Meet the Diehards Who Refuse To Move On From Windows XP

Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Nearly every longtime Windows user looks back on Windows XP with a certain fondness, but the party's over according to Microsoft. 'It's time to move on,' says Tom Murphy, Microsoft's director of communications for Windows. 'XP was designed for a different era.' But Ian Paul writes in PC World that many people around the world refuse to give up on XP. But why? What's so great about an operating system that was invented before the age of Dropbox and Facebook, an OS that's almost as old as the original Google search engine? Bob Appel, a retiree based in Toronto, says he uses 12 PCs in a personal Dropbox-like network—10 of which are running XP. 'I use a third-party firewall, a free virus checker, and run Housecall periodically,' says Appel. 'My Firefox browser uses Keyscrambler, HTTPS Anywhere, Ghostery, and Disconnect. I also have a VPN account (PIA) when traveling. For suspicious email attachments, I deploy private proprietary bioware (me!) to analyze before opening. All the "experts" say I am crazy. Thing is, I stopped the security updates in XP years ago after a bad update trashed my system, and yet I have never been infected, although online for hours each day. So, crazy though I be, I am sticking with XP.'" (Read more, below.) More from Pickens: "Mike Merritt uses an XP PC to run his online business in rural Ontario and cites Outlook Express as one of his major reasons for sticking with XP. The once-popular email client isn't available with Windows 7 or 8.1, and for Merritt, alternatives such as Thunderbird or webmail clients like Outlook.com are a non-starter. 'Webmails have a slower load time than a desktop app like Outlook Express and they would have their own learning curve and modification to my current workflow,' says Merritt. 'The upgrade path for me would require replacing a bunch of things that work just fine as far as I'm concerned.'

The same day that Windows XP reaches its end of support on April 8, Microsoft will roll out a major update to Windows 8.1 that will make it easier for traditional desktop users and the company recently announced that the Start menu will return to Windows sometime in the coming months. Mike Eldridge says that since his computer is currently on its last legs, he's going to cross his fingers and hope for the best until it finally dies. 'I am worried about security threats, but I'd rather have my identity stolen than put up with Windows 8.'"

Comments

VirtualBox

[taiwanjohn]

I still have an XP installation running in a vbox, just because it's easier than trying to get SlingBox to run under wine.

Re:VirtualBox

[Joce640k]

I still have an XP installation running in a vbox,

My XP laptops (two of them) get used every day and do their job perfectly but they don't have enough disk space for Windows 7/8. Should they become landfill? I don't have an extra $1200 lying around for a couple of new laptops (and even if I did, they don't make them as small as my EeePC 900 any more - it's the size that makes that one useful).

Good for you.

[richy freeway]

But 99% of Windows users can't/won't go to those lengths to stay secure. But congratulations on making life hard for yourself.

Re:Good for you.

[dougmc]

... and yet his efforts will probably stop 99.9% of the crap that affects "modern" Windows versions with their clueless users.

Installing Windows 7 or 8 wouldn't make his job much easier or make his computer much more secure.

Re:Good for you.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

*Real* security is *always* inconvenient. That almost seems to be a law of nature. As in, whenever something supposedly secure feels too convenient, question your assumptions.

Re:Good for you.

[nine-times]

Agreed.

'I use a third-party firewall, a free virus checker, and run Housecall periodically,' says Appel. 'My Firefox browser uses Keyscrambler, HTTPS Anywhere, Ghostery, and Disconnect. I also have a VPN account (PIA) when traveling. For suspicious email attachments, I deploy private proprietary bioware (me!) to analyze before opening. All the "experts" say I am crazy. Thing is, I stopped the security updates in XP years ago after a bad update trashed my system, and yet I have never been infected, although online for hours each day...

Thing is, that does sound crazy to me. It sounds compulsive and anal retentive. I wouldn't be surprised if he also only operates his computers while wearing a tinfoil hat inside a Faraday cage that he built in his basement.

You know what I do? I install a modern operating system and pretty much leave it alone. I have never been infected, simply by keeping up to date and not engaging in high-risk behavior. I'd rather spend a few dollars now and then than sit around re-running security checks, but I guess I'm not retired and I don't have the time to be a kooky security nut. I know, someone is going to bash this post because Slashdot has a lot of kooky security nuts, as well as a strong contingent of people who like to hack together weird solutions for what may be non-existent problems. And that's fine as long as you're doing that because you like doing it. Just don't go pushing it as a good idea. You're making everything more difficult for those of us who have to support these things for a living.

The best strategy for most people, especially in terms of doing work for your business, is to stay relatively up-to-date with supported hardware and software.

Re:Good for you.

[N1AK]

Possibly true (certainly true in all examples I can think of), however inconvenience doesn't automatically mean security. An informed user can likely run a secure Win7/8 enviroment with considerably less inconvenience than running an equally secure Win XP enviroment especially once MS drop security updates.

Re:Good for you.

[Wycliffe]

My father in law runs windows 98SE. He says he doesn't have problems with viruses anymore
as all the viruses are written for the newer systems. It's not worth people's time to infect an OS
with a small userbase.

Re:Good for you.

[towermac]

You got that right. I do absolutely nothing to stay secure; I fool with computers enough on the job.

