Slashdot Mirror
XP Deathwatch, T Minus 2 Weeks
CWmike writes "June 30 is Microsoft's deadline for mainstream computer makers to stop selling new PCs with the old operating system, and the date that it will stop shipping boxed copies to retailers. That's just two weeks away. Computerworld offers a FAQ about XP's approaching retirement after Microsoft's most recent relaxation of the retirement rules, with some details about which machines big-brand computer makers will be selling with XP after June 30. First FAQ: Any sign that Microsoft will reprieve Windows XP's retirement? Sort of."
With Liunx getting in to there market (with moblie PC, sub note books) this can only help.
Does this mean that they will stop all updates and patching for XP as well? Or is that farther down the road?
Either way, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, because soon enough, the updates will stop, XP machines will be virus infested and even my grandma will have beef with Microsoft!
OSS: You run the software you want to run, according to your business interests.
Want to run Linux 2.0 (not that you'd want to)? Sure no probs.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
This is a clear case of a large company making what they want and totally ignoring consumer demand. What people really want is a better version of XP and for continued support. I for one (if I am to use Windows (and then only in a virtualized environment)) would gladly pay $99 or whatever for an upgraded version of XP that is still very much like XP. Apple is making a strong move I feel with Snow Leopard. People like Leopard. They are releasing Leopard, but "better". I'd pay for it in a heartbeat, as stability and speed is well worth money to me. If they made an XP "better", I'd go for it and pay for the upgrade. That's the goal isn't it? For people to pay for the next thing?
But, that's not what they are doing. They figure people want excessively high system requirements, "more secure" environments (which aren't really better security models, just annoying prompts often) and pretty graphics. Hell, I was happy with the graphics in Windows 2000, and in fact when I use XP I turn it back to Win2K themes always.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Oh crap! I thought they were replacing Vista with XP. Disappointment yet again. =(
The Linux desktop lifewatch, T minus 2 weeks.
Of course, as all nerds know, anything that dies can come back as a zombie to eat that which is alive. But we're rational people here and could never imagine that.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
2014: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3223
Dell has already stated that they will continue to install XP if the customer requests it.
Now all you pirates will have an excuse for downloading your Windows XP disc image.
Property is theft.
Why won't it be "T plus two weeks?" What's wrong with that?
I heard a rumor that oil speculators were moving money into XP Home retail box.
Too late. I got mine on Saturday.
And two years from now, if they wont activate, boy 'o boy is Balmer going to get a good chair-throwing!
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
I'm sure the Pirate Bay will continue to carry Windows XP for a long long time.
And the fact that our few boxen with it run like dogs even with dual core high end processors.
Even with the effects turned off it's dog slow.
If they kill the ability for us to buy XP we're going to an all Linux/Unix shop.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
XP is here. It works. It works well. It has drivers. It's fast. Vista has been a complete disaster for Microsoft. It's here, but it doesn't work well, lacks drivers and is slower than molasses. The record 'sales' of Vista that Microsoft has been bragging about is only due to preinstallations, and everyone knows it. I got Vista on a new laptop, loved the pretty colors but within a few months learned it was pure crap, deleted it, installed XP and never looked back. Microsoft: It's time to fall on your sword. Admit that Vista was the disaster it is: Every else already knows that. Sanction the developers that screwed it up so badly, and Fire the bureaucrats who would rather see Microsoft go down the tubes that admit they made a huge mistake with Vista.
The restructured Users folder, for example. Finally 'My Music' is moved out of the My Documents folder, making backups, once again, possible for basic end users.
The improved desktop rendering, which small matter though it may be, was well overdue for an overhaul.
There are some things which are worse in Vista, and we all know about them.
The copying speed.
The shutdown menu, and the fact that hibernation NEVER works.
Ultimately however, and this is where I intend to get relevant, there is nothing significant enough to recommend a switch from XP to Vista. And that's a statement that few people would argue with, and it's a damning statement. The more you think about about, the worse it gets.
And when you step into the world of Enterprise, and big business, things are even worse. In Enterprise, you really, really don't care about shiny baubles. All you care about is that it works, and it stays working, and it never works any worse than it used to.
Aging though it may be, XPs relevancy is not in decline. Windows Server 2003 does not want for much, in the way of mission critical upgrades, and what it does want for, Windows Server 2008 will not be providing.
This was foretold on the ancient Mayan Calender.
Windows: You run the software MS tells you to, according to MSs business interests.
You can run any software that is written for Windows and it will work! That's what makes Windows wonderful.
OSS: You run the software you want to run, according to your business interests.
This may be true, but, how do you run it? What libraries will you need? What the hell is a kernel? What does it mean to compile?
Until there is a bullet-proof installation method - Linux will remain out of the SMB world. The corporate world has a place for Linux on the desktop but NOT because it is open-source. It's because it works, is cheap(er) and fits a need.
Why is the Apple awesome for SMBs? Easy install using thier DMG files.
I personally use Linux for some development stuff, own an iPhone and Mac Mini AND use my Windows Vista laptop for day to day uses. Why? I use what works.
What I mean is, Vista seems a pain in the butt for mass deployment or reinstallations. I can easily imagine a few sysadmins going nuts and burned out over the Vista activation nightmares. Sysadmin burnouts and consequent paid sick leave should definitely figure in the TCO (Microsoft loves the "TCO" abbreviation) of Vista.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Linux is open source which means that absolutely anybody can offer you support on the product. I find it extremely hard to believe that by 2014 there will be nobody in the world willing to support older Linux installations.
Now I know samba has its bugs, but come on... it's not THAT bad.
</deliberate_misunderstanding>
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
bullshit, my employer (and I) will support any version of GNU/Linux from the last 18 years for our clients in Chicagoland area, for a price.
Anyone know?
Like many on here, I support computers for family, friends, etc... I have flatly told people that I will do nothing on their computers if they run vista. I've only used Vista for a few days, and the experience of using it myself and attempting to work with it on other people's computers has been so unpleasant that I won't do anything for it.
Thus, I'm basically using MS's decision to quit XP to push OS upgrades of my own choosing. People can either stick with XP - which I'm more than happy to support - or, if they want to upgrade to something new, I suggest they install Ubuntu - which I have also recently started using and will support for them. I have had several people make that switch and find the experience palatable. The point is that, at least for the home user, those of us who are unhappy with Microsoft's decision at least have a chance to not only vote with our wallets, but also bring others along for the ride.
