compatibility is killing the entire MS monopoly and moving people to OS X or Linux.
Absolutely. The other great thing about Linux, if you are using FOSS, you can probably just download a version that works with your distro. A pain in terms of time, but at least it's not cash out of your pocket. If that doesn't work out for you, you next option is to modify the source code and recompile under the latest OS. Again, doesn't always work, and can be difficult for some apps, but in general a viable solution.
In general, Microsoft is an incredibly wasteful company. They spend millions of man-hours re-inventing products with minimal improvement. I have heard very little about Vista that is an improvement on XP, yet they spent a ton of work on it. Their whole business model is banking on the idea that software is continually obsolete, and that just isn't the case. A Word Processor is a Word Processor. An OS, as long as it's compatible with the hardware, is an OS. I can write a letter in Word 95 just as easily as I can in Word 2007, gets the same job done. Why would I spend thousands of dollars on all of the upgrades between now and then if Microsoft didn't periodically break all the backward compatibility.
Find coupons in Greeley
I got something that activated my XP system w/o Microsoft already. It's called a crack. When I purchased my machine it came with an XP key. At some point Microsoft felt that key was no longer valid and after a call in they informed my that my key was invalidated and I was probably using a pirated version (I doubt e-Machines did that) so I'd have to pay for a new one.
I went to Google, found what I needed and I've been happily running new installs of XP since.
That worked really well for Microsoft didn't it?
That is why you should always either build your own or have someone build one for you.Not only do you get to choose EXACTLY what comes in your pc,but even the $199 Athlon special I built for a guy last month came with a cd that had Win2K,2K3,XP,and XP64 as well as Vista drivers.I would much rather build my own and decide what OS I want,than get saddled with Vista.And if I can still get motherboards with Win2K drivers without even having to hunt I have no doubt that I will be able to get XP drivers with my motherboards for many years to come.Hell,it was only a couple of years ago that I finally saw the motherboards stop shipping Win98 drivers.But that's my 02c,if you want Vista,just buy an OEM.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I'll bet he's not running any games past D9 on it.
Since DX10 is only available for Vista, I'd say that's a pretty safe bet.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
you know, I wonder about that. Wasn't there some story about "pre" D10 dev kits being made available to various select developers that ran on XP?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Agreed, but as someone who has just painstakingly managed to install Windows XP on a Dell XPS 1530 (which is officially Vista-only) I can attest to the fact that it's not "a bit of slowdown" - it's an imprecise measure but I'd say my laptop now "feels" at least two times faster/more responsive. We are talking about a pretty zippy dual core machine with 3 gigs of RAM and a powerful video card, too (256MB DDR3 nvidia 8600gt), which ran like treacle with Vista on it.
I have since played with another, similar Vista laptop trying to figure out what is doing all the damage. The worst individual offenders seem to be the (well documented) user account control bullshit which interferes with every aspect of the operation of the computer, and "supercache", which would have to be in the top 5 worst Microsoft innovations of all time.
For the uninitiated, supercache watches everything you do and records a log of what you cause to be loaded into memory and at what time/date it happens (this automatically introduces an overhead into every single memory related operation because Vista has to spend some resources on surveilling you). It then attempts to predict what you are going to use at a given point in time, and pre-caches as much of it as it considers to be reasonable. So for example, if I played Quake III every Wednesday night between 7-8pm, Vista would start grinding away at about 7pm on Wednesdays loading the texture files into RAM. Supercache apparently considers about 1.5 gigabytes on a system with 3 gigabytes of RAM to be a reasonable amount of physical memory to use for this process.
The net effect of all of the above is that Vista spends a hell of a lot of time sitting there churning away using your disks and RAM to load "stuff" into memory that you "might" need. All of this for the 1-2 seconds you are likely saving by not having to load Word or Quake III or whatever from disk should you happen to want to use it.
Turning UAC and Supercache off (both pretty straightforward once you know where to look) improves performance a lot - but not enough. Vista still has an offensively huge footprint and runs like a dog compared to XP.
Which returns me to the original point - XP is already a challenge to get running with some newer hardware. But if hardware manufacturers have the guts to stand up to Microsoft and keep producing XP versions of their hardware drivers (which should be trivial if they are doing 32 bit Vista drivers) then there's really very little we need from Microsoft.* XP is a stable, solid, mature OS which does what it does pretty well. I for one intend to keep using it into the foreseeable future.
* This is the main issue at the moment - most laptop manufacturers in particular have abandoned XP support on newer machines.
Read Pynchon.
I think the typical Slashdot geek just prefers his RAM to go towards the applications he's running, not to keep his desktop on the screen.
For non-networked machines, is there a need for a newer operating system? Software doesn't age you know.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
In 2014, Microsoft will stop all support of Windows XP. Oh noes!
You guys DO realize that this would be like someone running Windows 95 today, right? XP came out in 2002 and was replaced in 2007. A full seven years after that, XP will be phased out. There will likely be two major OS releases, plus Vista, by the time that happens.
Not to mention this has already happened with every other Windows release to date, including Windows 2000. In fact, Windows 2000 (Professional and Server) officially lost Mainstream Support in the middle of 2005, and its Extended Support (security updates only) will end in 2010. That's a 10 year lifespan.