I've got XP SP3 installed with no updates, and only Avast protecting it. It finally occurred to me that my home computer is really just a Chrome & Warcraft display appliance. I bet the same is true for a lot of folks.

Re:Good for you.

[jythie]

I think part of this cuts to the heart of why many people do not upgrade. For fetishists, an OS is an OS and has value unto itself. For many users, an OS is a file manager and application launcher, and thus fancy new features do not actually add any new functionality for them. Many users do not care what services and protocols are now 'built in' or how seamless the 'media experience' is, they just want their web browser, a working media player, or whatever other major application they tend to use the machine for. And for that use pattern, as long as the app runs and the hardware drivers are supported, XP is functionally equivalent to Win7 or Win8, with the major advantage of them already having it and already knowing where all the settings are that they do not want to fiddle with unless they need to.

Re:Good for you.

[LordLimecat]

Installing Windows 7 or 8 wouldn't make his job much easier or make his computer much more secure.

Yea, it sort of would. For one, he wouldnt be stuck with IE8. For another, hed have UAC which solves most of the rootkit threat that XP had to deal with. For a third, hed actually be getting security patches.

I have to wonder whether the folks touting how great XP is have done customer-facing IT support. Actually, I dont really wonder, because if they had theyd know well enough how much of the malware threat is mitigated just by upgrading to Win7 and updating your software.

Re:Good for you.

[LordLimecat]

For suspicious email attachments, I deploy private proprietary bioware (me!) to analyze before opening.

IOW, "im smart enough to ignore common IT wisdom".

Run out of date software, pay the price. Ask the Debian guys whether using "private proprietary bioware" protected their OpenSSL keys-- clearly those updates dont matter THAT much, right?

Re:Good for you.

[King_TJ]

That's one theory -- but I'd say previous experience shows it wasn't the case.

For example, there were quite a few people who hung onto Windows '98SE *long* after it was discontinued, yet they never really ran into any new security threats of significance. (The biggest problem for some of them was finding anti-virus software that would still install and run on the platform, after a while. But a few packages still supported it, and downloaded AV signature updates just as well as they did on other OS's.)

In that situation, the hackers quit focusing on anything Win '98 and concerned themselves only with exploiting the more recent code out there, which had an ever increasing market-share, not a decreasing one.

We saw this again with Windows 2000 Server, where security updates stopped -- yet many businesses kept on using it in production, in situations where older and complex applications were already running well on it, and redoing the whole thing on a newer server version was a big and costly undertaking. (I know my previous employer still uses Win2K server for a custom written app developed in the PROGRESS language. It's a virtual machine now, instead of a physical server -- but there's simply no need to go through the hassle that would be involved to move it to Windows Server 2008 or 2012.)

I'm not sure where your 98% statistic comes from, but I suspect you pulled it out of thin air. Many of the old exploits and bugs affecting XP systems had to do with aspects of its design which were changed considerably in Vista and later. (We're talking everything from restricted areas of the system registry that random apps aren't allowed to change anymore, to issues related to Active-X and the older versions of IE which XP users are forced to use since the new ones won't install on it.) I doubt hackers, moving forward, will put a huge effort into finding new exploits for IE version 6,7, and 8 that weren't already patched, or trying to write malware that wouldn't be effective in the first place on any Windows version with UAC?

Re:Good for you.

[danlip]

Stuck with IE8? How about Firefox or Chrome, both of which still support XP. Why would you be using IE anyway?

Re:Good for you.

[pla]

I'm not sure where your 98% statistic comes from

You'll notice my first sentence echos the GP's almost word for word. I'll readily admit that as hyperbole, but I didn't start it.

As for those old win98 and 2000 systems you mention - I have had the "pleasure" of helping people upgrade from them, years after they went EoL. One word: Ugly. These things pick up so much malware (not even counting the viruses you can't see, just the obvious shit that doesn't even try to hide) you may as well just publish your PII on the front page of the NYT.

Yes, you can take some steps to minimize the damage, and if you have a realistic upgrade path in the next month, I wouldn't completely panic about missing today's XP EoL deadline. If, however, you just plan to keep using it indefinitely until Microsoft gives in and decides to go back to the look and feel of Win95... What can I say but "Thanks for the contribution to my retirement fund" when you need someone like me to clean up your mess in a few years. :)

Re:Good for you.

[MikeBabcock]

I see dozens of computers a year running modern operating systems with up-to-date anti-virus software and firewalls installed that are full of viruses and other malware. User behaviour is the major problem here and his paranoia and your wisdom are probably what protect you the most, not the version of Windows you do or do not run.

Re:Good for you.

[nine-times]

I deal with the same thing, but the reality is that it is very often a result of (A) user behavior; and (B) outdated software. That outdated software isn't always the OS, but often it's Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash Player, or the Java plugin. If I can make sure all the software on your system is completely patched and up-to-date, I will drastically cut your chances of infection. Don't even try to claim that having the latest patches for Flash/Java don't help your security. And how long will Adobe/Oracle support Windows XP once Microsoft drops support?

There's still the issue of "user behavior", which can be mitigated by using certain policies, but can't be stopped without severely inhibiting users. Still, by keeping things up to date, I can cut the chances of infection for all but the most persistently stupid users.

Software doesn't wear out.

