Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Ticking Time Bomb Is Windows XP
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Shona Ghosh writes at PC Pro that the final deadline for Windows XP support in April 2014 will act as the starting pistol for developing new exploits as hackers reverse-engineer patches issued for Windows 7 or Windows 8 to scout for XP vulnerabilities. "The very first month that Microsoft releases security updates for supported versions of Windows, attackers will reverse-engineer those updates, find the vulnerabilities and test Windows XP to see if it shares [them]," says Tim Rains, the director of Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing group. Microsoft says that XP shared 30 security holes with Windows 7 and Windows 8 between July 2012 and July 2013. Gregg Keizer says that if a major chunk of the world's PCs remains tied to XP, as seems certain, Microsoft will face an unenviable choice: Stick to plan and put millions of customers at risk from malware infection, or backtrack from long-standing policies and proclamations." (Read on for more.)
"In either case, it will face a public relations backlash, whether from customers who complain they've been forsaken or those angry at Microsoft for pushing them to upgrade when, in the end, they didn't need to." Microsoft makes little or no revenue from customers with old PCs, and desperately wants them to buy a new Windows system of some sort. "It's very easy to say 'just upgrade,' but not all business can do so," says Lawrence Pingree, citing money, resources and mission-critical software. "One of the main reasons why people cannot leave XP is compatibility with other software." Nor is Microsoft blameless. XP has hung around because of the mistakes Microsoft made with Windows Vista, the OS flop that outgoing CEO Steve Ballmer copped to as his biggest regret. If Vista had been more like Windows 7, or had shipped at its original "Longhorn" timetable of 2004, then been followed three years later by Windows 7, XP would not have had the opportunity to lock up the ecosystem for a decade. Pingree has a suggestion for Microsoft. ""If it's such a big problem, maybe they should offer an 'Extended Life' [support] subscription and charge for it.""
Microsoft should extend support for XP...but only on a cash-for-patch basis. Sell patches at $5 a pop for XP user's, or a one Year Security Update Subscription for $20.
It's a win-win situation....
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
You can run XP in a virtual machine if you have software you must absolutely run that cannot run under Windows 7 or 8.
If your business cannot support the cost of an upgrade, you really aren't doing it right and probably aren't making much money anyway.
Windows 7 has been out for over FOUR freaking years. Quite the whiny bitching already.
I feel a Slashdot Poll might be in our future:
Number of Windows XP security updates Microsoft will release in the first and second year after they said they wouldn't:
- 0
- 1-5
- 5-10
- 11 or more
New things are always on the horizon
Although Windows XP still works wonderfully for me, and although I'd like to continue using it (with security updates of course), I really can't complain. It's one of the longest supported OS's in PC history. Nothing else has come even close, and no vendor is talking about having anywhere near a decade+ of support in the near future, either.
I don't respond to AC's.
The fundamental flaw here is this is all assuming that Microsoft is somehow better at identifying vulnerabilities than the hackers themselves. All evidence suggests that this is not the case.
This is absurd. Yes, Vista was a disaster, but Windows 7 was a huge upgrade from XP.
Stick to plan and put millions of customers at risk from malware infection
Not trolling, but sticking with XP - even with continued support - is still putting millions of customers at risk from malware infection. Win 7 is much more secure (I assume 8 is too but I won't touch Win 8).
One of my clients is going to stick with XP (it's on about 1/2 their systems) and only upgrade to 7 if the workstation needs to be replaced. Some of their workstations have been running for 8 - 10 years and still meet the needs of their users. If it ain't broke why replace it?
Photoshop 7.0 was released in 2002, AFTER Windows XP.
If today there is a new bug that can be exploited, do I expect that Adobe fix it for me, free of charge?
Since for my day-to-day use Photoshop 7 is good enough, why am I "forced" to upgrade?
Microsoft isn't putting customers at risk by not patching what will then be a 13-year old operating system. They had a full life cycle plan in place and customers have had many years advance notice to plan their transition. The lack of resources placed on transitioning legacy software to something other than an end-of-life OS is squarely the fault of the customers. The people in charge obviously don't place a great deal of importance on security or support. They have made their decision, let them suffer the consequences.
Red Hat offers 10 years of support. And new versions of Red Hat are generally better than previous versions, so there isn't as much need to hold on to old versions.
Source: http://www.serverwatch.com/server-news/red-hat-extends-linux-support.html
What an idiotic statement. Windows 7 is superior to Windows XP just as Windows XP is superior to Windows 9x and just as Windows 9x was susperior to 3.1...
I challenge you to name those downgrades you experienced.
If windows 7/8 wasn't a downgrade from XP in every respect,
Wrong. Windows 7 is better than XP in every way
(For the pedants: "Except size on disk")
No sig today...
If your statement is correct...
This is absurd. Yes, Vista was a disaster, but Windows 7 was a huge upgrade from XP.
then why won't all XP software run on Windows 7, and why hasn't everyone seen the error of their ways, and upgraded their XP systems?
My dad owns a number of companies which all went out and bought extra XP systems and stuck them in a closet for future deployment because of the software compatibility issues between XP and Windows 7 and later. Specifically, they don't want to have to re-buy all their machines, and re-buy all their existing software, and rewrite from scratch all their Microsoft COM component based glue code the next time they hire a new person into the office.
Microsoft is out of its teeny little mind if it believes small cash flow based businesses have the available capital to enable them to do this; the incompatibility is killing adoption of anything later than Windows XP for almost every business I know that has 100 or less employees, which is 95% of all businesses in the U.S..
New features for life on XP - no.
Security features for 5 more years, if it means back porting them - yes.
I still use XP and Windows 7. As a user. I don't find one much better or worse than the other, making a voluntary upgrade unlikely.
Who the hell wants to be bothered with cumbersome upgrades of an operating system just to get modest and often questionable improvements? Your average consumer is basically left with the option of buying a new computer to upgrade their OS.
I'm so glad I switched to a Mac over five years ago. I'd rather not have to worry about my OS these days. Upgrades are free. Can't beat that.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
No, the time bomb are people still running XP....
I develop on 7 at work, but only have XP at home because it suits my needs and fits nicely into a VM. Telling me that I need to get 7 because it's better in some indeterminate way is like an advertiser telling me that I absolutely must buy some newer, better shampoo or laundry detergent even though I'm perfectly happy with my current shampoo and laundry detergent.
support your local moms. free the innocent stem cells. upgrade to POT (Personal Open Terminals) to share all the goodwill. don't forget to lighten our load & give away more than we keep in this time of inequity.....
Its time to get rid of XP. Please, Microsoft, do not backtrack on this.
Old people need to get with the times and so do these corporations who are living in the stone age.
Come on guys, wake up. Sorry if it means you need to retrain your granny or corporate monkeys, but it's part of life... we all have to learn new things in order to advance.
Seriously, it's 12 years old. If you're using 12-years-old Linux kernel today, nobody would give a fuck about your problems. Because you using 12-years-old shit is the biggest problem itself.
For varying definitions of "upgrade".
So far, I have not identified any benefits for me from using 7 compared to using XP. But I have trouble with a few pieces of software that refuse to run. Now, please explain to me again why I would possibly WANT Windows7?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The key to this dilemma comes down to one word:
"Microsoft will face an unenviable choice: Stick to plan and put millions of customers at risk from malware infection,"
I don't think that Microsoft actually considers these people "customers." I think MS very distinctly considers them non-customers of their flagship product, since they have not purchased any of the four latest versions (Vista, 7, 8, 8.1). All of Microsoft's customers should have followed its exhortations over the last five years to spend a few bucks and upgrade dump their now-13-year-old OS.
It's indisputable that across the computing industry, the perceived mandate of legacy support for next-gen OSes is increasingly feeble. In non-desktop markets - e.g., consoles and phones - the presumption was never there to begin with (starting with the Super Nintendo!) Web programming exhibits similar tendencies - how many Java applications from back in the day won't run on modern browsers? And won't that include the entire Silverlight platform in a few years? The tendency is that the river of upgrades will carry all projects of significance along in its current, and the projects that gather on the banks (i.e., don't receive newest-OS upgrades) are... detritus. For right or wrong, that's the view.
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
And then there is the overhead expenses (roughly the same as salary).
And then there is difficulty in layoffs...
Yes, Vista was a public relations disaster
Fixed that for you. I ran Vista for years.
99.9999% of the bullshit surrounding Vista was just that. Pure, fucking, unadulterated bullshit, spewed by the same mewling retards who still don't understand why their shitty operating system from well over a decade ago needs to die.
XP is over. Fucking deal with it.
Those computers need to run Windows XP software - that's all. Wine just runs those programs by now. And they have free patches.
http://www.reactos.org/wiki/ReactOS seems like spot on here.
Difference is the reaction on an attack:
Microsoft: "You should have upgraded"
Wine: "Patch is coming".
It sure isn't going to be the year of the Linux Desktop, but we've learnt who is more trustworthy on the long term.
And a ferarri is an upgrade from a fiat. but a fiat will get you around just fine. Some people seem to think that "newer" equals "better" but there is a lot more to it; hidden costs like needing to upgrade ram/hd (or the obvious cost of the upgrade) and then the relearning (esp. for older people who have just learned to click on those 2 icons called "mail" and "internet" their grandson setup). its just a whole lot of trouble and money for no reason (yes, there are technical/security reasons one might upgrade, but these people are unaware of that)
Try looking at things from another perspective than your own sometime.
It is amazing what we in the computer/tech industry expect of our users. I can not really think of any industry that simply resigns when it becomes difficult and just blame it on users not being smart enough. if car manufacturers could get away with that, imagine the roads...
between a server OS and desktop. Only what applications you install.
And you know what this is ?? I am here to explain !!
F is Fucked !!
U is Up !!
D is Deliberately !!
Fucked Up Deliberately !!
Yeah, after 13 years, an operating system just starts to wear out. The colors fade, the sounds get scratchy, the error messages use dated language, it starts burning oil and eventually, the tranny goes and you're stuck with a heap.
But hey! I like classics! I'd still be on DOS if the hardware didn't give up the ghost. (The computer's engine went and I couldn''t get a new one - it was like having a Karmann Ghia).
Anyway, Windows is like a Detroit automobile: loaded with bugs and after the warranty period, you are on your own.
So, in January or February I'm gett'n a MacBook and pretend I'm rich.
More of linux shop here but the one remaining ms os pc which had updates until november has just been deemed illegal by somebody last month.
I briefly tried to deal with the issue - the supplier hp told me to get lost, and once through to the right region (hp's website royally sucks) the human blamed ms and gave me a wrong phone number for buck passing.
I have put the machine on a list for debian upgrades for next year.
Faster, smoother, better UI, better supported, easier to use... need more?
Do you have the $6.5 million Microsoft wants from our organization to upgrade our workstations to Windows 7? $6.5 million is a damn good reason not to upgrade.
Speaking of idiotic statements. You forgot Vista in your list, but that would ofcourse have made you wrong in your assertion (but at least you would have been honest then)
And anyways, there is more to a system upgrade than the OS - like the applications, which i hear are having trouble working across the different versions.
But blindly assuming that the new version is by definition superior in all ways for everyone is indeed idiotic.
The problem is that you can't upgrade to Windows 7 anymore. Also, you can't buy a new computer with Windows 7. You have to go to Windows 8. Which it's crap, compared to Windows 7. Whoever upgraded to Windows 7 is holding on to it and isn't going to move to Windows 8 until... never.
