Microsoft Urges Businesses To Get Off XP

An anonymous reader writes "It's approximately 11 years since Windows XP was unveiled, and this week Microsoft was still at it trying to convince users that it's time to upgrade. A post on the Windows For Your Business Blog calls on businesses to start XP migrations now. Microsoft cites the main reason as being that support for XP ends in April 2014, and 'most new hardware options will likely not support the Windows XP operating system.' If you run Windows Vista, Microsoft argues that it's time to 'start planning' the move to Windows 8. As this article points out, it's not uncommon to hear about people still running XP at work."

Comments

Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[Dystopian Rebel]

XP is still common at work because

a) it is fast even on old hardware,

b) it is supported by at least one good, secure Web browser (hint: not MSIE),

c) it supports about 15 years worth of professional applications (some of which are not available anymore), and

d) upgrading == (pain + time) && (upgrading != c)

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[Viol8]

"No it isn't. If you upgrade XP it runs slow. Slow Hardware runs slow."

Clearly you've never "upgraded" from XP to Vista where hardware slow under XP switches to glacial mode. Also there is some older hardware that XP supports which Win7 does not.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[gfxguy]

a) it is fast even on old hardware, No it isn't. If you upgrade XP it runs slow. Slow Hardware runs slow.

It has lower requirements than 7 or 8, so leaves more CPU cycles free for the user... You know what he meant.

b) it is supported by at least one good, secure Web browser (hint: not MSIE), For business? Businesses use IE, and the smart people break the policy and install other Browsers.

I work in a programming department for a large company... when people have problems with IE, we ask them to use a different browser - we don't officially support IE in any way. Our supervisors and managers already realized how much time and money we wasted trying to.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[gnick]

Businesses use IE, and the smart people break the policy and install other Browsers.

Depends on the business. At my company we have IE, but are encouraged to use FireFox instead (no other browsers allowed). At Los Alamos National Lab both IE and FireFox are installed on the computers, but only FireFox is allowed to access anything but internal sites.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[Sheik Yerbouti]

No good business reasons to upgrade except for Microsoft's bottom line. Upgrades are good for Microsoft but not necessarily Windows users. It's time to start thinking about upgrades differently the desktop computer operating system technology is pretty mature at this point. The reasons for upgrading are often not really there anymore. Lucky for Microsoft they have drones like you who will advocate people upgrade for no good reason.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[WillRobinson]

I agree, I have quite a few robotic machines running xp, have spent tons of money developing multi threaded C++ programs for them. Just changing to their new development environment, new drivers for the specialized hardware will be expensive. And it just works fine as it is. There is no advantage in speed of
the machines etc.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[serviscope_minor]

At Los Alamos National Lab both IE and FireFox are installed on the computers,

Not on the RHEL desktops. Or ubuntu laptops or macbooks. I remember there being a fair old mix of stuff...

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[Lonewolf666]

I have used XP on older hardware (circa 2008) and it's touch and go at times. Pre-2005? Forget it.

That's surprising. 2002 to 2007 should have been the heyday of XP, with the best driver support from hardware vendors. Maybe some vendors slacked off on XP after the release of Vista, but the period you quote was certainly the best for running XP.

In fact, I got a new PC in 2007 and could not get it to run stable under Windows 2000. Switching to XP helped.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[PlusFiveTroll]

I'm testing Windows 8 on a 2008 core2duo and it runs fine, it normally runs 7. I do have it on a more modern hard drive. The problem for Microsoft is computers got 'fast enough' for average users at lest 4 years back if not longer. If 2008 hardware is acting touch and go on XP it's either bad hardware or a beyond average use case. Even XP itself got fat over the years. After the service packs and browser updates, XP wanted a whole lot more RAM to get the job done. As for Win8, I hate it's interface, but the resource requirements seem the same as 7.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[blind biker]

d) upgrading == (pain + time) && (upgrading != c)

Lazy ass IT.

Sometimes, the best thing IT can do is stay the fuck out of the way. Sometimes it's not laziness but on purpose, a decision to not disrupt productivity.

But what would you know about it. You felt the need to hammer a nail in each and every statement of GP. That screams shill or clueless.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[Anonymous Coward]

> Lazy ass IT.

Sorry, that's a stupid ass comment. We went through the upgrade at work (major bank) from XP to W7 last year, and it was VERY VERY EXPENSIVE. Over 4000 apps had to be validated, 60K users. Whole thing took months and months, in waves, to ensure up-time and maintain support capacity.

To think that reluctance to do this more often than absolutely necessary is due to "lazy ass IT" demonstrates a butt-clenching level of naivety.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[hairyfeet]

You forgot one:

e) Windows 8 has put a lot of doubt in everyone's minds as to whether they will be able to get the Win 7 units they'll need so they are taking a "wait and see" approach.

Lucky for me I was able to get all my customers switched to Win 7 and we are all gonna stay right where we are, but I can totally understand why some would stay with XP. Money is tight, you have a bunch of units that may not run it (I kept Win 7 Upgrade Adviser on a stick along with SIW so I had a good overview of what kind of hardware I was dealing with and any issues, although most chose to buy my $500 quad specials instead of keeping the P4s) and Windows 8 is making a LOT of folks nervous, because that tweeting twitting facebook shitting cellphone OS is NOT what a business users wants nor needs in the office.

So MSFT has nobody to blame but themselves. Instead of taking the worry out for business by making it clear that Win 7 would still be available they are dumping out the beta quality mess that is Win 8 without a care in the world, businesses just don't turn on a dime MSFT, you have to do program testing and hardware testing...its a hell of a lot of work before you can finally start rolling out units. it was a hell of a headache for me and I only deal with SMBs, I can't even imagine what it must be like for an IT guy stuck with 5,000+ units to switch..ugh. Stay with XP as long as you can and if you are lucky Ballmer will get fired before you have to switch and they'll bring in someone who understand business instead of a Steve Jobs wannabe.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[cluedweasel]

I agree, I have quite a few robotic machines running xp,

So do I, but that's enough about HR...

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[Billly Gates]

No business reasons? How about:
1. No hardware support
2. No software support
3. IT not familiar with it anymore
4. IE not working on all websites
5. Seucirty issues
6. No patches!

Those are 6 very good business reasons if you ask me to start migrating. Sure your ancient software is supported but what about the upcoming Adobe Photoshop 7? No XP support. How about HTML 5 websites? No XP support (since corps only use IE), What if the next code red hits your enterprise? No XP patch. What if all the tablets by dell are EFI only? No XP support.

Eventually your business will get emails with docx 1.3 file formats in which OFfice 2003 can't read. Then what? Same with your marketing department. In the next 5 years all of these things will happen.

The world does not revolve around your office
I laugh out loud when I hear MS IS BEING GREEDY! Dude have you ever owned a mac? If your mac is from 2009 you out of support! XP is 11 years old and MS is being more than generous here. Fact of the matter is it costs money for everyone to backport everything. Examples of costs:
1. Webmasters researching and implementing 10 year old bug fixes and work arounds for IE 6
2. Developers using older .NET libraries because .NET 5 is not XP compatible
3. Hardware makers have to double the costs to keep writting drivers and doing extensive QA to run your ancient platform
4. Other customers, vendors, clients having to use ancient technology to make your fear based IT department happy.

