Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Ends Mainstream Support For Windows 7
jones_supa writes The mainstream support of Microsoft Windows 7 [ended Monday]. The operating system leaving mainstream support means no more platform updates, no new features, and end of free support. Windows 7 will now enter extended support, which means that security updates will keep coming, and support will be offered for charge. The final end of support for Windows 7 will be reached January 14, 2020.
Is anyone nostalgic for Windows 7?
I plan to switch to it real soon now.
Same here. With Windows XP still hanging on and Windows 8 needlessly messing with the UI, I doubt we'll see Windows 7 going anywhere anytime soon.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
This. I have no desire to stop running win7 anytime soon unless win 10 is magically awesome which I sincerely doubt it will be given the win8 debacle.
zosxavius photography
The suitable replacement (supposedly) is Windows 10, which hasn't been released yet.
I feel like windows makes one-bad, one-good alternating OSs because they need to make the monster and then the savior. So like many others, I hope windows 10 does everyone a solid.
I'm an admin at a University and we STILL are finding XP machines out in the wild. I don't forsee us (or most businesses) moving up to 10 when it launches because everyone just moved to 7 after XP ended its extended life support. When 7 reaches the end of extended support, then we'll see if people flock to 11 or 12 or whatever's out by then.
... Win7 = WinXP in corporate world now
I'm sure they are hoping this will push people into Microsoft-branded cloud services.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Don't kid yourself. XP was just as bad as Vista at first, but everyone forgets that. It didn't become the "Windows to stand the ultimate test of time" until XP SP2.
Windows 2000 was also one of the best versions, IMHO. It just often gets left out, because it wasn't marketed to "the average home user." (But I wish it had been, instead of that trash called ME.)
I resisted 8.1 for a long time because of all the bashing. But I recently rebuilt my system, needed to resintall, and decided to go with 8.1. And it's actually pretty good. It boots fast and has an even smaller footprint than 7. Install was smooth (the only issue was outputting sound over HDMI, which was fixed with my first update). I've not had any crashes or problems so far and I've been using it for several months now. The only problem I have with it interface-wise is with the layout of the start menu, but that took me all of a few minutes to fix.
As usual, don't believe all the anti-Microsoft hype. Some people will bash anything MS does, for any reason (especially on slashdot). If Bill Gates cured cancer tomorrow and gave the cure away for free, posters would be on here in droves complaining that he didn't do it fast enough.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Sure, if we could disable all of the crud they piled on top, the core of Windows 8 is relatively good, as it's efficient and stable. But the crud on top is really, really irritating, and bloated, which is why Windows 7 looks so good in comparison. My PC that ran find in Win7 became almost unusable with Win8. I'm hoping someone writes an un-installer that rips our the crud, like there was for Vista.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
However going back Windows 95 is a different OS.
10, 8, 7, Vista, XP, 2000, Windows NT 4, Windows NT 3 Were all based off the same kernel.
MS DOS -> Windows ME were based on an other kernel.
Windows 2000 was a really *good OS for the day. However Microsoft Dumped ME on the desktop users at the same time. So only business/pro users used Windows 2000.
* By Good in terms of Windows OS, I had been using Linux sense early 1994. While I hadn't seen windows meet the Linux/Unix systems in terms of ability and features.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
A 5-year support cycle is far too short for an OS.
It should be at least 10 years, especially when the hardware can last 20.
Windows 8.1 is ok.....
It's just the UI and stupid metro (modern wtv) stupid start menu crap that annoys me.
Also it seems to be a little shizo...some settings are in classic menus...some in modern....
But in terms of stability, performance, it's actually as good as windows 7.
Pretty much - most corporations have just barely (as in 2-3 years ago at most) updated from XP to Windows 7.
Good luck with pushing 8 to the corporate world... it's about as adoptable as an angry badger with syphilis.
More and more, I'm finding myself working at places where I really don't have to use a Windows UI if I don't want to. Right now I'm typing this on my corporate-issued MacBook Pro, and only rarely do I bother logging onto a Windows server (vSphere client, and even then only out of habit since the web-client works pretty much as well).
Don't get me wrong - Microsoft will still be in the business world for a goodly long time - we still use Outlook/Exchange, Active Directory, and even Sharepoint (for HR/Corp crap - all the important stuff is on Confluence.) Thing is though, Microsoft's hold in business is beginning to show cracks, and I suspect in about 5 years, there will be a bit of a crisis in Redmond...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I'm not a huge fan of Windows; but, If I need it for something, Windows 7 is the version I install - in a virtual machine. It does seem pretty solid, and 8's UI gets in the way far too much (says this Mac user).
#DeleteChrome
2000 had a similar problem to Vista. They changed the driver model and *nothing* would work anymore. A lot of devices did not have working drivers for a long time and some older devices never new got drivers made. The software APIs were changed in ways that broke backwards compatibility so yes a lot of old apps would not run properly either. A lot of this was due to applications that wanted to write all over the filesystem and which were not designed for a multi-user OS.
I liked Windows 2000 for the stability because it was NT based. Plus unlike NT the user interface was no longer horrible and it had passable support for games. Windows XP added more backwards compatibility with old apps so it was a lot more acceptable as a working platform plus by then the driver situation had improved. Vista had similar issues in particular with NVIDIA graphics drivers.
