Slashdot Mirror
What's Keeping You On XP?
Hugh Pickens writes "PC World reports that Windows XP lost more than 11 percent of its share from September to December 2011, to post a December average of 46.5 percent, a new low for the aged OS as users have gotten Microsoft's message that the operating system should be retired. Figures indicate that Windows 7 will become the most widely used version in April, several months earlier than previous estimates. Two months ago, as Microsoft quietly celebrated the 10th anniversary of XP's retail launch, the company touted the motto 'Standing still is falling behind' to promote Windows 7 and demote XP. In July, Microsoft told customers it was 'time to move on' from XP, reminding everyone that the OS would exit all support in April 2014. Before that, the Internet Explorer team had dismissed XP as the 'lowest common denominator' when they explained why it wouldn't run IE9. The deadline for ditching Windows XP is in April 2014, when Microsoft stops patching the operating system. 'Enterprises don't want to run an OS when there's no security fixes,' says Michael Silver, an analyst with Gartner Research rejecting the idea that Microsoft would extend the end-of-life date for Windows XP to please the 10% who have no plans to leave the OS. 'The longer they let them run XP, the more enterprises will slow down their migration.'"
This is a troll article. Using a decade old OS and going on about problems it has today is typical discussion for the stagnated slashdot.
Cheap PCs run XP.
MS isn't giving away free upgrades and I'm not interested in paying for a really expensive copy or Windows just to play games.
When the security patches cease, I'll just uninstall XP and replace it with whatever the best version of Linux is at that point.
If it ain't broke, why fix it? It's not like I'm running a nuclear reactor at home on my XP box.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I use OSX, Linux and OpenBSD on a daily basis. My XP use is limited to VMs running some Windows-only utilities on the first two.
There's no compelling reason to change as yet.
Trolling is a art,
I have XP in a VirtualBox instance that I use to run some specialised software (Templot). Hardly worth upgrading that to 7.
Oh and I've reconditioned one or two old laptops recently for my nieces, and they're just too old to run anything other than XP.
Don't fix it. XP is a perfectly reliable platform. I can understand Microsoft wanting to shift more units, but no need for change-for-the-sake-of-it really. Or maybe I'm just an old codger :)
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
I just don't care. XP works as a platform for the programs I actually use, and between the lack of anything to be excited about, and lack of a clear upgrade path, I will probably use XP until I lose my key.
Most consumer Hardware and software is compatible with it
It was being shipped with netbooks till sometime in 2010 IIRC
For something like an OS, the bigger question is "Why change"
The generic consumer doesnt care about security updates
With one client, we have to use a VPN program that only works on Windows XP. Can't remember what its name is, but it's a finicky thing... and the client isn't upgrading their IT systems for a while.
'The longer they let them run XP, the more enterprises will slow down their migration.'"
'The longer they let them run XP, the more enterprises will eat into our profit margin and not let us impliment our more restrictive and convoluted licensing...'", a Microsoft spokesperson said. "Businesses are sick of products that meet their needs and are amply tested and well-understood," he continued. "They want a product that has a restrictive licensing agreement, is much more resource-intensive, and offers little or no benefit to the business segment beyond being pretty." He went on to add, "Plus, Apple is kicking the crap out of us in the consumer market and we need extra cash to burn, and let's face it... the only successful big products we've launched are Windows and Office. We have to force business users to adopt it, or our shareholders will tar and feather us before setting our homes on fire for not creating a single smash hit in the consumer market since Halo.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The world will end in less than a year so why bother upgrading?
And then someone epoxied all the USB ports. Sigh.
I can't stand the damn thing. I have a nice 6040f printer that I paid about 11k for- and under windows 7 I can't use the booklet functions via the stupid universal print driver
I make my booklets on pc #1 (windows 7, 64 bit screamer workstation) and then shuffle them to my old xp PC so I can still use the discrete driver.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Why would I pay $200 for a legit copy of Win 7 when I will buy a new computer in a year or so for $450?
The majority of Best Buy's corporate machines are still required to use XP, but hey, we're finally moving forward to IE 7! Technology leader, right?
A/C for obvious reasons...
Why shouldn't I be on XP? It is a good OS. Unless you have pieces of hardware that Windows 7 better supports why upgrade until you upgrade hardware? The reason to stay on XP is because of the lack of reasons not to.
Vista kept me on XP
I bought two Toshiba Satellites with Windows 7. There were problems with the software on one, but after going through support hellp with Toshiba, I just let it be. I reformatted the drive to support Ubuntu Linux on dual boot. A few months ago, one of the Toshiba's began telling me my copy of Windows, the original installed Windows 7 on the Toshiba's purchased at Amazon, was counterfeit. The Windows side of the machine is even more useless than it was to begin with.
That's the best reason I know of to use Windows XP. The next best reason is it probably can't kill you unless it gets out of the computer.
Thank you MS for raising the specs on netbooks which would have run XP perfectly but you wanted them on Win7 (thus raising its price). To return the favor, let me be the thorn on your side. Here's to 11%, fellow /.'s!!
Work says I need to use XP so I do. They are working on a Windows 7 upgrade plan but that isn't due for an other year or so. They need to be sure everything is tested and works.
When you have a large organization Thousand+ employees it takes time to make sure the upgrade goes smooth.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
i had so many problems with xp i changed to linux, it does not cost as much as windows 7 and runs on my machine, witch is oldish and below min usable specs for win7
Paying $100+ for Windows seems like even more of a ripoff when I've got to buy it again every 2 years.
I bought this software, its mine, and I'll use it, thank you very much.
If only more of the software industry would target linux and mac, we could get away from having to pay an arm and a leg to Redmond every few years.
Dunno about you guys, but I don't exactly have a ton of free cash to spend.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
I still prefer over Vista and Win 7 for two reasons:
1. Speed. I don't know why, but Vista and 7 always feel very laggy to me. Even with all animations and UAC turned off, every menu, file copy, or anything else to do with the UI seems to have some terrible delay to it.
2. Simplicity. I don't need fancy menus or animations.
XP has been rock solid for me for years and never crashes. Vista/7 drive me f*ing crazy with how slow they feel.
Some ignorant makers of scientific gear only support windows. And I own some tens of thousands of bucks worth of it in my lab. Win XP only exists in the entire network to support this junk - and at that, mostly from inside virtual box on a more real opsys and machine. Why the heck should I pay for an "upgrade" that will probably break half of this no-security-poorly-written software?
I have no need for windows 7 or vista, and do not plan on upgrading soon. I mean, there is an ALTERNATIVE, but I'd prefer not to take that alternative.
My XP partition finally had to be nuked to clear out an infection after 8 years of stable service, so I shifted to Ubuntu 10.04.1 (can't use a newer version due to hardware incompatabilities.)
I had been planning to upgrade to Win7, but when I realized I could get a whole laptop with Win7 Pro and more memory and CPU horsepower than my old box for under $600, I scrapped the idea of an upgrade. Why pay close to $200 for a copy of Win7 when $400 more will get me a whole machine?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Still have to support my product at customer sites where the local IT department has not allowed more recent versions of Windows...
I'm sure there will be plenty of posts here about how XP still works, how it fits the needs of some people, etc.
Even if you had a working Ford Model T, you couldn't safely use it on today's highways. Running Windows XP on today's Internet is far more dangerous, both for the operator and for everyone else, than running a more recent operating system. It will become far more hazardous after the patches stop flowing. There is a shrinking window for people to make the transition before the patches stop, and everyone still using XP would do well to take advantage of that window before it disappears.
It may have escaped PC World's notice (not like THAT ever happened before) but there are some applications and drivers that will not install on any of MS's newer OS's and that so-called XP Compatibility mode isn't. And if those applications need to be supported then XP is what you use. Maybe you hide it in a VM that is running on a newer version of Windows but chances are that you'll do like me and keep that XP machine running and wish you never got sucked into the Microsoft maelstrom.
The IT department claims that it costs too much to roll out a new OS and rebuild all the remote management tools, train the Neytwork staff in the new OS (but not any end users), and pay for upgrades for 2000+ PCs...
1) All my games work (for the most part) and I don't have to beg for a port to Linux of said game or driver.
2) I don't necessarily want to pay the Apple premium for their rendition of problems.
3) I don't necessarily want to pay Microsoft more money for their rendition of Upgrade problems.
4) I'm familar with XP and all of it's quirks. Yeah I gotta reinstall every 6 months to keep it sane again, but imaging takes care of the worst of it.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
At work we recently updated our windows installations about six months ago-- to XP service pack 3. I'm guessing we'll be sticking with XP until microsoft pries it out of our cold, dead, fingers.
Microsoft Visual Studio 6 (C++), which doesn't run on Vista and Win7. We also still have quite a bit VB6 code, God have mercy on our souls.
I will stay with XP as a secondary OS to my Linux installs...used only for opening files in proprietary microsoft formats. When u$ obsoleted W98 and the hardware that ran it, I swore that XP would be my last u$ OS, as I refuse to allow a corporate entity to dictate my hardware and software purchases in fullfilllment of their business plans. I still have, and occaisionally use an old Compaq laptop that ran '98 from the factory but now runs Vector Linux 6.0 better than ever...even with only 192M of memory (remember when that was massive?).
Nothing. I replaced it with Ubuntu. All XP software that I need run's fully well using Wine. I can still use the same 10 year old hardware, with as bonus a noticable performance boost and a considerable shorter boot time.
They are only willing to support their product for 13 years! How dare they demand that users move to new technology once a decade to maintain support!
Please, come off it. MS has a plenty lengthy support cycle. They support all their OSes for 10 years from release minimum. XP has been extended 3 years past that. That is quite reasonable.
At least with focus-follows-mouse, there's a X-mouse workaround involving a couple of registry edits, but I'm dreading Win8.
Every time Windows "evolves", I'm forced to add another 10-15 minutes to undo the latest round of dumbing-down.
Every time I look at a newer version of Windows, it seems it is harder to manage. Wizards drive me bat shit crazy and I don't feel like looking up the string to create a god mode for every windows box I run across. Ill wait for XP to die, and hope that more companies move to "bring your own platform". Every other box I have is Linux these days anyway.
It's old(ish) hardware. Running XP on a Thinkpad T43p. Whenever I scrounge up the monies (and a newer, longer-term, better paying, job) I'll probably get a newer set of hardware. Whether that be a small-ish desktop running one of AMDs new A8 Fusion chips, or a laptop, I have not decided yet.....
To be honest, the only reason I eventually chopped in 2K for XP was that MS started shipping tools and SDKs that (arbitrarily) refused to install on 2K.
Windows is a operating system for hosting applications, generally ones written by someone else. Everything else that it insists on doing is completely extraneous to my requirements - that it just shuts up and gets into the background. MS has failed to make a compelling argument in favour of 7. I don't find "or else" particularly persuasive.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
My main computer at home is a 1.7ghz toshiba laptop with 512Megs of ram.
If anything i should downgrade to 98SE2
It's a Dell from 2004 but hey, it's got a 3GHZ processor and 3GB of RAM. It works fine and it's fast enough.
Word is Win7 won't work OOTB for computers this old due to driver availability etc.
For my smaller enterprise I simply can't pay out to upgrade out machines to 7. We will get Win7 on our next hardware refresh cycle but not until then. As the IT guy I am very careful to monitor for malware, script kiddies and the like. I have however, resigned myself to the fact that if some uber hacker wants to get into my system they will. I have planned for that contingency. I'm not running to Redmond with piles of cash screaming for them to protect me. Cheers
No one on / still uses that as their main PC. To the companies that do: You must be stupid, stupid, stupid.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Two things for me on my last XP machines.
1) The laptops I acquired that run XP can't run Vista or Windows 7. They are at their last Windows OS even per Microsoft specs.
2) You would have to be insane to try to upgrade an old XP box to 7 in place. I've seen enough toasted and flaky OS installations in my time that I've switched entirely to "lift and shift".
License cost? Meh - I haven't paid for Windows 7 yet or any of the other Server OS's around my house. Somehow Microsoft thinks I need lot of free samples (development editions, Windows 7 party packs, etc.) and who am I to dissuade them?
...and we still have one or two labs on XP. This is actually a good thing, as some of our students have really old machines, and we need at least some XP machines to test web sites, etc. to make sure they display properly with older browsers (Internet Explorer 7, to be specific).
December average of 46.5 percent, a new low for the aged OS
Um, every day since XP peaked in 2006 has been "a new low". Why would market share of XP do anything but decrease? And if you want to get pedantic, there would have been a time period immediately after XP hit the market that it would have been under 46.5 percent until it reached dominance. Sorry, that statement just struck me as silly.
Better known as 318230.
I'm using my laptop as a media centre in my lounge and I have a USB audio interface connected to it. The interface does not have Linux drivers. Otherwise I would have installed some Linux distribution long time ago.
My company is still on XP because it works, and works well for the vast majority of people. Stability hasn't been a problem in a long time - and most people here shut down their computer every night, so that daily reboot cycle helps keep it stable too.
In our environment, Windows is increasingly being used only to run a web browser - many of our new business apps are a web service (running in house or hosted by the vendor). As long as Firefox and/or Chrome continue to run well on XP, it will be "good enough" for most people here. If only we could get rid of Office (Office365 doesn't seem any better than local copies of Office from a licensing standpoint) then we could be more OS independent.
There are the exceptions - like people that want more than 3.5GB of RAM (and who don't want to run WinXP 64bit, which has proven to be problematic, especially in drivers).
I'm already on 7, I dumped XP some time ago. But I can understand the perspective of some. The lighter users. The people who don't game. If the machine they have before them does what they need with XP, why would they change years before support ends? There is more than two years left. By that time, Windows 8 will have been released. Shoot, it'll likely have a service pack already in it.
I'm more concerned about my grandmother being still stuck on Vista. She either needs to go back to XP or get to 7.
Anything but Vista.
At least here in the US.
China is the only country that uses it because it is much easier to pirate.
It does what I need it to. That really says it all. It's not that I don't like Windows 7, I actually prefer it. But I can't justify spending $139 for Win7 Pro for all of my computers, when I really don't gain anything for it. There are people still running 95 and 98 for the same reasons. I know of some government offices that are still on NT. AS long as you keep those boxes off of the internet, I'm not sure what the problem is.