There comes a point where it is not our problem for not supporting your platform but yours for not upgrading. It is 2012 and will be moving to clouds newer versions of software and HTML 5. Yes Firefox and Chrome will eventually in a year or two no longer even run ON XP! I will be sending you Photoshop CS 7 files, not coding for anything under IE 9, and be sending you docx files that can't be read in Office 2k3 all within the next 5 years.

If you can't deal with this then you are not worth my time and are incompetent.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[JMJimmy]

My father managed a moderate sized law office. Part of the issue in upgrading was support from 3rd party software which was integral to their business. The main issue was soft costs. As an example, they upgraded from Office 2003 to 2007, the cost of the software was ~$10,000. Not a big deal at all. However, each employee had to be trained on the new software, new procedures drawn up & training for those, then the productivity loss was huge. Overtime costs went up, additional staff needed to be brought on to keep things up to speed during the adjustment period. 3 months in the actual cost of the upgrade was over $100,000 and they were still not back to the level of productivity they were at before. End result: they downgraded back to 2003 and repeated the process once 2010 came around. 2010 stuck but $100,000+ down the drain is not an easy cost to absorb - even if it did work out.

In the end it's probably cheaper to keep XP, toss on Deep Freeze and just keep a document server up to date until you have no choice but to upgrade.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[bingoUV]

With IE you can force them into a proxy to monitor things

No Mr. Billy Gates, I have worked at 3 Fortune 50 companies. Internet just doesn't work without proxy on their intranet, you can only browse intranet websites without proxy. So browsing through any client is equally monitored.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[Onymous Coward]

I laugh out loud when I hear MS IS BEING GREEDY! Dude have you ever owned a mac? If your mac is from 2009 you out of support!

As if there could be only one greedy company?

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[hairyfeet]

That's funny because I'm typing this on a circa 2004 Sempron that I use as a nettop here at the shop and it runs just fine with XP, in fact I have Win 7 HP running in a dual boot and while I'm sticking with XP while I slowly but surely find replacements for all the old software I have on here it runs just fine. The key with Windows is do NOT starve it of RAM, that is the one place the OEMs really fucked up for the longest time, putting teeny tiny amounts of RAM. I have 2Gb of RAM in the Sempron, max it'll hold, and its responsive. In fact its responsive enough I've held off swapping the CPU for an Athlon64 simply because I see no point. maybe when I switch to Win 7 I'll see a point, but it plays SD videos off of YouTube and surfs and downloads just fine, and that's what I use it for so as long as it does its job it'll stay.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[wiggles]

4 years back? I'm still gaming on my 6 year old build. The only things I've upgraded are my RAM and video card.

I'm eyeing a new CPU/mobo/RAM combo this winter because 4G of memory just isn't enough anymore. It's a shame - my CPU and the rest of my system are just fine.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[gosand]

Or sometimes it is the SMART thing to do if IT doesn't want to create extra work for themselves. I work for a very large company, and I still use XP. There is a program in place to migrate to Win7, but it's been going on for over a year now. It takes time. And when I say large, I mean LARGE... think 250k+ employees around the world. If you want to migrate that many people away from WinXP to Win7, and still have internal support, you'd better have a good plan and it will take lots of time.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[gnick]

This is fairly recent - A year ago things weren't nearly as locked down. I'm not sure when exactly LANL started blocking outgoing IE, but they are now.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[hairyfeet]

This is why "Windows 7 is the new XP" because frankly the PCs released directly before and after Win 7 are such monsters that the average user won't need to replace until the hardware actually fails. lets look at what I was selling on the low end of my new builds 5 years ago...Phenom I X3s and X4s with 3-4gb of RAM and 300Gb+ HDDs. Now is there anything that your average user does that is gonna stress that system? remember these were my "$450-$500 specials" so weren't anywhere near even high end for the time, in fact the only reason i used quads more than X2s was the TLB bug and core 2 issue meant I could get those chips extra cheap. Hell I have a customer running the latest Solidworks on an X3 and is quite happy with the system.

So when you add to this a dead economy and Windows 8 being a tweeting twitting FB shitting frankenstein monster mash up of Windows and WinPhone its a recipe for failure. People simply don't need new systems, even the Core Duo first gen and Turion X2 laptops i sold are running just fine, that is why I've been branching off into HTPCs and home theater setups, because nobody needs a new desktop when they have a multicore with tons of RAM they aren't even stressing.

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[hairyfeet]

Weeeelllllll...yes and no. There are many damned good reasons to upgrade from XP to Win 7, but 7 to 8? not really any i can think of unless you have a tablet.

You see XP was made at a time when 256Mb of RAM was only for the rich, so naturally its 32 bit only. The XP X64 that was released later was really Win2K3 Workstation with the Fisher Price UI tacked on and it frankly wasn't well supported and damned near impossible to find in the wild as the OEMs didn't go for it. Then there is the fact that it was released in 2001, so now its patches have patches which leads to instability, then there is of course "WinRot" which I can keep a new system from developing but once WinRot has set it? Too late, gotta wipe.

Then there are the pluses Win 7 brings, a MUCH better UI and file system explorer that finally defaults to two pane which makes file ops easier, breadcrumbs and jumplists make getting back to where you were easy peasy, and of course the biggest one is FINALLY somebody at MSFT got a fucking clue and instituted sane memory management, where the OS will actually USE extra memory as a cache for most used programs, thus unlike XP the more you use Win 7 the faster it gets as it learns your habits and caches what you use the most.

Out of all my systems I have only ONE XP unit left, its an old circa 2004 Sempron a customer traded in that because its soooo low power makes for a great nettop at the shop, but all I ever use it for is to look up specs and download drivers. if all you use XP for is a "browser in a box"? Then its fine, although you'd probably just as well served by a tablet in that case, but if you do any kind of actual work on your PC then XP really just doesn't cut it anymore, its just creaky and buggy and crashy and has some bad design flaws that will never be fixed.

Now when I fire up a machine and see XP knowing I'm gonna have to work on it I just groan, its like going back to Win9X, just ancient crap. I mean its fricking 11 years old for the love of the FSM!

Re:Pry XP from cold, stiff fingers

[blind biker]

I believe the problem with IT getting in the way has to do with certain IT guys who make radical changes without considering or planning for the short term damage. If you do things in stages, where you try to virtualize services, decouple things, put in redundancy, etc. you can not only avoid a lot of problems but better protect the system from them popping up later.

That kind of approach is commendable and splendid. However, I have been in one kind of research (and development) or the other my entire life - in industry first, in academia now, for a total of 15 years. My experience has often been that often IT tries to justify their existence by doing unnecessary changes. And I don't only mean in-house IT, but also outsourced. And by "often" I certainly don't mean "always". In fact, it's because I experienced the opposite kind of IT, the non-invasive, the "if ain't broke don't fix it"-kind as well, that I recognize just what a money-hole and productivity-holes some of the IT departments have been.