[CastrTroy]

Software doesn't wear out. I'm still running XP on an old desktop in my basement. It works fine for what I need it for. Upgrading to a new version of Windows would cost more than what the machine is worth, and I'm reasonably sure that all the hardware wouldn't have proper drivers because the machine is so old. I have no problem getting Windows 8.1 (or whatever the current version is) when I replace the computer, but there's nothing wrong with the machine right now. It's behind a router with NAT turned on, so there's little chance of attack from the outside, and I can still use updated versions of Firefox or Chrome for browsing the web, so there's not many security problems there.

Re:Software doesn't wear out.

[sandytaru]

The hardware eventually will, though. As long as you've taken reasonable backup precautions you'll be fine, but the average user out there isn't running a good antivirus, let alone a weekly backup of personal files.

I'm not worried about the folks on Slashdot. I'm worried about the Maaco shop up the road, which had an XP computer the last I checked. I'm worried about my husband's aunt and the photos of her grandkids. I'm worried about the ATM in the gas station.

Re:Software doesn't wear out.

[Anonymous Coward]

and I can still use updated versions of Firefox or Chrome for browsing the web

For now. Many open source projects are starting to drop XP support. For example XBMC just dropped it for their next version. I expect vista is up next. It is 8 less combinations to test for as XP had a few flavors out there. Most acted the same but some had a quirk or two.

Look its ok you run an old OS. No really it is. But do not plan on the open source guys to have your back. They will get bored or will not be able to find anyone who will support it.

You probably have 1-2 years left out of it. Just start thinking of upgrading.

For me the upgrade was worth it for the power bill and paid for itself in under a year. I went from a machine that added 20 dollars a month to my power bill to one that can barely get over 7w-10w and blows it away performance wise. It was a beast when I first bought it. But its time has come...

Re:Software doesn't wear out.

[CastrTroy]

But that's true regardless of the operating system being run. I could be running the newest version of Windows, and still be, even on a relatively new computer, and a hard drive dying still isn't that unlikely. You can get a 1 TB drive for $60. I don't know why you don't see more machines coming with 2 drives in RAID 1 for reliability reasons. At least a somewhat common hardware failure won't cause grandma to lose all here photos.

Re:Software doesn't wear out.

[Luckyo]

Pretty much this. And frankly, even without NAT, you're still safe as long as your software firewall is functional.

Functionally, you need two things to infect a machine. A weakness you can exploit on target machine and a vector through which infection goes in. If you lock up the latter, having former doesn't matter.

Re:Software doesn't wear out.

[sandytaru]

I had one of those. It eventually developed an allergy to Windows XP, so I dropped Ubuntu on it and gave it to a niece to play with.

My grandpappy done left me this XP

[NotDrWho]

And I ain't leavin'!!! Ya hear that gubmint?!?

Re:My grandpappy done left me this XP

[NotDrWho]

Your wrong.

Hittites

[smittyoneeach]

Real men run DOS3.3

Hardware requirements

[geogob]

Everyone running old specfialized hardware which is not compatible with windows 7 or later feel the pain of the XP end of life.
Its not about refusing or not. Some simply don't have the choice and must stick with XP.

We migrated 100% of our windows-based computers used for typical applications (office work, CAD, data analysis, etc.) to windows 7 or 8. But some machines working with specialized hardware, that is either too expensive to replace or for which simply no replacement exist, can't be migrated. They must remain with XP.

This actually creates a lot of frustration and administrative problems, as after the end of the XP support, those computers are not allowed to remain on the institution network anymore. A clear solution has still to be found (hint: ghostery and co. are not part of the solution).

Re:Hardware requirements

[SJHillman]

This isn't a new problem. We still have Windows 95 and OS/2 boxes that can't be upgraded. The only difference with the XP end of life is that XP is easier to continue to support yourself.

Re:Hardware requirements

[VortexCortex]

Everyone running old specfialized hardware which is not compatible with windows 7 or later feel the pain of the XP end of life.

That is not the pain of XP EoL, it is the self inflicted torture by those who refuse to use free and open source software.

It is a shame, but I have no sympathy for those who embrace planned obsolescence.

Re:Hardware requirements

[geogob]

Yes! I'll make sure to pass on the message to that company that closed down 3 years ago and to the guy who retired 8 years ago.
Its a shame indeed, all the self inflicted toture they are causing me.

But I'll bet they answer that themselves find it a shame that non of the companies producing the hardware respecting the requirements for the sub-components themselves only supported windows. In that sence, I guess on could say it's a second level indirectly self inflicted toture.

Or they will remind me how there is a real world, with real problems, real limations and where you do not have the control on everything.

Re:Hardware requirements

[jbeaupre]

I've got a DOS machine behind me that we use frequently. Need it to run special software that runs ISA boards. Couldn't be easier to maintain. My only fear is the motherboard dying and having to find a PC with ISA bus.

Re:Hardware requirements

[Deadstick]

Everyone running old specfialized hardware which is not compatible with windows 7 or later feel the pain of the XP end of life.

Or high-priced software they got through warez channels which won't run on 7, and which they can't "renew" because DRM got better...

Re:Hardware requirements

[ComputerGeek01]

That is not the pain of XP EoL, it is the self inflicted torture by those who refuse to use free and open source software.

It is a shame, but I have no sympathy for those who embrace planned obsolescence.