"99% of the people bashing the windows 8 interface haven't used it for more than an hour."
As someone that has used and liked AmigaOS, MacOS, OS/X, LinuxKDE, LinuxGnome, Windows, Windows95, 98, 2000, XP, and 7.... If I use a UI for an hour and still hate it I am done.
Windows 8 UI works well on tablets, it is okay on touch devices, it is useless on a traditional desktop or laptop.
The core OS is actually really good but the UI is bad for the majority of users. It gives little to no added value for the pain provided.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
This is ridiculous. Win7 is all I sell on new PCs at my shop. Nobody wants 8.1. No business with a brain rolled it out. They damn well better extend support past 2020 as well because our business just got rid of XP needlessly on single purpose desktops.
Welcome to IT.
Leave you dignity and expertise at the door. Do everything as cheap as possible in the short term.
You are a cost to the company, with nothing of value to contribute to the core business, be glad we took pity on your and gave you a job.
Sounds familiar?
Finally
Only Security patches from here on out.. not Mucky Muck.. "Feature Enhancements" or "Rubble" updates or "Video Card drivers"
Golden Edition
We should all be good for the next Thirteen years or so
More and more, I'm finding myself working at places where I really don't have to use a Windows UI if I don't want to. Right now I'm typing this on my corporate-issued MacBook Pro, and only rarely do I bother logging onto a Windows server (vSphere client, and even then only out of habit since the web-client works pretty much as well).
Just an aside: I'm no fan of MS, even though I have to work in a Windows environment; however, when dealing with MS Servers, I have found that the recent versions of the Microsoft RDC Client for OS X is actually even more capable, just as fast (or maybe even faster), and a WHOLE lot better-mannered than even the Windows native RDC Client.
If you run OS X, but need to "Remote-In" to Windows Servers/Workstations, check it out. It's free, and quite pleasant.
And now I have to go wash my hands for typing something complimentary about Windows...
You know your new OS is awful when people "upgrade" to the previous version.
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
>99% of the people bashing the windows 8 interface haven't used it for more than an hour. They go crazy when anything changes
That's complete bullshit, and you know it. The terrible changes in Win 8 were done to try to drive traffic to an app store, and to run on tablets. They actually harm the user-experience on the desktop. This is not people freaking out over change, this is people rejecting a broken UI.
I have to assume that there's something seriously wrong with you, causing you to call people crazy for rejecting an inferior OS. Is the rest of your worldview this screwy?
Vista sucked because it broke a lot of programs, because those programs were coded with poor coding practices (most developers suck). Microsoft wanted to do a clean start and fix a lot of windows security issues (e.g., you have to elevate yourself to admin versus being admin). This resulted in a lot of programs assuming they could do something when they couldn't, leading to a big pile of confusion. (Just like it was possible to actually have a Windows system that was usable non-Admin, one could get Vista working well. It just took a LOT of work to get to that state).
A year later and everyone fixed their issues, making Vista much better. But since it was tainted, it was easier to repackage it as Windows 7 and leave the legacy of taint behind.
Just get classic shell.
The only difference you'll notice is faster boot times and not being prompted three times if you want to launch a program.
I'm a little segfault, short and stout.
Simple, they want one codebase and UI for windows desktop and windows phone/tablet. So you got tablet UI on your desktop/laptop, which is horrible.
It is definitely much easier to use Windows in the business than Macs, from an IT perspective. There isn't even a comparison. The tools for managing Windows boxes are solid, and provides very simple integration and administration.
If you don't want amateur sysadmins in your Windows boxes, then you don't give them administrator access on their machines.
Windows is also considerably more stable than it used to be. There is no substantial difference in reliability between a Mac and a Win 7 box. Hell, I've been using the an install of Vista, of all things, on a box for at least five years without any difficulty.
As far as security goes, as far as I can tell, the only major difference is that with Windows, you have more malware that has been written for it, but in terms of real security, it is no worse, and it is actually considerably better than a Mac if you consider the fact that an IT department can enforce restrictions on installing software and ensuring patching much more easily with a Windows box.
I've supported both in IT before, and it isn't even close. Which is not to say Windows is perfect or even the best box for the job. There are many developers who love Macs for good reason.. That does not translate, however, into ease of management. For all that Apple is decent at maintaining upgrades on their consumer devices, their business support is crap and getting worse.
Macs are not business machines, they're consumer machines that have to be shoehorned in and managed like special snowflakes.
I just realized that my OEM license won't transfer to my new computer and I couldn't easily find a copy of Windows 7, so for the first time I just decided to go without. I have Windows 8 on a laptop and there's no way I'd ever buy a copy of that, if it didn't come preloaded. It's just awful.
This marks the end of the dual-boot era for me. It's Linux all the way now. Great job Microsoft!
Your statement is actually reinforcing his point.
You are *not* a business user. If you were, you:
a) would not have been able to get Windows into a state that requires a reinstall. For instance, you would not personally install or update anything. ...also would not have been able to reinstall Windows in the first place.
b)
Your experience with a personal computer is irrelevant. This isn't mean as an insult -- you're just discussing a completely different thing.