You give the perfect example of what's wrong. You are implying that you care more about the inconvenience of having to develop a site that can work on an older browser than about the the customer
It's not like we're talking about something ancient like IE6 full of major security holes, IE8 is still only 5 years old and still supported. In fact the main reasons I see http://theie8countdown.com/ for upgrading is not due to security but because it "hampers the development of the web". Again that reinforces my point; Firefox is on its deathmarch because it wants the brave new web world whether or not its users want that world. And it wants that brave new web world because its advertiser friends have lots of money.
It is perfectly appropriate to put up a warning that IE8 users may not see all features, that at least gives them a chance to consider upgrading or to avoid your site in the future. I certainly wish I had the luxury of ignoring customers using old releases, I could get a lot of free time if I didn't have to backport bug fixes like a responsible programer.
I am advocating that pushing change too hard and ignoring users makes them die hard afraid of change which puts the cost to you.
I just saw a video yesterday that asked users what a browser was? Answer was Yahoo or Google. these were not nursing home seniors but average Joes! Asking them to change is beyond their ability to gasp.
I make money cleaning malware. A huge correlation are business and home users on XP with updates turned off or use older browsers.
MOST users are ignorant and do not know what a browser is? E standards for internet and they use Google as their internet just like we buy Fox and cnn TVs right? But you are downright an idiot if you know what a browser and OS and proudly refuse to keep current with updates take basic precautions. FF 3.6 had +50 exploits last time I looked Wow,
yes IE since 9 is a drastic improvement since IE 6 & 7.
Its not the same buggy piece of shit it once was. However Firefox has improved too! It is fast and uses the least amount of ram since 14. IE 8 sucked hard.... so did FF 3.6 and 4 but at least it was standards compliant.
Today FF is better than IE as IE has no plugin support and 11 is buggy and crashes with dynamic flash creation and action script.
Users will just downgrade to IE 8 on their XP and then whine to the webmasters that they need to make their site look as good as their foxfire. At least IE 8 works right?
Windows 7 is much faster than XP on a modern system.
With Ahci vs eide on SATA even a mechanical drive is quicker. The swaping in XP is HORRIBLE with the algorithm. XP does not support command queing in SATA which means if it is swaping lack a mad dog (even if ram is free) your other files wont load until it is done hence the slower Open Office load. XP does not scale SMP wise beyond 2 cpus that well.
Windows 7 was compilied iwth more flags for video (SSE 3), compression, and uses extra registers on modern cpus which is another boast.
Many have a negative view of Windows 7 out of fear of change because it looked a little like Vista and subconciously looked for bad things.
Really I love Windows 7 and find it supperior to XP and have a hard time wondering why people buy new machines and waste a weekend trying to hack XP to work on them poorly?!
The indexing only happens during the install. It is not like Vista at all and I like instant search and I never even use the mouse anymore to load programs from the start menu. I just type away. It is not bloated at all compared to XP and is more efficient.
Have you actually compared simple tasks in Win7 and XP? Try copying files between a USB stick and the hard drive. I happen to have a laptop from 2005 with XP on it that I still use for work alongside my brand new, no-bloat Win7 workstation with umpteen cores of processing power. Copying files on the XP laptop is about three times faster, even if you ignore the lack of "yes to all" when overwriting a file in Win7. I don't know what it does (combs through and indexes the files for search purposes?) but Win7 is terrible at this considering it has ~100x the processing power at its disposal.
Do you have SEP or McCrappy AV? or is the USB set to 1.0 on the newer machine?
I notice no slowdowns and speed ups in my case. Something sounds fishy
Just do not expect to get free updates nor activation for a fresh install nor expect the market including OEMs to honor your OS choice.
If you have a VM of XP you can use it forever. But I wont care about your platform if I write software and there is coming a day where I write a web app as HTML 5 and I wont cater to your IE 8 anymore.
Do not give me the bull that you use a real browser either. A good 50% use whatever comes with thier machine for a browser and under XP that 50% is IE 8.
Not to know the average user works in a TV station and makes commercials all day.
Real users do not have an IT staff.