Sometime in Jan or Feb 2014, MS should send a patch to XP with a nag popup. The popup will state "XP End of Life April 8, 2014. Please upgrade or you will loose internet connectivity". The number of times this popup appears increases the closer you get to Apr 8. Come April 8, all ports on XP are closed permanently. This illustrates why Open Source OSs are preferable to closed OSs. With Linux/*BSD... one can, if desired and have the knowledge, patch it themselves if they need to run a very old release of a system.
Performance in a VM configured the same way is way worse on 7 pro than XP pro. (all stock installs from MDN installs plus drivers the OS requested).
The nagging of the OS complaining that it is not original every time I change the VM specs is a serious annoyance
The reason to even have a windows VM is to be able to run apps that I can not run on Linux (econfig!!!). Why would I run 7 if the app will not run it and require XP?
Neither systems can come close to the uptime that I have with my Linux VM (Current is about 150 days for a reboot due to too many kernel updates with security updates), while the windows VMS need reboot every 3 weeks or so. At least 7 and XP is about the same here (and way better than 9X)
Interfaces are both pretty outdated, very rigid, and unpleasant to use with the standard software (not as rigid and irritating as MacOS though, so it is a bonus here when comparing the two). Manageable with KDE for windows IMHO, but then, no advantage for anyone here).
Now back at you.. Name how windows7 is superior to XP?
On the other hand there is the abomination known as Windows 8.
And that is all one can easily find in most stores these days.
The procrastinators need to get off their a** and upgrade their systems, replace them with *nix/MacOS boxes, or whatever it takes to get off Windows XP. Windows XP is an 11-year old OS and users have known for years that this date was coming. For users to be upset at Microsoft is the height of absurdity. Apple gives their operating systems significantly shorter support and yet nobody complains about them.
The problem for many businesses is that they waited too long to upgrade. I work for a company with 10K+ workstations. Until earlier this year all were XP. The company had held out for Windows 8, unfortunately, Win8 was completely unusable in the business environment. So in order to mitigate the risk of XP, the push began to get systems upgraded to Win7. Unfortunately there are many, many apps that are not compatible with the Win7 Environment, and no-one is willing to spend the money to upgrade those apps at this time, knowing full well that Microsoft has to do something better than Win8 for the business. Why upgrade the Apps to Win7 or Win8 when we can wait for Win9 and see if then its worth spending the money? In the meantime there will be XP machines floating around by the hundreds, and even hundreds more XP apps moved into virtualized environments. The sooner that Microsoft acknowledges that they boned their business customers with Win8, the sooner things can move forward.
http://slashdot.org/story/114371
or
http://en.windows7sins.org/
etc etc
(A couple of days ago I tried to install Linux on a 7 year old office machine which runs office apps just perfectly under XP, and my first experience on reboot was a login screen where you had to wait about half a second for each character to appear. Not good.)
Should have installed a 7 year old version of Linux.... I kid, I kid. The thing was probably trying to use accerlated X on the desktop. Which distro was it? Try an XFCE based variant/spin, that should do the trick.
For me it isn't any faster. Maybe the OS is more efficient, that's possible, but I don't notice it. I think today's bottlenecks aren't in the OS any more.
The UI is worse, as the default UI is even more tasteless than XP's and many custom themes don't work in Win7.
Better supported? Well, better supported by whom? Microsoft, sure. But I find most software works better in XP, including Firefox, which happens to be the program I use the most, by far.
And it's much harder to use than XP, because they complicated various aspects of the Explorer shell and also removed a few features that I really miss. Admittedly, they added one or two minor features too, but I don't think that compensates.
All in all, I think XP is a better product. And with Windows 8 coming on, you can see where Microsoft is going with Windows, and it isn't a pretty place. Rather than slowly drowning in upgrades, I rather stick with XP and figure out solutions to cope when Microsoft drops support.
They must have a copies sitting around, no one bought them when it was released.
The reason why vista was surrounded by "pure fucking unadulterated bullshit" was because that operating system was "pure fucking unadulterated bullshit" which kept leaking into surroundings.
Open source XP and let the community patch it. And I am only half joking!
Silence is a state of mime.
Go and look at the *nix distros and see if one suits you. All of them now have "Live" DVD's, some even have "Live" CD's. You can simple reboot the machine with them in the drive, and try and see if you like it.Push a button, and they will install BESIDES your existing Windows, and you can read your data right away.
Some names, OpenSuse, Redhat, Debian, Mint, Ubuntu, Gentoo. You can enjoy an absolutely stunning array of choice, and know that you will *never* be force to upgrade again, just burn the Live disc and give it a shot.
If you absolutely have to use some Windows XP tools, there is a software wrapper called WINE that will run many Windows programs unaltered. If you want support for a Windows Tool there is Crossover Office, who will provide support for a fee, but it will help you to evaluate the platform in stages.
For me the "cut the cord" moment, was the need to but a "special" cable (USB) and use "special" software (XML data) to get data of my cell phone.
Let this be your Personal Computer revolution....
This netbook I bought nearly two years ago arrived with windows 7 on it. I tried it out, just for fun, and oh boy what crap it was. I seem to remember it being so sluggish it was a bad joke to ever install it on this computer. Today, I'm running Linux Mint Maya 64 with Mate on it, which has turned it into a truly excellent, very portable, responsive little computer. It even fits inside a hotel room safe. I just can't think why anybody uses Microsoft.
to upgrade!
To Linux, I hope?
...you haven't used it.
Its funny because Ubuntu/Mint EOL'ed their various versions which run on these slower machines. now if you want accelerated graphics you're out of luck or running a 5 or more year old kernel/x11. I guess its be vulnerable or spend.
Not if you've just completed upgrading. I upgraded to Suse Linux long ago. Has it been a decade? Yep, more than a decade actually.
So, which flavor of Linux are you using? Or, did you go with a BSD? We're all curious, I'm sure!
As for myself, I've left Suse behind, currently running Sabayon.
uname -a
Linux sabayon.home 3.11.0-sabayon #1 SMP Tue Nov 26 08:21:55 UTC 2013 x86_64 AMD Phenom(tm) 9850 Quad-Core Processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
There will be no second act here if the protagonist solves the dilemma in the opening minutes sir.
Of course there will. Various ways for this to happen include the man behind the man, minor crime reveals major plot, etc.
XP supports legacy 16 and 8 bit stuff
What 8-bit stuff are you talking about? The only 8-bit software that runs on Windows XP runs in an emulator such as FCEUX. The 16-bit software runs in a virtual machine anyway, called NTVDM (for MS-DOS software) or WOWExec (for Windows 3.x software).
Well maybe if Microsoft would quit fucking with the GUI
Then unfuck it with Classic Shell already.
Or something. For people with zero brains about software, security doesn't register. There's this object they need, and so long as they don't kick the legs out from under it, it should work.
Then along comes the seller (the whole "licensing" concept doesn't register either) and says "I'm gonna let people into your office to smash up your table. And all the crazy stuff you put on top of it."
That's just Not Done in the world of tables, and likewise for software in a lot of people's minds.
Add something about, "Pay up. I wouldn't want anything to happen to that nice little business you got there." and to plenty of people it's going to look like extortion, not the obvious result of the fact that software is not actually like a table.
(Personally, I'd want to say, "Move to open source. You can do what you want there." But I know that's even stupider than Microsoft. What are the chances someone who doesn't want to move from Windows to Windows is going to move all the way to some extrasolar weirdness?)
For varying definitions of "upgrade".
So far, I have not identified any benefits for me from using 7 compared to using XP. But I have trouble with a few pieces of software that refuse to run. Now, please explain to me again why I would possibly WANT Windows7?
Your smooth Windows 7 operation has caused you to conveniently forget the maladies you suffered under XP. Not the least of which was the extreme susceptibility to infection that Vista and Windows 7 massively reduced by heightened security posture and UAC! There's also the issue of XP's massive slowing due to the recently disclosed/discussed exponential update algorithm.
You wanna take a swipe at Microsoft for useless change? Go ahead and bash them for forcing Metro onto the desktop. Or, choose any of a number of other utterly pointless and detrimental changes that they have made over the versions. But, don't discount valid and useful improvements. XP is, to this day, a far more vulnerable OS than Win7.
When I became fed up with Un(usabil)ity in the Ubuntu 11.04 days, I did sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop and never looked back. So what AC wrote is true: the owner of a PC running GNU/Linux isn't forced into a particular GUI in the same way that iPad and PlayStation owners are forced into the selection that those platforms offer.
it's been a very long time since I've seen a piece of software that runs on Windows XP that doesn't run on WINE as well
You mean like the client for the iTunes Store? You can't buy media in an Internet-disconnected VM, and the last time I checked AppDB, iTunes was rated "garbage". I've already checked Google Play and Amazon MP3, and the song I want to buy isn't there.
"AuthenticAMD"
I'm struck by an image of the AMD logo materializing a hand just to give the finger to GenuineIntel.
Perhaps stockpiling machines compatible with existing paid-for peripherals and paid-for proprietary software is cheaper than re-buying multi-thousand-dollar peripherals and multi-thousand-dollar proprietary software.
So far, I have not identified any benefits for me from using 7 compared to using XP. But I have trouble with a few pieces of software that refuse to run. Now, please explain to me again why I would possibly WANT Windows7?
Just because it seems to be the elephant in the room: How about you'd want Windows 7 for improved security.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Windows Vista was fine as of the first service pack, but it never recovered from the PR disaster despite Microsoft's attempt to rebrand SP1 as Mojave.
How quickly you've forgotten. Vista had poor driver support when it released (which caused lots of crashes, XP had similar initial driver support issues, Win7 didn't) and was being sold on hardware underpowered for the OS which led to a terrible user experience. Fully patched and upgraded Vista is basically Win7. Install the original release version of Vista and see if that machine can run even a single year.
Are you fucking stupid? In Windows 7, right click your program 'Run As Administrator' is right fucking there. and works without any issues.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Use a firewall on the host to protect network access.
If you've made yourself dependent on hardware only supported by one OS, an OS which sucks, then you've set yourself up for failure.
Then what's the alternative to setting oneself up for failure? I was under the impression that multi-thousand-dollar printers, multi-thousand-dollar CNC machines, and the like typically weren't sold with OS X compatibility or compatibility with forthcoming versions of Windows as a bullet point. Peripheral manufacturers would prefer that end users re-buy peripherals.
I've been using Lunix / BSD variants for decades; it's a sarcastic first post, motivated by the empty discussion thread I was presented with. Sorry to disappoint...
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
It was significantly worse on many fronts and better on some others.
Minuses:
1. Abortion of a start menu (luckily they kept the old one in the system files for most part so it could be restored with applications like classic start menu).
2. Slow and a huge memory hog, requiring at least 1GB of extra RAM for overhead than XP. Especially noticeable in games where official system requirements for 7 where almost always "XP requirements + 1GB RAM".
3. New click-based rather than old icon based system menus. It's like jury-rigging web interface into desktop with all its problems.
4. UAC being utterly retarded in spite of all the fixes. Luckily it's easily turned off or at least reconfigured to have some sanity.
Pluses:
1. DX11. Jury rigged to not support XP to sell the OS. It worked.
2. Functional 64-bit OS.
3. Improved search functionality. The only significant improvement in OS over XP in terms of usability. Some argue it replaced tree style start menu with some success. Considering the existence and wide usage of applications like classic start menu, I'd argue that it didn't.
Then you have some things that are pretty much unknown, like the supposed under hood improvements (it's pretty scary to think that 7 requires a boatload more ram and noticeably better CPU to run as well as XP even with all the supposed improvements, just how slow would it be without them?) Some also like the Aero look, though that was axed in 8.
"Except ability to run about 20 years' worth of software and on far older and newer hardware, since it has had such a long service life and represented the pinnacle of backward compatibility before MS decided DOS-based software (Win98) has surely all been retired."