The real story here is that Microsoft has committed to supporting an OS for 12 years after you paid less than $200 for it.
-David
At the risk of trolling, who cares? Microsoft has been doing this sort of thing since Windows 3.1.
By now, I think people have figured out the proprietary software game. You pay for gloss, for the "privelege" of upgrading every few years. People who run Windows by choice do so because they want to have the latest thing. They don't care how well it works; they don't care if it's slow, or needs constant updating, or has umpteen million security holes.
It's what everybody is using. Period. And that's reason enough to use it.
You know, we could go on a rant about other operating systems that are more secure, run faster, have better legacy support, more features and options, etc...
But it doesn't matter. The kind of people who run XP by choice don't care that Microsoft is going to discontinue support. When that happens, they'll just shell out another few hundred for a brand new PC. Why? Because it's new, and therefore better.
It doesn't matter. Nobody cares. Linux will still be around for those of us who actually care about the quality of the software we run. And Apple will still, gladly, cater to those who are fed up with being abused by their technology vendor. And no one will care - not Microsoft, not Apple fanboys, not Linux zealots, and least of all, Windows users. They've become so accustomed to computers as slow, unreliable, and insecure, that honestly, they won't notice any difference.
Because Vista is new, and therefore more advanced....
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Ideally I would run the scan by unplugging the network cable and booting from directly the malware-scanner CD. Unfortunately nobody makes such a thing -- it's like the "antivirus" companies don't really care about reliability. Running the scan on the target system itself is pointless, since some system-level malware could be tampering with the results. That's why I take the hard drives out of the target systems and attach them to a known-clean system (fresh OS+scanner install, no network) to run the scan.
But really the elaborate malware scan is just window dressing so I can provide some tangible evidence that my systems aren't infected; I know they're clean because I keep them clean on a day-to-day basis by not installing tons of random crap I found in the net.toilet, keeping applications and plug-ins (and pointless upgrades!) to a bare minimum, and keeping an eye on the security bulletins. It's not rocket science, but it is kind of computer science.
It's pretty simple, really. Microsoft has only 2 choices: dictate to the market or be dictated to by the market.
Microsoft is run and staffed by arrogant pretty things who encourage one another to believe that they understand both computing and people. The reality is that they truly understand neither particularly well, but to admit that would be to cede the initiative to anyone else who appreciates either/both aspects of their market much better (e.g. Apple).
Secondly, Microsoft has long built its empire on much flim-flam and marketing bafflegab and very little in the way of technical innovation and solid capability. If you're in that position, you can never afford to let the market take the initiative away from you because, once your cover is blown and your dubious marketing practices and lack of development prowess are exposed to open scrutiny, you'll never regain the public trust again.
In light of the above, Microsoft will NEVER allow the market to dictate anything to them.
When the subject is something that everybody has their own strong opinion of, polls and survey's don't matter much anymore, they're just flamebait. And if Vista is anything, it's something that everybody has a strong opinion of, I'll give it that.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
I use W2K on my home and work PC. Security? As long as it is supported by MS(security patch until 2009) and behind my via epia linux firewall(heavier one at workplace) it is pretty safe from being pwned. That leaves just two security hole, the 'malicious ActiveX' problem and 'user installing random crapware' problem, which is not just W2K's problem(and I'd rather say, it is not the hw or sw problem. It's 'something between keyboard and chair' problem) and can be mitigated by education and providing Limited user accounts(My wife is power user with privilege-escalated IE icon(used in internet banking with ActiveX plugin) in menu, My son's is just an user with limited privilege).
I don't do serious gaming, but I'm content with mame(including that 3d hw accelerated game starts with 't'), warzone2100(3d accelerated too), dosbox(MOO, MOM, settlers etc.), snes9x, freeciv, wesnoth, UQM, Privateer remake, starcraft. My little sons are pretty satisfied with flash games, UQM, and snes9x too.
Drivers? This PC is AMD 690G based, not that old PC. Though they aren't officially supporting W2K(they didn't mention it at ther web support site), the driver CD included in the mainboard just installed amd graphic driver(catalyst ver 6.12 or something with DX9) fine. Yes, generally W2K is pickier than WinXP on CDROM on newer IDE chipset(especially non-intel chips such as highpoint, marvell) when it is about to be installed, but it can be solved by copying install files when it is on previous OS(win98 etc) or copy it directly in dos mode(I386 directory) or sata-to-ide adapter(I've bought 1 for $5) if you have IDE cdrom and intel chipset board.
Workplace? We've standardized on Office2K on W2K too. With firewall, automatic update, Limited user account with some exceptions(those nasty ActiveX my customer requires) and AV product they are pretty safe too. And I can freely relocating OS, App license to machine to machine due to non-activation status of these OS/APP. My desktop PC OS is debian. But I use W2K as KVM guest OS when Internet banking is needed(those fscking activeX plugins!). The only application I've encountered that can't be installed on W2K is CATIA V5 R18 which is fairly new.(It could've been installed on W2K until R16). Even if W2K in office use would become obsolete, there are many older PCs 'waiting with honor' to be installed with W2k on working area in my plant.(they are pentium-PIII era w9x based pc managed with PXE network booting and dd imaging. Funny? they works pretty well if they are used for their dedicated purpose with their own legacy apps and restricted net access)
Conclusion? MS can theoretically grab WinXP OEM from your live hands when your motherboard dies, but they'll never be able to pry W2K OEM from my cold dead finger. By that time, it'll live on virtual world created by my penguin god which MS can never dare to touch on.