XP is a terrible OS. People now say its GOD because of Vista which before 2007 was bashed here for being insecure. Sure XP was a great OS in 2001. But the days of cooperative multitasking and operating systems who core design underneath is DOS 1981 era are over now. Phones, Raspberry pies, car computers, etc, are all multitasking preemptive style, multi user, and most have security built inside it.
No I do not mean a password which is XPs style of security. I am talking DEP, ASLR, DRM, and other technologies. They just work and I would say my cars computer is as reliable as your setup.
But what you have works well until the demand for HD will eventually force you to upgrade, but you my friend are a niche. XP is not appropriate for the internet, online banking, or even modern hardware. Its age is showing, and it appears to work but that does not mean it is safe to use and everyone who says otherwise is wrong. If you are not technically literate then Windows 7 or MacOSX are better platforms.
YOu guys are so resistant to change and that is dangerous in a field like IT where you are expecting to know everything about anything technical.
I have no problem with as I use the Metro tiles ONCE. After that it is the MMC on the clients and powershell.
The tiles are only bad if you need to multitask and do not want to be interrupted each time with a new screen each time you want to launch a new app. With a server you run a shell and maybe server manager and go away.
Ask any slashdotter and they will tell you that you do not need AV software! All 100% of all malware is only caused by clicking and installing things.
So feel free to continue writing posts with they can have XP OVER MY COLD DEAD HANDS with just a scanner and no protection and keep java and flash unupdated on your system.
Dude look at the 200,000,000 XP installations still running!
x86 is here to stay forever. Windows RT failed and it is a competitive cycle where ARM can't compete.
These XP users also show there is no need to ever upgrade anymore. They work. Why change to something that does this same thing they already have??!
Chips no longer double in performance as we hit limits in physics:-(
AMD is loud and needs a big fan. A i3 core is just as competitive sadly unless you really hit every darn core for an app. My phenom II is here to stay even if it is showing its age. Shoot if core2duo and pentium IV WindowsXP users are still going fine then why should I change either?
I upgraded to an ATI 7850 and notice da significant boost.
My goal was a 5 year plan so in 2015 is when I will upgrade. I got an SSD, ATI 7850, and 16 gigs of higher speed ram. Yes my processor is 2.6 ghz but that is the only part left and the T edition is a little bit faster.
In the old days I would upgrade at 100% performance increase. Today it is I/O. I am sure Tom Raider would run fine under medium to high on it if I disable an effect or 2. No biggie for the extra cost.
THe issue is the thermal paste, as well as chip manufactors lower mhz clock speeds until yields improve.
It is a standard process for all chip makers. What AMD did was pick the best of the best where yields would not make sufficient defect free chips at that speed for the demo.
As chip makers increase production and yield quality increases then the speed goes up as well. Notice Tom got closed if not matching the real demo with these tricks.
So these were not botched demos at all! However, you do need to void the warranty and apply elbow grease or water cool them and you will gain the same performance.
The latest ones crash ALOT if you read maximumpc.com or tomshardware.com and my Nvidia fanboys I raid with.
AMD has better quality hardware with less flaky voltage regulators. I went through 2 nvidia cards over 8 years that failed and switched all AMD/ATI in 2010 with the phenom II (better that steamroller per clock tick sadly ) and an ATI 5750.
Had one bizaare issue with black edges on the screen when switching to HDMI. That problem went away after I went into the drivers and configured my screen to not do underscanning.
NO issues for 2 years! Just upgraded to an ATI 7850 and it runs GREAT. No black screens, no overheating, no wierd driver issues at all. This was true in 2002 with the ill fated ATI Rage Pro 128 TV adapter. The Mac version was the only one that worked ok.
But damn that was 11 years ago!
I admit I do not like steamroller, but over all I got a nice $600 system that is 6core, runs VMWare accelerated, back in 2010 back when I would need an Intel extreme edition for $700 without anything else but the damn chip!
What they do not tell you is Intel cripples the bios and turns off hyperthreading and Virtualization support to force you into the more expensive units. AMD chipsets never do this.