Alright wiseguy, then tell me what the "open source" solution is to my companies key fob system that periodically runs a hash against itself to protect against code injections, checks against VM's by dialing out of the system to an external client and only runs on XP? Is someone handing these systems out? Are we going to organize a flash-mob to come in and rip apart our walls and rerun the cabling to and from the locks on all of the doors on two separate floors and through concrete flooring while replacing the proprietary locking mechanisms? Who is it that is going to be so generous with their time and reprogram this thing for our 200+ employees? There are in fact some things that your precious open source community does not provide and that are necessary for businesses to meet certain industry standards

Re:Hardware requirements

[jythie]

Even when the company does support linux and produces a driver for their hardware, even when there was at the time an OSS version of the driver with source available, there is no guarantee there is a version of it that will function with updated kernels or distributions. Try taking a driver written for a 2.2 kernel with gcc 2.95 and make it work with a modern copy of CentOS or Ubutntu and one can find themselves just as stuck.

Re:Hardware requirements

[nine-times]

Everyone running old specfialized hardware which is not compatible with windows 7 or later feel the pain of the XP end of life. Its not about refusing or not. Some simply don't have the choice and must stick with XP... A clear solution has still to be found...

I think this is actually a good argument as to why those people shouldn't be using Windows in the first place. There may be other arguments, e.g. "On a practical level, they had no choice," but I just want to point out that this is exactly the kind of thing FOSS advocates are talking about for years, while most of the world dismissed them as being paranoid.

If you're dependent on specialized hardware, and you will need ongoing support over years or decades, you might want to look for a system that uses an open source driver and/or runs on Linux or a BSD variant. It doesn't immediately solve all of your problems, but it leaves open the possibility that someone somewhere could provide maintenance or an upgrade path. For as long as you're buying specialized solutions that require a specific version of proprietary software, you're at the mercy of the vendor who sells/supports that proprietary software.

When you're planning to buy or build a system, you should always plan ahead. It's amazing to me how many people will buy or build huge expensive systems, build their entire business to depend on those systems, and yet have absolutely no plan or budget to maintain or replace those systems. So many toddlers building empires out of sand.

Re:Hardware requirements

[DerekLyons]

Everyone running old specfialized hardware which is not compatible with windows 7 or later feel the pain of the XP end of life.

That is not the pain of XP EoL, it is the self inflicted torture by those who refuse to use free and open source software.

Bullshit. The free and open source software frequently simply doesn't exist for specialized hardware. Period. Not to mention, I find it very unlikely that free and open source will long continue to support XP - Firefox, for example, has already dropped support for everything prior to SP3.

F/OSS is not the universal panacea it's fanboy's would like to have us believe.

Re:Hardware requirements

[MachineShedFred]

Wow. Way to embrace ideology rather than reality.

What do you say to the business that has a $1M+ printing press, which has software that only runs on Windows 2000 Server, and interfaces through a physical PCI card? Fuck you, replace your $1M perfectly functional hardware because GPL?

Good luck with that. I'd personally tell them to get a $50 NIC and plug it into the box they use for imposition and stripping, and put that RIP server on a second private network with no routing whatsoever.

Re:Hardware requirements

[NJRoadfan]

I keep hearing about how people need ISA slots to run these irreplaceable industrial control ISA cards. Have they considered what they are going to do when the ISA card decides to die?

Re:Hardware requirements

[buysse]

That's why (if they're smart) there are three spare ISA cards on the shelf, or more, preferably already installed in identical machines.

I work with a group that has ISA-based cards for research data acquisition (EEG variant, if I remember correctly) with a study that's been running for 20+ years on the same subjects. They can't swap the hardware, because the output data wouldn't be directly comparable -- newer equipment is "better", but in terms of continuity for the research, they need the same, not better. There's a stack of old 286 or 386 machines in the basement, and we run a Netware server (since they were originally tested with the DOS Netware clients over IPX, we continue to use it) to get the data from those DOS boxes to something vaguely modern over NFS.

ISA also had the oddity that the clock speed for the bus wasn't fixed. It's variable based on CPU speed on the original systems, the last machines shipping with ISA would lock it at 8Mhz or so (i.e., a 1/4 multiplier on a 33Mhz bus CPU, like a 486DX2/66).

They've considered it. And they're probably terrified of that happening -- it's either going to mean the end of a research project, or a multi-million dollar expense along with a major disruption in work. If it was less dire than that, they probably would have already replaced it.

Outlook Express?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are so in love with Outlook Express and your "workflow" that you cannot upgrade your operating system to something from this century then you have bigger problems then having XP on your desktop. If that kind of minor change is too upsetting for you then you will probably have difficulty if your toaster gives out, and you have to get a new one with a different dial for setting how done your bagel is. Breakfast is a bitch, baby.

Re:Outlook Express?

[redmid17]

Outlook Express does not have a calendar

Difference

[SJHillman]

"and yet I have never been infected, although online for hours each day."

There is a great, big difference between "have never been infected" and "have never been infected that I know of"

Re:Difference

[jones_supa]

But that's all you can know.

Not about greatness

[Anonymous Coward]

This topic has been beaten to death but if Hugh Pickens wants us to talk about it, I guess we have to.