I'm pretty sure RedHat would be happy to support you, for a price.
Camping on quad since 1996.
So if you won't be able to buy a new copy of XP any more, how long until one could reasonably consider it abandonware?
If I needed to build a new PC tomorrow, I'll want to install XP on it. But if Microsoft won't sell it to me, what can I do about it?
Computers are useless: they can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Sure, you can get support from independent companies and individuals for a price. I'm sure that you can do the same for Windows XP, for a price. GNU/Linux makes it much easier because of source code availability. But that doesn't change the fact that there aren't any Linux distros out there that will support each released version for 12 years like MS is doing with XP.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
There are two sides to "support", problem support and security update support.
Problem support can be provided by third parties, especially with an open source system like linux.
Security update support basically means someone has to monitor all the software in the distribution for secrity issues and then work out how to backport those fixes. While it would certainly be possible to do this for an indvidual customer I suspect few could afford it.
Of course not everyone cares about security updates. If the machines exposure can be kept to a minimum you may be able to live without them but for many users they are particularlly important.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I find it extremely hard to believe that by 2014 there will be nobody in the world willing to support older Linux installations.
Yeah, but their "support" is likely to be "just upgrade to 2.10 - it's free - and recompile your software from source".
Quit harrassing the Microsoft employees!
which is totally what she said
The OEMs are still going to supply computers loaded with XP. The license for Vista Business gives you the right to 'downgrade' to XP Pro. You can order a computer loaded with XP and it comes with a license for Vista.
We switched over to the Vista licensed option of the Dell Optiplex almost a month ago. Dell will be shipping with XP for at least a year and the downgrade rights extend into 2010.
There is no issue except that I am sure Microsoft is reporting this as a sale of Vista instead of a failure of Vista...
we do have certified Windows engineers who will do any version of windows or MS-DOS too (I only do VMS, Unix(tm), BSD and Linux). The usual model is that we sell a block of time and then the client can use the hours as they want.
Why should they extend support beyond December 21st, 2012?
As I recall, when XP released, the tech community was quite quick to throw flak at Microsoft for releasing a "bug ridden feature bloated OS that hides it's inadequacies behind a pretty interface", with a great cluster of users vowing to never leave their precious, mature, stable, and resource-efficient Windows 2000.
Somewhere along the line, XP mostly shed it's poor reputation, and replaced it with one of stability and speed on modern to previous-generation machines. Somehow, even though Win2k's death clock was ticking, few seemed to notice or care. At some point, if you weren't running XP, you were either a die-hard 2k fan, or you were a business.
Fast forward to now. Vista has been out for 20 months and has seen a service pack. Much of the tech community still throws flak at Vista for having poor driver support, being a resource hog, and often such flak is accompanied by a vow to never leave XP. Vista's reputation may be slowly turning, but inside tech circles, throwing flak is still the norm.
What's the difference?
Quite simple really, XP had a catch-22 situation with buying a new machine. Most users with half a brain cell would turn down Windows ME, as it was as stable as a vial of Nitroglycerin. Here's where XP had the advantage: Windows 2000 was a Business OS, and wasn't put out by Microsoft for Home users, so hence system vendors didn't market it on their machines. Thus, buyers were essentially given a choice: Unstable ME, or Unproven XP.
Vista, on the other hand, isn't coming from such a situation. The 9x line has long since been discontinued. Vista's SKU's are only competing against one predecessor: XP. New system buyers have a different choice than a few years ago: Proven XP, or Unproven Vista.
As far as I'm concerned, Vista isn't half bad. If there's a faulty driver, it will be brought to it's knees, but then again, so will XP. I'm running 2 machines and both have Vista as the OS, and thus far I've had only minimal problems.
Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
Camping on quad since 1996.
Camping on quad since 1996.
The quicker M$ pisses people off, the better.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Lots of anti-MS people will (after a bit of discussion) admit that XP is probably the best Windows ever.
Instead of capitalizing on that, Microsoft decides to take another route.
I am sure there are some really smart people in Microsoft, but it seems that people who are making some strategic decisions are retarded.
Funny, I'm a basic end user and I have no problem with backups. I have my music in
No, I don't think so. Not for me at least. I still prefer the kde-classic icon theme.
Works fine for me.
How's that Aero workin for ya on XP?
Camping on quad since 1996.
You can run any software that is written for Windows and it will work! That's what makes Windows wonderful.
No. Clearly you haven't installed much windows software or know much about how the API works, what parts of it work under which OS's. Just for example you can't run any windows software that uses DX5 specific calls under NT4. Just like there is no DX10 support for XP. Even outside of DirectX. It's trivial to find software that will install or run under one version of windows but not another.
Until there is a bullet-proof installation method - Linux will remain out of the SMB world.
Windows doesn't have a bullet-proof install method. It's not bad but please lets not play pretend.
What's the significant difference?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Windows: You run the software you want, according to your business interests, but don't expect support for old software. You can't fix it yourself, and your clients will think you are weird for running Windows 3.11.
OSS: You run the software you want, according to your business interests, but don't expect support for old software. You can fix it yourself though, but you'll have to learn how to fix it. And your clients will think you are weird anyway.
Not much difference here. Let's bitch about MS on real issues. Ok, some imaginary ones are allowed from time to time. But you'll have to promise to keep your software updated!
^[:wq!
"Must repurchase the OS to gain feature additions and accumulated bug fixes."
Excuse me, I think you have Microsoft confused with Apple.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If MS didn't do the stupid thing, that is the 'activation' I'd stayed with XP. I won't be forced to buy a new OS everytime I build a new system, especially if it's to replace a damaged or outdated machine. Priacy is one thing, but forcing people to buy your product that is going far too far. Yes, there's Linux; but the majority of Joe harddrive cannot install programs with it. OSX well you got the same problem; a proprotory OS. No, I'll stick with Win2k. Security? I honestly don't know how ZDnet and other places test security but with freeware tools, and using a bit of common sense I have very few problems. I'm just waiting till ReactOS comes out, then even Win2k is gone. - Kc
-- Kevin C. Redden kcredden@ gmail 392992
There's really only one question, which date should be the date to run Ctupdate for the final time? Before fire walling off XP or isolating it from the web.