Main reason is I paid for it and I don't like to give up on it, it serves my purpose on a few of my PC's and if I upgrade it makes it appear that I rented XP, and renting sucks for so many reasons.
People still using XP because their computers are too old for Vista , Win 7. A lot of people are still using PC's that a 5-7 years old because they see no need to upgrade. These are the folks that play solitare and check emails once in awhile, and maybe look up simple recipes on the web. Most of the old folks are not into using computers much, so upgrading, and changes doesn't make sense for them.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Maybe Google could partner with Microsoft to get those people onto the free Android system?
XP is lighter and faster than any other Windows release, while still being compatible with almost all of the software I want. I prefer an OS I can run on my crumbling 600 MHz laptop with 256 MB of RAM and on all my modern machines (inside of a VirtualBox, since I'm a Linux user).
The price tag of course. If new releases of Windows were $30 upgrades like OSX, and upgrades were just like installing a new program from the web, I would upgrade every year. That's my excuse. However my observation is that many people hated Vista, and chose to skip that version, and when Windows 7 was out their hardware was too old to install an expensive upgrade.
Well actually I do a bit, with everyone on Windows 7 games can start to be dx11 only, which means more pretty.
Mostly I just care about people getting off ie6, and that's happening anyway so who cares what OS people use under the browser.
I stay on XP because I'm hardcore.. and i can lol at all u newbs that can't hang.
First, it's not free to upgrade to Windows 7.
Even if it were free, I'm running on an old PC that will not take more than 768MB of memory. Given that XP seems to have become progressively slower over time and successive updates (maybe real, maybe just subjective), and the general observation that memory use is highly unlikely to have decreased in Windows 7, an upgrade is not attractive.
Those two are the worst parts of XP.
DX9 is holding back PC gaming meaning we get crap console ports and means top end graphics cards only get niche titles like crysis and metro 2033 while IE6 holding back hTML5. Apart from them XP is still okay and I keep it around on virtual machines and dual boot even though I use 7 as my main system. XP would of gone by now though if Vista didn't stumble and was good at RTM.
I know some people who are still on XP and they're not likely to change soon. The reason is application and hardware support. They have some apps which don't work on Windows 7, but do work on XP. They can't upgrade the OS until the vendor supports Win 7. Likewise I know some home users who have scanners, printers, etc which don't have Windows 7 drivers. They refuse to buy all new equipment when their current stuff works perfectly on XP.
When these people eventually have to leave XP behind they will be moving to a platform which supports their applications and hardware. Windows 7 isn't that platform. Chances are Linux + Wine is.
One of my most important tools -- Ulead GIF animator, which is a tool for creating animated GIFs that I use when writing about baseball hitting and pitching instruction -- is no longer available or being updated. That is a core tool for which I haven't found a substitute and it only kind of works on Vista.
Of course, this raises the problem of orphan applications; applications that small (?) numbers of people find to be ridiculously valuable.
Ok, here's the rundown as I have managed to wring out of friends and family that cling to XP.
1) it came on the computer they currently have, and works fine on that hardware.
2) they are familiar with it, and it does what they expect it to.
3) they don't want to buy new hardware when the hardware they have suits their needs already, (when running xp)
4) microsoft has switched around how the user interface works, so that now it treats you like you don't own the box. This causes issues for users who just want to make the printer they got for christmas work. Clicking OK on 3 or more scary "let this program make administrative changes?" Dialogs and other "scary" popups are not enjoyable to users, who really don't understand the significance of what the windows really mean, and who don't have an alternative to the "untrusted" 3rd party driver CD that came with the printer anyway. Windows 7 does this "less" than windows vista, which complained when you wanted to run solitare, but this is simply users chosing the lesser of two evils. They prefer the simplicity and nonverbose output of xp.
5) fewer and fewer people buy computers to play video games these days, given the rise of modern console games with online multiplayer, and the reduced hassles of competing against people with better rigs. There is much less incentive to continue driving the forced upgrade cycle, so users try to get more equity out of already owned assets, like older hardware. Let's face it, unless you turn on 3d return of clippy or some other horseshit, you don't need an i7 to print resumes or make greeting cards. You don't need gobs of resources to play mp3s while you clean your house, facebook and farmville don't need epic leetness, etc. An old windows xp era rig can do all those things just fine, and users know this. Thus, windows xp satisfies most of their needs for a general purpose computing environment.
The few issues that crop up appear to be (and are) totally contrived to continue monetizing the computing market. Driver support for devices, for instance. Unless it is some radical new slot architecture or something, there is little to make xp insufficient for a driver, especially when you are pushing a crapware consumer peripheral device like a printer or scanner, which usually use unidrv.dll for 99% of the functionality anyway. Other than drivers, you have security fixes, updates, and browsers. Browser makers don't like to support "legacy" OSes because they usually represent the dreaded "low end hardware", which forces them to make efficient code instead of quickly produced code; the impetus of which is purely due to makerting forces in the vast majority of cases. Feature creep causes a software product to require more and more resources to satisfy more and more edge case uses, which would be better satisfied with optional plugins run in sandboxed processes. Remember: "newer isn't always better." when users feel financially pinched, they stop chasing the shiny.
I pretty much have a single application. It's an audio production system that is made up of a large number of independent components, including some of my own design. It has expensive outboard audio hardware, mostly a 10 channel audio device (for *input*) which I make heavy use of. The whole system is aging, of course, but it works. To upgrade to a system capable of running (what? Windows 7?) would require a significant investment that nobody here on slashdot is offering to finance. Even to upgrade to a 64-bit Linux would require far more work than I have time for. And OSX would demand even more of a cash investment in both hardware and software. It's not that anything is "keeping me on XP." It's that my system works as designed for my application, I'm strapped for cash, I'm risk averse, and there really isn't anything motivating me to change.
Dump XP as the host OS and VMware the rest. Or if you don't exactly have the funding for VMware, try Virtual Box. That way you can test even further back than XP if you'd like. And if you're crazy, even check support for that one weird asshole still using Windows 98.
I use XP for virtual machines. I have MSDN, and I use XP as the OS for each Windows-based development environment I set up.
I tried using Win7 for exactly one VM, and it's three times larger than it needs to be. It wastes RAM, and subjectively feels slower. I'm sure there's some way to reduce Win7's footprint to not be THAT obnoxiously oversized... but why bother?
(The host OS is Linux-based)
At work we use some realy good 16-bit software tools, because they are essential to our business there is no reason to switch to Win7 = new tools.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
WTF is XP
You can have my Windows NT 3.51 when you pry it out of my cold, dead 486!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Why the heck should I upgrade to Windows 7?
It probably won't even run on my computer. I only have 4 mb of ram.
I should pay extra money for more machine and a new and spiffy OS in order to do the exact same things I do now?
I should spend extra time to get equivalent programs on 7, recreate the layout I currently have, and to get them to play nicely the way they do on XP?
Is this like "new and improved" laundry detergent?
What's keeping me on XP is that it works. As long as this is true, why would I spend the $150 to upgrade?
The purpose of the OS is to manage resources and load programs. XP does that just fine. Yes, I know Microsoft is threatening to stop supporting it, but the only time I have EVER called Microsoft Support is when "Genuine Advantage" borked on a laptop and deactivated my license.
Back in the old days, when we were on the steep end of the curve, we got the next version as soon as it came out just out of self defense, to correct all the crap code in the previous version. Windows 2000 was the first truly reliable Windows, and XP after SP1 was even better.
There is no POINT, in my estimation, to upgrading an OS just to be upgrading. If you don't have a reason, leave well enough alone. We don't do our jobs just using the OS, we do our jobs with the applications the OS loads for us. It's vital to remember that.
And so, with this philosophy, I, on my work and home PCs, and all my family, completely missed out on the debacle that is Vista. I cautiously tell friends, family and co-workers that Windows 7 is ok (but not "home basic").
All that said, I do have one (1) machine running Windows 7 64 bit, upgraded from XP when I doubled the memory to 8GB. (I could have gone XP 64 bit but it was no longer available.) The overriding reason for the upgrade was that this particular machine runs an application (there that is again) that needed more than 3.6 GB or whatever the limit was under 32 bit. That's the only reason.
So, what about device support? Yeah (sarcastically), what about it. I actually *lost* a device when I went to Windows 7. The XP drivers for my scanner would not work on the Windows 7 machine, and there were never any Windows 7 drivers written for it. I had to move the scanner to another box still running.... XP... So much for upgrades.
Otherwise, leave well enough alone and continue to get real work done, as opposed to the "meta-work" of maintaining your operating system. There may be a lot of personal satisfaction in upgrading and maintaining your OS, but it is not real work unless you are a Windows admin, and even then you're doing it so someone else can run an APPLICATION.
So.... my Windows 7 64 bit machine... When Windows 8 comes out... yeah, I'm pretty much going to ignore it. Because my stuff works just fine with Windows 7. Let someone else be unpaid QA.
There was a time when Microsoft was making money hand over fist because people would line up to get the next version as soon as it became available. Someone in Redmond *had* to realize that this was not a sustainable business model.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If they made it easier to upgrade from xp 32bit to win7 64bit, then I would have done the switch long ago. I have the upgrade disk, a new hard drive, and backups. I just can stand the thought of reinstalling or downloading all of the apps I have all over again, maintaining compatibility, etc. What a PITA.
... it's innovative edge, it needs to see the operating system as not something that users care about - users care about KILLER APPS. If microsoft would start including KILLER APPS with their new versions of windows they could sell operating systems.
I've often thought the way information and OLE has worked really needs a fucking revolution but they don't seem to have any imagination of what *computers could be* anymore, they are stuck in their engineer culture and have no visionaries. I've had tonnes of ideas over the years about user interfaces that I'd love to throw sick cash (that MS has) behind, but I doubt the knuckledraggers at MS would be able to see the merit. They have no real passion for making peoples lives better anymore IMHO.
So, over the weekend, I tried to update Curse Client on my Win7 system. It required installing the .NET 3.5 Framework Client.
It took me two bloody hours to get it to install properly. Tried the redist, tried Windows Update, remove and reinstall, nothing. I ended up having to find, download, and reinstall the update agent itself (because I can't get it off the update.microsoft site; THAT, in its infinite wisdom simply tells you to "use the Control Panel icon" which is such a brilliant help, never once assuming, hey, if they're visiting the webpage maybe there's a problem with their "Windows Update"? Naaaaaaah... ) to get the .NET stuff to install properly.
On my XP system, it Just Works.
So, thank you, Win7. Thank you for protecting me from myself.
If I wanted my dick held for me every single time I pee, I'd get a Mac...
... games in 64-bit OS is one of the things that holds me back. The main reason many stick with XP is purely not wanting to have to deal with application compatability. XP runs damn near everything /w DOSbox, there is no need for more 'upgrade headaches' that new OS's usually bring.
They are slowly rolling out 7 but there are some road blocks.
I was on a pilot project for a site to set up new systems with 7 so a few users can test it out before the full office got it.
And what happen was that there was some issues with how the image was setup it's so bad that some people on the test backed out so they where able to keep doing there job. I was just the front line guy and a lot of issues where on the back end (out of state). And I tried my best with the software they had and still some stuff did not fully work and other stuff needed work around like giving users local admin, install printer drivers local and not useing the server as useing the server locked then out of setting printer trays (big network MFP printers) and other stuff that they needed to do the job. Also I was able to get the B&W scanning software working but not the color scanning as they did not have adobe pro (it was on the old XP systems) as part of there software install tools.
This thread again..
1) Its faster
2) It doesn't look like a 2yr old designed the interface.
3) I have a number of important programs that do not run on Vista or 7. Upgrades are not available since the suppliers are gone.
4) Most importantly....IT IS PAID FOR!!! I am too cheap to spend $100 to $200 for an upgrade. (My OSX upgrade is only $30)
People have an older computer, Windows 7 is flat out bloated and won't run well on it. Windows 7 (well Vista really) dropped lots of drivers, broke support for some older software, and changed the GUI for the sake of change. Plus, when the old computer either works or "works" (I've seen people with virtually non-fucntional machines insist they are working fine) they don't want to spend the money.
Combined with this, people are fear change, and will keep using a COMPLETELY BROKEN, slow-as-hell, virus infested hell-hole of an XP install rather than a) Spending money for someone to do a reinstall (they won't do the reinstall themselves, since reinstalling XP and installing all those drivers, updates, and more updates, is a giant PITA.) b) Dump it and put a nice Linux distro on (which, in general, will run just fine on the XP systems.)
It is very simple;
I like XP.
After 16 months, I could not like Windows 7. When I saw what is coming with Windows 8, I made a decision; it is better to go backwards then "forward" with the MS marketing dept. Thus, I just reinstalled XP x64 back on my win 7 box (XP was already on all of my other boxes). XP x64runs marvelously and has a very small footprint compared to win7. In fact, my entire developers box w/VS2010, SqlServer, MySql, VS6, Libraries, etc... easily fits on a 40GB partition and uses less than a gb of ram. Try that with the bloated, almost unusable Windows 7. It wont happen.
XP does what an OS is supposed to do which is basic functionality; everything else in the shell is extra. That is what MS is trying to sell witn win7 imho; a new shell which I find lousy (ei crippled unusable "start menu", unusable"explorer", taskbar, locked down "stuff", "hex/quad/ or triple clicking" to get things done which used to require one double click etc). imho, MS is selling unusable products along with it such as Office 2010 (yeah, I reinstalled Office 2003, the last usable version of Office on my new XP box).
After reviewing Win 8, I will be skipping that pos too.
..once the prevalence of XP drops far enough, and people start replacing WinXP with Win7 stickers on their bumpers, Crackers will start building Virii and looking for holes in Win7, leaving XP alone.
People will continue to use XP for ages and ages. Especially those who've grown up with it and are too stuck in their ways to upgrade or switch to a different OS. Those who stay with XP, will not suffer too much.
What will really cause XP to fall off the market though, is Gaming, Tools and Applications, Hardware etc, that might no longer work on a machine running XP. For a long time, developers and Hardware Manufacturers will continue to build backward compatible stuff for the relatively small, but nevertheless fairly numerous clientele.
So sure, 2014 maybe where XP's red-line stands, but the race does not end just then.