The XP machines that are still around aren't here because they are great. They are still used because their life cycle has not expired. We tend to keep computers for about five years. So when we were buying computers 4.5 years ago, our choice was XP or Vista. Obviously, we weren't going with Vista.

So now Microsoft is punishing us for their fuck-up. They are trying to force us to buy a new version of Windows before the current equipment is due for replacement.

I expect to have the same issue in a few years because I'm still buying Windows 7 and they think I should be buying 8.

Re:Not about greatness

[Missing.Matter]

Sounds more like your fuckup. Windows 7 was released ~4.5 years ago, and you didn't see it on the horizon? Not only that, Windows Vista was on SP2 in 2009 and the issues which earned its reputation were largely fixed. The biggest problems with Vista were poor performance on low-spec machines and over-zealous UAC. New hardware with enough RAM fixed issue 1, and UAC was appropriately adjusted with SP1. When Windows 7 was released, many pointed out that the differences between Vista and 7 were mostly cosmetic, which is true to a point.

So to me it seems like you weren't paying attention and were allowing your own biases to feed your decision, which is why you're stuck on XP today. Sounds like you're going to make the same mistake again, because Windows 8 is empirically better than Windows 7 in terms of performance, stability, resource usage, and security. 100% of the complaints relate to UI, and I don't know if you've seen the news but the start menu is returning for you. Try to stay on top of things so this doesn't happen to you again!

Re:Not about greatness

[unimacs]

Lots of companies aren't going to put off buying new computers just because a new OS is going to be released in 6 months. Many are going to hold off on the new OS anyway to make sure they aren't bitten by any incompatibilities. That's not a a fuck up. That's smart.

We have a custom app that won't work right under 7 or 8 and we're kind of stuck with it. It's been a thorn in my side for years. We had an opportunity to migrate it to a more modern technology years ago but the guy in charge wasn't comfortable with the idea and I didn't have the clout to push it. Now it's not worth the expense.

Anyway, after much trial and error we've decided the best thing to do is just run it under a virtual machine. It's a pain but it's workable.

"Normal" People

[VorpalRodent]

The person quoted in the summary appears to have a relatively solid grasp on how to go about being safe on the internet. By that same metric, a large percentage of Slashdot could also be just fine using XP. The problem is that everyone _else_ keeps using XP, and they _don't_ have that same skillset.

I'm happy that Microsoft finally pulled the plug. My goal is that things get bad enough for the small office that I provide support to on a volunteer basis requires them to upgrade. I've had to re-image a bunch of computers already this year because people click things, and companies are taking XP drivers away. Soon enough, I'll be able to say "Too bad, you have to upgrade this time".

Personally

[jez9999]

I stick with XP for one of my desktops because I put my own hardware together (no OS preinstalled), and I don't want to pay horrific sums of money (£135) for a new operating system - Windows 8 is even more expensive to buy a worthwhile edition of. It's behind my free Debian install which acts as a router+firewall. Works for me.

Re:Personally

[SJHillman]

When Windows 8 first came out, an upgrade license was $40, although there were various promotions that would let you get anywhere from $5 to $15 off. I used it to upgrade from Win 7 Ultimate to Win 8 Pro, found that some of my video drivers weren't available for Win 8 yet (when it was brand new), so I went back to Win 7. The deal lasted from launch until Jan 31, 2013.

Re:Personally

[jez9999]

Except that it isn't the lifetime of a decade, is it? Microsoft will want you to "upgrade" and pay them more in a year's time, like they did with Vista -> 7 -> 8. And as I mentioned elsewhere, changing my PC hardware means I have to go through some stupid reactivation process.

Re:Personally

[Missing.Matter]

Windows 8 is even more expensive to buy a worthwhile edition of.

Windows 8 Pro costs less in fact (£110), and if you can live without Hyper-V or Bitlocker (which you obviously are living in XP world) you can go with normal Windows 8 for (£72.99). This is all besides the point that calling ~£100 for an OS that will last ~10 years "horrific" is a pretty gross exaggeration.

If only there was an update tool from xp to win 7

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the IT guy in our family, and currently have 8 family members on a waiting list, who wants to upgrade to windows 7 or 8, but since there is no upgrade tool, I have to make full reinstalls and find all the software that was installed over the years etc.. which means that each machine takes days to upgrade..

If MS truly want us to move to a new OS, they should have made it easy, it it was just an hour or twos work, there would be 8 xp boxes less in the world already ;-)

What a waste of time

[HnT]

I prefer to use my computer for actually DOING something else than spending all that effort on just keeping it running.

Re:Energy Usage of 12 PCs per Person Adds Up

[VortexCortex]

That's just wasteful. At least while doing things in the Cloud, there are efficiencies of shared resources.

I have my own cloud. My home network of machines have had Wake On Lan support since the 90's. When I get updates, I download the data ONCE than mirrors it to the others internally.

You can run a computer efficiently or not, just as you can run a cloud efficiently or not.

IMO, that we do not have OSs inherently focused on decentralization and interoperability is the primary reason both "upgrades" and management of our multi-device lives is needlessly painful.

Re:Sigh, XP support is NOT ending.

[geogob]

Would like some of that malware with sprinkle of virus with that XP patch from best-patch-torrent.ro?