If 4/8/2014 is the end, then should we run ctupdate on 3/8/2014 everyday until 4/8/2014, just in case the servers bog down with others with like ideas?
I shudder to thing about obscure drivers that we don't know about yet. Sort of like breaking things that were not broken. Vista is a pain in the ass just like HD is, it's a painful death of freedom. (my opinion)
heise Security c't Projekte
http://www.vulnerabilityassessment.co.uk/ctupdate.htm
v4.80
http://www.heise.de/ct/projekte/offlineupdate/download/ctupdate480.zip
Maybe one more question, with the economy shot, the switch to HD (add $1000 to $1500 for each mucking device, tv, converter, blue-ray burner, 3CCD equivalent HD camera, etc.), the attack on net neutrality, the destruction of communications and privacy, the investment in adobe, sony, etc. WHY would I want a higher costing machine, running slower, with an OS that won't do what the current one does now?
Even if we didn't do production, if all we did was watch tv on the internet, and work with audio, WHY would we want this extra cost with a crippled and DRM'd OS?
(Okay, that was three questions)
Maybe Microsoft would like to explain that?
MS *has* to do this because their latest OS release, well, in a word, sucks.
OTOH, Linux distros generally improve significantly with each new release, in fact so well and so quickly that supporting 12 year old tech just isn't feasible on any kind of large scale, especially when the upgrade path is so easy. Bonus - because of how Linux is designed, there isn't any need for you to run a 12 year old OS, either. There are always newer distros which run fine on really old hardware (Puppy, DSL, Antix, etc...).
I don't think that this "12 years of support" is a good comparison, there's really no basis for it that I can see. It's not like MS *wants* to do it... Instead, it's a fait accompli for them, or people will leave in droves, IMO.
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
If you get Vista Business, you have downgrade rights to Windows XP. So, for the forseeable future, you can buy a new PC, select Vista Business, but ask for XP installed. You still get a factory install and can move back up to Vista once MS improves it sufficiently (assuming MS actually DOES so).
It's not 12 years, being Microsoft has stopped supporting XP gold and XP SP1. They will eventually stop supporting XP at all unless you have SP3, and likely IE7. Still, that's 6 years of support left for security patches.
Will MS allow activation of XP after the cutoff date? For example, if I buy 50 copies of XP to hold my business over for a year, will I be able to activate them later or are they going to just cut it off?
They have a history of supporting older OS for a long time, this isn't the first situation where they've done this, though with XP it does seem longer than usual.
Windows 2000 (end of 1999) is still supported for security updates and will be until July 13, 2010.
Windows NT 4 (from 1996) was supported with security updates until December 31, 2004.
At least Apple actually gives users SOMETHING for that extra money.
Having used MS support, I have very limited expectations. Fortunately (no pun intended), there are alternative, more-reliable sources for Microsoft support.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Ass-umptions make an ass of you and you.
Camping on quad since 1996.
So you've updated to Vista without paying? Via Microsoft's servers? WOW. How'd u manage that?
Who cares about free downgrades?
paintball
A Vista evangelist calling Compiz a hog?
Heehhhhhhaaaaaaa....
I was getting worried.
Camping on quad since 1996.
Camping on quad since 1996.
It's pretty funny to see Slashdot, which spent over five years slamming XP as an epic failure, Microsoft's doom, the OS which would make people magically switch to Linux, etc, etc, etc... are now stating how freaking awesome XP is, and how Vista is an epic failure, Microsoft's doom, the OS which would make people magically switch to Linux, etc, etc, etc.
Meanwhile, Linux has had a pretty steady 0.65% marketshare for over ten years. Guess we see where the majority of the FOSS community's efforts have been: making inaccurate projections about Microsoft.
But hey, on the good side, at least Linux finally has more users than Windows 98. Give 'em another ten years, and they actually might end up beating XP.
Good point, but they've basically _had to_ extend the dates, what, twice now? Since Vista has had such a stellar record since release (TIC), the demand and outcry for a continuance of support for XP from the general public, enterprise, and OEM's has forced them into extending the lifetime of XP years beyond what MS had initially intended. That was not at all how MS planned it, and/or hoped for it to be.
:)
"No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy" - the enemy in this case being customers who have gotten wiser, and more cohesive in their protestations over MS dictating what it is that the customer needs, instead of vice versa (I hope).
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
Most of the software we use doesn't work correctly on Vista, hell sometimes it doesn't work correctly on XP after a patch. It will never be updated to run on Vista and is expensive, $5k-$40k per seat, depending upon the specific tool. Most of the vendors do provide ports to Linux and other nix versions.
XP automatically patches XP so that it goes from an outdated OS that's near its end of life to an outdated OS that's near its end of life. They do not upgrade to the CURRENT version of the Windows operating system whereas Linux updates DO. The entire comparison is invalid and illogical.
In order to follow the series of updates to get Windows CURRENT, you have to PAY, and PAY, and PAY. That's the differentiator I was talking about.
I'm sorry none of you picked up on this. I will hold your hands next time. My bad.
Camping on quad since 1996.
Given that one of the oldest sales tactics in the book is to create a sense of urgency, is it possible that MS fully intend to extend the deadline but will just keep quiet about it until 1 July? At the moment, there's a lot of people who intend to buy XP Pro by June 30. It's easy money. Just a thought...
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
As opposed to something for no extra money? How's that kool-aid taste?
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
If you think you have trouble getting GNU/Linux to work on new hardware, just try XP. The situation will deteriorate more rapidly than usual thanks to vendor interest in GNU/Linux. Acer, Asus and others going the GNU/Linux route are going to drop XP like a hot potato.
Intellectual property was the desert property of the twenth century.
No i agree, in particular the EeePC situation shows why they are hesitant to end XPs support. They have nothing to put in that market at the moment, even WinCE isn't up to the task without some significant work, and XP embedded isn't intended for such a device, if only because their license appears to restrict its use to single purpose machines like slot machines and ATMs.
Yea...
It's funny to pull out the kool-aid line I know, but for what i get from Apple its worth the price to me, especially compared to XP or to a lesser extent Vista.