Geekism is your _only_ God!
When the day comes that I really need support for USB3 or some other hardware that doesn't work on XP, I'll upgrade. But not until then.
...we are starting to see Win 7 machines coming into the field. Just in the last month. Yes, we work exceedingly slow, but there is a lot to security here, and XP was well understood. I've got XP SP3 on my machine, and expect to keep it for another few months minimum.
What I'm tired of are the websites that both warn me I'm using an outdated browser and then helpfully offer to start the installation of IE9.
I'm using IE9. They don't detect it. I'm trusting these sites? One of which is Yahoo!?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
My parents (and apparently some others that do Genealogy) are stuck on an old version of family tree maker that doesn't work on windows 7.
They cannot upgrade family tree maker because when ancestry.com bought the software they rewrote it. Not only did the rewrite
make the software worse, it also made it not support the large database of information my parents have acquired - upgrading would mean
losing all their data. And worse, ancestry.com versions apparently force you to share data with their website, which is something my parents do not
want to do.
Microsoft has had ten years to make XP Secure.
You'd think with all the updates it's had it would be bullet proof.
Why should I switch? I don't have any applications that demand 4GB+ of RAM. I'm the only one using my XP machine so security isn't a huge issue (I patch, oh, every 6 months or so with AutoPatcher, and I've only encountered a worm once in years -- brought in from a work machine on a USB flash drive despite the supposedly up-to-date antivirus on that machine). I already know how to disable WGA, so if I upgrade my machine I just move my legitimate license to the new hardware and decommission the old machine or run Linux on it. I've stripped-down/optimized XP to remove all the fluff (nLite is wonderful). And Win 7 would cost money, demand more hardware (or perform worse) for little benefit, and has all sorts of useless UI glitter that I would just turn off anyway.
XP works, I know how to tweak it, it performs well and doesn't cost more than I've already paid. If I'm really worried when Microsoft stops supporting XP with security patches I'll just convert another machine to Linux.
I've just this last week ordered a new machine for work, and I've decided to try Windows 7 on one partition to see if it is tolerable (unlike at home, this is for an application that really can benefit from >4GB of RAM, and there are 16GB of RAM loaded on the new hardware). If it works out, then maybe I'll *consider* spending the money for my home machine. Otherwise it's going to stay this way for years. Hell, I waited until 2008 to switch from Windows 2000. XP switchover isn't due for years.
I'm sorry Microsoft, but you lost me with W7 / Vista's UI. I have everything about it. I don't like the taskbar, I don't like the start menu, I don't like the window decorations. But mostly I don't like that you're taking away my freedom to configure the UI to my liking. For example, there is in XP an interface to manage file extensions, easily change an extension's icon, and add actions to the context-sensitive menu. This interface has been "retired" and now you have to edit the registry or download third party apps to do the same task. Is that progress? removing features?
Or try to create your own custom start menu with your own folders - an almost impossible task. In XP you just open the "start menu" folder and edit it to your heart's content.
As for looks, I HATE the blurry opacity effect. I find the window borders too thick. And the only option I have other that that is the godawful Windows "Classic" look. My XP system has the "zune" theme installed which uses, for some reasons, similar colors to that of Ubuntu, black and orange. It goes well with Firefox, so all in all, I'm happy with XP visually.
XP is light, responsive, easily configurable and easy on the eye. Whenever I'm forced to work on a W7 system at work I curse every moment.
Windows XP Pro has Services for Unix + support for NFS.
The _cheapest_ edition of Windows 7 which has equivalent functionality is Windows 7 Ultimate.
I can think of many far better ways to spend $300+.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
Free cloned xp, vs. 250$ uncloneable windows7....mmmmmm tough one to figure out
Been working in IT for 15 years, moved to Mac 5 years ago, dodged Vista and dodging Win 7. Tried to dodge XP too, for the first couple years. 64-bit has been a marketing FAIL and software FAIL. Look back at how Apple did it, from 2002-2003 on.
Oh noes! Can't run IE9!!!!1 What will I do?
Does anybody use any version of IE anymore?
Windows XP is pretty secure already after a decade of Security Updates. Money and laziness is bound to keep people on it years after MS stops supporting it.
Vista, and the very similar 7 are what's keeping me on XP: I dislike the UI changes they made for Vista, and didn't unmake for 7. Windows 8 is just going further down this road, and so is unlikely to make me change my mind either.
The remaining upgrade path is to Linux, but I tried that out for a couple of weeks. Turns out X.org can't do hardware acceleration on a multi-GPU multiple monitor setup unless you also want to sacrifice the ability to drag windows between monitors. Which I don't.
(I also had issues with menus rendering in the wrong place -- at least one UI toolkit would position menu popups aligned with the top of my smallest monitor, leaving a several-inch gap between the menubar and the popup depending on where the parent window was positioned. Windows gets this right...)
So in summary, if I want a desktop with 2D acceleration and a UI I don't hate... I only really have one choice.
Cheap PCs run XP.
This isn't really true any more, at least for new cheap PCs. They're all shipping with Windows 7 Starter now.
The only machine I have still running XP is my craptop... While its no spring chicken its still a 2.4GHz pentium 4 with a gig of ram, the 5 or 6 times a year I use it, it does the job just fine ... browsing the web, watching goofy youtube videos, acting as a internet gateway to my mac SE
I would love to toss windows 7 on it, BUT it has a old ATI Radieon Mobile in it, which is not DirectX 9 compatible, which is a deal breaker. So ... XP it is (though its dual boot with mint 11)
Sad thing is, I know it would run it fine, I have had 7 on a 1.6GHz Atom, my dad has it on his 2.25Ghz Athlon XP, and they both have no issue (well the atom kind of sucked) even with the dumb shit transparency and ghost effects turned on.
Oh well, your loss MS
1. I run it in a VM so that I can run a few legacy apps that don't run quite as well in wine
2. I already own a legal copy of it (seriously!), so I don't have to pay for a new version
I predominantly use Linux. Win 7 is cool and all, but it's just not worth paying for and I don't buy pre-fab'd PCs.
Those two machines are special purpose boxes with migrated older XP licenses. One does streaming video output from Flash Media Encoder, which still seems to work a bit better in 32-bit XP right now. If the situation ever changes enough to justify such a change, I'll gladly move it up to a 64-bit W7 build.
The other is a dedicated JDownloader/Ventrilo/Skype/VoIP box (running an ancient P4) to allow communications and downloads to keep going while other machines are rebooting, under maintenance, or whatever.
That second machine could be migrated to W7, sure, or maybe even Linux, but I've got a perfectly servicable license for XP and the machine barely touches the internet outside of those specific apps.
Really, the risk ends up being pretty minimal after you factor in the firewall and very limited port forwarding.
Eventually they'll probably get migrated up, but I think the comm box will end up getting a total hardware change along with a new OS. That's a long ways away, though. No need to upgrade those two yet.
I don't particularly like XP, but I don't particularly dislike it either. The OS came with my older laptops, and I'm not about to spend the money to upgrade it. Like many of the /. crowd, the only way I acquire Windows is through a new PC or laptop (or netbook, or ultra-ma-jig, or whatever we call them now).
Ever see that image floating around the internet? "New Mac for Christmas - $2000 Facebook machine" That speaks volumes.
I have an ebay'ed Xeon server that runs various *nixes with Xen. That does the heavy stuff, and everything else is for Firefox and Office. What's keeping me on XP? Same thing that's making me upgrade to Windows 7... Nothing! It costs money for no material value. That's not even a decision.
-d
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
I usually use with Linux or OS X. There are times when I need to create a quickie WinNT-ish environment, and I don't care about network access. My wife has gone through several HP laptops that gave up the ghost shortly after the warranty expired. But, even in the afterlife, they can donate their drives, their displays, and even their OEM Windows licenses. It turns out that the reinstall DVDs aren't very particular about the (virtual) hardware they're run on, as long as I've got a good key.
Luke, help me take this mask off
nasty circle of lingering web apps that need IE6 on our IT depts 'standard desktop' and lack of cash/will to kill the damn thing off. Hoping it will change this year.
The Dear Leader said keep using XP forever, so I will.
whereas Vista is the devil I don't.
Have fun repackaging a few thousand applications SOX compliantly, again.
1. Driver bugs. The worst of the bunch for me, so far, is this wonderful nVidia driver bug that rears its ugly head only when using Firefox or Internet Explorer (even with "hardware acceleration" turned off). The only workaround known at this time is to use any driver package earlier than 270.55. The latest beta driver (290.53) does not fix it. And to those considering responding to this point with "technical tips" -- read the thread, don't skim it, actually read it. Note that it's 35 pages.
2. Activation bullshit. Specifically: lack of a Volume Licensed Edition. Let me clarify what I'm talking about: Windows Vista and beyond did away with the concept of a VLK (Volume License Key), which is nothing more than a serial number that's associated with Windows XP Professional Volume Licensed Edition. (Meaning, you can't use a Retail key on a VLE install, an OEM key on a Retail install, etc. -- following so far?) VLE/VLKs mean no activation (no WPA), and they Just Work(tm). No activation. Instead, with Vista and Windows 7, each PC is required to have its own serial number, or you're forced to use a MAK or KMS. MAKs authenticate directly with Microsoft (so they have control over your license); a KMS is some piece of software running probably on a Windows 2008 Server box on your LAN which you have to purchase from Microsoft (and I have no idea what the licensing/stipulations are for getting one -- I'm sure you pay for licenses "in bulk" and the KMS probably talks to Microsoft somewhere along the lines too).
Why do I care about this? Simple: it's purely an anti-piracy effort that does nothing other than fuck tech-savvy users like myself (UNIX system administrator here, hi!) who often purchase hardware upgrades. I own legitimate copies of Windows XP Professional Retail (one for each system in my home), but I choose to use VLE simply to make my life easier and not have to deal with activation. The last time I used Retail, I happened to upgrade my RAM in my system from 2GB to 4GB, and was forced to call a telephone number + speak to someone in India and "justify" what I had done. Three months later I upgraded my video card; again, a phone call was needed. I am NOT going to do this every time I change something in my system; what if I don't like the hardware I just upgraded to, thus remove it? Oh, now I get to call Microsoft twice in one day! No thanks. Remember: Microsoft said this kind of behaviour would only happen if you changed more than 2 pieces of hardware at the same time, but that's obviously a lie. The proof is in the pudding.
Bottom line is: I paid for your OS, I therefore paid for a serial, and I should be able to run it on whatever hardware I wish. Otherwise, if you want to impose "one copy per PC" limitations to try and curb piracy, then please, PLEASE do it like how the folks at Alcohol Software do with their Alcohol 120% product (customers have a web page they can log in to and change which PC the license is associated with). If I had control over the situation (vs. making stupid phone calls and "justifying" what I'm doing with my own hardware/systems) then I'd be content with that.
3. Removal of "Windows Classic" themes such as Rainy Day. Sure, there's "Windows Basic" which does its best to "emulate" the look of 2K/XP, but they stripped out all of the themes which made it worthwhile. And yes, I have tried two Internet users' "Rainy Day" themes, both of which were horrendous.
4. Stupid UI design choices. For example, even in the most "basic" or "slim" of themes (Aero turned off, etc.), there is still an excessive amount of space wasted around application windows/borders. You can set the border size to 0 in Appearance, but you'll find 3-4 pixels of space still being used by who-the-fuck-knows-what. This combined with #3 effectively has removed a users' abi
A lot of people in this post seem to be using OSX and saying how anything past XP is utterly useless when all you're doing is surfing the internet and using MS Office... Then you take a look at OSX and realize that the main difference between the OSX versions (or should I say service packs), despite how Apple markets it as "300 new features" or "game changing", are actually more like small GUI tweaks, the a the ability to run the new iTunes, Safari etc. (OSX 10.4 anyone?)... And I don't see anyone complaining about XP being able to run the latest of Apple's cross-platform software and older versions of OSX not being able to do the same?!
With the big change in drivers in Vista/7 we have lots of machines that are going to be a nightmare to upgrade. And the problem is a little bigger than "Hey! My crappy $169 multi-function inkjet doesn't work!" - these are machines that do data acquisition from expensive scientific instrumentation (think six-figures and up). In many cases there is no upgrade pathway - period.
The last time this was a huge PITA was the transition from 9x to 2k. Probably time to consider migrating to Linux again.
It may be old PCs not cheap PCs. Old PCs run perfectly well when they are running old software, the software whose suggested hardware requirements match the hardware. Of course software that connects to the internet complicates this due to security concerns and the necessity of patches.
Mainly the fact that I have a Bunch of XP cd around to use on my virtual box.
Tell me what Win7 does for me* that XP can't, and we can have a more meaningful discussion
Windows XP does not support ASLR, which is a powerful exploit mitigation feature. That is, given a vulnerability (which are pretty abundant in the software that we use), ASLR does a good job of preventing a large class of them from being able to be leveraged to run code (like install malware, keylogger, etc.).
Windows 7 does ASLR, which makes you less likely to get exploited by vulnerabilities.
...switched.
Windows XP is the most efficient 32-bit OS available.
Seriously, until there is a full migration to 64 bit, all non-ARM windows installs are 64 bit, and >32 gig memory is supported by Windows X Basic, I have no reason to upgrade. I got a Vista Basic 32 bit laptop around 3-5 years ago. Celeron-M 1.8 ghz 965G chipset, 2 gigs of ram, etc. At boot Vista was using 1 gig at idle, before caching (which took up the other gig.) It was a slow waste of time. Linux installed on the same hardware took 30ish seconds to boot to GUI, was responsive, used 1/2 to 1/4 the memory, and did a pretty good job of avoiding viruses with no other features out of the box (periodically checked for viruses, but not daily.).
My XP box is much the same way, very low memory usage, fast bootup, minimal hard disk footprint, etc. It runs all programs I need, and if I want games with bleeding edge graphics, it's got OpenGL 3.3/4.x support via it's ATI video card. OpenCL for GPGPU stuff too. Sure, it's not DirectX 10/11, but it's a marginal graphical increase for me, and wastes a lot more memory that could otherwise be allocated to my applications.