PLEASE! Just give up on all that 20 year old software! All that backward compatibility, and legacy support, is exactly what crippled XP more than anything else! Without all that legacy support, XP would have started out more secure than it did. JUST GIVE IT UP!! I don't want or need 20 year old software running on my system. If you really, truly believe that you need software that old, then rebuild it!!
It's not like software development is a forgotten art from 5000 years ago. Hire someone, or hire a team, to rebuild the functionality that you need. Or, do it yourself.
Stop expecting the world to operate in some twisted time warp that suits your own particular needs.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
If there was a way that you could transfer that Windows 7 copy and license to some disgruntled Windows 8 user, you could probably turn a tidy profit.
Have gnu, will travel.
Note that the install program was Linux and it worked just fine - you installed the thing didn't you? So your problem is likely that you installed a desktop system that requires a modern graphical card. If you would choose LXDE or XFCE then it will be OK.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Or put Windows 7 the fuck back on sale and make millions!
If your 16-bit code is as 16-bit as you think it is, why can't you run it in Windows 3.1 in DOSBox?
Hey genius, basically every netbook in the world ships with 1GB of RAM and Win7 needs 0.9 to boot. Also the chip is equivilant to a 2001 Pentium 4. So maybe you're just an idiot for buying it and it's not Microsoft's fault. Hmmmm.
no vendor is talking about having anywhere near a decade+ of support in the near future, either.
Canonical offers free (as in beer) upgrades from one version of Ubuntu to the next. So just starting from 4.10 (Warty Warthog) through five years after the next LTS (14.04, Trusty Tahr) includes nearly fifteen years of support from October 2004 through April 2019. Paid upgrades don't count.
They should release a killswitch themselves and cut off the networking substack directly. On day D, no more XP connected to the internet. Problem solved. You'll see millions of people all around the world rush to their IT shop or their store buy new computers!
This never happens to any of the iCult as Apple obsoletes them completely every two years. The iSteve is laughing in his grave.. "13 years of support!?! Are you fucking crazy?"
And not for nothin I had XP until this past year and did not have one virus and did not run any active virus protection. Once or twice a year I would download one and do a full scan only to have cookies removed. I'm still amazed at how some people seem unable to keep their pc clean. Probably a good reason not to have sex with them either!
For varying definitions of "upgrade".
So far, I have not identified any benefits for me from using 7 compared to using XP. But I have trouble with a few pieces of software that refuse to run. Now, please explain to me again why I would possibly WANT Windows7?
Since I am a big PC gamer and I have to run Windows to play the games I want to play, I run Windows 7 because it's supports my DX11 video card. Windows XP only supports up to DX9.
But that being said I don't pay MS anything for their OS's. I never will.
Be seeing you...
Maybe this is a naive question, but why worry so much about "hackers" anymore after MS stops supporting XP? Hackers are there to hack (right? doesn't "hack" mean to try, try, try, try, try, BINGO! ?) And if it's malware that's you're worried about, isn't that what antivirus/antimalware software is for?
Also (tongue in cheek), what's the deference between a malware-ridden XP box and a Windows 8 box?
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
I'm pretty sure it was 8-bit PC XT software
I thought the 8086 CPU in the IBM PC XT was 16-bit. What makes you think it's 8-bit?
Enough to ensure it's at least beta by April.
Faster, smoother, better UI, better supported, easier to use... need more?
- Faster: I think they are exactly the same "speed", however you wish to measure.
- Smoother: I have no idea what this might mean, but again, I can't think of any metric by which Windows 7 would have a "smoother" UI than WinXP
- Better supported: this is mostly correct. I do have a license for SolidWorks 2011 32 bit, which just won't run under Windows 7 64 bit. In the end I had to run it on a Win XP desktop. So, there are exceptions even with very recent software packages.
- Easier to use: WinXP is easier to use than Windows 7.
Unfortunately, run as *different user* with *admin* credentials isn't available if you're a local admin. I hit this pretty much daily on my work machine. It's a massive pain in the arse.
Upgrade everyone on XP to ReactOS.
that project is in alpha. It is not suitable, stable or useful for running any real application, and won't be in the next five years.
People who are still using XP day-to-day are idiots and Microsoft shouldn't encourage them.
Really? People are idiots for not spending money on new equipment that adds precisely zero additional feature that they need? We should be forced to upgrade to Microsoft's latest software because not upgrading doesn't add to Microsoft's profits? My company uses XP on the majority of our computers and there is nothing whatsoever in Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8 that is necessary for us. So we're idiots for not spending money needlessly? Thank $diety we don't let you make our purchasing decisions.
There is almost no scenario where continuing to use XP as your main desktop makes sense
Except for the millions of people whose actual computing needs are perfectly adequately filled by XP.
If you're going to give up on backward compatibility, why would you run Windows? There's no reason to pick it over Linux or Mac unless you need to run crusty old Windows software.
So it's somehow Linux' fault that your IT department wasn't competent enough to at least do some research and testing with the users first?
You do realize that a complete OS and app suite change is not as easy as just downloading a distro and installing it everywhere, right?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
If Vista had been more like Windows 7
This is such bullshit! In the alternative universe where Windows 7 was ready on the day Vista came out, software drivers for W7 would have been as unavailable as they were for Vista. All sorts of software that required users to have full admin permissions would have been broken by W7 UAC as it was by Vista's UAC. All PCs sold with 512MB or 1GB RAM would have still be slow compared to XP.
Only 1 or 2 years down the line when OEMs had caught up and released proper drivers, when PCs were being sold with 2GB+ RAM and when people learned to separate normal from admin users did Windows Vista/7/8 become less of a nuisance. It had very little to do with Windows 7 being so awesome.
I don't think that Microsoft actually considers these people "customers."
And consider why that might be. My company uses XP on most of the computers in the office. Microsoft has provided not provided a single new feature in Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8 that we actually need or want. Why would we spend money on products that do not add value?
All of Microsoft's customers should have followed its exhortations over the last five years to spend a few bucks and upgrade dump their now-13-year-old OS.
Again, why? They aren't providing anything new to us so why should we spend money on their new products?
Or better yet, use Windows 256 bit or 512 for ultimate security.
When Windows XP was released, it was VERY buggy. It wasn't until Service Pack 2 that some of the major bugs were fixed. For example, the first version and the Service Pack 1 version of Windows XP had serious problems with USB connections.
Now, after hundreds of fixes, Windows XP has become what it should have been when it was first released. Is Microsoft claiming Windows XP is STILL buggy? Is Microsoft claiming that, after all these years, there are still extremely serious vulnerabilities in Windows XP?
If so, think of the problems people have had with Windows Vista and Windows 8. Would it be reasonable to expect that Microsoft has released only carefully written software in Windows 8.1, after it has, in my opinion, habitually released sloppy, bug-ridden software during the entire history of the company? (The first Microsoft product, Microsoft Basic computer language, was seriously buggy and came with a poorly written manual.)
Would moving to Windows 8 merely expose your family or your staff to a set of new problems? Will Microsoft, in a few years, say Windows 8 is too buggy to support any longer, and try to convince people to upgrade to something else? In the past, that's how Microsoft has made money, by convincing people to pay for a new version of Windows. Not by paying an upgrade price, but by paying for what Microsoft calls an entirely new version, even though there may be minimal important changes
Vulnerabilities and frequent security updates are part of Microsoft's marketing plans.
Oh, but wait...they said they built Vista and Win 7 (not sure about Win 8) from the ground up. So does this mean they lied or are stupid enough to keep programming the same way for each operating system. Hmmm...I would venture a strong guess they lied AND just want you to pay for upgrades. People are getting so sick of this mess from MS, it's no wonder they're running to other operating systems.
Really? I've been using Linux on my desktop for years with no complaints. So has my barely computer literate father (and incidentally I get far fewer tech support calls now). No, it's not "just like Windows", but if you really love everything about Windows then you should stick with that, obviously you're not Linux's target audience. Of course if what you really mean is that it's not supported by 100% of the software you need/want to use, and you can't find suitable alternatives... well that's not really anything to do with Linux's readiness is it? Ask the people making your software when they are going to release a Linux version, because that's the only way that *they* will know that anyone in their customer base cares.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
"you can't buy a new computer with Windows 7"
Not true, most businesses are moving from XP to 7. If you look at non consumer sells channel buying a new PC with Windows 7 is not a problem.
Pro versions of Windows 8 have downgrade rights. Pay the cash.
That said, my very non-technical sister has a dell consumer credit card. Dell would not sell her a business PC with 7 (the salesman tried), so she was forced to buy 8. She loves it.
Incorrect. They released an operating system that greatly drove up expensive hardware upgrades due to storage space needed and this stupid thing nobody cared about called Aero. They also released an operating system without ensuring proper driver support buy-in from other companies, many of whom they screwed over and over throughout the years. Vista was utter crap from start to finish and the overall reviews (both user and professional) prove that.
"Windows 7... XP mode"
Is XP mode free of bugs? Will it get fixes for vulnerabilities?
If Microsoft can supply and fix XP mode, why not fix Windows XP?
Not an idiot, but being an idiot is way better than being an offensive git.
Really? Many of the businesses that did upgrade, spent tons on hardware upgrades to run Vista and still said it was utter junk, compared to XP. Meet the real world kid.
I'm still using Windows 2000. No problems. Just zips along, and does what I need a computer to do.
Get on with the new world. In fact, do it on a Mac & switch between or run XP, Win7, etc simultaneously. Get real.
I've got a couple 70-something members in my family who are running XP laptops just to run a web browser: email and the basics. Having moved to Linux myself and being the family computer guy, I'm wanting to switch these two laptops to some lightweight flavor of Linux that will work for them and require little or no support from me. I've tried many different lightweight distros in the past year, but I thought I'd ask here for input from any of you who have actually done what I'm about to do.
Requirements:
- fast and light: will run fine on a Thinkpad T41 (which doesn't support PAE kernel)
- Windows-like interface (I'm thinking LXDE, definitely not Unity)
- easy to use Wi-Fi manager (some of the Wi-Fi managers in lightweight Linux distros are way too technical for a novice)
- once a year if any on-site maintenance (remote maintenance is fine if necessary)
- auto updates in background but with very low chance of system breaking with an update (maybe no auto updates is better?)
- ACPI support (at least lid closed = suspend)
- printer support
Chromium OS seems like a good option, and it will run on one laptop (Thinkpad T61) but I'm pretty sure it uses a PAE kernel, ruling out the T41. I've been looking at Lubuntu, Peppermint OS, Porteus, Slax, Puppy Linux. All seem like viable options with a 30-minute test drive, but this is where I'm seeking feedback: on how some of these distros might be good or bad choices in the long-term, especially given that I won't be able to be physically present if something goes wrong.
www.gaiageek.com
Why would *I* run Windows, or you're using the plural, generic "you"?
I don't run Windows, except in virtual machines. Fact is, it's been a long time since I bothered with a VM.
Most people will choose Windows because, A: all the readily available commercial offerings come preinstalled with Windows. B: Years of indoctrination leave people unprepared to explore other choices. C: A lot of folk probably don't even know that there IS a choice. D: Most people believe that they HAVE TO HAVE Microsoft Office, and/or believe that Office only runs on Windows.
Or, I could sum all of that up with three letters. FUD
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Without all that legacy support, XP would have started out more secure than it did.
Which are the security holes in XP that came from legacy support?
Actually that statement isn't entirely true. Nice thought though. Some programs work with those settings checked and some don't. Meanwhile, if the point of upgrading is to avoid vulnerability hacks, why in the hell are you (and even MS, for that matter) advocating people run programs as an administrator?