At some point Windows XP will be upgraded or changed to something else, that's clear, but for once in the last 20 years, a better balance between IT business and actual productivity, is being struck. Because, quite frankly, both the OS and the hardware are more than good enough for any task we throw at them. We don't need faster CPUs, more RAM, more storage - or a new OS with more (or less, or different) bells and whistles.

$500,00 equipment with WinXP

[vossman77]

We have a few expensive microscopes with WinXP on the corresponding machine, an expired service contract and in reality cannot upgrade without buying a new microscope (an newer drivers), so what do you do, other than put it behind a firewall and hope for the best.

Re:$500,00 equipment with WinXP

[Eldragon]

A local library has the same problem. Checkout hardware has drives for XP and Win2k. The service contract to upgrade these machines is far beyond the available tech budget. So this particular library will be running off XP until the hardware dies and replacements can no longer be found; my guess would be another 10 years.

Re:$500,00 equipment with WinXP

[Tridus]

The normal scenario for these is the company either discontinued that line of equipment, or went out of business. Said equipment is so expensive that you don't replace it until it's broken. The OS on the computer it's connected to just doesn't matter to lab people as long as it works. If you only have drivers for XP, you're using XP until the equipment dies.

It turns out few CEOs like "XP is going away, give me a million bucks for a new sample analyzer."

Re:$500,00 equipment with WinXP

[Anonymous Coward]

For all the specialists saying a variety of "no way, my expensive hardware is too expensive to replace for this reason," you aren't the target demographic of the original blog post. The target demographic are the companies that are not upgrading the computers at employee desks. I highly doubt your microscope controller software is on a system that is also used by salesmen to browse the internet. I would be surprised if your extremely expensive specialty hardware is even on a network that can be accessed directly by a marketting depatment of any kind.

Re:$500,00 equipment with WinXP

[interkin3tic]

Get a new microscope from some company that doesn't force you to use an extremely shitty propietary file format and an extremely shitty program for operating you expensive confocal or other microscope. Instead, buy a microscope that uses open source software.

Oh, wait, such a company doesn't seem to exist. From my experiences with Olympus, they seem to constantly update their software specifically to break features and prevent you from using 3rd party analysis tools like Imaris, let alone FOSS software. One would think that since you bought a fancy new spinning disc from them, they'd let you run the analysis software, which is generally not worth paying for on it's own, on your computer. But no, they also like to make you use dongles on any other computer too. It's fucking ridiculous.

Re:$500,00 equipment with WinXP

[Patch86]

Well one answer to that is "that'll learn you to buy Windows for system critical hardware". If you had bought Linux, and Linux-compatible microscopes (and damnit, scientific equipment is one of the few areas which does have decent Linux driver support), you would not be having this problem.

I hope you remember this experience when you do come to upgrade. If you upgrade to Windows 7, you'll have the exact same problem in 5-15 years time.

Re:$500,00 equipment with WinXP

[Crudely_Indecent]

Bad-analogy-guy - is that you?

Re:$500,00 equipment with WinXP

[trdrstv]

Makes Sense, I know of a Machine shop that runs metal punch machines with Windows 3.1 software. (not even 3.11) because the software actually does everything those machine presses are actually capable of, so there's no reason to network them or upgrade them.

Re:$500,00 equipment with WinXP

[hairyfeet]

You see? THIS, this right here, is why Ballmer should have been fired a half a fricking decade ago. if his fat ass would have gotten Longhorn out on schedule (Nooo...Vista is NOT Longhorn, Ballmer had them throw Longhorn out and and start over because it was more like XP X64 and not as bling heavy as Ballmer wanted, had to compete with Apple on the shiny ya know) then so many wouldn't be trapped on XP now, but it took so damned long to get Vista out the door, and it was half assed and reeked of fail anyway, that XP hung onto to the point many simply can't afford to trash it because too damned many other systems depend on it.

What MSFT should have done is bust ass on XP Mode in Win 7 with a mantra of "if it runs on XP, it works in XP Mode" and made damned sure all those businesses could just switch without downtime, maybe even supported cloning existing XP installs for XP Mode VMs, but Ballmer is too damned busy drooling on an iPad to see he is royally fucking up and losing the business market, the bread and butter of MSFT. Stupid, that's what it is, fucking stupid.

Re:$500,00 equipment with WinXP

[hairyfeet]

I'm sorry but Linux is for programmers and BY programmers and the odds of it having drivers for such a funky specialized piece of equipment, one where the company that made it probably never gave a shit about Linux and may have even gone OOB years ago? Virtually nil.

The people like you that look at Linux as a panacea don't get into the nitty gritty logistics we are talking here because if you did you wouldn't even suggest it. What they would have to do if they followed your advice would be to reverse engineer the drivers for the hardware (no small task and NOT cheap), build their own software to run the scans, again no small task, and then have everything certified for HIPPA compliance where sure as fuck is NO small task and expensive as hell.

So I'm sorry but Linux would be a BAD IDEA with a capital B. The best plan would be to isolate the system on a VLAN and let their users access that way, this would allow them to keep XP without worrying about lack of support after 2014. Since XP lasted so long you can still find many newer systems with XP drivers so they will be able to get plenty of replacement systems for probably a good decade. A LOT cheaper than following your advice.

Re:$500,00 equipment with WinXP

[burning_plastic]

When dealing with certain pieces of equipment, the cost of service contracts often gets renegotiated after each expires and if the vendor doesn't want to support it anymore they just jack up the price of the contract to a non-viable level. So then you just wait until the machine stops working before you upgrade. We had this happen with a Leica confocal microscope - the contract expired, and then the proprietary board that connected the scope to the computer died. Since no more boards existed world-wide the scope was useless as a confocal and so was eventually repurposed as a standard epi-fluorescence scope.

Won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in a hospital setting where most, if not all, computers run XP. In radiology specifically, the PACS software we run is only certified for windows XP and ie 6.

Hospital doesn't want to invest money into upgrading pacs software.

Re:Won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

I too work in Healthcare IT for hospitals and I will tell you that while I may agree that it probably won't happen , it absolutely should. I know of hospitals still running NT4. When security patches are no longer available for an OS such as the case with NT4, it becomes a major security risk. With the new laws such as HIPAA and HITECH, hospital IT staffs risk massive security breaches, lawsuits and fines if hospitals such as yours take that stance.

Re:Won't happen

[PlusFiveTroll]

I work in a hospital setting where most, if not all, computers run XP. In radiology specifically, the PACS software we run is only certified for windows XP and ie 6.

Hospital doesn't want to invest money into upgrading pacs software.

I do quite a bit of work in veterinary medicine and the costs associated with upgrading is pretty large. The scary part of a lot of this software isn't that it's certified to work on XP, it's that its so crappily written that it only works on XP with admin access and any number of bandaids to make it work. What I've done in a few cases is virtualized the XP box where it was possible. Trying to keep this stuff running over the long term is going to be fun.

Re:Won't happen

[jellomizer]

Upgrade your software and stop going with Siemens products.