If 64-bit became standard then there'd be a compelling reason to upgrade, but given that even on my 64 bit capable boxes I'm still running 32-bit OSes, it doesn't seem like an immediate need. Additionally, how many of the current gen consoles use 64 bit addressing? If they don't then 64 bit oses are likely to cause addressing or data type issues due to improperly defined types.
I can't play Bad company 2 on Windows 7 because of low framerates, but I can on XP.
I have it on steam installed on both OS (tri boot).
In my experience, these two setups are equivalent in performance/appearance:
XP:
Amd 4400+ X2
2 GB DDR
Nvidia 9800 GT
W7:
AMD Phenom II 965
ATI HD 5870
8 GB DDR3
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
It and my hardware are good enough, plus I cannot stand some of the UI changes such as in Explorer and the Control Panel.
I typically used to upgrade my main home systems every 3 years or so, but my old 3 Ghz single core desktop is still more than enough for the printing, scanning, and burning duties that it performs and my 2.2 Ghz Core2Duo laptop with nVidia graphics is also more than enough for my daily needs. As long as the hardware doesn't fail I have not had any need to upgrade. My upgrades used to be driven buy whatever the latest game I wanted to play was, but even my laptop can now play any game I am interested in. When some new must have piece of software comes out that I have to have and my current setup doesn't support it I may buy a new laptop, but until then I will continue to use XP.
Nevermore.
Win2k was the best desktop OS MS ever developed. All just fluff after that.
The correct question is: Why do we need to move to a new version of Windows?
Bottom line, Windows XP is a mature O/S. It had everything that people using the O/S needed from the O/S. Windows 7 is not adding anything to the O/S that real world users required. This is why the corporate world told MS to take a flying leap when MS tried to bully everyone off XP before.
The only thing that XP required was standard, ongoing patches. Users do not need any new features. They simply need what was already in XP to work correctly. This is why the corporate world forced MS to keep the O/S going past their original deadline. Why pay lots-o-money to get something which does nothing that one needs.
It is the basic problem with trying to build a business around selling an O/S. Eventually the O/S becomes mature and people need nothing more than standard patches. MS should have realized this and moved to an annual support fee structure for Windows. This would have worked better for everyone.
A lot of software I used still has not been updated for Vista/Win 7. I figure in about 5 years I won't need that software anymore. After that, I'll switch to whatever the latest is, which will probably just be Win 8!
I use win7 at work and my productivity in office 07 is far worse than in older versions of office. so when I need to get something done in winduhs I prefer XP.
Advanced format drives from Dell, HP and others beginning next month will drive another stake in the heart. And we still have POS and Embedded customers which refuse to update 100s of stations with their ticketing/atm software for the sake of saying Win7.
I have had a whole range of problems with Windows 7, but this has not been any different than with any other OS I have worked with in the past. In fact, overall this upgrade has been a lot less painful than other problems Microsoft has created in the past and I have been forced to support (like with previous Win95, Vista and WinMe upgrade nightmares).
My biggest problem right now is with their horrible support for multiple monitors............ secondary monitors at first being detected, then constantly disappearing, being automatically reshuffled, re-detected, disappearing again, disappearing in and out of KVMs and never coming back, etc. Problems that did not occur on the EXACT same systems running XP mind you. These arent home systems either, these are ops centers that do network monitoring and these small annoyances create HUGE problems on a global scale when the data is not properly represented.
The second problem I have is with 3rd party drivers from very well-known companies such as Nvidia that arent being implemented with the same level of support they had with XP. This really isnt a Microsoft shortcoming exactly, but if you just spent over $600 of your own money upgrading some of your home systems to find out Nvidia will not EVER support horizontal spanning on Win 7, a feature than worked just fine on XP, then you are going to be more than a little pissed off.
Kinda like these people: http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?s=a4197d2565c5de170e5e349fc47382e7&showtopic=103599&st=0
...which is why I'm still on XP. Vista & 7 don't offer me anything. P4 w/XP is plenty fast for the apps and games I run. If I go to 7, I'll need a new PC. I'll also need new software. It's a lot of money to spend to replace something that works performs it's job admirably as-is.
Our clients run a product (vehicle emissions inspection analyzer) that could basically be considered an embedded system. They have no access to the operating system and are completely reliant upon us (the manufacturer) to repair it, perform software updates over the network, etc. When they purchased said system it's design was standardized by the government body that licenses them, and software upgrades were specifically dictated by the terms of the agreement between the manufacturer and the licensing body. (Typically two free updates.) Now many of these devices are quite old (some as old as 15 years old in fact), but they still perform the task that they were designed for. While we as the manufacturer sell newer devices running the software package on newer operating systems, there is no incentive for us to provide updated operating system software (Many analyzers still run Windows 98) unless the customer pays for it, and there is no reason for them to pay for it if what they have is working fine. In short the market dictates these things. If it's not broke people don't want to pay money to have it fixed.
for a little more you could of got a better AMD system with dual core, much better video then the OLD 775 GMA, DVI / HDMI out + gig-e.
Also that PSU is likely crap why only 2gb? 4gb is better and not much more.
80 GB is small now days
The applications I want to use work fine in XP.
There are no features in Windows 7 that are compelling to me.
Still getting security updates for now
What's that, there are unpatched security flaws in XP with exploits in the wild? Eh, my network is reasonably secure, I have some decent anti-malware running on my computer, and I honestly don't use my XP computer to browse the web all that often.
The only reason I ever upgraded from win2k to XP was because some software I wanted to run wasn't win2k compatible. That's probably the point at which I'll upgrade away from XP as well.
Why does every one of this guy's paranoid, trolly submissions get posted? If it's not impending DOOOOOM coming from Iran (hey knucklehead, their exercise was announced long before they threatened to close Hormuz), it's this crap.
I miss Taco :(
XP is now a relatively lightweight OS, so runs fast even on old hardware. Its also ideal for VMs.
Apart from all the ridiculous bloat of Windows 7, I don't like the way it works. The user interaction has been dumbed down a lot from XP, (not that XP was ever that smart or user-friendly, but it assumes the user is somewhat less of a moron than Windows 7 does).
Because it just works, and that's all people need ? When will software industry wake up to the fact that users have gotten over 'upgrade cycles' and are now aware that they are just means for software companies to continually sell products to customers and make revenue ?
And no - dont blabber about 'the many great features' that are in win7 or something - get the message : people dont need them. you may think they do, but they disagree - thats another fixation in software industry; 'these features are great ! you have to have it !' -> no they dont. they just need to have what they need, and that's all there is to it.
hence the reason for a whopping 46% share of xp, even in its fallen down state.
Read radical news here
These parts were all spare and on hand except the CPU. But I priced it out anyway just to make a point.
Has anyone had much success with virtualizing XP-only legacy apps to aid in the adoption of Win7? I've looked at Vmware ThinApp, any others out there that are interesting? Any licensing implications to running an app in these virtual "packages?"
I've been using XP for about 8 years now (I was hanging on to 2000 for a while there) and I'm not paying $250 for a copy of Windows 7 Professional just to get XP mode and DirectX 11 support. Sure setting up the SSD was a bit of a pain when it isn't automated under XP but that's just too much money for the occasional game. Bring it down to $100 and it's in the impulse buy territory.
Because Bethesda is a FAIL game company.
I held back because XP worked great. I knew how to use it, used it for years, the graphics were decent, the software worked with no problem, there was tons of software that worked well. Also, I did have an older system, and support under Win 7 for the older components were an issue. I knew it would mean replacing my cam. A huge stumbling block was dealing with all my files. My hard drive was nearly full. Despite having a backup drive, there are still logistics, making sure firefox is backed up, do I have passwords for all my other programs like Skype... nothing was a huge deal breaker, but everything together just outweighed the benefits and by a lot.
Finally I found my games just weren't working well. I had made some hardware upgrades that would allow me to take advantage of Win 7 features. I had a few reinstalls to do that kind of pushed me over the edge. Might as well do the whole thing right then.
Now that I have it, 7 is great. I worried about it taking up more resources, but it uses them so much better it feels like my system runs much better with the new OS than with XP. But for home users there are a lot of reasons to hold out if you already have a decent enough system.
I would love to use WIn7 on everything but there are certain practical issues to confront. I have a couple of perfectly decent machines with plenty of zip that the manufacturer dose not provide support for Win7. And I have a couple of very nice applications I use occasionally that need to be upgraded to move to W7. The cost of those software upgrades exceeds the cost of W7 licenses and new hardware -- and they run just fine on the 'old' 3.1ghz/2gb boxes. Lord knows, I tried, but as soon as W7-sp1 went in it stopped booting cleanly. I know full well that a lot of this is just a conspiracy to force us to buy new over and over. But the new junk is often not better than the old junk, just different. So I will keep the old stuff running as long as I can because it does its job and is paid for. Seems pretty basic to me... Sorry it doesn't fit with anyone's marketing plans but being retired does constrain one's choices.
What kept me on XP so long? Two things. First, it works. It did everything I needed it to do, ran all the software I needed to run. I don't run an OS to use the OS, I use software and have an OS only because that software requires it. If the software I need to use is happy, I see no reason to disrupt things.
Second, I can't upgrade. Microsoft dropped the ability to upgrade an XP install to Win7, retaining all the installed software, settings and the like. That makes an upgrade hellishly complex, since I've got to dig out all the old install media, product keys and such and spend hours reinstalling everything. I've got to save data, write down settings, and remember all the stuff I need to make note of or save. And after the upgrade I have the headaches of finding all the things I didn't remember to save and have to dig up or recreate. It's about a week of work per PC to get everything dealt with and settled and working smoothly again. I do not want to go through that if I don't have to.
Some FPGA programming tools require a USB driver to be installed for programming devices, and when Vista was out, there were no drivers for anything other than XP. It's been a while, but I'm afrait to break anything. Also I only have Windows in VMs, so I wouldn't benefit from any new features. I mostly use Windows for certain limited kinds of development work.
It is a pretty valid question. I know one person who has a good scanner that does not offer drivers that work with post-XP Windows, so she keeps it. Also, I know many people who have low end laptops (and of course netbooks) that don't have the disk space, graphics, memory that would make a newer OS work adequately. And then, I am seriously struggling to watch my HD-DVDs (yes, I got a few dozen in clearance - they are great!) on Windows 7, so I am considering putting the hd-dvd/BD drive on an XP box at the next sign of playback trouble.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
and 46% of users, as you see, dont give two flying shits about all the non-brokenness you described to be in win 7. their computer just works. and that's that.
Read radical news here
Well, Microsoft doesn't even allow you to do an upgrade install from XP to 7. You can only do that from Vista to 7. The "upgrade" procedure consists of it doing a full, clean install of 7 into a new folder on the drive while placing all the XP stuff into a WINDOWS.OLD folder. You have to manually move your documents and data over to the appropriate places after it's done, and reinstall all the apps from scratch.
I've done this MANY times for people already, and it works just fine but it's time consuming.
The next reason to upgrade is gonna be the Ultrabook, at list if you ask Intel.
I actually tried upgrading to Windows 7 last year. Damn thing gave me a whole lot of grief about not having the needed file permissions to read files off of my old XP drive. I wasn't able to find a quick solution for this so I said fuck it. Booted back into XP and haven't touched Windows 7 again. I won't be migrating from XP until I absolutely have to do it.
Losing performance is why I won't switch to Windows 7 on my desktop. It's a Dell from 2003 with an AGP slot. I have an nVidia 6800 that ran most everything up through Left 4 Dead just fine. It would be silly to throw any more money into this ancient system. I have tested Windows 7 and could never get comparable frame rates with it when gaming so I went back to XP. It got hit with a virus and I went to Linux Mint 11. I'm still not gaming but if I ever go back to a MS OS on this box, it would be XP. Most likely I'd just run the same nLited derivative I made for my Eee 701.
It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
anyone with a reliable antivirus/firewall that works (like kaspersky pure) will just be able to keep using it. in fact, i would question anyone who trusted microsoft with their 'security updates' as morons. microsoft repeatedly broke more than they fixed in many previous patches and packs. these patches are security liabilities in themselves.
on top of this, xp is tested and weathered. windows 7 is yet not. windows 8 isnt even out.
as long as you employ a very good security software to check everything that happens on a computer, you have no need of security patches by and large, only except extreme circumstances - but be sure - good security software companies even take the o/s vulnerabilities into account.
and no - if you are employing a good antivirus (kaspersky etc) and NOT a resource hog that screws resources more than it does any good (norton et al), you will have no problems running both an active (proactive setting) antivirus on something like a 4 gig ram, amd 4800+ cpu old (5-6 years) generation computer AND still game at the same time. (wow, simulations, fallout 3 modded, whatever ). things like norton are not antiviruses - THEY are viruses themselves.
Read radical news here
I have inherited obsolete laptops recently, and few have Win7 display drivers available. I can install Win7 and VGA, but accelerated graphics is more important to me, so I install XP.
You do realize that MS has been selling XP licenses as recently as 3 years ago?
So, if we go with your analogy, that's like Ford CONTINUING to sell the Model T from 1902 to 2008, and then suddenly cutting off all spare parts, safety recalls, tires, heck, they won't even sell you gas for the car because they want to FORCE you to buy a Ford Focus, which they will end of life before you've put 100,000 miles on the car or even paid it off.
Frankly, my next PC isn't going to run Windows *at all* - I'm seriously either going for Linux on the desktop or I'm going to use an iPad (or something similar) as my desktop (with an external keyboard, these devices aren't bad), as I'm quickly realizing that what I do with a desktop machine is mostly to login to other machines.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
And I'll follow it up with why businesses don't upgrade... 7 was released less than 4 years ago. Big businesses keep a PC for 4 years. Now a system built 3 years ago may not be compliant with everything on Windows 7. For lower support costs systems should be mostly interchangeable. It is a problem to have half your users on one OS and half on another. The safer bet is to run Windows XP for another 2 years while PCs that are non-7 compliant get phased out, then introduce 7 on all PCs.
In the research facility I am working at, most computers that are connected to complicated and expensive instrument such as X-ray diffractometer, atomic force microscope, electron microscopes and tensile testers run very old versions of windows, usually never upgraded since they were first setup. Some of them even fashion Windows 98/95.