IF AMD gets their act together and not create underperforming space heaters I will consider AMD again for a CPU purchase. But what I have works great and the phenom II was a pretty competitive chip for its time.
Raedons are great GPUs and are very competitive with Nvidia. Drivers are worse today with Nvidia unless they clean things up.
I am typing this on a Phenom II now. Not a bad chip at the time several years ago as that could hold a candle to the i5s and i7s with just a 10% performance decrease but was less than half the price and had virtualization support for VMWare and 6 cores. I run VMWare and several apps at once so it was a reasonable compromise for me and budget friendly.
But today I would not buy an AMD chip:-(
I would buy a GPU chip which is about it as those are very competitive. I wish AMD would come to a realization like INtel did with netburst in the pentium IV and dump it for something new. If AMD is within 10% of i7 I would dump it when this machine starts showing its age more. But now it is a space heater with a leaf blower that doesn't offer me much more than what my 2.8 ghz Phenom II already has (which is still superior clock cycle per clock cycle as the steamroller!!!) WTF
But like the phenom II it is obsolete compared to todays CPU.
Actually the Phenom II is a step up and an AthlonFX64 would be the AMD equivalent of your setup. Fine for light work but I would not want to purchase one today if needing a new computer unless I am broke and then I would buy it at Salvation Army used and just rewipe it.
Only games, compiling, and HD video editing require anything newer than a 2006 era machine which is why XP just wont die already! First it was multitasking you need a $3000 machine and upgrade every 2 years, then spreadsheets, then database work, then just games, and now just the 3 scenarios above.
In another 5 - 10 years Windows 7 will be even more of an XP and no one and I mean on ONE will ever need to upgrade again. Even a 7 year old system has amazing powers at hundreds of millions of operations a second and would be a geeks wet dream 2 decades ago as a mini supercomputer.
AMD is creaming Intel in this area. Intel's graphics SUCK. They are as fast as 2006 era graphics and makes game developers pull their hair out and scream more than web developers with IE 6 as they need many work arounds with such poor performance.
The new 5000 series is only 5 years obsolete from what I hear. But Intel likes it this way as they want people to think it is 1995 all over again and buy beefy over priced cpus for better fps instead of upgrading a video card.
AMD has made some mistakes sadly. One is to leave pentium IV/netburst 2.0 behind and invest a new architecture. Make this nice APU for tablets and cellphones with an arm/radaeon that can do 1080p and angry birds 3d in glory.
Proud Phenom II user here. Awesome chip and I still use it on the gaming platform... from 2010?!
I like the 6 core and only 10% slower than an icore 7!... 1st generation icore 7 from 2010.:-(
IT is obsolete and I see no purpose to upgrade my system with it with another one. It is like making a multicore 486 at 3ghz. It would not hold a candle to anything made in the last 15 years.
AMD needs to do an Intel. Dump Netburst 2.0. Intel failed with the pentium IV but after 3 years the core2duo put them on the roadmap again. Intel kept trying to tweak and add instructions and overclo0ck the bloated Pentium IV until they gave up. AMD give up on steamroller ok? An integrated GPU was a nice idea that could have been the next 290X for a fraction of the cost, but like Itanium it never followed through. Make this a low end crap low power APU for tablets and a new architecture and another video card for everything else. No s hared FPUs either as that failed as well.
My point is if you are smart with your money you will learn before you take the plunge right? You do not make investments in things you do not understand right? Same principle.
If computer stuff scares you and you do not like risk then bitcoin and or litecoin is not for you. There are other ways to get rich. But, even Warren Buffett does not invest in industries he is not sharp in.
I know computer shit and I am still on the sidelines until I find a secure way to make transactions and secure a wallet and find a site I trust before I make bets and give out debit card info. Common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Not according to the cost accountants. Money is money and associated with salary as that is a different cost center etc.
You give the perfect example of what's wrong. You are implying that you care more about the inconvenience of having to develop a site that can work on an older browser than about the the customer
It's not like we're talking about something ancient like IE6 full of major security holes, IE8 is still only 5 years old and still supported. In fact the main reasons I see http://theie8countdown.com/ for upgrading is not due to security but because it "hampers the development of the web". Again that reinforces my point; Firefox is on its deathmarch because it wants the brave new web world whether or not its users want that world. And it wants that brave new web world because its advertiser friends have lots of money.