Re:Won't happen

[guruevi]

The lawsuits and associated costs are minimal compared to some overhauls.

Lawsuit settled with a couple of identity protection services: $2M
Overhauling all software to run on the latest platforms and implement e-records: $50M
Having no tech specs nor existing companies to support the software you just implemented and have history repeat itself every decade: Priceless

Re:Won't happen

[RabidReindeer]

I work in a hospital setting where most, if not all, computers run XP. In radiology specifically, the PACS software we run is only certified for windows XP and ie 6.

Hospital doesn't want to invest money into upgrading pacs software.

I do quite a bit of work in veterinary medicine and the costs associated with upgrading is pretty large. The scary part of a lot of this software isn't that it's certified to work on XP, it's that its so crappily written that it only works on XP with admin access and any number of bandaids to make it work. What I've done in a few cases is virtualized the XP box where it was possible. Trying to keep this stuff running over the long term is going to be fun.

The Wal-Mart Shopper mentality.

1. Thinking that the cost of something is the cost at the cash register. Despite what everyone thinks, computers are not a fixed cost, there is ongoing expense. Sooner or later, all software becomes obsolete. Not because there's something wrong with the software, but because the world in which the software lives changes. Sooner or later, you not only cannot run the old software on the new OS, you often cannot get replacement hardware that can run it when the original equipment dies. If you don't budget for upgrades, you'd better either plan to be gone by then or be fortunate enough to be able to toss the whole thing. Emulators only go so far - Windows 98 is dead and getting no new security updates but that doesn't mean hackers don't still consider exploits.

2. Expecting that "IT doesn't matter" and that whoever delivers fastest and/or cheapest is "good enough". So much software out there is crap, just because people won't accept that quality takes time, effort, and money.

Re:Won't happen

[gfxguy]

In a completely unrelated industry... television production, we have a render box that was written on 32bit Red Hat about 6 six years ago. The company that sold us the system created proprietary modules. Now it's 2012, and our on air render box is an old version of Linux that cannot support more than 3GB RAM. We can't upgrade, because it would break the proprietary modules.

So this company managed to Microsoft our asses using Linux. Bravo. For the record, during evaluation six years ago, I said "no." They never listen to me, though.

At my institute, it's still "popular"

[blind biker]

All our research and analysis software works fine with XP, all the office, design (CAE/CAD etc.), editors, image manipulation, diagram plotting etc. etc. etc. works fine. No fucking need to upgrade means no upgrade happens. I know, this is shocking to many people on the MS Windows upgrade treadmill, but sometimes, you know, common sense prevails.

I know, I know, awfully shocking.

Re:At my institute, it's still "popular"

[r1348]

And what will you exactly do once the last XP machine breaks and newer hardware won't have XP drivers?

Re:At my institute, it's still "popular"

[blind biker]

And what will you exactly do once the last XP machine breaks and newer hardware won't have XP drivers?

There will be enough XP-compatible new hardware. Or "NOS" hardware. OEMs understand that, this time, there's a gigantic demand for WinXP-compatible hardware, and some of those OEMs have been burned by Microsoft (who sells itself Windows 8).

I am guessing that there is a significant likelihood that WinXP-compatible computers will be available in the foreseeable future. Actually, because of the large number of existing XP installations, it's a default assumption of a non-negligible amount of people. And such a massive expectation creates a specific reality, with which not even Microsoft can fuck.

Figures...

[RLU486983]

Micro$oft has an operating system that is running fairly stable and well and they want to axe it... puzzling!!

Coke

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, Coca-Cola recommends consumers drink more soda pop.

Re:Coke

[arth1]

In other news, Coca-Cola recommends consumers drink more soda pop.

Now, this is more akin to the Coca-Cola Company recommending that we all switch to New Coke(TM).

Re:Coke

[r1348]

No, it's more like Coca-Cola recommending consumers not to drink from expired cans.

Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source Windows XP, then nobody will use it. Its base will become a muddled mess of forks until it eventually fades into nothing.

We were thinking XP looks pretty good

[Anonymous Coward]

So good in fact, we might just upgrade some of our Win98 machines to XP.

Nicely done, PR.

[HiGuys]

"...most new hardware options will likely not support the Windows XP operating system"

Alternately, Windows XP will not support new hardware, but that doesn't shift the blame now, does it?

Re:Nicely done, PR.

[Drummergeek0]

How is this insightful?

It is on the burden of the hardware manufacturers to write drivers, not the OS developer. Especially for new hardware. How in any way does the blame fall on XP and Microsoft?

Re:Nicely done, PR.

[arth1]

How is this insightful?

It is on the burden of the hardware manufacturers to write drivers, not the OS developer. Especially for new hardware. How in any way does the blame fall on XP and Microsoft?

It is insightful because of Microsoft driver signing. A 3rd party can write as many drivers as he like, but if Microsoft won't sign them, and the customers have to jump through hoops to get them accepted by the system, it's not a viable option.

Re:Nicely done, PR.

[gigaherz]

"Hoops" is one click on a warning screen. This is XP not Vista/7 x64.

Send us money!

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Dear satisfied XP user,

We can't make any money if you insist on using Windows XP. Please upgrade to our new Windows 8. Since software developers also need money, you may notice that you'll have to replace the software that will not work in Windows 8.

While we're at it, the hardware vendors would love some of your money. Your old computer probably won't run Windows 8 anyway. So support our hardware partners. You can save yourself some time by just go ahead and buy the new Computer and it will come with a crippled version of Windows 8 that we'll be glad to upgrade for you at a reasonable cost.

We're happy that your computing needs are being satisfied with what you have, but we would be even happier if you send us money for our new OS.

Thanks for spending!
Microsoft

Re:Send us money!

[zippthorne]

Although you make a good point, the fact remains that they will never close all of the security issues in a software product as large as XP. The best we can ever hope for is for them to close as many as possible, and address newly discovered issues in a timely manner. They can only do this if they have a revenue stream of some kind - developers need to eat, you know.

The upgrade treadmill is how they handled this issue historically - putting out new versions and deprecating the old ones and using sales of new products to continue to fund fixes for the old version for a time. Obviously, they can't fund it forever this way unless people actually buy the new products, though.

How would you suggest they solve the funding dilemma?

Re:Send us money!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

How would you suggest they solve the funding dilemma?

The details are a nighmarish, ever-shifting, morass of acronyms and "talk to your rep"; but Microsoft already has a plan where customers can pay annually for "Software Assurance".

Obviously, Microsoft wants to be bug-hunting as few codebases as possible, and presenting as unified a "platform" to 3rd party application vendors as possible, so it is to be expected that the cost/seat of continued support would rise over time as the number of seats in the field dropped; but they already have a mechanism for charging customers on an annual volume basis, which could easily enough be extended to offering paid security support after the support period provided by a boxed license is over...

Not necessarily something that they want to do; but they could.

Re:Send us money!

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Although you make a good point, the fact remains that they will never close all of the security issues in a software product as large as XP...