1) The start menu is there, like it always was. The difference was that the first pane was much more useful and the second didn't stack, instead scrolling.
2) Slow? No. Memory hog? No. It's just bigger than XP - there's no way around that. XP was bigger than 98, but you sure as hell wouldn't stick with 98 over XP.
3) What? The new option is better, but the old one is easily available.
4) UAC is generally a good thing, but if you don't want to deal with it, as you said, you can disable it. Windows 7's default setting is invisble unless something was started without apparent direct user interaction.
As for your complaints about the plusses:
1) Vista (and thus 7) have completely different driver models. It's only normal that they wouldn't port something that complex - it's a complicated undertaking. You'll notice that 7 is much more stable than XP.
3) Some people will always blindly hate something because it's new. That someone is catering for them is no surprise.
There is a French Company that is going to offer security support for WinXP. From ZD Net, "One company that's already thrown its hat into the ring to provide Windows XP support after Microsoft's deadline of 8 April 2014 is Arkoon, working with its north and south America distributor Matrix Global Partners." Microsoft also fooers "Custom Support" but it's pretty pricey.
I wonder if it's a settings issue (which would make it PEBKAC) but on my computer Windows 8 is more responsive than the latest version of Linux Mint I tried was (fairly sure it was version 14). The much-hated start screen appears instantly after pressing the super key, while there's a tiny but still noticeable delay until the Cinnamon start menu appears. Firefox also runs smoother on Windows than Linux in my experience.
There are many valid complaints to be made of Windows 8, but responsiveness is not one of its issues.
I remember when XP came out and no one wanted to install it because it was a crashy bugfest.
I worked in a PC shop where they refused to install windows XP because it was so shitty.
It was only after 2 or 3 SP that XP was any good.
Now everyone has forgotten, and XP is the gold standard for some reason.
How you roll out Linux makes a huge difference. Huge rollouts tend to cause a lot of problems and you're better off doing things incrementally. Most companies should start implementing Linux as servers (file server, web server, etc.) probably not a domain controller though. Next you start standardizing on OS neutral software where possible. This would probably be primarily Firefox and possibly Libreoffice (if office software needs are light). Next you'd start using it on terminals (and I mean any system which have simple needs, and doesn't require Windows software). Next, I'd look into using a stable base system (like Debian) running Wine and possibly even running a Windows XP virtual machine as well. This would allow users to still use Windows when necessary but get comfortable in Linux. However, even moving to a system where Linux is the base OS and Windows XP is running a virtual machine (even if they still continue to run Windows in the virtual machine is a huge gain from a maintenance standpoint). You can also lock the Windows system down so it only runs what's necessary. Everything else should be done through Linux. Configure it to look like Windows and most users won't really see the difference. There are even Linux distros that closely resemble Windows as much as possible and virtual machines are now supporting seamless mode so you can have both OSes running at once. If done correctly, over a period of a few weeks or months, change would probably be pretty easy. Linux is a good OS, but if you're expecting Linux to be Windows Linux is never going to be 100% the same. That doesn't mean Linux is worse, frankly Linux offers a lot of stuff that Windows doesn't as well. There's a lot of things I like in Linux that aren't available in Windows.
Almost 3,000 results at Amazon for New Windows 7 Desktops at the moment...
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_p_n_condition-type_0?rh=n%3A172282%2Cn%3A541966%2Cn%3A565098%2Ck%3Awindows+7%2Cp_n_operating_system_browse-bin%3A2287320011%2Cp_n_condition-type%3A2224371011&keywords=windows+7&ie=UTF8&qid=1387734401&rnid=2224369011
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Microsoft should transition all those XP users to a linux distro made to look and behave more like Windows. If Windows really is better then those customers will come back when they buy a new machine. In the mean time, Microsoft will have off loaded maintenance onto open source and freed itself to innovate. No doubt they will do something else, that will turn out to be stupid.
You know it can be fixed in seconds right? http://sourceforge.net/projects/wgaremover/
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Ok Mr. Smarty Pants.
For you software that is 20 years old isn't something you use but what about someone else?
No upgrading that 40 year old pic database (predates SQL) is not option. Why? Decades of data that can't be exported is in there. Upgrade and the company goes out of business as customers go elsewhere. Management MUST meet metrics and deadlines or people get fired! The risk is too great and metrics won't be met if data can't be imported.
Would you close a restaurant too because newer models of their walk ins and stoves are available too? What they have works fine and are not impressed by new GUIs and change for the sake of change. At the end of the day they only care about customers and not getting fired. A lot of business processes are mapped directly to the software purchased from the defunct company. A new one offers all risk and no benefits and new processes that workers do not know and no data customers need from a system that already works?! ...meanwhile if it fails you are fired! If your users don't meet those magical metrics they are fired. Your grand children will still be using FoxPro, IE 6 & IE 8. Many just can't be upgraded at all ever.
The good news is as a geek you can play with your latest toys. Just don't be surprised if your upgrade rants meet stiff resistance at work. Life will go on for everyone else.
http://saveie6.com/
A 90+ year old family member uses XP. We've tried to get her on Win 7, but she's flummoxed by the UI.
Why not skin a modern, supported OS with a comfortable skin that looks, feels, and works like what an elderly user is used to?
An emulator on MS-DOS, 32-bit Windows, 64-bit Windows, Linux, or any other platform starts with a bytecode interpreter that reads an opcode from the emulated machine's ROM or RAM and uses a 256-entry lookup table to find what to do on each cycle. Then it simulates what the other components (video and audio chips, input devices, etc.) do on each cycle. Sometimes the components are only simulated approximately if an emulator is designed for limited hardware, such as an old 486 PC, a Game Boy Advance, or an entry-level smartphone. In your Atari 2600 emulator, there'd be a 6502 interpreter, TIA (video and audio), and RIOT (for joysticks). In an NES emulator, there'd be a 6502 interpreter with BCD mode removed, APU (audio on the 6502 die), PPU (video), and a pair of bit-banged SPI ports for joysticks.
At work we set up a new Dell box that came with 8 and a touchscreen. Right off the bat it wants to calibrate the screen. Ok it says to move the mouse to the upper right corner. Except they mean to use your finger to move the cursor, you never touch the mouse. What the fuck...? Everyone agrees 8 is great on a phone or tablet but on a desktop its a crippled ugly mess. People used to call XP the Fisher Price interface. 8 looks like it was designed using ASCII graphic blocks.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Windows Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8 all have vastly BETTER back-doors coded by Microsoft at the behest of the NSA- and the exploits possible for these versions of NT are vastly worse than anything you can imagine for XP.
The advantage of XP is that the user is ALWAYS aware that security is her/his constant concern, and so the informed user uses sensible, sustainable security practices. A good firewall eliminates most issues, if the system is not in use by complete morons.
Windows Vista, onwards, on the other hand, is built from the ground up to allow almost infinite possibilities in intelligence service hacking. Did you know that on Vista, 7, 8, the OS is specifically built to allow any firewall to be invisibly bypassed, and any 'virus' scanner rendered ineffective? Modern versions of Windows do NOT rely on bad programming methods as good vectors of attack, but build 'hidden' features into the OS for the use of intelligence services.
Sooner or later, the usual suspects in 'intelligence' departments in Israel will leak these details to their criminal associates working out of nations like the Ukraine, and a new generation of terrifying malware will hit PC computers with recent versions of Windows.
Anyway, many current XP users are hoping that Google will, in 2014, pull its thumb from its ass and release the Desktop version of Android, so we can begin to say "goodbye" to Wintel forever. While Google and Microsoft are as evil as you can possibly be, for practical computer users, all that matters at an OS level is getting a good product aimed at actual power-users who want access to something both universal and sane- not some knuckle-dragging high-fashion crap that appeals to people whose lips move as they speak, like Windows 8. Mainstream Linux is a total joke with the dysfunctional losers who fight to make it as marginal as possible.
SteamOS and Android are the only current OS projects that look to provide a conceptual replacement for XP.
Because solutions from other providers cause even more problems than those from Microsoft. For example, LibreOffice Calc and Impress have trouble interoperating with Microsoft Excel and PowerPoint software used by other organizations with which your organization does business. It gets worse with alternatives to Microsoft Access, which cannot even start to run off-the-shelf ERP and accounting programs written in VBA for Access, such as Stone Edge.
> ....says Tim Rains, the director of Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing group.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's his job to say that, whether it's true or not. Windows 8 needs a shot in the arm, and upgrades from a bunch of panicked XP users is literally money in the bank.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Stick to plan and put millions of customers at risk
People who bought a product once. They've been told their support will end. They've been told it will become less secure (if they understand what that means). It's not Microsoft's problem any more.
It would be better if commercial software was sold with a ticking clock built in. After "X" number of years (or months for Apple), the product just stops. Wont boot, won't run. No getarounds, hacks or fixes - just dies. Obviously there will need to be a totally "in your face" way of reminding customers that this will happen and for the advertising to be absolutely unequivocal before the product is purchased, but you don't expect a packet of cereal to last forever, why should you expect software to, either?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
If you're talking about security, where there are independent third parties aggressively undermining the stability of your "table" at all times, it's probably better to use a more security-minded analogy. How about locks. Lets say you buy a popular high-end lock for your front door, and a while later the burglar community finds a weakness in the design that lets it be picked easily. Is the lock maker required to upgrade your lock to something more secure on their own dime? Continuously? For more than 12 years? Or at some point should they be allowed to say "Enough! We make newer, better locks now. Buy one of those if you want to keep getting free upgrades." ?
>What are the chances someone who doesn't want to move from Windows to Windows is going to move all the way to some extrasolar weirdness?
Better than you might think I suspect. For most people still using XP I suspect it boils down to cost. Either the cost of the upgrade itself, or the cost of replacing hardware and/or software that won't work with newer versions. Or just why should they replace something that's working fine? I commonly tell people who come to be with a seriously borked computer that they have three options if they want me to fix it:
1) I can try, but it may take hours and there's no guarantee I'll be successful.
2) I can reinstall Windows from scratch if you have the restore disc or an upgrade
3) or (and this is the cheapest option) I could install this completely free alternative operating system that I just booted off my USB stick to confirm that all your hardware works (here, try it out). It will let you do all the basic internet stuff just like Windows, while being much more resistant to viruses and other malware. I can even leave Windows in place so that you can easily switch back and if you change your mind, or just want to keep it limping along for that one Windows-only program you just have to use. Why is it free? Well have you ever heard of Linux? No? Well basically...
I was actually rather surprised at how popular (3) was, and how many people later made a point of expressing their satisfaction with the change.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
If Vista had been more like Windows 7
This is such bullshit! In the alternative universe where Windows 7 was ready on the day Vista came out, software drivers for W7 would have been as unavailable as they were for Vista. All sorts of software that required users to have full admin permissions would have been broken by W7 UAC as it was by Vista's UAC. All PCs sold with 512MB or 1GB RAM would have still be slow compared to XP.
Only 1 or 2 years down the line when OEMs had caught up and released proper drivers, when PCs were being sold with 2GB+ RAM and when people learned to separate normal from admin users did Windows Vista/7/8 become less of a nuisance. It had very little to do with Windows 7 being so awesome.
Um, except, Win7 has a Windows XP compatibility mode. When I upgraded from XP to 7, everything worked. Some things in compatibility, some native. With the single exception of an old scanner that wouldn't work in Vista either. (I gave the scanner to my daughter, who still runs XP.)
As far as drivers are concerned, I think Vista was Microsoft's first indication that their hold on the industry was starting to slip.
Vista had more problems than just drivers. Even simple operations like file transfers were buggered up. They did eventually fix it, but it shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Windows 7 isn't awesome. It's an incremental improvement over XP and what Vista should have been. Especially considering the development time.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
First...
to upgrade!
