Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.'"
I still have an XP installation running in a vbox, just because it's easier than trying to get SlingBox to run under wine.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
But 99% of Windows users can't/won't go to those lengths to stay secure. But congratulations on making life hard for yourself.
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.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
And I ain't leavin'!!! Ya hear that gubmint?!?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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).
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.
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".
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
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.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
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 ;-)
I prefer to use my computer for actually DOING something else than spending all that effort on just keeping it running.
"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
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.
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...
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
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.
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.
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.
But that's all you can know.
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".
No sig today...
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 :)
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
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! **"
When all else fails, run.
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.
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.
Go back to windows 7.
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.
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".
No sig today...
Not a bad comparison.... if your car was one that was originally built, oh... say almost a hundred years ago or so.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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.
I come here for the love
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.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
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.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
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.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!