To be honest I was going for funny. However it is obvious that there are businesses out there that can't or not willing to leave XP. Microsoft could simply sell support services to these customers. Windows XP had a long run and to be fair Microsoft has supported it for a very long time (an eternity by today's standards). There are businesses that had custom software made that aren't willing to give up something that works just so Microsoft can focus solely on Windows 8.

Sure Windows XP won't have the latest bug fixes, but the companies that rely on it can mitigate the risks without purchasing an upgrade.

I had a friend who ran a small office. One day his secretary had to move out of town with her husband. He did what would come natural and placed a "Help Wanted" ad in the local paper. He required that the new hire knew how to use a word processor and more specifically Wordperfect running on an IBM XT. Despite the fact that Pentium computers running Windows 95 were available, he had no desire to upgrade and no need to use that computer for anything else than a word processor. You wouldn't believe the number of phone calls from people trying to sell him a new computer.

One day he came in my office and ask if he should be concerned since a salesman told him that his machine wasn't running the most up to date software and was prone to malware and security exploits. Since he didn't even have a modem installed and he was pretty much set in his ways on what he used his computer for, I didn't see any need for him to try to learn a new computer system. Eventually he found a new secretary and that old machine was in use up to the day he finally retired (to my and everyone else's surprise).

It shouldn't come to anyone surprise that not all businesses exist for the purpose of buying upgrades.

If Windows 8 is a good product then Microsoft shouldn't have any problems staying fed.

With the current trend of a new major OS version coming out every two years, I find it hard to justify NOT using Linux or the various BSDs for any independent software destined for long term use.

Re:Send us money!

[Patch86]

How would you suggest they solve the funding dilemma?

They could go the Red Hat route for Enterprise customers ("if you want security updates, pay us a small license fee every year for eternity"). For consumers, they could rely on the "natural upgrade cycle"- that is, most people buy a new computer every few years, with a new copy of whatever the latest OS is.

Forcibly withdrawing support is a great way of undermining trust in your product. If you're a large hospital with hundreds of XP devices that really can't be upgraded without a hardware change, finding your hospital infrastructure grinding to a halt (or becoming open to massive security holes) overnight will really sting. They may still upgrade to a new MS OS, but they'll resent it.

Open-source XP

[Anonymous Coward]

We saw Vista, 7 and now 8 and each generation offers such awesome improvements over the previous... I dare Microsoft to open-source Windows XP on May 1st, 2014. I don't see it happen, but you may want to have a look at ReactOS. If you ask me, OpenXP would be a better name for it.

Re:Farewell XP

[JonJ]

On that note, I think it would be good to say goodbyes to Windows Vista too. Windows 7 and 8 are truly better and the only OS we currently need, on top of Mac OS X. That trio is something beautiful and hard for anyone to break.

Yes, let's all celebrate a duopoly of walled gardens. That'll be grand.

Srsly?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

What kind of arm-twisting, exactly, is MS planning against Dell, HP, etc. to get them to stop shipping boring corporate boxes that don't support XP?

Yeah, sure, the odds of having XP run properly without a bit of scrounging on some random machine from Best Buy(this goes double if it's a laptop, triple if it's some wacky touch/hybrid/thing), aren't getting any better; but if your business is shipping pallet-loads of identical machines to assorted volume customers, you damn well better support the OSes they want supported. If you don't, the largely interchangeable shipper of near-identical machines will.

Even if MS plays serious hardball, and just starts refusing to WHQL sign XP drivers, XP doesn't force driver signing very hard, so IT shouldn't have much trouble with that. Now, I'd be totally unsurprised to learn that XP toasts the battery life of newer laptops with super-fancy power saving features, or requires that you turn on the 'legacy bios emulation' switch in whatever UEFI pit the system ships with; but I'd be shocked to see the end of the ability to buy XP boxes(through corporate and volume license channels, not necessarily at retail) before 2020...

Re:Farewell XP

[jellomizer]

Slashdot: Back in 2001. XP is horrible it looks like it was made by phisher price....
Back in 2002-2004 we giggled in glee as malware like Code Red started to severely infect Windows XP
XP is still bad.
But Vista was a flop, it took way too long and offered too many issues. So we got use to it. Granted XP was better then ME or 98, but that was due to Microsoft Finally pushing the NT Kernel on consumer OS's.

XP long run was due to Microsoft Failing last decade.
Trying to Make Vista (Longhorn) a super mega OS, where they just couldn't do it, taking time away from smaller improvements.
Fighting with Apple iPod Halo, where people started to take Mac's seriously again. And Apple was quick to release new versions of it's OS.
Bad press from the FTC ruling. Yes they didn't get punished by the feds as much, but in terms of user perception it was got bad. People didn't use Microsoft Products because they wanted to but because they felt like they had to.
Firefox - Safari - Chrome: These web browsers kicked the butt on IE 6 and Developers took notice and started making their pages more Other browser friendly. Plus these other Browsers work just as well on other OS's. .NET made development too hard. (I actually like programming in .NET myself) but Microsoft sacrificed VB for it. Because VB was meant to be an easy to program language that any poor slob can code. .NET turned vb from a GUI scripting language to an OO language. Giving a huge learning curve to the Non-Developers programmers (Businessmen, Engineers, ... who wrote a program to fit their need) Yes it created higher quality code and saved us IT professionals form VB hell but if you needed to hire a real developer to make your software. That developer just may choose some more platform independent languages to do the work, even if they did use .NET they would have made more Web Based applications just so they can debug problems better, and have better contol of the software. Good for us, bad for MS.

Dear Microsoft,

[sootman]

Do you need a bigger hint that your OSs have become WORSE in recent years, not better?*

Keep that page as a template -- you'll be saying the same thing about Windows 7 in a decade if you continue in the direction you're going with Windows 8.

* yes, I know -- more stable, more secure. But the parts that people SEE and USE is what's sucking.

Just works

[EmperorOfCanada]

I have largely left Windows behind but I find that when relatives hand me their Windows box to fix that Windows XP is easier to set right. Just all those little things like the serial number having a much higher chance of working. I find (especially with Windows 7) that I put the correct version DVD in and it rejects the MS serial number that is glued to the box. Then it goes downhill from there.

Then if I have to install any corporate crap like Citrix that it has an inversely proportional ratio of functioning properly to version beyond XP.
Lastly I test my own stuff on Windows by either compiling the program occasionally on windows or running my web apps on IE in a VM. Again the XP VM tends to be speedy and small. Windows 7 tends to be cranky in a VM so even though I am just running it for a few minutes I find it less pleasant. This is not some kind of show stopper just an observation that Windows XP is not glaringly worse than Windows 7 for basic usage.

So I would not ever recommend that someone pull Windows 7 off their machine but that some corporate type with an Office full of XP machines running just fine doubtfully will reap much reward through a huge upgrade. Personally if I were in charge of an office full of XP machines I would organically just replace dead machines with a new machine running whatever newer OS came with it. Someone might complain that supporting multiple OS versions is a cost in and of itself but if supporting multiple OS versions is a cost then your IT structure is either really really big or your IT people really suck.

Why?