To Linux, I hope?
Certainly not Windows 8. I won't be Vista'd again.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
1. You do not understand the concept of tree-based menu. Google it.
2. It's a lot slower and a massive memory hog. No way around that. Even games have to print that you need more RAM for it, and machines that run tasks on XP fine crawl under 7. Basically you need a significantly more powerful PC to get as much performance out of 7 as you could get out of XP.
3. It's a whole lot worse. There's a reason why web-based interfaces are essentially always worse than native interfaces. Microsoft sacrificed usability for familiarity of next generation that knows nothing but links.
4. UAC is generally an awful thing, that is only desired because many people do not know how to use computers all that well and need to be protected from themselves.
To those of us computer-literate enough not to need a padded room it's a nuisance at best and massively harmful system at worst.
1. DX11 features have NOTHING to do with new driver model. Essentially all of them have been implemented on openGL on XP. "But we need this because of WDDM update" is the sales pitch. If you actually are big enough of a sucker to swallow this pitch at face value, surely you would like to buy some cheap land on the moon?
In reality, it would have been trivial to implement DX11 without WDDM support on XP. But MS knew that openGL was a mess (which they helpfully pulled it into) and wasn't enough of a competitor so they could brute force their way riding on their de facto monopoly.
3. Some people blindly hating because people don't like people pointing out obvious flaws in their favorite company's latest product is nothing new.
Authentic - A marketing word used to sell blue jeans and spiced rum to tattooed 20 somethings.
The problem is that you can't upgrade to Windows 7 anymore.
I wish I had mod points left, so instead I'll comment.
I don't know where you get your information, but it's wrong. You can downgrade to Win7 if you bought a Win8 machine with your Win8 license code (just get a copy of an OEM Win7 disc). You can also still buy Win7 OEM from stores.
Parent's post should have been modded up insightful, because it's FUD.
You info about Netbooks is pretty obsolete. I bought an Acer Aspire One at Radio Shack(!!) last year. I think it qualifies as a NetBook because it's the same form factor and was only $300. It sports a 64 bit Dual-Core AMD Processor (slow at 1GHz, but fairly capable) and came with a 4GB SIMM installed. I found an unsupported post on a forum for upgrading it to 8GB so now it even runs XP with Virtual Box. It has native Windows 7. It also has NetBSD in the VM.
The old NetBooks had the 1GB RAM limit that Microsoft imposed, but that went away at some point.
I hope that by casting yourself as a victim in the grasp of the all-powerful Microsoft, you find direction in your life and vent your anger away from any family members.
Vista isn't bad... it's just pretty big, and was sold on hardware that couldn't run it. Also, lots of previous Windows software assumed administrator privileges, so failed in unexpected ways. I've had getting on for a year of uptime on my Vista box, which I still use as my main machine. It's about 7 years old now, and has had graphics card and HD replacement, but is still running my E6850 core 2 duo.
FTFS : "If Vista had been more like Windows 7". Windows 7 is basically Vista, like XP was basically win2k. I don't understand the hate really.
So far, I have not identified any benefits for me from using 7 compared to using XP.
Windows 7 is just a bunch of little improvements.
Anyway, those are the reasons I switched to Windows 7.
Have a nice time.
So, you are trying to justify a business that has staked it's very existence on a single bit of software. To do so, you make reference to walk in freezers, and kitchen ranges? Puh-LEASE!! The restaurant in your scenario hasn't tied it's very existence to one particular model of walk-in, after all. If/when the freezer fries, due to an electrical storm, or whatever, it can readily be replaced with newer hardware. Jeeez, Louise. The various cooking utensils? Those are replaced much more easily than the equipment for the freezers. What would be really, really, REALLY stupid, is for the restaurant to deify their one computer, convincing themselves that if the computer goes down, the restaurant is finished. No matter how much their software may have been tailored, they can always replace it with another set of software to keep track of inventory, sales, expenditures, wages, etc.
Mr. Smarty Pants says that if you have tied the success of your business to one particular piece of software, then you're an incompetent fool who doesn't deserve to be in business. And, that remains true whether you are a small town Mom & Pop business, or a Fortune 500 corporation.
Yes, you can indeed find idiots draped in expensive imported suits. And, you cannot justify or defend their idiocy.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
In what sense are these people "customers"? They haven't bought a copy of Windows in six years, and let's be honest most of them never bought it in the first place. Microsoft doesn't have to care if they're mad.
Also, the reason given for their failure to switch, the disaster that was Vista, is idiotic. Windows 7 was a perfectly adequate OS -- and I say that as a Mac/Linux guy. They've had seven years to get over their grief and move on to 7, or switch to Mac or Linux.
The only reason for sticking with XP that I have any sympathy for is that your business is dependent on old hardware that doesn't support a modern OS. But once again, if your third-party vendor hasn't released a driver or software update in seven years, you're a moron for continuing to rely on them.
Worked in IT for 15 years now, have advanced CS degrees and many people consider me an expert in OS's, unix, networking etc. ( i dont - i just consider myself competent). When people like you speak rubbish like this it annoys me. XP was a fine OS and was much simpler and lighter than today's platforms from Microsoft. I am sure for many people, it serves as a highly reliable and familiar tool for their specific use. Who's the idiot, one who gets their job done everyday with the tools they have at hand, maximizing their time, or the guy constantly looking for the next shiny thing, that not only doesn't accomplish the task any better, but interferes? Get a clue noob. And dont give me a security bs - there are many ways to mitigate security threats, its not just the OS, its how you use it and the environment its in.
Age doesnt increase the attack surface of a computer, maintenance and the environment does. Today's attack vector is no longer scanning and throwing a malicious packet at tcp/139. its the crap users bring on themselves browsing bullshit sites, fake keygens, actually reading spam etc. I would argue that the person running XP has less opportunities to get infected with less supported client-side applications supported today, less targeted application versions, and also the mindset of maintaining a system that long is likely not at the same level of ignorance as one who treats their computer as a disposable dumpster of one use apps.
I see what you did there. "I don't understand the hate" has risen to meme status. I don't waste time hating vista, anymore than I would waste time hating broccoli. Vista and win8 share the traits that they were unusable on first release, vista eventually became tolerable but wasn't truly fixed until win7, and win8 is following a similar path. We have some machines still running xp, but the driving force to upgrade is not some artificial Microsoft deadline, but when there will be something reasonable to upgrade to.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
So how 'bout Microsoft offering, i.e. selling for coin, a 32-bit in-place upgrade OS that works on 512M? Nah, fuggetabout!
So you can call the great masses of XP users rubes, idiots, and reservoirs of software infection. But guess what, there are rubes, idiots, and people not practicing good tech sanitation. But this will be like the people who won't vaccinate their kids. It isn't just their kids at risk, it is your kids, and maybe even you for getting chicken pox as a 50-year old.
So idiot, idiot, idiot, let's shame people, but what is this going to do? Is Congress going to pass a Computer Protection and Affordable System Patch (CPASP) law? Provide subidies to persons too poor to upgrade. Provide free computers to persons qualifying for Medicaid?
Your company doesn’t consider security updates necessary?
Security updates are not features. While (unfortunately) necessary they are fundamentally a correction of a defect in their product. You are looking at it backwards. What you are saying is that I'm supposed to pay endlessly for Microsoft for their defective product.
Now in realistic terms if they wanted to charge a modest (emphasis on modest) fee for security updates to those who want to keep XP in place after a decade of use, I don't really have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with a pointless upgrade treadmill that gives me no additional capabilities for my needs over what I already have.
"A couple of days ago I tried to install Linux on a 7 year old office machine which runs office apps just perfectly under XP, and my first experience on reboot was a login screen where you had to wait about half a second for each character to appear. Not good."
Note that the install program was Linux and it worked just fine - you installed the thing didn't you? So your problem is likely that you installed a desktop system that requires a modern graphical card. If you would choose LXDE or XFCE then it will be OK.
This is a perfect snapshot of a longstanding problem with disconnect between coders/advocates and users. It simply does not matter how well reasoned your response was it might as well have been written in Klingon.
In my experience the majority are small businesses that only use the computer as a tool to run specific applications. I get sucked into upgrading local businesses all the time; they dont care about Windows versions; they care if their shit is slow. The last thing they want to do is invest money in a computer or have to learn something new.
I find it funny that you target people on DSL modems. You think you are hot shit on your cable modem or FIOS?? You are the same class of hyperconsumer as the computer-illiterate mom sitting on her DSL. The only difference is you have more disposable income and your a douchebag. Both of you want the same things and same shiny toys, the mom on DSL has constraint.
Fully patched and upgraded Vista is basically Win7.
It isn't terrible, but Vista SP2 still doesn't have the window snap feature from Windows 7. I like that feature a lot.
Install the original release version of Vista and see if that machine can run even a single year.
I don't understand. Do you mean keep using Vista, or keep running without rebooting?
On the first point, it's inadvisable, because Microsoft ended support for Vista without service packs back in 2012. Otherwise, people have put up with horrible computer systems for longer periods of time. Vista is no Windows ME.
On the second point, if my computer hasn't malfunctioned and forced a restart before, then it reboots every month for Patch Tuesday. It's a rare month when critical updates don't force a restart. This is the same for Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8.1. Otherwise, if you keep it isolated, on stable hardware with ECC, and interact with it very little, then I don't see why it couldn't run for a few years.
Have a nice time.
Yeah, because a botnet operator really is interested in bitmining from a Pentium 3. Wow the money he will rake in, he may be able to get a cup of coffee after a few thousand nodes mine for a few weeks.
All you security wannabe guys need to shut the f up. The bare OS is not the only factor here. You guys act like judgement day is approaching, everyone with XP is going to rip out their NAT router and go surfing on fake porn sites and download fake keygens all day long. Give me a fucking break. Get a clue about security and you will realize how small your knowledge really is. Better yet put up a good proxy + wireshark in your dmz and watch all the shit you leak before chiming in on how the internet is doomed and we must all eradicate the evil XP'ers.
Microsoft business model was selling crapware, computer repair business model is also going away!
No, people are idiots for believing that security isn't a feature that is needed.
No one is arguing that security isn't necessary. HOWEVER, security updates are a correction of a defect in the product. They are necessary in the same sense that insurance is necessary. Security updates could be provided for XP by Microsoft for a (reasonable) fee but that is not an option Microsoft has put on the table. There is no technological reason why I need to "upgrade" to Windows 8.
People are also idiots for believing that a for profit company (like Microsoft) is obligated to provide free updates to a product forever.
Microsoft can do whatever they want. However what they are accomplishing isn't to make me want to upgrade to their latest products. If anything it makes me want to use their systems less. I can get linux security updates for free so Microsoft needs to add more value if they want my continued business. They don't have to make security updates free but that isn't what they chose to do. They want me to buy an entirely new product with new and different defects, additional hardware, software migration and training costs. This instead of merely offering to continue security updates for a nominal fee for the system I already have which I already know works. I'm guessing you've never run a business because only an idiot spends money to change something that is working just fine when the change is not actually necessary.
You appear to be saying that there is nothing in post-XP versions of Windows that is necessary for your company.
That is correct. There is no new feature in any more recent version of Windows that will add to the bottom line of my company. Other companies situations may be different but I do know for a fact that thousands of companies and individuals are in the same situation as I am.
Do you really believe that security of your systems is not necessary?
Wrong question. Of course security is necessary but security updates are nothing more than corrections of a product defect. Security is nothing more than a cost to me. It is like insurance - necessary but it does not ever add a penny to the bottom line. I have zero interest in throwing out a working production system just because it does not add to Microsoft's bottom line.