And what XP users pay for service packs (ie. just the download time) is worth it to them.
I'm somewhat curious as to whether Apple computers qualify as Veblen Goods, especially now that the hardware is essentially identical.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
I aim to please.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
There's a difference between what Apple does and what MS does with service packs.
Service packs are rollups of security and bugfixes and that's it. XP SP2 was an exception because they screwed the development process of Longhorn so bad they had to release SOMETHING in the mean time, especially to fix all the huge flaws of the original XP and SP1. It was free yes, but in reality SP2 was a significant update not just a service pack.
Apple on the other hand actually introduces significant new features when they rev the version of OS X, and they do in fact charge quite a bit for them, and release them more often making it more expensive to maintain, but its worth it in my opinion.
This is actually the first Mac I've had, prior to that i've been using MS stuff since DOS 5. So while its funny to paint people as fanatics drinking the kool-aid, the reality is quite different.
It's not the grand Longhorn promise of a secure seamless powerful new architecture so it doesn't renew our indenture to this monopolist for another decade. Some few don't hit the pain points and can come to like it so they latch onto it like it's garlic at a vampire festival. It's going to be really hard to pry it away from those folks. It not quite lame enough to give a total pass -- there's always a chance with this tweak and that patch and the other workaround and all new hardware (again!) it might make a good golden image though that keeps not panning out so far. It has just the precise level of fail needed to cause the maximum amount of ire amongst purchasers of Microsoft products, leading them to ask "why, again, do we buy products from this company?" It has motivated far more people to see the hazard of single-sourcing your server and desktop architecture, particularly with this company as the source.
Vista just might be the product to free us from the clutches of this monster. So yeah, I'm starting to appreciate it in my own way. =)
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Remember: support for XP will be available through the year Jaguar-Basket-Jaguar-Snake.
If you behave like a 4 year old Lena, you can expect to be treated like one. The 80's called and would like thier feminist attitude back.
Except that you don't have to, so your point is irrelevant at best and flamebait at worst.
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
Just something that I feel I should point out: it's all relative. When XP first came out, there was ME and 2K (I was still on 98SE), to compare against it. Is seemed rock stable; I could go weeks without rebooting! It was still buggy, but not compared to 98SE, and ME. However, we're all used to XP SP2 these days. For all intents and purposes SP2 was an OS rewrite. The thing was huge and replaced a good deal of the underlying OS. XP SP2 is a stable, fast system. Pre SP2 just doesn't compare.
They did the undoable; replace an underlying system with a more stable system without breaking everything in the process. If you're a developer, you have to give them props for that (this is coming from a software development major who is also the president of a LUG, mind you!) regardless of what you think of the company itself. They're not going to pull that trick on the Vista codebase. They've lost too much talent since the start of development and no one ever understands a code base as well as the person who m designed it.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
Absolutely not. I have a friend who works at MS who feels the same way. He feels Vista is just fine.
That's the problem though. It's just fine with no real reason to upgrade unless you're buying a new system. From what I see of my clients most of them are worried about keeping their jobs (Jobs? heh) and saving money, and the last thing on their mind is buying systems for their department or themselves.
-
Is this one way for MS to push more business to the Big 4 during hard times and curry favor?
I know it sounds a little tinfoily (as in hats), but if they can just keep pushing back the date won't that just keep scaring more admins/IT managers to buy new systems?
-
Unfortunately, I'm opposed to the way Linux distros are organized. I think it's a design flaw to include the operating system in a distribution and then try to package every program under the sun. I much prefer the approach of Windows where there is a core OS and a few support programs. The packaging of applications is left to the application vendors.
If I want to install a certain version of Firefox or OpenOffice on Linux, I should be able to go to the appropriate web site and download the package just like one can download the installer for Windows. Oracle and Last.fm get this. I can already add their APT repositories to my Debian box or download the packages if I want to install them. Instead we have this mess where if I upgrade the operating system, it wants to install all the new versions of the non-OS software that I have installed. What if I don't want to upgrade all of those? What if I want to do the opposite and upgrade a certain package to the newest version without upgrading the rest of my system? I'm not interested in compiling from source. That involves installing a C compiler (security risk) and being a full-time system administrator when I get home to use my computer. I don't want to manage that. I want it to "just work."
I want an Linux distribution that I can install once and get security updates for for about six to eight years. And I'm willing to pay what one would pay for your average operating system for it (~$150). Right now, that doesn't exist.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
And what is the problem? Windows != Linux, and as such, the practices are not the same. I'm not the car analogy guy, but when you buy a car, you don't get upgraded to the new model when it comes out, you have to pay for it. Apple requires you to pay for their OS updates, and people pay, I don't hear too many having a cry over it.
If you are a Windows user, you'll get used to paying for a new OS every 5 years, I'm sure many spend a lot more upgrading their hardware on a much shorter cycle. If you are a Linux user, why does it bother you? In most cases, its the businesses paying for the upgrades, and quite often, they can afford it, and write it off on tax.
You're talking about per-incident support. What I'm talking about is that I can spend $150 on Windows XP when it is released and then get eight or more years of security support and upgrades at no extra charge. Can I get the same length of security support for a Linux distro from your company for the same amount of money?
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Instead, it's a fait accompli for them, or people will leave in droves, IMO.
To what? Apple would be making OSes, not phones and MP3 players if selling their OS on beige intel boxes didn't constitute corporate suicide. People talk about Linux, but its just not viable. Its an awesome OS but it will *never* be the dominant OS for the same reason that perfectly awesome products which are cheap rarely outsell the well marketed corperate 'pass the buck' options. Linux is much much more friendly to anybody that lifts the hood. It took me 4 hours today to crawl through the hundreds of thousands of registry keys *on a new installation of windows* to figure out some super ultra obscure python file association bug. But nothing can beat taking a portion of your budget, paying a company, and when things go wrong, being able to point out that you're spending support money on the same corporate behemoth that wrote the thing. It is just too important in business for people to be able to say you've got a support contract with the folks who wrote the damn thing. I'm ignoring the fact that it is not sound logic - its just how business works, and a great deal of end users too.