The only reason for lack of upgrade is the fear of breaking down a perfectly working system. I believe most of the instruments are supported on newer versions of Windows, but obviously no one wants to take the trouble just to keep pace with the most trendy operation system.
Windows XP has much smoother real-time video capture and rendering than Windows 7. I've worked on the problem for months, but there seems to be no way to make Windows 7 capture and render real-time video as smoothly as Windows 7.
I wonder how many enterprises will ended up getting a Custom Support Agreement after XP ends support in April 2014, which FYI costs $200,000 for first year (can be split into $50,000 for each quarter) and more every year afterwards.
Microsoft made the exact same announcement about "discontinuing support" for XP when they came out with Vista. Nobody took the bait, and Microsoft quietly continued supporting XP.
How about upgrade my XP when the Internet is upgraded to IPv6?
#1, XP works pretty well. There are a few missing features, but no serious bugs that I know of.
#2, I hate the UI changes in Visa and Seven. In XP I use the classic NT/2000 theme.
#3, Seven is expensive when I already own XP.
I have been thinking of upgrading, but not until I build a new machine.
Money, time, frustration avoidance.
For my older HTPC, XP works just fine. I could upgrade it to 7, but why?
It will cost me a fair bit of coin, it will take time out of my life, and make me pull hair out trying to re-install and find all the registration keys for 3rd party software.
Attrition will get enterprise computers, and eventual upgrades or component failure will get home users. It's just not that much better than XP for most tasks, unlike say 95 to 2000 was.
its for a certain machine that i shall not mention, but its awesome.
In an environment that is almost exclusively Windows 7, the remaining XP boxes exist for very specific reasons:
1. The Global Broadcast stack is broken on multi-nic 7 boxes. Don't believe me? Try it yourself. Global broadcasts are a shit solution and shouldn't be used anyway, but the only remedy is to manually change the route metric for the global broadcast address via the command line. Also, you CANNOT program netburner cards via Ethernet on Windows 7. It's just simply not possible with the broken network stack.
2. XP is better for systems administration. For one, I can browse folders with administrative priveledges (you used to be able to screw with 7 & 2008 to get it to work, but they've completely removed the hack-around in a security update). If you are logged onto a Windows 7 machine as a Domain Admin, you will NOT be able to access folders to which only Domain Admins can access. The only work-around now? Disable UAC on the server. Unacceptable.
3. It's less resource-intensive. My sysadmin XP box is a virtual machine within Ubuntu - easily the best combination that exists: RDesktop is smoother & more responsive than MSTSC (plus, with aliased command switches it's stupid fast), combined with PSexec on XP is the killer solution.
Honestly though, the biggest killer for 7 was file browsing. Domain Admins has full control, I'm a Domain Admin, but I can't list folder contents without explicitly adding my non-administrator token to the folder's permissions? Nope. I'll stick with XP. Fix that, make 'Elevate' a built in command, and fix the network stack - Then I might use 7 for administration.
Yes, the entire population of Korea and Japan.
In the event of catastrophe, which has now happened to me 4 times in the last 5 years, I've been able to simply wipe the C: drive and start over (100% of my user data, including all user software settings, is always on drive D, and does not get affected by the reformat, so the only thing I have to do afterwards is reinstall the actual programs, which I have CD's for).
Today, you can't buy a computer with the disks for the OS. I've tried... stores simply do not have them, and are unwilling to get them in or offer them. While they have this so-called "recovery disk" creation software that allows you to use a couple of DVD's and make an image of your computer, the problem I have with this is that this image will include all the bloatware that comes bundled with the computer. All I want to do when I re-install windows is install *WINDOWS*.
I realize I'm not a typical customer... but that doesn't mean I wouldn't *BE* a customer if places would actually be accommodating to what my demands for a computer are.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I'm in the same leaky, vermin infested paddle boat as you are, except I also have a project in VB5 (my fingers burn a bit every time I have to open that up). Good to know that 6 won't run on Vista or newer. I couldn't even upgrade until I get a new computer anyway, by which time Win8, Win9, or Win10 may be out. The code I have (VC++ 6) at least works well on XP, but I can't update it to one of the 4 newer versions of Visual Studio until we also update some vendor-supplied software which was written originally for Win2000. Sigh.
I have a Toshiba netbook running Win7 right now that I'm considering downgrading to XP. The book just can't handle the power that Win7 needs (even after I turned off all the fancy graphics and trimmed services) without stuttering along here and there (and don't get me started on HDD access--it takes forever and a day just for the Save File dialog to come up in anything).
Let's face it, 7 just doesn't cut it for older and under-power machines. Plus, if I'm running something processor-intensive that doesn't need the bells and whistles, I'm going to choose an OS that isn't as processor-intensive itself (yes, yes, *nux, but not everything runs on that.) For that I might even jump back to 2K (but not 98, blech).
I do all my browsing from a live Bart CD built from XP.
The computer has 4 Gb of RAM and no HDD.
Your Windows 7 cannot begin to approach my level of security!
Only problem I've seen is that some installers seem to think it's Windows server 2003 not Windows XP.
That's because it IS Server 2003. XP x64 is Server 2003 x64 with Serivce Pack 1, just renamed, and with different features enabled/disabled by default. Check the version numbers: they are both Windows 5.2 (true XP is 5.1). Both XP x64 and Server 2003 x64 also use the exact same SP2 and other hotfixes.
I still use it too, and greatly prefer it to Windows 7. As for the other person that said driver support is terrible for it... that's a common myth. It was terrible in 2005, but now drivers for XP x64 (or Server 2003 x64, since they are interchangeable) are actually pretty common unless you have old/obscure hardware.
There, I said it.
Not only that, it is designed for people who HAVE NO EYES and fingers THE SIZE OF MOUNTAINS for all those tablets IT ISN'T RUNNING ON.
It is a freak-child of an OS stuck between a hundred different scenarios that it won't ever actually see. (well, besides the idiots)
If I wanted Microsoft Idiot Edition, I would have signed up. OH, WAIT, I've been programming from the age of 9 and feel insulted by the very existence of Windows 7 as an official main release.
And all the different versions of it are even more obtuse! The older models were perfectly fine. Why did they have to add a damn family of them?
Home, professional, media, corporate, maybe even embedded, THAT IS IT.
Home, AKA, idiot edition. Professional, the one that isn't a direct insult to anyone who uses it. Media, the slick, optimized version that barely seen the light of day that was actually really nice (could make this optimized specifically for gaming too). Corporate, embedded, pretty self-explanatory.
Microsoft actually had decent focus with XP. Ever since Bill stepped back from his position, Windows has went downhill. Even he was appauled by how terrible Vista was when he used it.
Steve... he just sucks. Sorry, but he does. He really, really sucks at management. He is also a publicity nightmare. (chairs, "career" death-threats)
They have no idea where they were going with the Vis7a branch. (7 because Windows 7 is a direct service pack renamed to get away from the negative image Vista had)
Win8 is becoming even more "noob" friendly. While it might work nice for Tablets, I highly doubt they will even bother optimizing it for mouse and keyboard use. And I highly doubt they have even thought about the whole idea of, you know, GETTING IT ON TABLETS. "Hey guys let's optimize our new OS for tablets, that'll be really neat", then the entire team gets fired because the idiot on top never thought of actually talking to people to get it preinstalled.
I'll come back with Win9 when they have been forced in to an even worse position and actually release a decent OS.
After all, Win8 is supposed to be The Bad Windows, was it now?
Here's what's keeping me from upgrading my XP machines to Windows 7: Upgrading from Windows XP to Windows 7
That's the top (unsponsored) Google link for the query "how to upgrade windows xp to windows 7."
Note the bullet items under "what you need:"
Sorry, they want me to pay for the privilege and blow a whole weekend to update my four XP machines at home? What do I get out of this? My XP machines do what they need to do just fine.
Mojo
The user interface in XP is provably more efficient, more effective and more consistent than Microsoft's later offerings.
The Windows 7 user interface is a verbose, inefficient, wasteful, inconsistent mess. I've been running Vista, 7 and currently 8 Developer Preview in virtual machines and have spent a long time messing around with them. I have found many aspects of the interface that will most definitely reduce my productivity and which can't be customised to work the way I want.
Windows 8 is even worse than 7 in regards to customisation, and the dialog box to change the operating system fonts has been removed. Furthermore, many of the settings at HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop\WindowMetrics are ignored in Windows 8 so you can't change the fonts that way. I find the Segoe UI font to be difficult to read and have no desire to use an operating system that forces it on me.
With some changes to the settings and a 305 line registry script I can get Windows 8 in a near usable state, but even with these customisations he UI is still inferior to XP. It's a shame most of my 16GB of RAM is unusable and my graphics card can't achieve its full potential, but I value a good user interface over more memory and some pretty tessellation.
I've tried it in Win7, Linux, a virtual XP machine and on OSX... none of them work properly.... :O(
I use XP at home and Win7 at work. I guess many of the things which annoy me in Win7 is possible to fix, but I try to use Win7 and hopefully in the future figure out why it is better, even though I don't see it now. Here are some of the things I don't like with 7 anyway:
- Where is the good old quick launch for the small utils I use all the time?
- When clicking on an app in the menu bar I normally want to open a new instance of it, not hide/show the existing instance.
- When right clicking on an icon in the menu field for an open app the menu window opens far from the mouse cursor (not a few pixels like in XP). In XP I -really- don't need to aim at all for right click -> close app selection.
- When clicking on the calculator button on my keyboard the Win7 brings the open calculator to the front instead of opening a new instance.
- XP feels snappier / faster.
- I like the XP explorer / file manager much more than the one in Win7.
So, what's keeping me on XP? The user experience. I guess Win7 is much more powerful "under the hood" and everything, but so far I haven't experienced anything making me think "Oh, that's good.. Too bad it's not available in XP".
i suspect that by the time 2014 rolls around there will be a vibrate, active community of 3rd patches and software component replacements for XP.
also, the more fsckers are not running XP, the more fsckers will not be writing viruses for XP. seriously, there are already ways to replace everything in XP with non-microsoft stuff.
Are you kidding? I wish I had XP at my job! We're still on Windows 2000, you insensitive clod!
The worst part about it, for me, is that Spotify won't run on win2k anymore.
This is the main reason I stay with XP x64. If Microsoft had not decided to give a big "fuck you" to people who would not move to Vista, it might be a bit easier for me to move from my current XP installation to 7. But as it stands I have a few choices: 1) upgrade to Vista then to 7; 2) purchase third-party software which exports the XP software and data then imports after a complete wipe and load of 7; 3) wipe and load 7 and manually reinstall software.
Secondarily is that I despise the 7 interface inherited from Vista. I do not like having to route through a phone tree to get to the advanced functions I want to use.
I would rather migrate to a different platform. I could run Solaris 10 on my machines or move to Mac. I don't like what seems to be a constantly shifting state of Linux desktops. I would be happy just to move back to my Amiga by way of MorphOS on a G4 or AROS on an x64 PC.
In the case of my customers, I have moved them to 7-64 as much as possible. It does work very well for them, and drivers are a snap for the most part. In some cases we had to upgrade a number of items, like scanners and printers, as drivers are simply not available. To be fair, a lot of that equipment is very old and, even though it worked, it was too old to be considered reliable for critical work -- mind you, I am not dealing with industrial hardware. Customers have taken very well to 7 over-all. All of the old software which will not run in 7 runs great in XP Mode, and I have been able to virtualize a Windows 98 and a DOS machine to continue running the VERY old software contained within which would not run in XP.
After trying Windows 2000, Windows 7, and 3 flavors of Linux, it was the only thing that would play nicely with all the pieces and parts of my HTPC machine.
Why bother with data if you store it on a server and have backups? If your workstation dies, you replace it and your data is still there. Your argument is not valid for anyone that knows a little about data safety.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
If you have a system and it works for what you need it to do, there's no reason to move off of the current platform. Which is why I have a few PCs at home that run XP. One's my media server and it still works like it did the day I put it into service, so why should I upgrade it? I think the better question is why do people move off of XP. I recently bought a couple newer systems explicitly looking for Windows 7. Why?
1) On my netbook, I got tired of having to constantly fix/patch things to work every time I loaded a new version of Ubuntu. I was never able to get the right driver support for my webcam on any version, so I just got tired of messing with it. I just needed something that worked, so I ended up getting a newer netbook (Dell Mini10, refurb) with Win7 Starter, and have been very happy with it.
2) I wanted a platform that could edit HD video and my P4 systems just weren't cutting it anymore. The new version of MovieMaker on Win7 had support for H.264 encoded video out of the box. Also I wanted to gain support for more RAM and these new fangled SATA drives (the P4 systems I had were all running IDE. IDE drives have been getting pretty sparse -- also you can get SATA drives in much larger capacities than IDE.)
The machine will still likely last for years; it is still on the original toner cartridges. I just don't print that much in color.
*shrug*
So I keep an XP machine (a tired old laptop) running, just to print from.
I suppose I could look into printing from a virtual machine; I probably will do that some day.
And I probably will not be buying anything form HP - I'm more than a little upset that they dropped the support ball.
Maybe some day I'll like HP again, but between dropping driver support and hosing over Pre, and their board of directors' need to out-stupid one another...
*sigh* yeah, it is hard to imagine why I would want to give HP money any time soon.
This is what the HP support site says when I try downloading a driver:
Select operating system:
* Mac OS 9
* Mac OS X
* Microsoft Windows 2000
* Microsoft Windows Server 2003
* Microsoft Windows Vista
* Microsoft Windows Vista (64-bit)
* Microsoft Windows XP
* Microsoft Windows XP x64
My first thought is "Cool! Vista drivers should work on Windows 7..."
But then clicking on Vista (32 or 64 bit) brings up the following:
Sorry, your product is not supported in the Microsoft Windows Vista Operating System. For more information of upgrade programs and new product information, please go to the HP Trade-In/Trade-Up Website, or HP Shopping. We are sorry to inform you there will not be any Windows Vista operating system printer drivers available for your product. If you are using the new Windows Vista operating system on your PC, consider an upgrade to a newer HP product that will work with Microsoft’s new Vista operating system. To help you choose a new product upgrade, the following tool will be helpful: http://www.hp.com/support/hho/productreplacement For more information on HP’s Trade-in-Trade-up program: http://www.hp.com/united-states/tradein/home_flash.html Click here to see a full list of HP LaserJet and Color LaserJet products that are supported in Windows Vista.