Do you really believe that Microsoft should spend the money (in either direct or opportunity costs) to provide those updates to you for free forever?
I never said anything about how they should provide updates or whether they should charge for them. Frankly if Microsoft were to charge a modest fee (and I do mean modest) to continue security updates for XP, I'd consider paying it. I have very good reasons why our company still uses XP based machines, not the least of which is that we have some critical software that CANNOT be ported. (not my fault - some idiot before me bought it) While I will fix that in due time, it isn't going to happen in the next 6 months and the expense is considerably larger than a new PC with Windows 8 on it.
So, you are trying to justify a business that has staked it's very existence on a single bit of software. To do so, you make reference to walk in freezers, and kitchen ranges? Puh-LEASE!! The restaurant in your scenario hasn't tied it's very existence to one particular model of walk-in, after all. If/when the freezer fries, due to an electrical storm, or whatever, it can readily be replaced with newer hardware. Jeeez, Louise. The various cooking utensils? Those are replaced much more easily than the equipment for the freezers. What would be really, really, REALLY stupid, is for the restaurant to deify their one computer, convincing themselves that if the computer goes down, the restaurant is finished. No matter how much their software may have been tailored, they can always replace it with another set of software to keep track of inventory, sales, expenditures, wages, etc.
Mr. Smarty Pants says that if you have tied the success of your business to one particular piece of software, then you're an incompetent fool who doesn't deserve to be in business. And, that remains true whether you are a small town Mom & Pop business, or a Fortune 500 corporation.
Yes, you can indeed find idiots draped in expensive imported suits. And, you cannot justify or defend their idiocy.
Right, you can tell that to the other 999 out of the fortune 1,000 companies who do just that every day. Every business process is aliagned with each piece of software. To not do so would be to go back to paper and book keepers and filing cabinets and hirng tons of paper pushers.
It is not incompentence. It is part of business to use a particular piece of software which of course will store the data in its own format. I can't find any piece of software that guarantees it will work for 100 more years?
I do not see Windows 10 or Linux kernel 5.0 compatibility certified software anywhere?
The productivity gains by using computers is incredible even if it is not perfect and old. We wont change and like our software the way it is.
Go into a McDonalds and look behind the counter? See green screens? That is MS Xenix/SCO Xenix from 30 years ago. It still works fine. Why upgrade? To go with an expensive Windows 7 solution and guess what ... 2020 is here and now that expensive app is no longer compatible as a HTML 6 applet for Metro tablets or whatever the hell will be the new standard. Problem is not solved ever by upgrading. Only temporarily extended. And paper tickets and manually putting each item into a file cabinet for asset and inventory trakcing SUCKS so not using anything doesn't make sense either.
Go play with your new computer. Business does not care. But until this solution is solved people will keep using older outdated software if it works and will keep buying software that will eventually be obsolete as it helps their business.
FYI I think anyone still using XP is incompentent ... as a host OS. But Windows Server 2003 will be extended way past EOL with or without MS blessing in a VM. Computers will be tailored with custom XP drivers for decades to come too but will just not be connected to the internet. Taco Bell still buys 486 chips for its DOS based POS system. They work. XP POS and controller equipment will be served by niche hardware even without MS updates.
I wont risk my job nor the jobs of those I replace software with by buying newer versions and having our metrics fucked up. Remember customers do not care and just like new stoves which maybe better than old ones, well the old ones work and are already paid for in my original example.
http://saveie6.com/
What if the Consultant hardcoded to only work on windows xp...
I can not really think of any industry that simply resigns when it becomes difficult and just blame it on users not being smart enough. if car manufacturers could get away with that, imagine the roads...
I wish car manufacturers could do that! Tens of thousands of people in the US die because of cars every year. As I get older, I'm increasingly amazed that we consider high-speed operation of multi-ton machinery to be normal for people of all ages (above 16 years) and ability. Driverless cars can't come soon enough. Imagine the roads...
Have a nice time.
More like a huge sideways "upgrade". 7 adds just as many annoyances as features, trying to outguess what the user wants and getting it wrong much of the time.
The only thing it's truly good for, besides having its end-of-life further out, is being able to use more than 3 GB RAM.
Unity isn't a tablet UI; the desktop and phone versions are separate UIs with a few similarities, that are supposed to share the same codebase at some point in the future. Desktop Unity would probably not be that great on a tablet as is actually significantly more keyboard oriented than other DEs, with the obvious exception of tiling WMs such as XMonad.
Win 7 was released one year after Vista. Why didn't you upgrade? Sounds like you're a stubborn obstinate idiot.
But I guess you just need to defend the OS you were stuck with. Stockholm syndrome, probably.
Really? I've been using Linux on my desktop for years with no complaints. So has my barely computer literate father (and incidentally I get far fewer tech support calls now). No, it's not "just like Windows", but if you really love everything about Windows then you should stick with that, obviously you're not Linux's target audience. Of course if what you really mean is that it's not supported by 100% of the software you need/want to use, and you can't find suitable alternatives... well that's not really anything to do with Linux's readiness is it? Ask the people making your software when they are going to release a Linux version, because that's the only way that *they* will know that anyone in their customer base cares.
It's the apps, stupid. No one but total geeks give a shit about the interface or any of the rest of it. The computer is there to do something that they want to do. Either the computer can do that or it can't. And the key is the apps. Most of the shortcomings of an OS can be dealt with by utils....so long as it is stable and doesn't prevent you from doing something. That is where the modern everything is a critical update OS fails. It doesn't allow you to get the job done. Metro UI is a disaster. Moving things around every version of windows requiring retraining is a disaster....a host of features most people don't even know about let alone understand is a disaster....breaking app compatibility is a disaster. Like it or not it doesn't matter WHY the new computer can't do what the last one did - if it can't it is worse. If it's less stable it's worse. End of story.
and the xfce Desktop manager. Does not use much resources.
http://scherbius2014.de/EndeDerViren.html
The only decent spiced rum I've found (for sale) has been that produced on Saba. They also put it in used bottles, so there's no real labelling. Hence, I suspect that it will never be available elsewhere :(
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
That's like trading a 1998 SUV for a 2007 SUV because you want to get better mileage out of your car.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hey, if it's so darned obsolete, how about donating it to the world as open source? I'll help take care of it, and keep it alive for another 10 years!
Whoop de doo.
01/01/01
WHAT! Only 13 years? Aren't people still running OS/360 code after lots longer?
Yeah, I ran Vista for three years. And when I was finally able to upgrade to 7, it was like being told your cancer is in remission. I could breathe again.
Vista was an unmitigated dog turd. And it wasn't just drivers and capacity problems, there was deep undocumented shit, and I do mean shit, in the file handling system.
New versions of windows have less features than XP. For example, you could easily access your webcam from the explorer with no additional software to install for that.
Then again, I HATE ribbon which is implemented almost everywhere.
Computers are man-made things. They could support any OS for 50 years if they want. Example: Linux makes rolling updates, stuff made in 1991 could (and some is) supported in 2013 and beyond. The whole "upgrade or fall victim" ideas is a cash grab. People have been warning microsoft users about this for *years*. Its exactly like when users of proprietary software try to store information that needs to be retrieved 50 years or more into the future (real estate records, laws, health records, etc). Some use it anyway because of bad judgement, then cry about it later. First, the users need to change to non-lock-in software that insists on upgrades every 3-5 years. If they refuse, then tell them to suffer in their stupidity.
Networking on Win7 is a fucking pain in the ass. What the hell is a homegroup and why does anyone care?
We upgraded our DSL router to the new whizzybang UVerse DSL router and every single Win7 box had a nervous breakdown and shut off their networking COMPLETELY. Had to manually reconfigure dozens of boxes.
MS is run by idiots. I want my XP back, at least the networking was rational.
People who are compute illiterate deal with systems all the time that require upgrades. For example milk and eggs go bad after a while. In the 1990s forced upgrades were an expected part of the expense of owning computers. Microsoft can reintroduce the concept and make it a norm, "this will break in a few years" isn't too hard to understand.
Why would you hate broccoli? I understand why you would hate Vista though - it isn't good for you and leaves you feeling frustrated and shit...
"Also, you can't buy a new computer with Windows 7"
Very much NOT true. Where I work we buy plenty of Dell computers with Win7 all the time. Just placed another large order this past Friday in fact.
Vista WAS bad for the first year, and since there still two Vista things lurking around here I can say that vast improvements after release still resulted in something miles behind MS Win7.
Having to fuck about with the command line in an MS system to join an an MS network domain is a pretty good symptom of how bad it was.
They've had years of advanced notice. Do something or don't do something. But stop whining about it.
a) A really nice integrated suite enterprise productivity. Windows -> Office -> Sharepoint document manager. no one else has that.
b) Windows -> Lync -> Universal communication is available from a handful of vendors but for most of them only for Windows.
c) Ubiquitous computing (i.e. same apps on phone, tablet and laptop).
d) Project Server.
e) Excel for windows integration with many data warehouse applications
etc...
I'm an OSX user. But there is some stuff I wish we had.
I've still got a couple of people on XP that have a wide variety of applications which either no longer work on Win7 or work differently (not better) on Win7. On a fairly recent machine with an SSD you can get very good performance out of WinXP.
When they hit the point where memory limits them forcing a change to win7 they are going to have to change a lot of their workflows, will have to buy a long list of applications all over again and will have to select new software to do the tasks their current stuff does on XP.
Virtual machines have a few drawbacks especially when you run up against software that needs those evil dongle things before it will run
...you haven't worked support.
You forgot electro-shock, tranquilizer darts and burning bamboo under the fingernails.
To all of you who claim that you can't replace XP cause of some old 3rd party software..
unlike the slashmorons who see fit to tell you how to run your affairs, I accept your statements.
However, AT some point, maybe in the next 10 years, won't you have to replace XP ?
What then ?
do you say, why worry about problems that occur after I retire, or I've got so much to do, extra problems are not even looked at ?
But , sometime soon, you will have to replace XP
what then ?
Sure, just pleas pony up the current version of my Mom's awful quilting design software. You know, the one with the GUI that was poorly laid out in '95, but is now considered exactly what she wants because she has built over a decade of muscle memory preventing her from doing a simple operation without six extra clicks and a few key and mouse combinations that are politely referred to as "extraneous".
A new version would likely work better, but She would have to retrain. Just the mere mention of needing to learn a new X is bound to raise suspicion, especially when the "new X" is only needed to do the same thing she's doing with the "old X".
>Is Microsoft claiming that, after all these years, there are still extremely serious vulnerabilities in Windows XP?
Yes, because the definition of secure has radically changed in the past 10 years. See ALSR
>Will Microsoft, in a few years, say Windows 8 is too buggy to support any longer, and try to convince people to upgrade to something else? I
No, even Microsoft realizes the gig is up and is looking for an operating system 'rental' model.
>Would moving to Windows 8 merely expose your family or your staff to a set of new problems?
Yes, But it is the same with Linux, Apple, whatever else. Security is not a place you reach, it is a target that is carried on the backs of the attackers. If you think anyone sits around and engineers security holes (well other than the NSA), you don't know anything about the industry.
Not ALSR, I mean ASLR.
Um say what? I just ordered a new computer for gaming purposes pre-installed with Windows 7 Pro. You most certainly can find vendors out there who will ship windows 7 on a new PC.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
>- Faster: I think they are exactly the same "speed", however you wish to measure.
What you think and what benchmarks and usability shows, especially with a few apps using a lot of memory show are completely different things.
>I do have a license for SolidWorks 2011 32 bit, which just won't run under Windows 7 64 bit.
And you didn't call their support? Because that should surely work.
>- Easier to use: WinXP is easier to use than Windows 7.