[MyLongNickName]

My company has roughly 200 employees. From my perspective, I will plan to migrate off of our remaining XP machines (about 30) only because of security updates. In early 2014, I understand that security updates will cease, though I expect it will be extended. Were is not for this deadline by Microsoft, I wouldn't force the upgrade. In a corporate environment, the OS isn't terribly relevant, but the applications are. You'd be surprised how many application are still not ready for a native 64 bit environment, some niche programs that we rely on just won't work unless a 32 bit OS is emulated.

So, if Microsoft continued XP support indefinitely, I would never move. XP SP2 is the first OS Microsoft has offered that is solid and stable (just don't let users run as admin).

Opportunity for Linux

[gmuslera]

Even Microsoft is telling people to abandon the XP boat, Windows 8 seems to be Vista 2.0, and Windows 7 is looking like being a dead end (if you invest on it, will end pretty much like XP). If people must change and think that is not wise to go to Windows 7, well they could go to Linux, that share some of the possible objections of switching to windows 8 (training, not running some of their old apps) but having a lot of advantages (freedom, they could use their own hardware, the user interface could be more similar to WinXP than Win 8 is, safer, etc). And now native apps are less a concern, as most of usual apps work in the web.

Microsoft is stupid

[bored]

I went to a brand new dentist office the other day. They were running XP on their brand new xray machines.

If Microsoft were smart, they would release an XP R2, they could call it "Windows for Business" and sell if for $150 a license.

If they were feeling generous they could remove the licensed RAM limits, give it a GPT boot option (heck they don't even have to do any work, just package it with some of the 3rd party options).

Payback is a bitch, baby!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Oh, all those days they spent increasing the switching costs of their customers. How many Vice Presidents wrote in their annual review, "I did this clever thing to thwart our customers from Windows. Made lock in more secure. Now the vendor lock is stronger than ever!".

One trivial example: How many gaggled, "I introduced a space in all the important and default folder names. All those geeks trying to use cygwin to run shell scripts have to redo their scripts to quote their path names. ha! ha!! haa! Their support cost goes up. Our customer switching cost goes up. Our lock is getting stronger!"

And finally, they find their customers are unable to get out of XP to Win7!!!

Serves them right! Pay back is a bitch baby! You deserve it. All I got is that unspellable German word, schadenfreude or something.

Ya, how dare they only support an OS for 13 years!

[Sycraft-fu]

Seriously trying to whine about MS requiring people to occasionally upgrade their OS is rather stupid. They support their OSes for quite a long time, 10 years is the standard support but some are extended (like XP). That is pretty damn good, rare you find other OSes with support that long.

So XP is now coming to an end of that support. You can upgrade to 7 or 8, which have guaranteed support until 2020 or 2023 respectively.

Oh, and Windows 8 works just fine on older hardware, as does Windows 7 (yes we've tested it at work).

Enough with the silliness.

Kinda like

[Sparticus789]

So it's like saying "Stop driving that 1965 VW Bug, you should upgrade to the brand new Pinto!"

Re:Kinda like

[Green Light]

The Ford Pinto was an awesome car! Well, except for that whole exploding fireball thing...

Well given that is isn't MS's job to write drivers

[Sycraft-fu]

No it really isn't MS's problem. Basically hardware vendors are responsible for driver support. They are welcome to support whatever OSes they like. Many vendors discontinue support for old OSes with new hardware. Since people with old OSes don't tend to get new hardware, they find it not worth their while to spend time working on it.

Same deal with software. For example Cakewalk has discontinued XP support with Sonar X2. Since it is nearing EOL, they don't feel it worth their while to test their new software on an old OS.

If you want a company that updates their OS forever, well good luck with that unless you are willing to pay a hefty service contract. Even then you will probably discover the updates will be little more than bug fixes, and if you want support for new hardware they'll require you to update to a new version.

Re:Ya, how dare they only support an OS for 13 yea

[0123456]

Except the netbook I bought in 2010 came with XP. So it only gets four years' support.

Not that it matters since I wiped Windows and installed Linux instead, but XP was for sale until very recenlty; the only reason you can claim it was supported for a long time is because it was for sale for a long time, unlike the new compulsory-upgrade-every-two-years cycle.

A problem with closed source...

[jd659]

A problem with closed source systems is that if the company decides that it's not in its business interest to support some old but popular software, NO ONE ELSE can offer such support. Even if there's a demand for the continued support and other people willing to offer it, the business opportunity is not there since Microsoft controls the market. The more Microsoft pushes people off some platform, the harder everyone should consider some alternative solutions.

Besides, what support are we talking about here? If 11 years after Windows XP was released is not enough to fix the glitches that were made during the development, how long enough is enough? Twenty year to fix the bugs?

Re:Why is a microscope online in the first place?

[Tridus]

When the equipment is providing frequent readings or results, it becomes a really expensive boat anchor if it's disconnected and those readings can't get to the people who need them.

Few businesses today want to pay someone to use sneakernet every 15 minutes to transfer new results to the network.

Re:Farewell XP

[drakaan]

...If the engine in your '57 Chevy blows up, you can still get it repaired and replaced...

Well, yes, but Chevy's not currently making engines for it or offering warranty support. Are you saying I should be able to take my 56 year old automobile back to the manufacturer and have them replace the carb with a fuel injection system?

Let XP die already. It's "unsafe at any speed", to piggy-back on your metaphor.

In other news

[SuiteSisterMary]

In other news, nobody here is running Red Hat 9, either.

Re:Farewell XP

[interkin3tic]

Let's also celebrate slashdot accounts that have only one post, praising MS, put up the instant the story is posted. Because that's some effective trolling, for what that's worth. Been going on for a while and people are still taking it seriously.

Re:Farewell XP

[DeathFromSomewhere]

Maybe you should actually try Windows 8 before ranting about it. There is a lot more to it then just the metro stuff.

For those who can't ditch XP

[TheDarkener]

Can your apps run in Wine under Linux? This might be a very feasable "workaround". I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet.

Re:Yea

[cpghost]

Our over 12k machines are still running FreeBSD, and we don't plan to change that anytime soon. But there's also a couple of 600 or so PCs with XP for office folks that we are slowly updating to either FreeBSD, Linux or Windows 7. After serious evaluation, we've decided that we won't touch that Windows 8 abomination with a 10ft. pole here and plan to stay with XP and then Windows 7 as long as security updates are available. There's no need to rush.

Why I still have Windows XP licenses.

[Antony T Curtis]

XP Pro has more functionality than Windows 7. To get equivalent function for which I currently use, I would have to purchase Windows 7 Ultimate. The price tag for it is more than the cost of the machines that it would be running on.

It is simply too expensive for little-to-no gain in functionality.

Re:Farewell XP

[Anonymous Coward]

Any real enterprise customer's don't need activation.

Re:Farewell XP

[RulerOf]

Tried it; Took over 20 minutes to boot the installer in a VM with 2 cores and 2 GB of RAM. Once I finally managed to get the behemoth installed, (and after another 10 minutes of booting), I get presented with the ugliest, most useless interface I've ever seen on a desktop machine. Not interested.