It is perfectly appropriate to put up a warning that IE8 users may not see all features, that at least gives them a chance to consider upgrading or to avoid your site in the future. I certainly wish I had the luxury of ignoring customers using old releases, I could get a lot of free time if I didn't have to backport bug fixes like a responsible programer.
I am advocating that pushing change too hard and ignoring users makes them die hard afraid of change which puts the cost to you.
I just saw a video yesterday that asked users what a browser was? Answer was Yahoo or Google. these were not nursing home seniors but average Joes! Asking them to change is beyond their ability to gasp.
What are the odds that JP will make their own? They mine their own and viola FREE money and their own printing press!
Go search past stories for Firefox benchmark. FF uses least amount of ram
I make money cleaning malware. A huge correlation are business and home users on XP with updates turned off or use older browsers.
MOST users are ignorant and do not know what a browser is? E standards for internet and they use Google as their internet just like we buy Fox and cnn TVs right? But you are downright an idiot if you know what a browser and OS and proudly refuse to keep current with updates take basic precautions. FF 3.6 had +50 exploits last time I looked Wow,
yes IE since 9 is a drastic improvement since IE 6 & 7.
Its not the same buggy piece of shit it once was. However Firefox has improved too! It is fast and uses the least amount of ram since 14. IE 8 sucked hard. ... so did FF 3.6 and 4 but at least it was standards compliant.
Today FF is better than IE as IE has no plugin support and 11 is buggy and crashes with dynamic flash creation and action script.
Users will just downgrade to IE 8 on their XP and then whine to the webmasters that they need to make their site look as good as their foxfire. At least IE 8 works right?
Google it!
I am at version 17 with the latest security fixes and it will updated to 24 next week:)
Next version is a year away with continual security. Addon work now and what Mozilla should have done back in 2011
No its like gold which is a way to get rich.
It is not worth the risk to use it like cash. It is worth it to gain more of it though
Windows 7 is much faster than XP on a modern system.
With Ahci vs eide on SATA even a mechanical drive is quicker. The swaping in XP is HORRIBLE with the algorithm. XP does not support command queing in SATA which means if it is swaping lack a mad dog (even if ram is free) your other files wont load until it is done hence the slower Open Office load. XP does not scale SMP wise beyond 2 cpus that well.
Windows 7 was compilied iwth more flags for video (SSE 3), compression, and uses extra registers on modern cpus which is another boast.
Many have a negative view of Windows 7 out of fear of change because it looked a little like Vista and subconciously looked for bad things.
Really I love Windows 7 and find it supperior to XP and have a hard time wondering why people buy new machines and waste a weekend trying to hack XP to work on them poorly?!
The indexing only happens during the install. It is not like Vista at all and I like instant search and I never even use the mouse anymore to load programs from the start menu. I just type away. It is not bloated at all compared to XP and is more efficient.
Have you actually compared simple tasks in Win7 and XP? Try copying files between a USB stick and the hard drive. I happen to have a laptop from 2005 with XP on it that I still use for work alongside my brand new, no-bloat Win7 workstation with umpteen cores of processing power. Copying files on the XP laptop is about three times faster, even if you ignore the lack of "yes to all" when overwriting a file in Win7. I don't know what it does (combs through and indexes the files for search purposes?) but Win7 is terrible at this considering it has ~100x the processing power at its disposal.
Do you have SEP or McCrappy AV? or is the USB set to 1.0 on the newer machine?
I notice no slowdowns and speed ups in my case. Something sounds fishy
You are free to keep using it.
Just do not expect to get free updates nor activation for a fresh install nor expect the market including OEMs to honor your OS choice.
If you have a VM of XP you can use it forever. But I wont care about your platform if I write software and there is coming a day where I write a web app as HTML 5 and I wont cater to your IE 8 anymore.
Do not give me the bull that you use a real browser either. A good 50% use whatever comes with thier machine for a browser and under XP that 50% is IE 8.