I really don't get why people aren't beating down the doors to the government to ask why an OS as super ultra fucking pleasurable as OS X is unable to compete in the marketplace requires such a price point premium on hardware and is locked down. Man, I am not going to pay for an Apple machine, but I would absolutely kill to hand over my money to buy OS X. BSD under the hood, the best GUI front-end ever - there is something seriously wrong that both unix nerds and end users aren't wondering why the market has apparently decided it's so boutique and special. It's not the market - Microsoft is just really untouchable. They're in such a powerful position in the computer world that its basically unfathomable that they lose massive market share. It'd be too painful for everyone.
"Old man yells at systemd"
When ever I see a thread like this, I have to ask myself -- which operating system is most likely to be around in one form or another a century from now? Then ask -- how is it maintained? What business model is capable of supporting it? The best that I can come up with is that our descendants will still be reading threads like this.
Now go away, before I lose track of the decimal point on my slide rule.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
we got it but the Microsoft employees were too busy trying to patch the free upgrade to vista bug you were talking about.
I believe your point is best summarised by http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVOnFdMf0RU&feature=related
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Hog? wait...na...give me a sec...hehe....alright....and im done laughing.
Call me when you get vista running with full effects & 4 desktops on 128 ram with integrated graphics. ( celeron something slow like 1.6ghz).
I mean it wasn't lightning fast I couldn't use firefox2 (3 ran ok though) but then I had a similar experience on a duel core 1GB system with vista.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
The reason MS is supporting XP for 12 years is because it has, and will be, their flagship product the whole damn time. No, it probably won't be by 2012 or so, but XP is still outselling Vista (iirc, if you include corporate sales). It'd be kind of stupid to not support the one major product keeping you in a market that everyone wants.
All I can say is that I feel sorry for people who are paying Open Licensing costs for XP, especially due to the anemic and generally crappy support that's been provided since Vista came out.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
apple make you pay for new features every 2/3 years, Microsoft pack the smaller ones in for free for 8 years
apple make you pay for bug fixes every 2/3 years, Microsoft give them away for free for 8 years.
Sorry but if I wasn't a sucker that paid to much for hardware id sure as hell go for MS.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
And then you'll be shoved onto the tracks of Vista - or whatever joke MS is selling as the latest, greatest operating system, likely to be tormented by a myriad of very disruptive changes and poor performance.
Frankly, I'd not be surprised to see MS go to a annual license/support contract, like what antivirus companies do, with their next version of Windows. They simply can't keep doing the non-profitable "sell one product every 10 years" nonsense that they pulled with XP - their stockholders won't allow it.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Maybe the terms update and upgrade mean different things to different people. People "upgrade" to a new version and "update" to the latest patches. Or at least that's what I was getting from reading the thread. YMMV
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Your timelines are screwy, and Microsoft is not generously giving away new features as you suggest.
Microsoft fucked up Longhorns development so bad they took 6 years to release it, that's why they had to release SP2 in 2004 with new features. Rest assured if they had a new platform to release at the time, they would have made you pay for it too, and they did exactly that when Vista came around *6 years* after XP was released.
Apple doesn't make anyone pay for bugfixes, they are still supporting OS X 10.3 for free which is quite old at this point. Yes Apple makes people pay for new features, that's how they fund new development of their platform. You have a problem with them being rewarded for their effort? They should just continue to spend significant development time and resources giving away new versions of software simply because you bought a Mac 7 years ago? Microsoft doesn't even remotely do what you are suggesting, they don't give away new features for free. They release bugfixes as they should, and security patches. As i said before SP2 was not just a free functionality update, it corrected massive flaws in Windows and was necessary because Longhorn wasn't even close to being ready.
Watching Apple leapfrog Microsoft in usability and functionality over and over makes me think perhaps these advances are related to the fact that they are actually being paid to improve things over time, while the majority of Windows users paid less than $50 over the entire course of XPs lifetime, all at once.
So yea if you want to make a value assessment, i can see why Apple charges for significant platform upgrades with entirely new features. I don't however see Microsoft even significantly upgrading their own platform at all, even with paid upgrades like Vista.
MS does not choose what you can use. You can use MS and you can use Linux or Apple, you are not being forced to use anything you don't want to. (unless its at work, in which case, you don't have a choice, your employer makes it for you, not MS).
Seriously, go outside, have a breath of fresh air, and then rethink that.
I have three dead laptops, bought since 2002, all with legit copies of XP. I'm sure many other people have dead PCs that came with XP. Since it's not illegal to install XP, with that licence on another machine (or in my case, Parallels Desktop), I ain't worried. Plenty of used licences to go round,
To everyone bashing Vista, install SP1 first, please. It's not in the automatic updates, so you will actually have to google for it and install it manually. It fixed the file copying problem and if you revert to the 2000 theme, it works as well as 2000 used to work (if you apply a few tweaks).
If you want to bash Vista for something, bash it for removing the NTDVM and Win16 support from the 64-bit version, the weird versioning and language support, or maybe the lack of 100% backwards compatibility - bash it for something that's actually true, not pre-SP1 performance (which was abysmal, but HAS BEEN FIXED).
Not the post but when I look at every message you've ever posted.
Out of 132 posts, dating back to 17th January 2005, every message has been modded -1. All except for your first one which was 0, but at least it was flamebait.
That's quite impressive. At least you're consistent.
.
Size matters only to those who have nothing else going for them... It's usually hard to decide for the rest of us whether to pity or laugh at these people.
I just switched to Ubuntu, and I'm fucking loving it.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
I believe for XP home there is an issue with the number of processor sockets supported - I believe single *processor* only is supported. I believe this is what the GP poster was referring to.
However as parent poster rightly points out, single processors with multiple cores are fully supported.
One point I found annoying with an XP Home machine recently - no GPEdit.msc therefore you don't appear to be able to get updates from a WSUS machine. Happy to be corrected if anyone knows a way around this though.
F_T
depends entirely on what your doing imho, I mean, if your trying to run a program that expects alsa on an ancient 2.4 kernel that only has OSS, your going to run into problems obviously. but that's a new program on an old kernel.