If it took you 20 minutes to load WinPE 4, which the installer is built from, then I'd go so far as to say you've got bigger problems than not liking the interface. I can't say I've tried it, but I'm pretty sure you can flat-boot (no RAM Disk) WinPE 4 with less than 100 MB of RAM. You can count the services that start up on your fingers.

Metro apps aren't very good with a keyboard and mouse. Try them with a touchscreen. For everything else it facilitates, like find-as-you-type, command execution, and so on, it's close enough to the functionality of its predecessors' Start menus that you shouldn't have a problem using it. Yes, everything is in a totally different spot on the screen, but it's not exactly difficult to figure out. For everything else, just stick to the desktop.

...and?

[Sycraft-fu]

It is the same deal with any OS. Ubutnu supports a LTS release for 5 years from the date it comes out, not the date you install it, not the date you get a system with it.

MS makes no secret of their support cycle. They promise 10 years of support from the date of release. Sometimes they extend it, as they did with XP, and they then make the new date known. So when you bought a system in 2010 with XP, you bought it knowing that there was only 3 years left on support for that OS.

Support lifecycles really aren't a hard concept, and MS is actually really good with them. Whining about it is rather silly.

Paddling furiously to get there....

[ElVee]

I'd be happy to get right on migrating chop chop just like MS wants. Our MS TAM keeps pushing pushing pushing, but the problem is that I have 30k+ workstations to manage. Just the act of physically upgrading the OS on each of those workstations takes plenty of time as it is. Plus, there's the matter of keeping the business going while I upgrade all those workstations.

First, however, I have to create a Win7 OS build that works on all the one-off situations I have. That a work in progress. Then I have to test the OS build on all those one-off situations. Then I have to test the bajillion apps I have and figure out what works and what doesn't. Then I have to determine what can be remediated and what has to be replaced. Then I have to get the budget for both remediation and replacement of those apps. Then I have to test, certify and package what's been remediated and replaced. Then I have to determine what will need to be certified by the various government agencies that we operate under. (We have to get governmental blessings in some cases to change hardware and/or software). Then I have to buy replacement hardware for those workstations that are below the waterline for the new OS. Then I have to schedule (and pay for) end user training on the new OS in various languages in cities all over the globe. Then I have to plan the overwhelming logistics of putting a new OS on all these workstations all over the globe in a manner that doesn't disrupt the business. In addition, I have to deliver replacement hardware to the right place at the right time with very limited resources (that is, not enough people to install so many boxen). Then I have to have the support infrastructure in place to support the inevitable issues that will come roaring in. Then I have to have procedures in place to investigate these issues on the new OS and do whatever is required to unbreak whatever is broken, whether it be sending the software back for fixes or unforeseen hardware replacements.

So, yeah, pardon me if I'm running a bit behind. I've got a lot of work to do with too few staff, too little time and not enough money. But, what else is new?

Re:Farewell XP

[Anne Thwacks]

Fantastic? That may be how you see it. I have spent the weekend helping several friends who have been exposed to Win7 for the first time, and decided they want what I have (Ubuntu with Gnome shell) instead. Leaving aside the horrendous problem of "search bars", and activation, it is particularly maddening the way you get all the popups, and files you download/save "magically" go somewhere other than where you put them.

Re:Farewell XP

[Kwyj1b0]

No, what he's saying is that Chevy shouldn't be able to prevent you from installing a new engine in your '57 just because they no longer support the platform.

According to PC World, you can still continue to activate the software. And enterprises use volume licenses that do not need activation. So I don't see the problem.

No sympathy

[Mr_Silver]

I'm amazed the number of people complaining.

Whenever I hear people moan about how they're running XP and it has been working just fine for the last ten years, I immediately think to myself that they've been lucky that they haven't needed to do part of their job for so long.

The folks running and maintaining servers or software products do an upgrade once every couple of months and you cannot do one upgrade in ten years?

Upgrading any hardware and software (not just Windows) is part of the cost of doing business, if you haven't factored it in (and after 10 years, calling the "upgrade treadmill" is a tad overly dramatic), then what forward planning have you been doing?

And if you really cannot upgrade, then maybe you should consider looking at implementing backup plans now? Because at some point, whatever you are relying on will stop working and you'll have to do something. It's not like you don't have any prior warning.

Won’t anybody please think of the children?

[partyguerrilla]

But where is KDE going to steal its interface from?

Still on XP at home...

[tilante]

... because my PC is a VM running under Parallels on my Mac, and I see no need to buy an upgrade for something that only runs games and a few specialty programs that don't have Mac versions until and unless I absolutely have to.

Re:Farewell XP

[TheRealMindChild]

I have installed Windows 7 on > 100 machines. We used legit keys. Honestly, I never ever seen an activation problem. The closest to it was the one workstation without an internet connection, which was easy enough to deal with.

Re:Farewell XP

[shutdown -p now]

In what sense isn't Mac App Store a walled garden? It's moderated, and they force a sandbox on apps now.

Re:Farewell XP

[Hes Nikke]

In what sense isn't Mac App Store a walled garden? It's moderated, and they force a sandbox on apps now.

In the sense that the walled garden has a gate (keeper) that allows you to download any app from any other source and still run that. You can't do that on the interface formerly known as metro, though you can still run classic windows apps sourced from anywhere on the Windows 8 desktop (but not on the Windows RT classic desktop).

Re:Great advertisement

[cbhacking]

XP is practically 32-bit only (its 64-bit port has almost no driver support). This means less than 4GB of addressable RAM, once drivers are mapped in. By 2014 we'll have smartphones with that much... Also, more RAM means more programs resident in RAM at once, which means instant task switching, which improves productivity because people don't get distracted waiting for the OS to thrash the requested data out of the pagefile (swap). Also, XP's memory management algorithms are archaic - they're from an era when 256MB was a lot of RAM for a PC, not a really crappy smartphone - and will very aggressively move data out of RAM to the pagefile. This means that XP makes much poorer use of additional RAM than it should, again leading to reduced productivity.

XP doesn't support ASLR. DEP alone is trivial to bypass (there are entire compiler toolchains that build ROP payloads these days) and this means that nearly any memory corruption bug is trivial to turn into a working exploit on XP. It's much, much harder on newer versions. Additionally, there are a lot of bugs in older Windows versions that are either fixed during development of newer versions, or the relevant feature was re-written without the bug (and received a hell of a lot more security testing). There's a reason that practically every Windows 0-day exploit works on XP, but very few of them work on Win7 (even if Win7 theoretically also contains the vulnerability, the mitigations in place make successful exploitation much, much harder).

XP's support for SSDs is practically nonexistent (it treats them like any other block device, leading to terrible decreases on performance over time). You claim XP is productive, but the productivity boost that comes from the OS being able to load programs and files near-instantly is also significant, and SSDs are a huge help there. Newer versions of Windows can also use removable Flash storage as a solid-state cache, which again dramatically improves access time for frequently used data or programs. XP feels *laggy* on fairly modern hardware, compared newer Windows versions. Yes, there is a tipping point where XP will run better just due to its lower minimum specs, but that tipping point is a long, long way below even low-end modern PCs (my parents' netbook from three years ago runs smoother on Win7 than it did with the XP that it shipped with).