Thank you, HP.
Seriously, I will run my XP machines until at least April 2014 while waiting for the arrival of Windows 9
Windows 8 gonna be a kludge just like Vista or Win ME anyway
In my office there is three of us. I'm stuck with windows 98 with the two others on XP. Consider yourself lucky that you are not me!
This upgrade cycle is (to me) insane - I only "upgraded" from Windows 2000 last year, and the only reason I did it was .net 3.5 requires XP.
I get paid to do database, c# and vb.net stuff. Windows 2000 worked just fine for me. I only upgraded to XP to run VS 2010. Honestly, from my perspective I gained *nothing* by upgrading.
Similarly, I'm seeing absolutely no reason to "upgrade" to Windows 7 or whatever they'll be calling it in two years.
For my personal machines, I'm moving to different flavors of Linux/BSD - whatever is the most stable. I don't understand Microsoft & Mozilla's persistent need to be tweaking with user interfaces.
.
Who in the world at Microsoft came up with the stunningly bad idea of putting a "preamp" stage on a digital audio input?
I was told that Microsoft does not intend to fix this bug until Windows 8, and that if I wanted a bug fix I would have to buy Windows 8.
So now I am thinking that Microsoft planted this bug intentionally in order to generate more Windows 7 to Windows 8 upgrade sales.
And that is why I am staying on Windows XP --- XP works fine with digital audio USB inputs.
I run Linux as my HOST and primary OS.
I also run Windows XP in a Virtualbox VM for those cases when I need to do some work with Photoshop, e.g. read PSD files (sorry GIMP doesn't read them correctly). I also use Windows XP to use MSN Messenger (webcam feature). Sorry AMSN is broken and its GUI sucks and is slow (TCL/TK I'm looking at you)
I will get rid of XP in VM when:
1- people stop sending me PSD files and use a standard and open format instead.
2- when webcam just works with HTML5 or something like that. Then I can make a webapp to use webcam without flash or other stupid proprietary crap.
A: Upgrading Active Directory from 2003 to 2008 R2 is a major PITB in many organizations. Imagine an AD install that went from NT4 to 2k, to 2k3, to 2k3R2 and has been around for 15+ years. Even when well-maintained, AD has a tendency, thanks to MS Security patches and lazy admins who upgrade the OS instead of simply building a new install from scratch on another server, to contain a significant quantity of errors. The Schema of 2008 is very different; not everything shoehorns in neatly. Many upgrades to 2k8 R2 get botched and you end up hunting around for powershell scripts to "clean up" AD; about the only reliable way to do it is to install 2k8 R2 Servers during your next upgrade cycle, build a new forest, Join new PC's to it as you refresh them out and make a bunch of skeleton AD Groups that are members of the groups in the other forest, then move then perform a complete audit of permissions on each server one-by-one. Sounds complex but if building the scripts to do the audit and tell you where things are at isn't horrific if you know what each server does, which in of itself, can be a battle. Bigger organizations can have 10,000+ Groups and 20k users. Many places are waiting for Server 2012/Windows 8 hoping MS makes a better import/export util.
B: Windows 7 has decent security, and many of the default requirements (like not making a folder on C: then telling every module in the app to go there) are a problem when many organizations have been running the same Codebase since Windows 3.1 (You laugh now but when the accountants have said for nearly 20 years "NO CHANGES" are they going to change their minds? "MAKE IT WORK!" means a VM-based solution). Another issue is, as MS Security patches have been applied, apps have been customized around XP and it's many faults; you uproot and plant into Windows 7 you need another Dev team to fix.
C: Good IE6 support.
D: Knowledge Turnover; about 50% of what you know under XP is now irrelevant, lots of stuff changed.
E: Looks very different. People have been on Windows\Office 95/98/2000/2003/XP for nearly 15+ years and the interface hasn't changed much; going to Windows 7 is a big change and one that's a major PITB.
F: Many companies don't Refresh their PC's every 3 years like they should; Downsizing has left a bunch of extra parts laying around and management wants to torture it's employee's by re-using old P4-based units with less than a gig of memory.
G: Old Network Printers that don't have Windows 7 Drivers. In a small office nobody's going to spend 20k to upgrade 2 big printers because windows 7 needs it.
H: Most of the advantages Windows 7 brings to the table are security-related, not usability-related. If anything usability arguably takes a step backwards even after the learning curve is over. Security is usually not a major concern.
I: Lots of 2k8R2 server features require tweaking to get them to work with XP as the default settings break that functionality (not to mention loading XP GP adminpacks onto the server so it can actually load that stuff for XP...which causes problems in of itself if you don't seperate the XP machines into a seperate group and assign their GP download from another server but that's part of my AD Upgrade spcheel).
J: It's a MAJOR PITB to move the users data over. Using any utility to do it is like playing russian roulette; that 1 bug that's caused an icon to bug out every time it's clicked can get moved over and BSOD a new Win7 machine or cause any number of issues. You've got to build a proper image along with proper application packages (if you know scripting you're set), then manually pull and push the data, move the user over, then hope it works OK.
K: The General buggyness of the MS-Provided Win7 Deployment process. Did you know the machine SID only changes when you RUN Sysprep, not when the units' sysprepped and being deployed? Yeah...
Battlefield 3, I can't even use Opera (can but can't join on friends), so totally changed my "style"
It's a game I enjoy very much, so at this time I boot into Win7, XP is still available and less problematic.
-I've always had my menu bar at the top, now Win7 places it there and it causes problems.
A sad things is being in the US Military i've noticed mostly all the computers use slightly modified versions of XP and Windows 2000. By the time they get them to Windows 7 the rest of the world will be on Windows 12.
I don't have the money. Maybe in a few months after I have money and upgrade my computer.
I have an old XP box that I would gladly upgrade if I could do it at what I consider to be a realistic cost. I'm not willing to spend 1 to 2 hundred dollars to get Win 7 on a machine that isn't worth that much after having it for 4 years now.
.Net code files will run properly under it.
The real answer is laziness is preventing me from upgrading it to a Linux distro. That and not being familiar enough with Mono to know if any of my
My office has a Windows 7 image that they will deploy on request and has been upgrading XP users. However, I am still on XP because it takes me a week to rebuild my computer with all of the apps that I regularly use for my job as a Network Engineer. One would think that all I would need is Putty, but I also do a lot of product testing, lab testing, design, and documentation, etc. In addition, I am in the middle of two business divestiture projects and one integration/merger project. I just haven't been able to afford the downtime to do this.
At home, I have always been a first adopter. I was running 2000 when it was in Beta, ran Vista when it came out, and am running Windows 7.
I ran into a problem with Windows Media Player 12 just before the holidays. It stopped synching with my old Creatlive Labs Zen Vision:M MP3 player. My thought is that a Microsoft update caused the problem because synch also fails on my laptop, which is also running Windows 7. The only way that I could get it to sync was to download the Windows XP Mode VM from Microsoft and use the older version of WMP. So, while I am running Windows 7 at home, I am still using pieces of XP for legacy devices.
(Note: I'd buy an iPod, but it doesn't integrate with WMP and I hate iTunes. I've tried the latest version of WinAMP and looked at others, but none of them offer dynamic playlists and I use playlists extensively.)
My current employer is starting to role out Windows 7 but there was a holdup in that they dropped Windows NT 4 server for Linux. Samba didn't support all of the login features for Windows 7 guests. At this point, they're using an alpha copy of Samba 4 combined with Samba 3 to actually serve files (Samba 4 didn't work right) and it crashes about every 5 weeks on them.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
GE Healthcare, the cutting edge of technology, still using XP, versions of MS SQL out of support an ignoring the FDA's guidelines on Commercial Off the Shelf Software. /P.
I'm not on XP, I've been totally on Linux for ages, except in my `enterprise' where I'm forced to use XP ( for security and compliance ) under pain of sanction (yea I know:)). They won't be upgrading in the near future because of budgeting cuts.
.. Gartner Research`
'Enterprises don't want to run an OS when there's no security fixes,' says
I find it highly ironic that the only way a company can ethuse people to upgrade is by drawing attention to XPees defects.
In my limited experience with these things it's not future-proofing that's the issue. It LAZY, SLOPPY PROGRAMMING that's the #1 issue. Developers who learned how to do something bad in the Win9x days, and kept doing it well into the WinXP days... and beyond.
A couple of years ago I had to deal with booking software at an agency. The entire function of this software was hooking into an SQL database. However, it REQUIRED local admin rights simply to RUN. It wouldn't run AT ALL on Vista or 7.
Why? Because it wanted to write files to a program directory. What files? I'm not really that certain. However, this was the way things were done in the Win3.1 day, devs continued lazily doing it in the Win9x days, and WinXP merely tolerated it. Vista slammed that practice to the floor. So, rather than clean up their code an adopt proper coding practices, they just said to us "You have to use it on XP on an account with local admin rights. We're not fixing that issue."
As an addendum, given local admin rights, let's just say it's hard to tell interns "Don't install things."
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
I run XP in a sandbox for support puroses only. Anyone who continues to run a flawed, bloated and dangerously insecure system like XP as their main OS is a clueless moron. Vista and WIndows 7 aren't much better and only a *nix-based OS is a safer alternative to the Microsoft garbage that infests the PC market.
People do have operating system choices when running a PC - they simply aren't aware of them. The thugs at Microsoft have seen to that but now many users are waking up to Microsoft's bully tactics and are seeking alternatives.
I have Windows 7 64bit. Win7_64 is a right BITCH when you're trying to play old PC games. XP_32 is the only way to go for gaming.
Please don't tell me to get the games from Steam. I appreciate the attempt to help but if you read the fine print even they need XP. There is no magical Win7 patch that's automatically added to old games that they acquire. (Sadly.)
Do you have any idea how many printers and plotters HP made that they refuse to update drivers for? _ I'm not talking about $39 inkjets either. Just another reason your defense contractor hammer costs $200. XP will be here long after 2014.
Awww. Microsoft doesn't like a "Mature Product". Too bad for them!
Vista sukked. The world knows it. Windows 7 is "the New Vista" - as far as I can tell, mostly usable.
The problem is, Windows 8 is a giant unknown, with this Metro business.
So we need XP to hang on STILL LONGER until we get perspective on Windows 9, to see what the fallout of 8 will be - whether Metro is another cheap fad, or the Way Things Will Be (aka something to disable with a hack).
It's no accident I built a high grade comp with a few extra bucks and called it "Twilight of XP", riding out XP until all this crap settles down... and 2014 is about when I gander we'll know.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
After having to use windows 7 at work, here are some reasons I still use XP at home: Familiar and stable Lower memory footprint More responsive By far, the windows XP exploere.exe shell The control panel, everything is sorted across and down so if the windows resize everything moved around. The add remove programs is way at the bottom The login, in XP you could login very quickly and not even have to look up from the keyboard. Now in windows 7 you have to press ctrl+alt+del then wait, then press enter, then type your password. Makes me hate win 7 every time I logon Here are a few things I can just recall off the top of my head that I dislike about the explore shell in windows 7: No longer can drag and drop the very top left corner of folders to create a shortcut. The address bar format in a folder browser. The auto resorting or folder when you rename stuff. The hiding of the + and – icons next to folder in the explore tree, saves no space just hides information until you hover over it. The tree view always seems to jump to the wrong position than where I want. The folder and sub folder that always expands in tree view. The only places I want go is c:\ or Desktop the user file The extra backwards compatibility folders that you always get access denied on when you’re thinking XP. The fact that the Users folder starts with U so it’s always at the bottom, instead of Documents and settings towards the top. The start menu, The recent programs and files is nice but every time I try and use it, it never has the recent file or app I’m looking for. Useless if it’s not consistent. Don’t get me started with the windows search I’m sure there is some way to do some of the following but it’s not inherent. o Make it faster, even with no index XP search is way faster after the first search. o Open containing folder in new window without stopping the search. o Search for more than one thing at a time.(Ex *.jpg *.gif) o Search by size, date, etc, without having to know some weird text logic. o The title bar fills with a garbage text URL string, very unprofessional. About the only feature that I have found that makes me want to go to windows 7 at home is the nice GPU statistics you can now get in Process Explore that only shows up in windows 7. I don’t know if that’s because of a core difference or if the Process Explorer team just decided to alienate XP users.
Exactly. On my new PC, I have Windows 7. On my older PC, I see no reason to move from Windows XP.
On a direct comparison, Windows 7 does some everyday things in ways I like significantly better, the taskbar/jump lists for example. Then again, it also has several really annoying changes in the basic UI where I wonder what they were thinking. The updates to folder windows are mostly backward steps, IMHO. And as far as security goes, I can't run some scripts properly by double clicking from a folder view, yet they run fine if I open a command prompt in the same folder and type the script's name. Similarly, I can't xcopy-install utilities and such into their natural home under Program Files using one interface, but it's fine using the other. I'm a professional software developer who's been using Windows since it wasn't even an OS, and I can't figure out what the hell their security policies actually are for everyday operations any more, so what hope do non-geeks have? In any case, there is nowhere near enough benefit on balance to justify spending hard cash on an upgrade.
Moreover, Windows 7 just doesn't do some things any more that XP does. My other half has some old DOS era games she enjoys playing from time to time, but Windows 7 can't run them (without installing a whole VM and FreeDOS or something similarly dramatic). In XP, they just work. I do appreciate that Microsoft spend a lot of time and money maintaining backward compatibility for a very long time, but the fact is that they have chosen to break it in some cases in Windows 7, and that is a black-and-white loss if you happen to want to run the older stuff. Ditto for older hardware (where by older, in some cases I mean not very old at all but the vendor is an ass and never released Windows 7 drivers so you have to buy their new model instead).