Not to know the average user works in a TV station and makes commercials all day.
Real users do not have an IT staff.
XP is a terrible OS. People now say its GOD because of Vista which before 2007 was bashed here for being insecure. Sure XP was a great OS in 2001. But the days of cooperative multitasking and operating systems who core design underneath is DOS 1981 era are over now. Phones, Raspberry pies, car computers, etc, are all multitasking preemptive style, multi user, and most have security built inside it.
No I do not mean a password which is XPs style of security. I am talking DEP, ASLR, DRM, and other technologies. They just work and I would say my cars computer is as reliable as your setup.
But what you have works well until the demand for HD will eventually force you to upgrade, but you my friend are a niche. XP is not appropriate for the internet, online banking, or even modern hardware. Its age is showing, and it appears to work but that does not mean it is safe to use and everyone who says otherwise is wrong. If you are not technically literate then Windows 7 or MacOSX are better platforms.
YOu guys are so resistant to change and that is dangerous in a field like IT where you are expecting to know everything about anything technical.
I have no problem with as I use the Metro tiles ONCE. After that it is the MMC on the clients and powershell.
The tiles are only bad if you need to multitask and do not want to be interrupted each time with a new screen each time you want to launch a new app. With a server you run a shell and maybe server manager and go away.
Ask any slashdotter and they will tell you that you do not need AV software! All 100% of all malware is only caused by clicking and installing things.
So feel free to continue writing posts with they can have XP OVER MY COLD DEAD HANDS with just a scanner and no protection and keep java and flash unupdated on your system.
You will be just fine.
Dude look at the 200,000,000 XP installations still running!
x86 is here to stay forever. Windows RT failed and it is a competitive cycle where ARM can't compete.
These XP users also show there is no need to ever upgrade anymore. They work. Why change to something that does this same thing they already have??!
Chips no longer double in performance as we hit limits in physics :-(
AMD is loud and needs a big fan. A i3 core is just as competitive sadly unless you really hit every darn core for an app. My phenom II is here to stay even if it is showing its age. Shoot if core2duo and pentium IV WindowsXP users are still going fine then why should I change either?
Not worth it for a 20% boast.
I upgraded to an ATI 7850 and notice da significant boost.
My goal was a 5 year plan so in 2015 is when I will upgrade. I got an SSD, ATI 7850, and 16 gigs of higher speed ram. Yes my processor is 2.6 ghz but that is the only part left and the T edition is a little bit faster.
In the old days I would upgrade at 100% performance increase. Today it is I/O. I am sure Tom Raider would run fine under medium to high on it if I disable an effect or 2. No biggie for the extra cost.
My cheap AMD/ATI system is the most stable computer I ever owned.
Only BSOD was from an unproper shutdown and file corruption that I did.
THe issue is the thermal paste, as well as chip manufactors lower mhz clock speeds until yields improve.
It is a standard process for all chip makers. What AMD did was pick the best of the best where yields would not make sufficient defect free chips at that speed for the demo.
As chip makers increase production and yield quality increases then the speed goes up as well. Notice Tom got closed if not matching the real demo with these tricks.
So these were not botched demos at all! However, you do need to void the warranty and apply elbow grease or water cool them and you will gain the same performance.
The latest ones crash ALOT if you read maximumpc.com or tomshardware.com and my Nvidia fanboys I raid with.
AMD has better quality hardware with less flaky voltage regulators. I went through 2 nvidia cards over 8 years that failed and switched all AMD/ATI in 2010 with the phenom II (better that steamroller per clock tick sadly ) and an ATI 5750.
Had one bizaare issue with black edges on the screen when switching to HDMI. That problem went away after I went into the drivers and configured my screen to not do underscanning.
NO issues for 2 years! Just upgraded to an ATI 7850 and it runs GREAT. No black screens, no overheating, no wierd driver issues at all. This was true in 2002 with the ill fated ATI Rage Pro 128 TV adapter. The Mac version was the only one that worked ok.
But damn that was 11 years ago!