Re:bullshit

[Errol backfiring]

Webmail loads slower?

Not that I am aware of. From the summary:

the Start menu will return to Windows sometime in the coming months

It appears that they tested it on a really slow computer. On my computer, the start menu appears just after I have clicked the button...

Re:Viva La XP!

[SJHillman]

I have a 1984 Tandy 1000 that does exactly what I need it to do - give me bragging rights in Internet threads about how my niche usage case is relevant to all users, everywhere.

Re:Viva La XP!

[Trashcan Romeo]

I have an ENIAC that does exactly what I need it to do - use up all these goddamned vacuum tubes I've got laying around.

Re:Viva La XP!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 1987 BBC Micro in my sitting room which does everything I need it to do, which is be a 1987 BBC Micro in my sitting room.

Re:What DOESN'T run on WindowsXP?

[Spad]

Anything that requires a 64-bit OS and, by extension, anything that needs more than ~3.5Gb of RAM to run (well) as well as anything that needs DX10+ and any new hardware that doesn't ship with XP drivers. This might not be that much now, but it will start to increase dramatically from today onwards.

And no, XP 64-bit does not count, it's a bastard hybrid of XP & 2003 Server and nothing really supports it properly.

If forced into it today, business just might adopt Linux and WINE to run their apps and find out they are safer and more stable because of it

No, they won't, at least not in statistically significant numbers. The cost and hassle of an XP->7 upgrade is much less than the cost and hassle of an XP->Linux upgrade due mostly to the retraining costs for both IT and users (deny it all you like but Linux is not similar enough to Windows that average users will just be able to run with it, most of them panic & phone support when one of their desktop shortcuts disappears) as well as the fact that most of the desktop hardware currently running XP is too old to run a modern Linux distro comfortably - a bunch of Celerons with 256Mb of RAM might be fine if you're running a stripped down install with XFCE and don't want to run any intensive applications, but Linux is not a magic bullet that makes old PCs run like new ones.

On top of all that, you lose integration with all the Windows-based server side systems you already have in place, which leads to either whole-sale replacement or lots of fudging things so they sort of work like before.

I honestly don't think most people advocating businesses should switch all their machines to Linux instead of upgrading from XP really appreciate just how much work would be involved in doing so. Home users are a different matter and it's much more practical for them to take that route, in theory.

Re:Viva La XP!

[Joce640k]

Do people really not get it?

Short version: They have a perfectly working computer with all their stuff on it. Why should they have to throw it in the trash and go through all the pain/expense of an "upgrade"?

(Not to mention all the printers/scanners/etc. that will stop working if they do...)

What about all the essential software that won't work except on XP because it's attached to some hardware? (eg. at my local car repair shop)

You'd have to be stupid to think all these people are just "whiners who need to get with the program".

Re:Didn't we used to call this "speed reading"?

[EvilSS]

Certainly I utilize this now to skim Slashdot in seconds....

You may want to slow down enough to at least make sure you are commenting on the right article :)

If it ain't broke...

[Whammy666]

I'm still on XP and probably will be for some time. The fact is there is no reason to change. It works and it's stable. Plus, all my software works with it, not to mention that replacing the OS is a major pain in the ass. And finally, here's a clue for Micro$oft: ** A DESKTOP WORKSTATION IS NOT A GODDAMN SMARTPHONE! QUIT TRYING TO TURN IT INTO ONE! **"

XP still in use in many technical environments

[wolfguru]

There are systems and processes that we run on a 24x7 basis on equipment that was built when NT was current, for which XP has been the final upgrade. The company is unlikely to replace a 25 million dollar machine so that its controllers can be front-ended with Windows 7 or anything of the kind, given that it still does half a million dollars worth of work for us a day. Some of the specialized software to drive the components and controllers is still 16 bit, and nothing beyond XP supports it. I've heard all the well meaning advice, and the folks that betray their lack of experience and understanding by declaring that we should have made these changes ages ago - the costs of designing new controllers for systems that were designed and built in the late 80's is prohibitive and the expertise and understanding of the processes necessary to replicate is for the most part lost to the ravages of time. Maintaining the most stable alternative is the only choice many companies have. I don't see the exceptions as to running desktop configurations like the one described as essential- there are current alternatives and it is only personal preference that keep people using systems like that; the desktop environment has progressed and there is little reason to stay behind. The control and process environment however, will probably keep XP running well into the 30's just because there are no solid, universally supported alternatives to running 16 bit systems for essential processes.

Re:XP still in use in many technical environments

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't you 3D print a replacement?

Re:XP still in use in many technical environments

[zwarte piet]

As long as it's not on the internet there should not be a problem. Airplanes tend to fly quite nicely with 20 year old software. The spaceshuttle used 8086 based computers. Whatever. If it works it works.

Re:Viva La XP!

[JMJimmy]

I'd upgrade right back to WinXP if I could. Win8 is currently blocking access to all my apps, the WinStore won't load, and the store broker loads in the background and uses up half the system resources. Microsoft's "support" response? Go back to the days of Win95 and format/re-install because they can't be bothered to figure out what broke it (oh btw, 4th time this has happened)

What's the point of getting support from a company who doesn't actually want to support you?

Re:Viva La XP!

[Raumkraut]

Short version: They have a perfectly working computer with all their stuff on it. Why should they have to throw it in the trash and go through all the pain/expense of an "upgrade"?