When it comes to older programs on new kernels it's much better, yes some libraries tend to be updated and replaced, just install the old ones again, and even in so far as matters like oss/alsa are concerned, the new stuff typically supports the old fairly well.
typically I can download random linux x86 binary and run it fine, maybe after installing a library if need be. I imagine the only people who couldn't are maybe those who don't know how to install things except using yum or apt-get.
Linux support is far worse than Windows support.
It's harder for Linux users to mess up their machines but the monthly patches and frequent updates to the distributions (the whole OS changes every six months or so) is a nightmare to keep up with.
I never saw a Windows update yet which required me to manually recompile the webcam driver. I've spent months of my life recompiling webcam drivers for rooms full of Linux machines (cybercafes).
No sig today...
If you're a big corporation with tens of thousands of machines, many of which will struggle with Vista, what does Vista bring to the table? Why should you spend tens of millions upgrading all those machines to Vista?
I can't think of a single good reason*.
When buying new machines, why would you want Vista on them instead of XP. Having to support two different operating systems is crazy.
[*] nb. XP CAN be locked down tight if you make an effort to do so and when users aren't expected to install their own software.
No sig today...
LOL. I was the one attacked. Heh. I don't care. I push back. Don't care if that irritates some IT geek.
Camping on quad since 1996.
If you are a web developer or server admin that uses XP Home, you've got bigger problems to worry about. How many XP Home users really need to join a domain or run a web server.
Only half kidding. No, really. Think about it. If they want us to believe that Vista has ended the need for XP, then they should have no fear opensourcing it, as it no longer represents any substantial value (except for those parts which were handed down to Vista, which can remain closed).
ID Software does it, so why not Microsoft?
When the solution is obvious, I do not provide every detail and that is by design. It is brevity, which is something that's considered a virtue, not a flaw. On some occasions it's comedy mixed with brevity, which is what I employed with my original reply. But alas, I forgot this is slashdot. I made the mistake in assuming readers could or would jump the mental gap and see the self-evident point. I was wrong and for assuming that, I apologize.
For all future posts, and in order to be clear to even the lowliest of retarded code monkeys, I will enumerate each and every painfully obvious point, laboriously beyond the point of exasperation because that's the slashdot way. That is what is required for your typical poster here. Heh.
Anyway, I was not "put" in my place at all. I guess Matt (or you *wink* *wink) will have to try harder next time. It was very, very, very clear I was referring to XP and Vista. The fact that my entire point revolved around connecting XP to Vista is not invalidated because of some silly notion that the thread is limited to only XP. That is a distraction you're attempting to make to invalidate my point. No. You are the inflexible one here who cannot see a valid point due to some irrelevant "scope" issue with the topic thread.
Vista is the continuation of XP. It is not merely a logo. It is the current flagship operating system for Microsoft just as XP was in 2002.
Visa is the sum accumulation of all development for the Windows operating system, therefore it is perfectly valid for me to include Vista in the argument regarding free update/upgrades because both upgrade and update are treated equivalently in this case, for this argument, but not because they are the same function. No, they are not, but because the price required to perform them is ZERO in both cases. You get both for free with Linux, therefore if one is going to hold Linux to a standard using Windows as the model for product support, specifically Microsoft style support measured in years, then I can hold Windows to a standard using Linux as the model for update/upgrade path.
You and your MS fanboys are simply unhappy with this point as well as the earlier point about Linux not requiring such long-term support is because it's possible and relatively easy to attain updates and upgrades to bring servers up to current modern versions for free but you cannot do this using Microsoft products without continuing to pay again and again for a product that is essentially repackaged in a new box with a shiny new logo.
Some of you fan boys would rather lash out, but that's OK. I'm going to push it right back.
One last point, about the "scapegoats". Re-check the posting date/times. You've misused the term.
Camping on quad since 1996.
but...
Do you always believe what you read? Think Yo Mama retorts.... no one really believes Yo Mama is that fat*. Same deal here. Heh.
* Of course, she may be pretty damned fat, but certainly not fat enough to generate a measureable amount of gravity.
Camping on quad since 1996.
Ran Windows 98 with Win4Lin until about '05. XP runs adequately under qemu/kvm. When compelling app upgrades are Vista+ only, I'll have to care. Undoubtedly, that will be several years from now. Will there be adequate and compelling Photoshop, Illustrator and Flash alternatives by then?
Is it still "stealing" to pirate the software after they stop selling it? Thsi raises some questions regarding the morality of piracy.. Yarrrrgh, I'll see you landlubbers on the high seas.
"I think it's a design flaw to include the operating system in a distribution and then try to package every program under the sun."
Ubuntu Server, Debian base, FreeBSD base.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
The catch there is that AV companies are selling a service - you're paying for that daily update file to catch the newest piece of toxic waste that came out a day ago. Microsoft would LOVE that model, if only they had something to sell every day.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
This is true. Old Windows binaries usually work flawlessly on Wine however!
http://rocknerd.co.uk
The Linux kernel has extremely good binary compatiblity. One of Linus's guiding principles is that user-land must not break. Obviously, that can't be a hard rule, as that would impede progress, but it's very important to him.
I would say Linux does at least as good a job in this department as Windows. The main difference being that distributions are not that great at providing the user-land libraries that may be needed. As someone else already posted, however, if those libraries are installed, the application should work.
Apple does not charge for bug fixes. This is a blatant lie. At this point in time, my Macbook wants to update iTunes, Front Row, Quicktime and one other I can't recall at the moment. All for free. The same machine is currently on 10.5.3, updated from 10.5.0 for free.
Apple charges for functional updates. The charge is reasonable, the upgrade is optional, and there aren't 5 dozen pricing schemes to keep track of.
Most of the free downloads that MS offers are to offer functionality that Mac OS X has built in. And Apple has a site devoted to OS X software that is written by 3rd parties. A lot of it is free, and some is even open source.
If you removed Sysinternals (which they bought), most of the significant free downloads from MS are developer tools (OS X comes with all that on the OS X install media) or document viewers (built in to OS X).
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Your entire post was worthless. You might as well had said that you felt the Linux distro approach was superior and saved some typing. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
People didn't run Leopard at first because of a few incompatibilities. But those are pretty much ironed out now, and from launch Leopard has (as with every other release) run faster on my old systems than did the previous version, Tiger, at least on my older G5 hardware.