XP's built-in search is a complete joke. Index-based "instant" search is a tremendous improvement in the latency of "dealing with the OS" (finding files / emails, launching programs, managing data, etc.) and that, again, translates to improved productivity due to higher efficiency in how people use their time. Yes, it requires a little adjusting to "the new way" of doing things, but spend a couple days actually using it and trying to use XP instead will feel like using a slide rule instead of a graphing calculator.

Believe it or not, all those UI changes on the desktop are a lot more than just eye candy. Aero Snap (snap windows to fill exactly half the screen with a quick click+drag or a key chord) makes multitasking or comparing / combining data tremendously faster. That's a very significant productivity boost for many types of work - it's pretty close to turning each monitor into two, and I expect most /. users are famailiar with the benefits of multi-monitor setups - and it very quickly becomes reflex to the point that, again, trying to use XP is purely an exercise in frustration. You may claim that XP "makes sense" but if you haven't actually used a more productive UI, you won't know what you're missing!

As for your "personally" bit, that's absurd. Binaries built on Win7 work on whatever platform you target them for, most certainly including XP (you can be damn sure MS doesn't run its build machines on XP...) and of all the supposedly technical reasons I've heard for not switching, that's most likely the most boneheaded. If that is representative of your understanding of software development, I hope to hell I never have to use any software you

Quit your bitching already!

[gman003]

Microsoft is end-of-lifing a decade-old OS. It's already 11 years old, and will be declared fully unsupported in another two years. Which means they'll support the OS until seven years after the replacement is released.

Compare this to Apple. OS X 10.1 is the closest in age to Windows XP, and it was end-of-lifed in 2002. In fact, their most recent "supported" OS is 10.6 (Snow Leopard), which is only three years old - approximately the age of Windows *7*. And I can verify that many application vendors seem to consider 10.6 the minimum, some even 10.7.

And let's compare this to Linux. There's not enough space or time to get into every distro, so let's focus on Ubuntu, the most Windows-like distro. The oldest "supported" version is the server variant of Hardy Heron, the 8.04 Long-Term-Support release, which was released in 2008 (around the time of Vista SP1). For a desktop variant, you can only go back to 10.4 LTS, released in 2010 (around the time of W7 SP1). And those are the long-term support versions. "Regular" versions can only go back to 2011.

Come on now, guys. Microsoft does a lot of things wrong, but they've been downright saints about ditching XP, doing far better than pretty much everyone else.

Re:Yea

[cbhacking]

Out of curiosity, why would you expect Win8 to fail to "run everything important to the business"? In terms of app compatibility, Win8 is *much* closer to Win7 than XP is to any OS released since 2007. Most XP apps could be persuaded to run on Vista (yes, most could, contrary to the popular opinion) but it sometimes took some work (setting Compatibility modes, running as Admin, etc.). Here's the thing, though: Win7 didn't change any of that; it still treats XP software the same way that Vista did. If you think otherwise, it's due to the software vendor releasing fixes for the broken shit that XP let them get away with, nothing more. By the time Win7 came out, many developers had done this, so Win7 was seen as more compatible than Vista. In reality, in terms of legacy code, they're the same. Win8 is the same thing again, with full compatibility with Vista and Win7 apps and the ability to run anything that they ran, even if it was originally targeted for XP or even something older. The only app compat issue that I'm aware of with Win8 - and I've been running it on one of my boxes (a convertible tablet) for over a year - is that just as Win7 no longer includes really old versions of .NET out of the box, Win8 no longer includes any version of .NET prior to v4 out of the box. They can, of course, be installed (and the OS will offer to do this automatically if needed).

Now, if you claim that the new UI will fail to pass your extensive pilot program, you might have a point because that actually is different from Win7 (less so than many think; I spend almost all my time in the Desktop, and launch programs using the Start search the same as I do on my Win7 boxes). The app compat isn't going to be an issue, though.

The 32bit versions are well compatible

[Blaskowicz]

c) it supports about 15 years worth of professional applications (some of which are not available anymore)

Good of consideration is the 32bit version of Windows 7, and maybe Windows 8 (if they didn't remove features). Old hardware such a Pentium 3 1GHz with 1GB ram can run it, most probably limited by hard drive speed, every new hardware can run it too. You still get to keep DOS virtual machine and Win16. It can do a lot of the things a computer under Windows 98 coud do ; if there's incompatible software, it most likely does't work with XP already. Compatibility is about 25 years of applications.

Office 2003 can read .docx just fine

[Chemisor]

You might not be aware of this, but Microsoft provides a compatibility pack for Office 2003 that allows reading and writing .docx and other 2007+ formats. With the pack, we can all keep the last good MS Office interface for as long as we like. Death to the ribbon!

Re:Farewell XP

[BeanThere]

XP also took at least two service packs to become "good".

And it still looks Fisher-Pricey --- people who say XP is "good" do not mean that they've somehow come to like how it looks ... what they mean is that it overall offers reasonable performance on slightly older hardware, and that they have begrudgingly gotten used to the fact that it is so ugly.

Which happens to be the same reason businesses are slow to adopt Win7. In our small business we have multiple somewhat older laptops and desktops that are still perfectly usable computers with XP, and they are actively in use for various tasks ... but they are too slow for Win7, and there is no reason to buy new computers purely for the sake of buying new computers, that's stupid enough in boom times let alone in a recession.

Re:Farewell XP

[couchslug]

"Well, yes, but Chevy's not currently making engines for it or offering warranty support. "

GM in fact DOES produce "crate motors" brand new which will bolt in with relatively little fuss, and they have warranty support.

"The heads have the conventional 12-bolt intake manifold attaching design used from 1955 through late 1980."

http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/results.cfm?singlepart=1&partnumber=12499529

Autos were a highly refined product by the 1950s, and the design of the small block is still quite sound. It powers millions of vehicles.

Re:Farewell XP

[BeanThere]

Ha ha ha ha ha!

We're no longer refreshing hardware

[gelfling]

So who cares? We're already a year behind schedule for replacing 4 year old laptops. We're not really refreshing hardware unless it's some exec or some drone who managed to get an exec to sign off on it. We could run XP for another 10 years. The only downside is the inevitable embarrassment with customers over our inability to open their Office 2010 and later docs on our MS Office 2002 machines but we're slowly abandoning that for Open Office anyway which is even less MSO 2010/2013 compatible so again, who cares?

XP 4 Eva! Save your way to prosperity!!!

Re:Great advertisement

[ImprovOmega]

XP's support for SSDs is practically nonexistent (it treats them like any other block device, leading to terrible decreases on performance over time).

You generally make good points, but I wanted to address this one. Whenever I build a Windows XP image here at work, I always format the box with Win7 PE first, with an align=1024 on the partition to set it on a megabyte boundary. Conveniently, this fixes the boundary issue that one would typically experience with SSD's. You're right that WinXP is not natively aware of how to properly handle SSD's, but the fix is fairly trivial and, at least in the enterprise, something that any competent image builder should have fixed long ago.