There also seem to be a lot of hard to predict and half-explained networking issues with some of the "better" techniques they introduced with Windows 7, such that if you have an unfortunate combination of devices your transfer rates will be orders of magnitude slower than they should be. Again, most people probably won't notice, but this is a very serious problem if you do run into it and can't get any of the workarounds to fix it. And again, I've never seen so much as a blog post talking about how these new technologies actually make any noticeable improvement in Windows 7, so it's either a draw or a clear loss for Win7.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Last I understood, Win XP acquired a fair amount of back end drivers that became the industry norm. Sure, take two hours to turn off most of the junk - no biggie. A lot of companies (citation needed, who cares) announced they wouldn't support lower than XP, so even though you're 3/4 right, XP ended up being the OS of the decade.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I have a half dozen or so XP licenses, and only one 7 license. The latter goes to a partition on a gaming capable system, and the others go to VMs for running things like Office where needed.
Why would I update those XP instances? They serve their purpose. What would justify the multi-hundred dollar purchase of a license that's going be made as redundant as XP in a year or two?
XP will not go away in 2014. If you visit any big hospitals or major department stores you still see XP on their systems. RECENTLY purchased equipment is loaded with XP.
I like Mac OS but it will never become commonplace in these areas.
I run XP for games mainly, well for everything but the only reason im on windows is for commercial games. As opposed to win7/vista and linux. I have yet to make a hackintosh, but really i just dont like the interface of OSX that much.
It takes a lot less to get a game to run on XP than other windows. I'd sooner use linux to game than Windows 7. Just not a good experience -.-'
Windows Vista+ won't run on my computer, and even if I were to buy a new computer to run Vista or 7 I would immediately be down on features and usability. And Windows 8 is going to be even worse, if the tech previews are anything to go by.
I'll keep using XP until long after MS drops support. I'll only switch if something gets out there that third-party firewalls/scanners/&c. cannot prevent and even then it's unlikely to be to a MS OS.
Net Meeting is gone. Killed by the cloud. Now you need a microsoft id, skype, etc.
Wanted to make sure I'm logged in for this post.
I recently built a new computer, and removed XP from my old box (now running Slack-nix). I also wanted to put XP onto the new computer, and given the whole phone-home business that XP requires (and can no-longer perform), I went the pirate route. M$ may disagree, but really I'm still only using a single copy of XP which I already am licensed to use. So long as my boot time stays under 2 minutes from totally unplugged to ready to rock (computer is a Digital Audio Workstation), and the o/s overhead eats less than 100Mb (which it does in the stripped down manner I run), I will continue to use XP (a lot of my software and hardware require support that just isn't there yet under *nix).
This computer is also set up to dual boot into Linux, and never gets the lan-cable plugged in while XP is running (don't want it trying any foolishness like telling M$ that it's alive). I wish I didn't have to resort to piracy, but I have been left with no other options.
For the holidays my younger brother picked up an extra copy of Win7 for me (through work he receives a discount, and can also legally extend it to family), but the install disc will continue to sit on my bookshelf for as far in the future as I can see. XP is stable for what I do, doesn't require me to jump through tons of hoops to keep it running how I want (even Vista has too many things standing in my way, such as twice as many registry locations I have to route through to make sure things aren't auto-starting).
In short, if MS is so gun-ho about not wanting to support XP, they should offer it free. Hell, didn't they re-code the entire kernel for 7?
There are plenty of folks who just don't need (or want) what 7 has to offer.
"It's the Law of the Universe, and I'm the sheriff." Slash-cott 2/10-2/17
I am poor
On a machine with XP pre-installed, you can squash it down to about 20% of the drive to install Linux on the remainder. With later versions of Windows, you can't go below about 50%. All of my machines are dual boot XP and Linux.
My personal reason for still running an XP box are HP printers and scanners which are not as old as you might think. I think I got them a few months before Vista was released, on a sale, they were probably old stock now that I think of it. Damn HP haven't released drivers for 7, nor are they going to, so I'm forced to keep an XP box to use them. It does nothing else except scan and print.
I've personally vowed never to buy HP stuff again for that reason. Does anyone know of a hardware manufacturer who is better from a perspective of driver support of slightly out-of-date hardware?
BTW, the printer works under Linux but the scanner doesn't. I'm not sure that I understand why.
One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
XP meets my Windows needs. The cost to upgrade to Windows 7 is excessive. I have just received a new Windows 7 laptop for my new job, but I won't "invest" in it for my personal use.
1. It does everything I need.
2. I'm using fairly old and underpowered hardware.
3. I'm not willing to pay for Win7.
#1 is the big one. i remember seeing it with DOS vs Win95, Win95 vs Win98 and Win98 vs XP. Its the same thing keeping people on Windows at all when there are alternatives that will work for 90% of people.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Ha! it is windows XP; it is not safe plugged into any network with their silly security patches! A decade of patches and its still a joke. You firewall that sucker down like crazy and hope nothing gets on it by other means (or in the few min its online without protection and gets hacked.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
To the user (the most important audience) Windows 7 does not do anything worth-while over XP.
We still run Office 2003 on a fleet of 1200 pc's; no-one complains. Why? Noone needs it.
Most people I know who are running XP are running it because IT and MS have not been able to pry it away from them. Win7 might be good, but Vista gave people such a bad taste that they see no reason (and generally have no reason) to upgrade from XP.
I can't justify the dollars to upgrade to Win7, because my perfectly good hardware would not function as well as it does in XP, and I don't see value in spending dollars on a hardware upgrade for the same reason.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
You can run it virtualized forever. Hardware or drivers doesn't matter.
Especially if your main OS is something else non-Windows, then XP is by far the most sensible one to run virtualized to run Windows-only software.
Also, as market-share goes down, there will be fewer malware targeting XP. In a virtual setup used to run MS Project or whatever but no internet browsing, some common sense on which files you open and when running it as a restricted user, it is severely unlikely that malware will be a concern.
I agree it won't be viable 'in the enterprise', but I'm not replacing XP with anything else for personal Windows use. They will have to pry my XP VM from my cold dead hands! ;)
The blurb is non sequitur. It said: 'Enterprises don't want to run an OS when there's no security fixes,' ...so why are they running microsoft at all?
It's not my primary OS, it is an Internet Explorer delivery mechanism (for shitty MS-only websites). Why would I upgrade, except to waste RAM consumed by my VM?
I think all OS's should be supported because they are fun to play with- at least keep the previous support available. For me, XP Pro has worked just great! Also consider that we can still install XP on multiple systems while Windows 7 needs to be activated by a phone call. Microsoft is just trying to make you purchase a new OS for every computer. I don't think it is right but they are getting away with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence
Cant stand the Windows 7 interface. Everything is thrown about at random. And it dont make it better that its a slow hog.
- the size needed for a windows system partition
- I don't have any applications that need more than XP
Actually, I'm using linux most of the time and when I need my dualboot-windows, XP is enough. Vista or 7 would use too much disk space on my notebook's 128GB ssd-disk.
I use Linux mostly these days, but keep XP on my older box. It works fine and is snappy.
When I boot Seven on my newer box I cringe at what they did to the control panel and explorer ... I just wanna knock heads together when I have to click five extra times to do something than it took in XP. Makes me sick... and yeah XP works just fine.
#6495ED - cornflower blue
Simple work-around: modify the ACLs on the install directory to allow the normal user to write to it. This can easily be scripted into a .CMD file (evolution of the .BAT script with NT extensions) that first calls the installer (as Admin) and then modifies the install-folder ACLs (as Admin). The program should then work as a standard user.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
As a webmaster, I notice that a majority of my visitors run Windows XP even after all of these years, it will still be around for a long time to come, a lot of businesses still run Windows XP and my local town library runs XP on their machines, they do not even have sp3 installed yet. IE 8.0 is their main browser, you will be lucky if you find a machine with Firefox 3 as an alternative. People only use the machines for Runescape, Facebook and Youtube amongst other standard web browsing activities, surely a basic Linux installation could manage this, but I guess that not everyone would be happy with this.
liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
Yeah! My dad's PC uses XP, since it has only 2GB of RAM. Had it been 4GB or more, I'd have gone for 64-bit Windows 7, or even Vista. I incidentally have an authorized copy of Vista, but the XP that I have is pirated.
On my own laptop, I've used Linux. Right now, it has nothing on it, but I plan to install PC-BSD on it sometime.
Another thing that might ultimately see XP off will be IPv6 - support is automatic on Windows 7 & Vista, but not on XP. As more ISPs find a shortage of IPv4 addresses, as well as the fact that Windows 7 computers are ripe for IPv6, that migration will happen faster, and it will be difficult for XP boxes to get internet connectivity unless they are IPv6 enabled.
The reasons for using XP are obviously:
(1) Additional hardware requirements
(2) Software incompatibility, including, but not limited to:
(a) Existing vertical market apps glued together with Visual BASIC
(b) Inability to run already purchased copies of Office on the new OS
(c) Inability to run already purchased other programs
(d) Lack of driver support for older hardware
(i) what sane printer maker is going to port a driver for their 4 year old model with broken toner/ink DRM to a new OS?
(ii) many hardware companies are out of business yet/because the hardware they made is still working fine
(3) Buying into putting all your machines online so they can phone the mothership and download god knows what
(a) Worked like a charm for the automated checkout registers at Lucky's, didn't it? Get your new Visa/BofA ATM card yet?
(b) Once it's working, leave it the hell alone; I don't need an auto-update of IE on my server/POS/home system with firefox/Chrome on it
(c) an offline machine gathers no worms
(4) There's simply no significant value proposition, unless you consider "Ooooh! Shiiiiny!" a value proposition
Get over it: Good enough is the enemy of better, particulary if (better - good enough) == nothing useful to me.
-- Terry
I remove DRM from media files I buy with a special VM:
- Windows XP with
- specific Windows Media Player (beta version)
- DRM tools
That's why I keep XP (7 has newer player, DRM tools won't work).
I run XP on an Samsung netbook, the NC10. Family members have the newer Samsung models, with Windows 7. It runs horribly, even with 2gb of memory. Until XP stops being updated, I'm sticking with it on the netbook. Then i'll probably switch to a linux distro.
Win7 activation stuff somehow always finds out I'm using Pirate Bay edition
I'm not paying for a crappy OS just to play some videogame.
Until Microsoft starts to take into consideration the needs of its costumers and make it easier to pirate Win7, I'll stick to XP.
I am using Ubuntu and Red Hat and OpenBSD (yeah, I am one of the 3 guys who uses OpenBSD).
I also have Windows XP and Windows 2000 on 2 old laptops and on my current laptop I've got Ubuntu 10 and Windows 7, because this Thinkpad came with it and I just allocated the minimum amount of space on disk for it 56GB, 20GB of it IS Windows 7.
Booted into Windows 7 a few times and I tell you what - after Unity, this particular shell that is used in Windows 7 is the most annoying that I've used (and I touched Mac on a few occasions, and I find it completely unusable, just not a computer).
I tried Vista, it was unusable too, but I don't have Vista on any of my hardware, but I do have Windows 7, so I can try it. It's the craziest, most backwards, insane piece of garbage, everything, from file handling, to even the most primitive stuff that is supposed to be usable in Windows - File Explorer. It's horrendous.
This is my personal FEELING of it, I am not going to argue on every function (and I haven't tried every function, I won't do it, just like I won't use Mac again unless threatened with a machine gun.)
XP was the most SANE and the most USABLE Windows that I had to work with in my entire life, and I like XP GUI shell more than I like any of the Free software shells (no Gnome, no KDE, no Unity, no Xfce, no CDE, no LXDE,) they are all trash actually, but I use Gnome 2 unfortunately for me and I hate it, but I hate it less than everything else, so that's the extent of it.
You can't handle the truth.
Give me a frictionless upgrade path with all my installed programs and I'l switch today. No, I don't want a VM.
Linux users are happy for each upgrade, cool new Features, optimizations, things running better than before.
Windows users on the other hand are fearful. What will MS ruin on the next version, which new annoyances will be added?
One of the problems holding us back at work is the software some of our designers and engineers run is brilliant on XP but second rate on Win7. They complain to me and ask me to 'fix' the versions that run on Win7 as they have bugs/flaws. I can't 'fix' the software, as the software is third party. Many times I hear the designers saying things like 'Version 11 (XP version) is great, but version 12 (Win7 Version) stuffs up and makes it look like I can't do my job.' One of the design engineers was showing me how in the Win7 version two metal beams that join perfectly in the XP software don't quite match up in the Win7 version. They join the beams perfectly in one view, swing it around and it's 5 cm out in a different view.
To cut a long story short, until the Win7 versions of the software have had the bugs ironed out and removed, the XP versions of the software are the only things we can actually use to do our jobs. We had to wait months for the Win7 versions of the software, but after testing, they just aren't up to scratch yet. We can't move to Linux or Unix (or anything else) as the software we use (and our clients use) are all Windows based.
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
What do you need more ?
Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)
It's paid for. /thread
Windows 7 costs $100. Extra RAM costs $40 (if there's space for it in my machine). Let me ask you a question: Why should I spend $140? What I have works just fine. It's probably more secure from infection because it's not the number one virus target. There's no advantage and it will cost me money.
2 new Thinkpads with Vista ended my Windiz use in 2007. Both would crash in under an hour, just power on & watch. Both would crash in every attempt to update OS. Both were reliable running LInux. Vista ended our use of Windiz.
For me it's because of the many versions and because of what think is a really high price for an operating system. The thing is I wouldn't mind paying a little more if I was able to use the OS without restrictions. As it is now the only reason I use a windows machine is to play games and even that reason is becoming less important to me. I think that within a year or two there will be no reason to stick with MS and just move to open source tools altogether.
We will be on XP for years more. Because in the corporation change is expensive change is evil.
I've worked with Windows 7 in various contexts, and I've yet to see any compelling reason to switch. Once Microsoft stops patching XP, I'll switch. By then Windows 8 will have been out for a while and hopefully some of the inevitable early bugs killed. Windows 7 does have some cool new features, but they don't come close to offsetting the network, interoperability, compatibility and user interface issues that send me back to XP consistently. When I'm finally forced to switch away from XP, if Windows 8 sucks, I'll be switching more systems to Linux. Dear Microsoft: if you really want us to switch: a) lower the damn price; and/or b) relax your rules about running multiple copies.
I understand that English is a living language, but I object to changes arising merely from repeated errors.