Also as noted, Snow Leopard being intel only is a rumor at this point, partly founded on the recent WWDC seed but still a rumor. And as it contains no new consumer features, that means modt people will continue to be able to use Leopard at software parity with Snow Leopard users for years to come, regardless of Snow Leopard's platform availability. The only thing Snow Leopard will really assist with is high performance stuff, where you'd want the newest system anyway and not use four or five year old systems to do heavy computation on a small set of systems!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yea apple spent most of the 90s with poor products and incompetent management. I never said anything about the older OS 7/8/9.
For what its worth Microsoft did the same thing before they started using NT for all their operating systems.
I know you'd like to believe you have a point but you really don't even with the free downloads stuff, Microsoft hasn't really improved XP since SP2 came out and that was only because they had to. The stuff you can download from MS.com is minor insignificant crap like powertoys and Windows destkop search (which is horrible).
with apple i dont know how long they offer support for, but they definatly dont offer any free features. Microsoft doesn't even remotely do what you are suggesting, they don't give away new features for free. They release bugfixes as they should, and security patches. look up SP1/SP2 & to a lesser extent SP3 Watching Apple leapfrog Microsoft in usability and functionality over and over makes me think perhaps these advances are related to the fact that they are actually being paid to improve things over time, while the majority of Windows users paid less than $50 over the entire course of XPs lifetime, all at once. Watching Microsoft maintain backfunctionality while apple arnt even support the hardware that made up 100% of user base 6 years ago for much longer. And watching Microsoft support a wide range of hardware (sure they dont write the drivers but they have to produce a usable API/ADI for software and drivers to use and maintain drivers for plenty of parts). Suggests your talking crap, because the 2 OSs have different goals (Microsoft want to keep their users, mac dont have any to keep) So yea if you want to make a value assessment, i can see why Apple charges for significant platform upgrades with entirely new features. I don't however see Microsoft even significantly upgrading their own platform at all, even with paid upgrades like Vista. Were not talking about vista tho (p.s even though it sucks it has a larger market share than all macs put together), were talking about the support offered by Microsoft for XP, which is enough for you to leapfrog vista altogether (assuming windows 10 is only 2 years late). BTW microsoft dropping the ball is nothing new, they always manage to pick it up before mac get anywhere though. 95 & 2000 wern't exactly brilliant, hell it seams like they drop one, win one tbh.
Look while youd like me to believe that MS dont support their products, hell as an apple fan boy you might even believe it yourself, 13 years is along time to offer support for your products and whatever mistakes you made when releasing them.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
If you removed Sysinternals (which they bought), most of the significant free downloads from MS are developer tools (OS X comes with all that on the OS X install media) or document viewers (built in to OS X). And as soon as mac becomes popular, all of the apple ties will have to be loosend to pretty much the same functionality as what microsoft have as fast as you can spell anti-trust case.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
60 prices schemes for windows? maybe apples calculator is broken, last time i checked there were about 5 because Microsoft go into multiple markets. But hey if you cant look up a spreadsheet with 5 columns maybe you should just knock the whole computer thing on the head.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Apple fan boy? I'm presenting rational arguments for what I say.
I didn't say MS doesn't support their products, I'm well aware of Microsofts timelines for supporting their operating systems, and I've been using MS stuff for 15+ years now, so lets not pretend I'm somehow biased.
"But you pay for the development when you buy the product"
You completely ignored what i said, i specifically made the point that MS users pay less than $50 and then expect 13 (in your words) years of support and all sorts of free shit.
My observation is that while Apple charges significantly more for their operating system upgrades they seem to be doing more with them, and upgrading on a constant schedule. Microsoft barely ships operating systems on time at this point, and when they do ship they lack almost everything that was supposed to be cool about them.
If anything your pissed at Apple and labeling me as a fanboy to explain your bias.
What do you mean? Like bundling a web browser? bundling IDE tools? I'm not sure thats anti-trust territory anymore, the case against MS got dropped by the bush admin when they took office.
If anything I could make a better case that Apple violates anti-trust law by tying products together, like refusing to allow boxed OSX to run on anything but apple branded hardware, ESPECIALLY when that hardware isn't much different from a regular PC.
If you mean Apple including stuff in the OS, certain things are the responsibility of the OS now in 2008, it shouldn't be necessary to download 40 different little apps to do minor stuff, especially if those apps aren't free.
You don't get upgrades. You get security patches that sometimes don't hose your apps. With Linux, you get free upgrades AND updates supported to exactly the same degree that your Windows updates are supported (ie, not at all), and the base cost of the system is free. And the per-incident cost is the same through his company. I'd think that Linux looks like a much better deal.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
If you want to upgrade the rest of the system, but leave some packages the same, there's the concept of pinning. There's very little reason to do so, but it's available.
The best part of Linux distros is that all your software is kept up-to-date without having to continually have each individual application check itself or have to go around personally checking for new versions of the programs that you use. Why would you NOT want that, except possibly for very specific cases like a version of the JVM that has a certain broken behavior your program depends on? There's no other good reason I can think of.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I had Vista on 3 machines since the release. This past month I finally gave in and went back to XP.
Machine #1 (most powerful) Core2Duo, 3Ghz, 4GB Ram, SATA Raid. 512MB 8800GT. Occasionally Vista would slow down during file operations.
Machine #2 Athlon 64 2Ghz, 4GB Ram, 7200 rpm SATA. Machine becomes near unusable with Vista. X1650 256MB.
Machine #3 Laptop, Intel Centrino 1.86Ghz 4GB Ram, slow laptop drive. X700 256MB. This machine was unusable with Vista. XP works well on it.
Machine #4 Athlon X2 2Ghz 4GB Ram. Didn't even bother putting Vista on it.
So is the karma on most of your accounts.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
The truth is, it was foretold (in a way) by Bill Gates himself.
In his own words:
"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good." (emphasis mine)What he said then about the Win9x platforms is simply geometrically amplified in Vista.
Literally, they made something flawed at its core, but gave it a shiny veneer. (again) Vista has demonstrated that, while it has a keener "look" than XP, it contains no core advantages in either speed or effciency; especially when considering the steep increase in requirements. I mean, why would you buy a car with just as much horsepower, but uses twice as much gas?