"Citation needed". As a support tech Windows 7 is much easier to manage these days.
TRIM/SSD support
ASLR
TLS1.1/1.2
Memory support over 3GB (64-bit versions)
Pretty much any security at all.
I could go on, the problem is, from what you've wrote, you are incompetent admin. I run hundreds of linux and windows VMs on Xenserver and the only time I reboot them is for security updates. If your Windows VMs need rebooted more often that sounds like a problem with the admin, not the operating system.
>2. It's a lot slower and a massive memory hog
Slower, no. Massive memory hog, Yes if you use the 64 bit edition, which is true for EVERY 64 bit OS, not just Windows.
3. Interfaces. Could be very easily turned off, what are you bitching about?
4. UAC. That could be very easily turned off, what are you bitching about?
will msfn.org forum groups make patches for winXP in the future like they do with win98?
I really hope so, only time will tell, they are my heroes.
The problem is that you can't upgrade to Windows 7 anymore.
I wish I had mod points left, so instead I'll comment.
I don't know where you get your information, but it's wrong. You can downgrade to Win7 if you bought a Win8 machine with your Win8 license code (just get a copy of an OEM Win7 disc). You can also still buy Win7 OEM from stores.
Parent's post should have been modded up insightful, because it's FUD.
So you apparently don't understand the difference between an "upgrade" and a "downgrade"?
To the best of my knowledge, you could "upgrade" an existing XP install to Vista, but there is no "upgrade" from XP->Win7 other than a complete wipe/reinstall. How many average users (non-tech) that know how to backup all their user data to some external device (or network), wipe and reinstall an OS from scratch, and then restore all their data (as well as probably reinstalling all their software)?
Does iTunes for MS Windows actually run well now? Garbage seemed a pretty good description of it running on win7.
I bought a new shrinkwrapped copy of WinXP and installed it on new desktop hardware less than two years ago. Nobody needed to stockpile the thing years ago and if anybody did they were needlessly wasting money.
That game that just will not run anywhere else. Oh wait - that's what consoles are for. Should have got one of those instead of a piece of crap that reboots without warning in the middle of a game to apply updates.
Please finish this sentence: "An OS without the applications I need is..."
The thing is, it's not a linux problem. It's (mostly) a GPL problem. The GPL is a poison pill for many commercial operations; it becomes problematic to utilize existing work and bootstrap commercial products. Well, that and the lack of a standard, unencumbered GUI. Which *is* perceived as a linux problem. You may have noticed that highly expandable and flexible applications like Apache under linux are in very wide use commercially. Reading the Apache license is also very interesting as compared to the GPL. Coincidence? Not as far as I can tell.
But, as linux users have told me many times, they don't want those nasty commercial types in there, using code and not giving back more code. And this is exactly what they got. So... :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Until you want to run something that won't on Win7. Sadly there's still a lot of that about. It was only last year that a stupidly expensive geophysical program used in my workplace was upgraded to work on anything newer than WinXP.
To get users to upgrade their systems to Windows 8, MS should run lots and lots of TV commercials featuring the beautiful, awesome Windows 8 splash screen.
As soon as people realize how breathtakingly beautiful the splash screen is, they'll run out to Best Buy or wherever and buy a Surface.
If that doesn't work, buy more TV commercials with tighter close-ups on the beautiful, beautiful, utterly awesome Windows 8 splash screen.
This is absurd. Yes, Vista was a disaster, but Windows 7 was a huge upgrade from XP.
Whats more absurd is that you believe:
- 6x memory footprint
- 2x number of processes on boot
- 4x number of handles and threads
- 3x number background services
- Kernel filled with over the top security checks, instead of being optimized for the end user.
- 5x + Increase in explorer delay (hello DWM.exe)
Is a huge upgrade? If your working for a bank, maybe, but as a home user, its not an upgrade. Its a downgrade in every respect from XP, that is, if you care about the performance of your hardware.
I honestly challenge you to run a program like Prime32 on a clean XP and Windows7 system on the same hardware. Let me know how it goes. Still feel it was an upgrade?
"Flamebait", fucking hilarious.
1. You have to be really dense to call it something other than slower. I've had it running on the same machine with 4GB of RAM and E8800. Even when RAM was clearly sufficient, machine was noticeably slower under fresh 7 install than under old XP one. OS overhead is clearly much greater both in terms of RAM and CPU. That means OS is in fact slower.
3. Impossible to turn off. Hard coded part of OS. Unfortunately.
4. Can be turned off, yes. Will it make you to jump through hoops to do it? Yes. Will it be on by default and one of the biggest problems I hit when coming to fix someone else's computer? Yes.
Hence, problem.
ASLR: The purpose of ASLR is to provide protection against vulnerabilities. The idea is to make it far more difficult to exploit those vulnerabilities. ASLR is always good to have.
However, if software has no vulnerabilities, then ASLR has no effect.
Software rental, rather than sale: Those who buy software are usually not prepared to fully understand the issue. So, software companies like Adobe are taking advantage of that ignorance, and renting software rather than selling it. For many users, that will make the software FAR more expensive. (Adobe's CS6 is the last for sale version, Adobe says.)
Software vulnerabilites: Software can be checked for vulnerabilities and fixed before the software is released. Microsoft doesn't do that intensely because vulnerabilities make more money for Microsoft, in my opinion.
this stupid thing nobody cared about called Aero.
Aero was eye candy and a very much needed update at a time when Windows UI was looking tremendously dated compared to OS X and a variety of Linux distros. If they had not made Aero, they would have had to make something else to replace the UI of the 90's.
I work at a place where our ERP system was built in 1995 and modified for 18 years.
Why change it?
Seriously; this is a 100% valid question. The progress of the computer industry is forcing the company to spend money for the same, exact, thing?
Really, think about that. $10k, $50k, $100k for what? Of course the manager is going to say run it another year.
If your a software vendor and want to keep that customer you'll do it.
Don't think for a second we aren't looking at running that system in XP Mode.
This year they're finally switching over to a new system as they've learned continuously modifying their old system such that it becomes incompatible with the vendors updates and new versions which has features they want is a problem. They're now learning the new system lacks functionality the old system had, and are trying to figure out how to get it to work the way they want it. Nobody wants to do that but they are realizing it will be more costly to implement and run this system than the old one.
New and Shiney != Better.
Also, XP wasn't insecure because of legacy code. It was insecure due to poor design and spotty construction; what 900 security patches and they're all to patch legacy code or legacy operation?
This cycle of change is not necessarily an improvement; if you got out of the hamster wheel more often you'd realize you're going nowhere with the spend.
Windows 7 is still available. You can still buy retail, retail upgrade and system builder copies of win7, you can also downgrade from OEM and volume license copies of windows 8 pro/ultimate/enterprise (IIRC for some silly reason you can't downgrade from retail or retail upgrade copies).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
One could argue that once XP becomes unsupported it won't be suitable, stable or useful for running any real application, and won't be in the next five years.
I work in technical support for an ISP. One of the things I must know, natch, is what OS they're using. In cases where it's XP, I will inform (or, as the case is sometimes, remind) them that Microsoft will be ending all support for their OS of choice, and that now is the time to upgrade. My one regret is that these users have waited so long, resulting in that they must now upgrade to Windows 8.1.
Well, OK, they can probably get a copy of Win 7 from Newegg or somesuch.
This sig no verb.
PLEASE! Just give up on all that 20 year old software!
And that is why software engineering is a joke. Why should people throw away perfectly functional systems just because time has passed? That is not engineering.
Buildings, bridges, roads, etc do not necessarily need to be replaced due to age unless the materials themselves are actually decaying. That is engineering. Creating things that are 100% incompatible with something that works fine but is only a little older is shit. Not engineering. Most of the compatiblity problems are intentionally designed in; either through shortsightedness or through greed.
Fuck you and your redisitribution of wealth to corporations who write shitty programs. (CAPTCHA is motoring, a car more than 20 years old can not possibly be driven on our new modern streets, right?)
Can't buy a new Windows 7 computer anymore? Did you even bother to google before you let such an ignorant statement out into the world? Perhaps you are just trolling. They are everywhere.
http://www.dell.com/us/p/desktops.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&&dgc=IR&cid=263634&lid=4777229#!all-in-one-desktops&facets=228279~0~16692655,228279~0~14814752&p=1
Wow... so the incompatibility is that the O/S that came out 10 years later uses more resources? Yeah, OS X doesn't run on my Apple II, I guess that means OS X is a huge downgrade.
Actually, while the driver argument is valid, Vista did have noticeable stability, compatibility, and performance issues that were addressed in Windows 7. Ditto for Windows 2008 server. Granted, these could have been addressed in service packs but that's not the way it went down. If you compare the two, fully patched at the time of release for Windows 7, Windows 7 performed better on the same hardware and with the same drivers than Vista.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
ok here's one:
file management on server shares on win7 is orders of magnitude slower then on xp (there seemes to be some kind of bug on win7 where the time of a copy or delete rises exponentially with the number of subdirs)
I agree, at least in part. I don't know about Vista being generally unstable, but I remember it felt slow. I remember that when XP was released, it was common for PCs to have 256MB or less of RAM. When people stopped moaning about how bloated XP was, it was because they already had replaced their PCs of 2000/01 with something that had 1 or 2GB or RAM, as well as CPUs and graphics cards that were much better. SATA interfaces for their HDD also pushed the performance up considerably. With XP "surviving" 1 or 2 hardware upgrades, it's only natural that it felt super-fast.
With whatever optimisation and bug fixing they did at MS, W7 was indeed faster than Vista. However, the perceived performance gains were certainly affected by having more RAM, which had become significantly cheaper. I'd be surprised to hear about people buying computers in 2009 that had W7 running on 1GB (or less).
So, if a dentist's office is using software which is no longer made or supported and was never available for anything beyond XP, they should just give up, or find someone who can write a new version for them?
You're not seeing how massively impractical it is, do you?
That’s lovely FUD. What you meant to say is more like, “It’s problematic for companies to steal others’ work to create derivative commercial closed source works from freely available open source.” It’s not “problematic” to bootstrap commercial projects from GPL source. It’s denied by design because the original authors (who gave you their work for free) didn’t want you to do that. It’s really a shame that you can’t take something you didn’t pay anything for any turn around and charge other people money for it. Give me a minute to mop up the river of tears I’m crying for these companies.
There’s nothing the least bit problematic about using Linux as a platform to build closed source solutions. Nor is there a problem with using open source packages as building blocks in what will ultimately be a commercial solution. You need to release source for your changes to GPL projects, but boo hoo.
If you want to keep your source closed, that’s easy. Don’t use someone else’s open source project as a source code starting point. That still doesn’t bar you from using open source projects to help you deliver a final product. Just don’t link to them. It’s really not that hard.
I’ll grant that this gets somewhat more difficult with GPL-3 or the Affero variations, but this started out as a FUD fest about Linux which is plain-old GPL-2, so none of those issues apply.
If you *need* a specific Windows-only app, then yes, you're stuck with Windows. If you don't care for the perpetual string of critical update reboots, the upgrade treadmill, the instability, the viruses, the secret NSA backdoors, the new "different because we say so" interfaces, etc,etc. then you should talk to your app vendor, then maybe in a couple years you'll have the option to switch to a platform that doesn't suffer nearly as badly from those shortcomings.
For most apps though there are plenty of perfectly adequate alternatives, both free and commercial. So what you're really saying is "The shortcomings of Windows aren't bad enough for me to be bothered to learn some new programs so I can switch." And there's nothing wrong with that, but you should be aware of your real complaint, because that may well suggest a more profitable response. Need MS Office? Really? Or do you really just need an office suite that can handle MS Office files? So maybe next time MS decides to "improve" the interface, forcing you to relearn your work flow, instead you say to heck with this and move to LibreOffice with it's nice traditional interface, in the process saving yourself the cost of an upgrade and shedding one of the chains that binds you to Windows and whatever silliness MS may decide to force down your throat in the future.