It's still the DOS-based OS that crashed a lot. I remember upgrading from Win98 to Win2000 and my first impression was "wow, this thing can actually work a whole day without rebooting!"
It's because single letters don't work well as an abbreviation... and since Firefox is a compound word (fire and fox), people call it FF and carry the capitalization over when they write it as a single word.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
I think a bigger problem than Application upgrades for most people will be drivers. People are going to come with their latest gadget and try to attach it to their XP machine and there won't be a driver for it. I'm finding similar problems with Win 2000 now. Basic this has broken can I repair it reinstall it type issues there will still be plenty of support for. After all most IT guys will still remember how to do stuff from the XP days, and if there still is a bunch of corporate workstations that haven't been upgraded then there is still a bunch of IT guys tinkering with XP all the time.
I think EOLing XP is the way to go. XP is old technology, people still have another 5 years at some level of support, I think 10 years is plenty of time for supporting an OS. I don't agree with taking down existing documentation from your website though. It can't be more than a few GB's, heck lets say it is 1TB, wants the big deal? A few hundred dollars worth of disk. Your new product should sell itself, your old products manuals should still be available, but the industry should be giving a compelling reason to upgrade hardware/software.
My own PCs (including a year 2007 dual core) are still running Windows 2000 (Professional), because I really dislike the idea of an operating system with "product activation". On this one we might actually agree, given your general attitude toward Microsoft ;-)
But otherwise the oldie holds up better than you suggest:
-With current patches and a DSL router using NAT, I had no intrusions for a few years.
-After updating a few registry settings and libraries, most current software runs fine. Here Windows 2000 shows its age, but it is still manageable.
Nevertheless, Windows 2000 will probably not be on my next PC a few years from now. Reasons are:
-expected lack of drivers, but I can't really fault hardware vendors for that. Windows 2000 is dying out.
-inability to fully use modern hardware. My current rig is pushing the limits of Windows 2000, the next one will exceed them.
-Linux is improving year by year. I'm already keeping an eye on Ubuntu Linux and consider the operating system as good as Windows or better. If it wasn't for a few Windows games Ubuntu might already be my main OS.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Speak for yourself. Short term thinking based on so-called 'Free Market' philosophy not only created the very villains featured in your story, but also the stupid rules by which they were forced to self-destruct.
The Free Market, as I understand things, is basically the tag-line in the philosophy whereby one takes no personal responsibility for anything except the short-term pursuit of money while blissfully believing that nature will clean up all our messes for us. Perhaps I'm wrong. --After all, when it boils right down to it, the Free-Market is about as followable a 'philosophy' as Evolution or Gravity. I don't really get what the big deal is. --Except, of course, that it is used as a means to whip people into an emotional fervor so that they ignore fiscal improprieties and criminal activities of very rich people.
I prefer to think that we were gifted with intelligence so that we can take the time to measure the landscape and make plans so that we might more rationally navigate the socio-economic realities which make up our world. Market forces are going to have their effect no matter what you do, so why do people trumpet them as though it were some sort of religion? I find it baffling that people often make this mistake with regard to evolutionary forces; Just because we see such forces functioning in the natural world does not mean that we should abandon our higher intelligence and run back to the jungle. Our higher intelligence gives us the ability to project possible future outcomes and attempt to work toward those which promise greater collective satisfaction and community health.
The Jungle really is an excellent example of a free market system which rewards and compensates with great efficiency, and that's fine, but I would prefer to use a bit of planning and human ingenuity and social conscience in order to find collective solutions. --Solutions which are a little more beneficial than those which would have us living naked in the trees while the fiercest tiger hunts us with impunity and tells us that this is the way it should be because the Free Market decided it so. Selfless collective community planning is considered highly offensive to the greedy, (the tigers), who use the idea of the so-called 'Free Market' and its links to evolutionary theory to champion their greed, but in the end, they're just using key-words to push everybody's 'stop-thinking' buttons. Selfless collectivist thinking is where tiger-killer software like Linux came from, so I think perhaps there is a flaw in the cultish ardor of the Free Market proponents.
Singing the praises of the Free Market is rather like singing the praises of Gravity. Yes, we Get It, but it shouldn't stop people from thinking rationally.
-FL
You would have to be awfully ignorant to think that HW makers stopped supporting W2K in 2000. W2K has essentially the same kernel as XP. And XP is still the most popular desktop OS, by a wide margin.
Besides, W2K is very fast even on older hardware. I have a 1ghz/512mb box running W2K, and it's very snappy. It runs all my HW and SW, and has no problems with stability or security.
So why should I "upgrade?" It would just be a pointless expense. And why would I want to fight with all of Vistas horried DRM, and other annoyances?