In my mind, I envision a motivational poster hung in the executive washrooms at MS, framed in "gold-pressed latinum" (but actually aluminum with a metallic lacuqer) that hails the word, "PERCEPTION" and has that very quote beneath.
Beneath it is a shelf that holds an ample supply of shoe lacquer, foundation mask, spray-on hair, dark-blue sharpie pens, a rack of dickies and of course, a lifetime supply of turd polish.
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
The above comment is clearly twitter having a hissy fit.
Please mod both me and the parent down so nobody has to read it.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Ummm. OK. Apparently you have zero reading comprehension skills. I was not verbally owned, because there was no logical or intellectual response. One cannot be owned by nothingness or rather the absence of replies. If you meant I was owned in the court of mindless 3rd grade insults, you may have a point.
I noticed all the idiotic replies are short, never have any clear point, and feature lame generic insults. No substance. No point. No intellectual thought.
You are fearful of posting under your real ID, which tells me something about your character. You hide under the Anonymous Coward moniker because you are fearful of being exposed. You're also fearful of others viewing your posting history.
Not surprised. When you aren't able to formulate a reply, you will result to name calling, insults, and cries of stupidity. It is you who is behaving in a fashion that's incredibly ignorant. I have gone to great lengths to explain myself in a detailed, exhaustive manner. You would do well to attempt the same.
Don't cry stupidity when you've offered nothing. I'm not here to win a popularity contest, apparently you are due to the fact you refuse to risk posting your garbage under your real ID. I say what's on my mind, yet my rating is still Excellent. But that doesn't matter, I let the arguments stand. Whether you choose to read and respond, or ignore and insult, that's your choice.
Camping on quad since 1996.
After all, you can't spell "bootlegit" without "legit"!
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Maybe they can re-release XP "Classic" just like Coca-Cola Classic...
you could have spent $0 on a Linux distro over ten years ago and received version upgrades, security and patches for $0. That would be like buying windows 95 and getting 98, 2000, ME, XP for free with updates. Man, windows sure is a ripoff.
in practice we get latest software to work on older versions or migrate to newer release. unlike Microsoft, we have liability insurance for what we do and have uptime and response guarantees and the price reflects it.
the old french movie I got from pirateBay was so low budget the actors and actresses couldn't afford to wear clothes. And they didn't have much budget for writers either so instead they just writhed around, moaned and panted a lot.
Yep. you were the one attacked, but your response was a 4 year olds. A rational statement would be viewed with respect. I do not find you irritating, (I work with small children so I am used to it) I just feel sympathy for someone who cannot respond in an adult manner at your age.(If thats your photo in your link) Hope you returned that 80's feminism. What kind of mac do you own anyway?
But MS -could- have that model. They'd just have to roll out their security and bug fixes individually, instead of a roll-up, as they currently do. Likewise, they could continue to ship incomplete product and provide those promised features as 'updates'.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I'm not like you. I don't enjoy being on the upgrade treadmill. If something works, I leave it alone and use it. I don't upgrade just for the sake of upgrading to the latest version. I did the "latest and greatest" upgrade nonsense when I was a kid decades ago. I'm over that. It only gets in the way now. I want to pick a base and stick with it as long as I can. Upgrading the OS brings in a lot of changes to everything, which is a problem that is exacerbated by the current Linux distros. I'm not interested in the latest version of Gnome, Firefox, vi, or whatever. The ones I have work just fine, thank you. I want a solid base to learn and stick with. When it comes to upgrades, I'm only interested in basic security patches and bug fixes. At the end of the day I want to get on the computer and get work done.
Windows jokes aside, XP gets the job done and fits the bill when it comes to long-term support for patches. XP ran fine on my laptop the day I got it in 2002 and it still runs fine. I suspect that it will continue to run fine when security support stops in 2014. I can't say the same about any Linux distros because the the upgrade cycles are terribly short (such as three or five years). It's unlikely that any modern linux distro in 2014 will work on my laptop as I probably won't have enough memory or processor speed to accommodate it. XP will still work because even with the patches installed, the system requirements have not changed significantly, if at all. I just find that it's a shame that I can't get the same form of long term consistency in a Linux distribution at a reasonable price.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Thanks for responding. I've never looked closely at pinning so I should probably examine it in more depth. Can you pin packages and metapackages to not upgrade? For example, if I want to upgrade my distro but hold back Gnome to the current version?
I don't want that. I want to keep the base OS up-to-date with bug fixes and security fixes only. I don't want my applications changed and I don't care about new features. If I do care about features I would rather update packages on a case-by-case basis.
Because when software fills my needs, I have no need to upgrade beyond that point unless there's a serious security vulnerability or bug. Please see this post where I explained it to another person. If the software works and does what I need, why would I ever want to upgrade and risk changes, such as new bugs or feature removal, that might not suit me? I've been down that path and I've been burned. I've learned my lesson and I don't want to go back to that method of managing my computer. It doesn't work for me.
In 2000, Red Hat 6.2 fit my needs just fine. But the end of security support for it, and the exploits of services that ran under it, meant that I needed to upgrade the OS. Upgrading the OS meant it wanted to install a new KDE, and new versions of all my programs. And those programs had changed. They moved things around, added new features, and in some cases removed features that I wanted. The new programs, such as KDE, used more memory when meant slower performance for my laptop (a Compaq Armada with 64MB, 6GB hard drive, and a P2-300 processor). Eventually I couldn't run modern distros on it without a performance penalty, even though the computer was perfectly fine. I could have rolled my own distro, but the time to manage that would have cost more than switching to a different OS with a longer period of support.
Eventually in late 2002 I decided to upgrade so I bought a Thinkpad T30 maxed out with all the RAM and features I could get. I'm still using it and I plan on using it until it completely dies. Unless the motherboard fails, that's going to be a long time as I have a spare T30 that I recently got for free which I can use for parts. XP ran fine on it the day I got it and it still runs fine. I suspect that it will continue to run fine when security support stops in 2014. With the rate of increasing system resource demands that Linux distros have, I don't expect to be able to run a modern Linux distro released in 2010 or 2011 without having to replace my hardware.
For those of us who don't want to become a Linux distro engineer, but wish to use Linux, the hardware upgrade demands outstrip those of Windows.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.