Because honestly, there's precious little a Windows system can do that a Linux system can't. The apps you use to do it may be different, but even that is largely your choice. One of the beauties of open source is that most popular Linux programs make their way to Windows and OS X as well, so you can wean yourself off your chains one at a time on Windows, and eventually be free to use any OS you choose while still having all your old familiar programs at your fingertips.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
What if somebody were to develop an FOSS operating system that's free to download, will be supported for indefinite years to come and runs most XP software or equivalent applications? That'd be great! Oh, yeah, that's Linux.
I thought of that weeks ago and patented it so Microsoft will have to come begging TO ME. MWA HA HA HA HA I'm Rich, I'm Rich, I'm finally Filthy Rich!!! BOW BEFORE ZOD.
most the windows xp systems left in the world today are in china, and were pirated installations to begin with. let them get hacked. let them get exploited. small price to pay for up to 12 years of use of windows, dont you think? let them serve up malware and spew forth spam. let the chinese national 'intranet' and great firewall get so over-burdened with traffic they slows to a crawl or worse.. like comcast cable internet on a good day. let the chinese take the rap for the millions of additional botnet members and the problems they might cause worldwide if their government doesnt block that traffic at their borders and finally crack down on software piracy so commonplace in that country. i dont care. big fucking deal. not my problem now. wont be my problem after april 8th.
that said, we do have five of 8 systems here still running windows xp. two will remain in use but offline (hardware or software incompatibilities prevent upgrade) and will not be replaced; two are being replaced (one new system bought at well below wholesale cost on a closeout, one used system that was given to us); and the last will sold or upgraded to its old free vista upgrade... so the microsoft money grab via planned obsolescence of windows xp nets them, from all five of our systems they're putting to pasture, a grand total of about 20-25 dollars (from the one new system's oem for its windows license). all five of these are functional, productive systems that microsoft is obsoleting. we would keep using them as is til they break if not for microsoft eol of xp. it isnt our fault the hardware outlasted the software. here is a thought, maybe pc and component manufacturers could cheapen their products so they last only 2-3 years instead of 10-15+? o wait, dont they do that now? good. won't have this problem in 2017, 2020, or 2023 then. whew. dodged a bullet there.
You paid 30k for software that only works on XP a year ago?
I would love to give up some of our antique software. The problem is that antique software runs antique CNC manufacturing equipment. Should we scrap out our perfectly functional $60,000 CNC mill because the software for it was written in DOS? Should we abandon our $200,000 plasma table because its software fails to run in WIndows 7 XP Mode?
Or should we, a manufacturing shop, pay one of the local incompetent IT bozo crews (like the ones who forgot to turn on the firewall on our network server, or the ones who just look blank when I mention Linux) to attempt to rewrite complex CNC software from scratch? That should be entertaining...
Win8's problems are not quite the same as Vista's problems. Time is not going to fix Win8's problems.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
I am sympathetic to all those with legacy issues. I just clobbered an XP install and replaced it with Knoppix 7.2, Linux, but I am not still running Visucalc, although I did download the zip to see if it will run on DOSemu on Ubuntu. I'll bet it does.
Given with potential security problems with unpatched XP, if M$ decides to drop support, is like running on square wheels, If you run fast enough, you may not notice the rough ride, unless you slow down. It was been my experience that the latest Linux releases will tun on configurations that are too small for later releases of Windows. I actually run Knoppix 7.2 in 1/4 Gb on a vintage 2000 system that had been running Win2k. Yes, I had swap areas, but it worked without a hitch and reasonably fast. I think the processor was Celaron.
Of Course, people are going to have issues with finding drivers for really old hardware, and maybe they are afraid to chance it on new drivers, but I have run devices of vintage 2000 on recent Linux with generic drivers, and if you are resourceful you can figure out how to wrote a river for that HW that absolutely has to be supported. That sounds like an opportunity for Opern Source advocates, to support legacy hardware with Linux drivers. Sounds to me that M$ is creating opportunities for Linux device driver writers to support legacy hardware, if it isn't already supported. I guess that also applies to software that needs Wine or DOSemu support.
Can you run Windows Explorer with "Run as Administrator" ? Nope.
Win8's problems are not quite the same as Vista's problems. Time is not going to fix Win8's problems.
There's part of me (the part that wants Microsoft quick fried to a crackly crunch) that wants to agree.
But there was an article in The Register not long ago about a credible rumor that Microsoft now has plans (post-Ballmer?) to split Win8 into three versions: (a) the current version, appropriate for handhelds, (b) a desktop version, which would essentially be (mostly) Win7 look and feel with Win8 performance improvements, and (c) an Enterprise version, which is (b) except using the Enterprise patch mechanism instead of relying on the Windows Store for patches (which has apparently been a sticking point for Enterprise acceptance).
The article made it clear that this was only a rumor from "a credible source", but if for the sake of argument we take this utterly on face value, I'd be forced to say that yes, this really does fix Win8's problems. Mind you, I'm not a Win8 apologist -- I'm the guy who has complained bitterly about the Win8 touch screen convertible I paid good money for that nobody (including me) will use because Windows 8 is so damned hard to do anything with. But fair is fair, and if the above really does happen, it would eliminate pretty much all of my objections. (Except, of course, why didn't you do that in the first place??)
Of course, this could all be wishful thinking. I guess we'll have to wait and see. But what this meant to me is that I stopped dinking with Windows 8.1 and put the machine back on the shelf. I can afford to wait.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
This.
Maybe I had new enough hardware that I didn't have driver issues. But I didn't have any issues with Vista. I grant you that Win7 is a tad more refined. But, overall, not really much different.
Just a fine point of detail, here: Windows 8 Pro has the downgrade option to Windows 7 Professional/Ultimate. Core edition has no downgrade rights. So, chances are, the machine you're purchasing will not be downgradable. That said, there are several systems (Lenovo in particular) which are downgraded out of the box. As you note, Windows 7 is also available for purchase as well, although this will probably be eliminated as Microsoft's SOP is to keep the last-gen OS around as long as it's only 1 generation behind. Once Windows 8.2 or 9 or whatever its name will be comes out, 7 will vanish from the regular channels.
Goddammit just when I get my first +5 the Beta rolls out and kills everything
XP will still run applications and be used
gosgog:
Go to Linux/Ubunto OSes, then you won't have to spend a ton, Donation is up to you, & if you can't donate its all Free anyway, including updates & its all better, faster, generally Virus & Malware free, but they have good anti-that stuff & for Free.
This is absurd. Yes, Vista was a disaster, but Windows 7 was a huge upgrade from XP.
No it wasn't. An OS is a program selection GUI and loader and standardized hardware interface library. That's it. Both XP and Windows 7 do that job just fine. The Windows 7 program selection GUI is slightly prettier. So what? It also has a less complete hardware interface library.
Some OS' conflate those functions with providing lots of additional programs and libraries. Most are unused, just the OS version of bloatware. If your program is running fine on XP then Windows 7 is just an opportunity for problems.
Yes, Linux would be fine for any number of users, many of whom need nothing more than a web browser. I suppose installing it would be too hard for most of them though (downloading an ISO, writing it to a USB stick and modifying a BIOS setting - tricky).
But if people insist that they need Windows, then they should accept the facts, and buy a new machine after Microsoft stops supporting their OS. Where do they get the idea that they can continue using a 10 year old operating system forever and expect a strongly profit-motivated company to help them for free?
Open source XP
Casteism
Lets see... Microsoft writes a buggy, insecure operating system, then says we should update because the newer buggy, insecure system is better, rinse and repeat. I think Windows 7 wasn't horrible, but then Windows 8 came along and caused me much nausea. I used Windows 8 for four months full time, and after that, I still don't feel in control of the machine. Simply put, I hate "gesture computing". Were there problems so dire with 7 that it needed to be replaced? What an abortion 8 is. But will the day come that Microsoft says no more support for 7 and you MUST move to 8 now? Aren't we tired yet of being wagged around by these people?
Personally I hate the snap window. Often I want a window half off the screen, or on two different screens...or some other type of alignment that 7 doesn't really like with the snap on. Same thing with "pinning" stuff on the task bar...the icons are 2-5 times larger than in the quick launch, do not stay in the same place...on all my 7's I turn off snap, enable quicklaunch...
I have two good reasons not to upgrade from XP. One is a desktop, the other is a laptop. Both run flawlessly.
# 1 - Spent tons of time and money on learning XP to expert levels. Most of that investment in me goes out the window learning the new ins and outs of 7 or 8. Besides, MSFT track record with releasing garbage for their corporate well being (see: Vista) and not that of the end user is well documented.
# 2 - I find the new MS Office applications, especially Word and Excel, difficult and annoying to use. It's like two groups of retarded monkeys doing two different things, ran in opposite directions and somebody threw icing on a pile of shit and released it. ribbons? Thanks but no thanks. keep it. I'll stick with Office 2000 until they get back to a logical way to create and edit a document.
Got a chuckle here.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
McKesson, I presume is what the previous AC intended to say.
Thanks. My FP was shallow - but no worse than most, and I took my chance, it made me smile posting it! Saying that, I sometimes smile wryly at "Fr0sty P!ss" posts, too, so I can't claim much credit for wit, at all!
I rarely post aiming for moderation or credit, but if something makes people smile, why not share it?
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
I realize that you are probably looking for a job, but small companies using specialized custom software can't afford to upgrade it in times like this. It's not a case of buying a new copy of Word or Excel, these programs take 5 years and 5 million dollars to build new. And thats if they can find a programmer that can do it -at all-.
Loosing the use of the existing software may very possibly cause the company to go out of business. That is not a choice.
And for machine-control apps there is a solution to lack of security updates. Disconnect it from the internet !
No one seems to be mentioning the elephant in the room, as in Windows 2003.
I can think of tens of thousands of servers running Windows 2003 yet that will fall under the same dark cloud. (Hell some accounts I work on have W2K servers they can not get rid of due to legacy apps that will run on nothing else.
I will be interested to see what happens in the near future with the dropping of support for 2003 as well.
--I'm willing to bet you can still buy a new PC with Win7 - you prolly have to go to a local mom-n-pop shop to do it, though. Anyone willing to test this?
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
They will only see it as an argument for you to upgrade.
Microsoft have snookered us! We do not want to upgrade to Windows 8. So we have to migrate to another OS entirely. There is no way that the annoyingness of Windows 8 is outweighed by the annoyingness of learning a new OS. PLEASE MICROSOFT MAKE WINDOWS 9 NOW AND MAKE IT JUST LIKE WINDOWS 7 BUT A BIT BETTER NOT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!!!
Windows XP was released at the Zenith for hardware quality in some respects (think 4:3 screens, thinkpad keyboards). Microsoft forcing people to buy a computer is forcing people to downgrade their computer. It aint gonna happen!!
If they were serious about asking people to upgrade from XP, they wouldn't be asking $90-$130 for a retail copy of Windows 7, the last Microsoft Operating System that worked ...
Good idea, it is already available. While prices are negotiated company by company, rumour has it a floor amount of $200,00 per year and $200 per device plus you have to pay for Software Assurance.
So basically your prices are off by a little bit, but they sure to provide Custom Support.
Time to change to a free operating system and thus prevent being locked-in by monopolists.
(Please do not mention the argument of hardwaredrivers! That's sooo 2005. Oeps...sorry, it became valid again with Win7)