The biggest reasons the majority of XP installs are still out there are crappy software in the workplace that the vendors won't even support you if you try and upgrade to anything above XP/2003. Seriously it is sad. They also are likely to require to run IE6 or maybe 7 is you are really lucky. We have had software vendors even try to tell us that they only support SQL2000 (which has been unsupported by MS for a while now) even though their company policy is to not support anything that the original vendor does not. You have management who refuses to listen to their people. All they want is someone to blame should anything go wrong. Instead of insisting with only going with vendors that can support the latest things. Until the software vendors start supporting the later versions of the OS (even if they keep supporting XP, just support 7 as well) most won't move. And users are dumb. If they see that work can't upgrade they'll think they shouldn't upgrade at home either. After all work has a IT dept. They know next to nothing.
XP is an excellent low overhead platform for server and for testing software. Very easy to reinstall, has low memory footprint.
W7 is much heavier a load on a system and more painful to manage.
We use Desktops with W7 (new machines), and XP for everything else that needs MS platform. Otherwise we use Linux,
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Just to clarify, the CPU that was mentioned (Intel Celeron E3400) is a dual core. I think it's probably a re-badged Wolfdale core, so pretty much a Core 2 chip. 2 gig is generally fine for Windows 7, especially if it isn't running 64 bit. Don't get me wrong, more memory is better up to a point, but especially if it was a 32 bit install, it doesn't seem likely to me that the extra gig and some change if he went with 4 gigs would make that much of a difference so it doesn't seem all that compelling. Agreed about the Hard drive. If he's using 80 gigs then it's probably from the spare parts bin.
Eight PCs in this house. One (offline) is stuck on Win98, but it's only used for playing Scrabble. One (the newest netbook) came with Windows7. It's not bad, but there are some UI annoyances if all-day reactions are honed to XP (notably, Explorer). I wouldn't ever buy new licenses for the other six - most don't have much memory, nor do I fancy reinstalling everything after a clean upgrade. Can't switch to fun-time Linux as it won't run many years' worth of expensive and protected applications (e.g. full OED).
No Netbeui for Win 7.
CNC Machine world moves way slower than the the desktop OS world.
A lot of the older machines only communicate with Netbeui. Not TCP/IP.
Can my CNC machines talk to XP in a VM?
I don't know.
Can I trust the programs to move back and fourth in a XP VM?
I don't know that either.
So until then... The XP will stay.
Until there is a 3rd party or MS Netbeui protocol for Win 7.
Oh boy... Where to start?! Okay... Why do I "need" windows 7? Everything I have runs on XP, and runs very well. I can run XP with on a 3gb HD, 64mb's of RAM and a Pentium CPU... Why in the world does Windows 7 require over 10gb's of disk space, and 2gb's of RAM? There is absolutely, 100%, no reason for this! And cached(standby) RAM.... Really?... You are going to "cache" my programs in RAM Windows 7?... And for this, you (Windows 7) can't even run the original Fallout game. My complaints about Windows 7/Vista just go's on, and on, and on. so I'll spare everyone the rants. In the end, Windows 7 is too bloated, cumbersome, buggy, unreliable, vulnerable, and just plain incompatible with the old software and games I like to run. Just like Firefox 3.6, I have NO reason to upgrade to a fluffy, feel good browser with no menu bar just because mozilla, google, or Microsoft wants me too. I like my gray menu bars with solid black font, I like the functionality and user friendliness of it. Big squishy buttons and hidden menu's are not user friendly, their annoying and insulting. Oops, I'm ranting again. Anyways... This is why the desktop is dying, not because people don't want to upgrade, they just don't want to upgrade to something that offers them almost nothing new over XP, requires 10x the hardware to run, and breaks compatibility with their software. Why can't companies look to projects like "Menuet OS" for inspiration? It's written completely in assembly language and runs OFF OF A FLOPPY. Even for it's current alpha state, it is a full featured OS that can do almost what every other desktop OS can do, except it requires 10,416x less disk space than Win 7! The desktop is dying because of the bloat, and corporate stupidity, not because every user wants to trade their PC for a table or cell phone, it's because the desktop OS's suck so much now-a-days! So yes, XP is my very last Microsoft Desktop OS I will ever run. At least until MS gets their act together that is.
If Microsoft wants to give me a free copy of Windows 7, write drivers for all the devices I own that don't work under Win7, and kick in some hardware upgrades to ensure Win7 runs smoothly then I'm all aboard. I have a number of older machines around the house that perform various functions. It would be absolutely retarded to spend $120 for a new OS for a machine that's not even worth that. And at least another $50-$100 to upgrade them to be able to run it, not to mention the time and energy to do the upgrade and get everything configured and working. And this doesn't include all the add-in cards and peripherals I would have to replace (at least another $300+). If it ain't broke don't fix it.
We support products written in a couple of older versions of Delphi, which cannot run debug under Windows 7. There are no plans that I know about to transfer these products to a later version of Delphi, and the released products run under Windows 7. So we will need to keep XP installations around for the foreseeable future to support these products.
need a free COBOL editor for Windows?
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!
Centos 6.2 outperforms xp and http://gambas.sourceforge.net/en/main.html works like visual basic on Linux.. Its better than visual basic and with very little modification existing vb type programs run on it. Centos works with server version and desktop on large and small systems. and it is free for the downloading.. why prey tell would you pay for something that does not out perform free? The nice part of open source is it upgrades automatically..
MS wants an absurd amount to upgrade the OS, so most of us just wait for a computer replacement. Our house has several older PC's doing various tasks such as media server, none of which require 7. The only computer in the house running 7 is my main desktop. In contrast we upgraded my wife's mac, it was only $29.
I'm running a W2K SP/4 machine behind a firewall with no anti-virus software. I don't have any reason to change. Every program and all my hardware runs fine. While most of my computing is done on a Linux machine, W2K satisfies my Windows needs.
No 64bit drivers for my DVR's (HTPC) capture card.
Also, easier to add XMBC clients (XBOX original boxes) with xp since windows sharing on WIN7 requires user / pass authentication.
Other Reasons:
Run key gens in Virtualbox XP system.
Works better on older systems.
Older PC game compatibility
Easier to make automated install discs.
Doesnt fight over MBR with other OSes.
Fits on a CD
Doesnt need 4gb of RAM. (Nor will it except... lol.)
On a netbook, XP is despite all the marketing buzz still the most responsive OS available. I went back and forth from XP to Win7 to XP and don't regrett the downgrade. And yes, it beats any Ubuntu edition and runs office flawlessly.
3 desktops and 1 netbook at home.
1 desktop on Win 7, the other 3 comps on XP. Reason? No need to upgrade, they are working fine and do everything i need them to do (Games, Skype, Office,etc).
The only reason i upgraded the one was because I had a hard drive fail (yup, the system drive) and i thought "why not?"
Actually, found it to be quite decent OS. In some ways better than Linux :-P Only in some of course!
Hope that after they cease supporting it I won't have to reboot it every day for updates on a machine that does nothing but display an Opsview host-summary page.
Nothing major is wrong with XP. Several things are wrong with Win7. I do have Win7 at home, cause I got a new laptop a year ago and didn't have much choice (and even if I felt like replacing the OS with a copy of XP from elsewhere, I'd have to fight with all the hardware, which I'm sure wasn't tested on XP since it's not supposed to be supported any more).
But after getting Win7, I had to find replacements or other hacks for dang near every piece of the visible UI, before I could call it useable. Some of them were just designed to look and feel like XP, or, more accurately, like Win2k; some of them were actually better than XP/Win2k, it's not like I would claim either of those OSes were perfect. They were just entirely useable, which is more than I can say about the mess of a UI that Win7 provides.
So I'm keeping my XP at work until IT pries it out from under me, because I don't feel like dealing with the same issues again. (Plus, it's nice to have developers working on different OSes. After all, we sell to precisely the sort of people who are going to want our software to continue to work on XP and on Win2k and Win2k3 for all eternity.)
Yeah, I know, a bit of a troll. But really. It works and does what I need.
I have an old laptop that runs 98. I keep it around mainly for a couple of specialized applications that require a "REAL" serial port. No, those USB dongles won't work, and the software they work with won't run on anything later either. Of course I never let it anywhere near the Internet, but it works, does what I want. The machine has 64 MB of memory and can't be upgraded.
I have another laptop that I happily run XP on. It has 512 MB of memory and can't be upgraded. I would consider upgrading to Win 7 if (a) it were cheap, and (b) it would run on the laptop. It isn't and won't. I need to buy a new laptop, but in this economic climate, the money ain't there. Until things improve, this is my laptop.
I do have a desktop that runs Vista, and it is in many ways my main machine. I thought about upgrading to Win 7, but Vista does what I need and I see no reason to spend the money. But there is still a role for the XP laptop, and will continue to be for a long time yet.
I can't buy Windows 7 that is localized to our family's preferred language in stores in the country where I live, and Microsoft won't sell it to me on the website if I give my correct billing address. The reason is, Windows is priced much lower in Russia, I guess because of the "competition" from pirates and generally poorer customer base. So they can't allow it to be sold elsewhere, where they can make more money selling basically the same software. Their web stores are segmented by language choice, which also limits the product choice. So I'm in the long tail for having emigrated to another country. I'm contemplating whether I'd better switch the last PC in our home to Linux, and buy my kids a gaming console so they don't complain about the games. I can make a point to not buy an Xbox, too.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
Windows 7 is superior to xp in virtually every way.
I would love to upgrade to Win7. Are they giving it out for free yet? No? I'll be fine with XP then.
Does anyone know when Win 2K support is being dropped?
Let's see:
My customer's use WinXP, so we have to continue supporting WinXP.
WinXP is what our code-base is designed for, so I have to have it.
Our PCs are old and management is increasingly cutting funds for upgrades - most of my colleagues get a new PC once every 8 years or so - typically when their current one cannot perform its duties any longer (e.g. failed hardware that is non-replaceable).
Some of our required business applications are so old that XP is required, though we have found the Compatibility mode in Win7/XP to work okay too.
If I could dictate to the customer what to use, I'd move them off Windows entirely, and the same for everyone in our organization.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Until this year I have been running MS OS desktops, laptops and notebooks since the 1980's. I began running Windows XP in 2002. It is the last Microsoft Operating System product I will ever purchase. Microsoft already has enough of my money and I don't like their licensing practices (which don't legally allow me to install XP on this machine because it was an OEM version).
Faced with the decision to upgrade I just did the smart thing and bought a MacBook Pro. I know, its not Linux, but it is BSD and it is just incredibly well engineered. I must say while it is slightly more expensive, it is every bit worth the money. Kind of like buying a BMW (Apple) instead of a Hyundai (Dell). All the software which I had used to tweak my XP machine is available on Mac OS, much of it open source as well.
Today somehow I managed to crash the text editor in OS X. You might ask how I could advocate a software where the text editor might crash? Because it automatically restarted itself and reopened with the work I had just lost exactly where I was before it crashed. I dont know how many times Windows has crashed and I've lost all the data in the text editor pages I had open. OS X just works and it is simple to learn.
I thought I would end up installing Windows XP on to this system, and I will, eventually, but right now I have been using it for >2 months and so far I have no need for any software in XP.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38588550
It's paid for. Old machine, old drivers, old software. Old user. Sucks to be MS.
Now get off my lawn.
--
Bug fixes never introduce bugs. Code just keeps getting better. Oh, yes.
> the cost of hard disks has gone up quite a bit since the flood
Noah had hard disks? What animal ate those?
I converted the XP corporate image to a VM, wiped my work box and installed Linux, and now have a constellation of XP VMs (corporate and development) that I start and suspend as needed, all running on a stable and powerful foundation. The company will start a Win7 rollout this year, but I'm perfectly happy with my current set up.
I do not need any of the so called features of windows past XP that is why.
If I ever have a business need (I won't) of anything past XP I will think about it and then decide. In other words Why toss something out that semi works? Its reasonably as stable as anything MS has put out since (crashes about once a week) I do not need anything extra like in word or spread sheet programs. The email works "OK" and from I have seen none of the so called newer products offer anything I need. So why bother? Spending money just to be current is foolish. Oh yes that also means new equipment and thats roughly 2K plus the learning curve that is reall unneeded. If the computer takes a hike I just buy a new computer and reload XP on it.
95 > 7. Duh.
My college only has xp computers ..so for consistency
1 - for one thing i have the cd from my original computer, and it still works. it's not as if the upgrade to vista or 7 is free for download.
2 -as for updates, i disabled permantely, with firewall and virus, that handles the security issues. in addition a host file and dhpc is more useful for security as once can block any ip as they wish.
Finally, most business are on XP and have older office suites , and employers that work at home need to stay compatable. eg 2003 xls sheet is compatible with many spreadsheet programs.
maybe they should make more software to pull in profits, eg what happened to publisher? and how they droped office bar. it seems it gets gradually worse with updates, NO thanks.
My wife (and I support her in this) would still be running Windows95 if her computer hadn't died. We nabbed one of the last XP nettops available to us, and breathed a sigh of relief. As long as she has WordPerfect and a reasonably up-to-date browser, she has all she needs. And as much as I love tech for tech's sake, I don't see anything since Win95 that would make her life significantly better.
(As for me, I run Xubuntu, but I'm weird and I'm okay with that.)
Thank God I don't have to worry about this. Maybe I paid a lot of money for my Macbook, maybe too much, but this decision saved me a lot of time being frustrated about uncountable error messages, system crashes and software updates that make everything just worse. Of course, at some point it is a matter of taste whether to use Apple or Microsoft, like using Canon or Nikon, but seriously: I used Windows for a very long time and I always defended it, but once I experienced OSX, I was deeply convinced, that I nether want to change back.
(If there are any mistakes in grammar or orthography, I'm sorry, English is not my mother tongue.)
I am a former IT guy. I could easily install Windows 7. I even already own the install disk. But I plan to upgrade my hardware "real soon now" so I am waiting till then. I have a lot of installed software and I do not feel like installing it twice if I don't have to.
Microsoft shot themselves in the foot, IMO, when they decided you wouldn't be allowed to upgrade from XP to 7. As we know, most folks did not upgrade from XP to Vista and therefore were still running XP, and continued to run it, when 7 came out. Many of those folks might have eventually upgraded to 7 if they had been allowed. And don't tell me it was technologically impossible - it's possible to upgrade from XP to Vista, and from Vista to 7, so they could have allowed it if they wanted to.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!