Not to mention that, for many people, Windows XP is the only desktop operating system they've ever known.
XP has been around for 13 years. In consumer technology, that's an incredible length of time. After so many years of consistency, of course there are going to be people - millions of them - who don't want to face change.

Wrong way of looking at it

[Capt.Albatross]

Pointing out the age of XP merely emphasizes the lack of significant improvement since. When this happens to a technology, it is called maturity.

XP was the first Microsoft PC OS to be what all its predecessors aspired to be.

Re:Viva La XP!

[cheesybagel]

Who posted this obvious price of Microsoft propaganda on Slashdot?

People have lots of valid reasons for not upgrading from XP. They may have a piece of mission critical hardware for which there are no Windows Vista drivers. This happens a lot with laboratory equipment and medical machines. They may have a collection of software which does not run on Windows Vista or later. Fact is Microsoft broke compatibility with a lot of software especially games and multimedia apps. When Vista came out they changed the sound architecture so any sound editing app which uses low level hooks into the OS has a good chance of not working. So then you have the cost of upgrade Windows, upgrading all your applications which do not work anymore assuming there are upgrade paths, upgrading your hardware assuming there are upgrade paths, etc. Then they are surprised people do not upgrade? Please.

I use Windows 7. When Windows 8 came out, for the first time, I did not bother upgrading. I had already suffered enough issues upgrading when Windows 95, Windows 2000, and Windows Vista came out with broken drivers and software. Worst the UI on Windows 8 is abhorrent. If I have to upgrade it will be to Windows 8.1 but I could care less about the tablet optimized UI which is a waste of screen space.

Re:Viva La XP!

[Aryden]

Go back to windows 7.

Re:Why should they upgrade ?

[Tridus]

VB6 programs run on Windows 7 as well.

Re:Viva La XP!

[jythie]

And such people can legitimately ask 'why should I change?'. When something works, the burden should be on the people saying users should change, not on the users to justify not changing. Sometimes it feels like the UI changes we see every year are just different for the sake of being different with few actual changes in functionality.

Re:Viva La XP!

[Joce640k]

Not to mention that, for many people, Windows XP is the only desktop operating system they've ever known.

Yep.

The night watchman downstairs asked me yesterday what this message was that appeared on his computer (he'd copied Microsofts "XP is over" popup message onto a piece of paper to show me).

He's an old guy, probably about to retire, hasn't got any money for a new computer. What exactly is it that makes him an "XP diehard"? Maybe he's just an "ordinary person".

Re:Disk space requirements

[SJHillman]

When XP came out, most hard drives were under 10GB. 20GB was considered large. When Windows 8 came out, 500 to 1000GB was the norm and 2000-3000GB wasn't uncommon. It was rare to see any drives under 250GB. SSDs were only starting to become mainstream, but they still really aren't.

So if we do the math, XP itself would take up 20% or more of a normal hard drive at the time. Windows 8 would only take up 4% of a normal hard drive or 8% of a small hard drive when it came out. If you give developers more hardware, they'll damn well be sure to use it.

Why use XP?

[Khyber]

"What's so great about an operating system that was invented before the age of Dropbox and Facebook, an OS that's almost as old as the original Google search engine?"

It does everything newer operating systems do, with a smaller footprint, and without so much goddamned annoying DRM.

Only exception? No support for anything higher than DX9. Which isn't important for anything but gamers.

Of course, the same could be said about Windows 2000.

Re:Viva La XP!

[mark-t]

But if any vulnerabilities in the underlying operating system are discovered, it can easily be the case that certain types of infections may be able to mask their presence from the antivirus software unless a version of the antivirus software that can detect and prevent such infections happens to already be installed and running at the time the infection first tries to take place, and even if the antivirus is updated to the most recent version, a machine that has already been compromised can potentially prevent anything else from detecting it until the vulnerability in the operating system itself is fixed (which in XP's case will be never)

Re:Viva La XP!

[mark-t]

Not a bad comparison.... if your car was one that was originally built, oh... say almost a hundred years ago or so.

Re:Viva La XP!

[ganjadude]

I still have a 85 Commodore 64 that sits in my lounge which runs off a cassette tape that still does exactly what I want it to do which is sit there in its beautiful glory

Re:Viva La XP!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

This should be a golden age for the antivirus companies.

I still have a machine from 2002 that I sometimes use that has XP Pro on it. 900MHz and 512MB of RAM. Enough said.

I suspect that it won't actually help them much (except in that the XP-bots will presumably make spewing malware even cheaper, as if that is what we needed...)

Anybody still running XP now is either some sort of cheapskate/eccentric (unlikely to be a good customer), or running a special-purpose application (more likely to airgap/firewall/deepfreeze than to introduce a new variable on a probably antiquated machine), or running some sort of ghastly legacy mess where keeping everything exactly as it was is worth a fortune and any change is so expensive that, were they to touch it at all they could afford to move to any platform.

Re:who cares

[unimacs]

Unless you have a car that's extraordinarily expensive to repair, it's almost always much cheaper to fix that clunker rather than replace it with a new car. Think about it. How much money will you spend on a new car in the first year?

Re:Viva La XP!