I admit I do not like steamroller, but over all I got a nice $600 system that is 6core, runs VMWare accelerated, back in 2010 back when I would need an Intel extreme edition for $700 without anything else but the damn chip!
What they do not tell you is Intel cripples the bios and turns off hyperthreading and Virtualization support to force you into the more expensive units. AMD chipsets never do this.
IF AMD gets their act together and not create underperforming space heaters I will consider AMD again for a CPU purchase. But what I have works great and the phenom II was a pretty competitive chip for its time.
Raedons are great GPUs and are very competitive with Nvidia. Drivers are worse today with Nvidia unless they clean things up.
It hurts me to see AMD like this.
I am typing this on a Phenom II now. Not a bad chip at the time several years ago as that could hold a candle to the i5s and i7s with just a 10% performance decrease but was less than half the price and had virtualization support for VMWare and 6 cores. I run VMWare and several apps at once so it was a reasonable compromise for me and budget friendly.
But today I would not buy an AMD chip :-(
I would buy a GPU chip which is about it as those are very competitive. I wish AMD would come to a realization like INtel did with netburst in the pentium IV and dump it for something new. If AMD is within 10% of i7 I would dump it when this machine starts showing its age more. But now it is a space heater with a leaf blower that doesn't offer me much more than what my 2.8 ghz Phenom II already has (which is still superior clock cycle per clock cycle as the steamroller!!!) WTF
But like the phenom II it is obsolete compared to todays CPU.
Actually the Phenom II is a step up and an AthlonFX64 would be the AMD equivalent of your setup. Fine for light work but I would not want to purchase one today if needing a new computer unless I am broke and then I would buy it at Salvation Army used and just rewipe it.
Only games, compiling, and HD video editing require anything newer than a 2006 era machine which is why XP just wont die already! First it was multitasking you need a $3000 machine and upgrade every 2 years, then spreadsheets, then database work, then just games, and now just the 3 scenarios above.
In another 5 - 10 years Windows 7 will be even more of an XP and no one and I mean on ONE will ever need to upgrade again. Even a 7 year old system has amazing powers at hundreds of millions of operations a second and would be a geeks wet dream 2 decades ago as a mini supercomputer.
Catch up with Intel?
AMD is creaming Intel in this area. Intel's graphics SUCK. They are as fast as 2006 era graphics and makes game developers pull their hair out and scream more than web developers with IE 6 as they need many work arounds with such poor performance.
The new 5000 series is only 5 years obsolete from what I hear. But Intel likes it this way as they want people to think it is 1995 all over again and buy beefy over priced cpus for better fps instead of upgrading a video card.
AMD has made some mistakes sadly. One is to leave pentium IV/netburst 2.0 behind and invest a new architecture. Make this nice APU for tablets and cellphones with an arm/radaeon that can do 1080p and angry birds 3d in glory.
I wish I had mod points.
Proud Phenom II user here. Awesome chip and I still use it on the gaming platform ... from 2010?!
I like the 6 core and only 10% slower than an icore 7! ... 1st generation icore 7 from 2010. :-(
IT is obsolete and I see no purpose to upgrade my system with it with another one. It is like making a multicore 486 at 3ghz. It would not hold a candle to anything made in the last 15 years.
AMD needs to do an Intel. Dump Netburst 2.0. Intel failed with the pentium IV but after 3 years the core2duo put them on the roadmap again. Intel kept trying to tweak and add instructions and overclo0ck the bloated Pentium IV until they gave up. AMD give up on steamroller ok? An integrated GPU was a nice idea that could have been the next 290X for a fraction of the cost, but like Itanium it never followed through. Make this a low end crap low power APU for tablets and a new architecture and another video card for everything else. No s hared FPUs either as that failed as well.
My point is if you are smart with your money you will learn before you take the plunge right? You do not make investments in things you do not understand right? Same principle.
If computer stuff scares you and you do not like risk then bitcoin and or litecoin is not for you. There are other ways to get rich. But, even Warren Buffett does not invest in industries he is not sharp in.
I know computer shit and I am still on the sidelines until I find a secure way to make transactions and secure a wallet and find a site I trust before I make bets and give out debit card info. Common sense.