[fey000]

I have a conch that does exactly what I need it to do - To hear the lamentations of their women.

Re:Viva La XP!

[CastrTroy]

I often wonder about those running special hardware or software that will only work on certain operating systems and hardware configurations. What is their plan when the hardware dies? Sure you can replace a hard disk (hopefully it's backed up), but in a few years, finding a new computer that is supported under Windows XP might be quite difficult. You could probably get by for quite a while buying old refurb and off-lease machines, but it still seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

Re:Viva La XP!

[joe_frisch]

I have a XP based oscilloscope - 20Gs/s, 3.5GHz, deep memory. The vendor won't upgrade it. A replacement is probably >$20K. One of its features is that it can run on the network, but that requires security. Our lab has other expensive XP based hardware as well.

I don't think Microsoft should be *required* to keep supporting XP, but there are a lot of people who are using it because it is the most practical choice for their application.

For normal desktop computing I upgrade hardware and software on a reasonable schedule. Laboratory equipment tends to have a much longer useful life than desktops and is much more expensive. Most of the computers I use are modern, but most of the $$ value of computers are expensive specialized lab equipment.

Re:Viva La XP!

[roc97007]

I'd upgrade right back to WinXP if I could. Win8 is currently blocking access to all my apps, the WinStore won't load, and the store broker loads in the background and uses up half the system resources. Microsoft's "support" response? Go back to the days of Win95 and format/re-install because they can't be bothered to figure out what broke it (oh btw, 4th time this has happened)

What's the point of getting support from a company who doesn't actually want to support you?

I think what you're supposed to do is just bear with it until you can buy Windows 9. And then just bear with that until you can buy Windows 10. See, the problem with XP was that it actually worked. Microsoft has since solved that problem.

Re:Viva La XP!

[roc97007]

Going from XP to 8 is like trading in your American Standard for a porta potty. Because, you know, porta potties are portable.

Couldn't agree more

[justthinkit]

Couldn't agree more, with your comment, and with the submitter's point.

Interesting that my non-patched XP system is and always has been clean, whereas the Win 7 systems I support...that receive all patches and have current & working A/V...get infected regularly.

PIBKAC.

Re:Not available

[swv3752]

There are several accounting solutions out there, just a quick search found:
http://www.gnucash.org/
http://turbocash.net/
http://frontaccounting.com/wb3...
http://www.sql-ledger.com/
http://ledgersmb.org/

Her is a list of replacements for AutoCAD:
http://blog.cometdocs.com/10-g...

Besides GIMP there is Krita and Cinepaint, and GIMPshop provides a Photoshop like interface. GIMP does have plugins if one needs CMYK. Inkscape does Vector Graphics. Scribus is more of a replacement for Illustrator.

There were some lack of features years ago. The options have matured since then.

Re:Viva La XP!

[operagost]

I have a VAX 11/780 in my living room which does everything I need it to do, which is heat my house in the winter.

Re:Viva La XP!

[Kremmy]

Except it really does.
XP is more than capable enough for real world computing usage. I hate to admit it, but it's become kind of a shining example of how derelict this upgrade cycle is.
Vista Capable marked the point where computers outperformed the needs of the operating system and the applications, in a huge way. It was bad enough that Vista never grew out of the reputation. Windows 7, while more efficient, still suffers the same issues if you limit its RAM to 1GB. That sounds reasonable coming from the perspective of using Windows 7 as a base point, but it's completely unreasonable when you take into account the fact that you can run 99% of the same software on a system that takes a fraction of the resources. The security issue is a real and nasty one, it's fact that you can attach an un-patched Windows XP computer to the internet raw and it won't last long enough to perform the updates. But that risk disappears when you add even the most basic NAT router to the mix. Every attack vector beyond the remote service exploits requires enough user interaction to DISAPPEAR if not for the human element of people throwing in all kinds of untrusted crap and pretending like their problem doesn't exist.

Re:Viva La XP!

[Pumpkin Tuna]

Exactly. I bought a high-end desktop five years ago with XP on it because the only alternative was Vista. It's no longer my primary machine, but I use it for occasional gaming and desktop publishing.

If I chose to upgrade to Win7, I would probably need to add RAM to keep it running at the same speed it does now. Add on the cost of 64-bit Win7 and I'm well over $200, just to keep a machine running that is ALREADY running just fine.

Not to mention the headache of making sure everything is backed up and then re-installing software, which requires digging CDs out of boxes that have been through two moves.

I don't see why I should have to bother just to give Microsoft more money.

The main thing this has done is to push me further towards Mac. My work machine is already a Mac. I don't need much of a push when I finally do upgrade.

Re:Viva La XP!

[Kremmy]

And I see the same issues on Windows 7 machines all the time. I see the same kinds of hardware failures taking out machines of all generations, and the same kinds of software failures taking out machines of all generations. The only thing that has changed is, well, nothing. The arguments are still the same, too. Newer is only better if it provides something of value, and for a lot of people it just straight doesn't.

Re:Viva La XP!

[innocent_white_lamb]

I have a $100,000 digital cinema projector. (I own an operate a movie theatre.) The projector runs on Windows XP. Fortunately, it's not connected to the Internet; the server and associated hardware are a self-contained network. I load ("ingest) movies onto the system from CRU hard drives that arrive by courier or bus.