Do you think MS should keep WinXP alive

[Khakilang]

Came across the news today. Its old new but do you think MS should kee XP alive?

http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/year-after-windows-xps-death-users-keep-it-alive-and-kicking-247

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

you've got http:// twice in that link.

[lisati]

http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/year-after-windows-xps-death-users-keep-it-alive-and-kicking-247

edit: Old article too

[Khakilang]

Sorry! My mistake at first I copy and paste than I found out how to insert the link and overlook it. Thanks. So can we stick to the subject?

[toupeiro]

Microsoft made a choice to kill off XP and they should, its old. Unfortunately nothing they have thats current is even as good as XP. At any rate, no, XP should have a nice burial. It was one of MS's best OSes, but its dead, let it go! :P

[Old Marcus]

Now that Windows 7 is out and so far fairly successful, I say no. Althought XP was more stable than Vista, Vista had various improvements and a more up to date base than XP, it was just everything else that ballsed it up. 7 is pretty sweet, and has the advantage of being nine years younger than XP along with other things, so is the better choice IMO.

[cascade9]

Microsoft made a choice to kill off XP and they should, its old. Unfortunately nothing they have thats current is even as good as XP. At any rate, no, XP should have a nice burial. It was one of MS's best OSes, but its dead, let it go! :P

Dead? Hardly.

Yeah, it hasn't got the eyecandy of areoglass, but its till runs fine, even after all these years. Its not going to die anytime soon either, win7 on netbooks is still a bit of an issue.

BTW, vista and win7 have way more DRM crap than XP. Tilt bits....whoever came up with that idea I dont know, but I'd like to meet him (her? you never know) in some dark alley one night LOL.

[toupeiro]

Dead? Hardly.

Yeah, it hasn't got the eyecandy of areoglass, but its till runs fine, even after all these years. Its not going to die anytime soon either, win7 on netbooks is still a bit of an issue.

BTW, vista and win7 have way more DRM crap than XP. Tilt bits....whoever came up with that idea I dont know, but I'd like to meet him (her? you never know) in some dark alley one night LOL.

I don't really care what it looks like, it came out in 2001 and has seen two replacements of it by the company that made it. In my book thats dead. The only reason it still is around at all is because the OSes that followed it have been horrid and they are being pressured to keep throwing patches at it and supporting it by their customers. This does not make it alive and thriving, this makes it on life support and ready to pull the plug any day. 2001 - 2010. Thats a span of 9 years, or more pointedly in Microsoft lifecycle terms, the lifespan of Windows 3.11 and NT 3.51 (1994) to Windows XP and Server 2k3 (2003), and all the underlying technologies included in those versions. Thats huge, and sad.

[dzon65]

"Yeah, it hasn't got the eyecandy of areoglass".Xp could be tweaked to full transparency,with a firefox browser of course.If I were to choose which MS release to use,I'd go for xp.But,seven looks promising.In either case,linux for me.

[Paqman]

Well, XP has four more years of support left, so they're hardly killing it off any time soon. Corporate customers and those of us that keep it as a gaming platform don't have to upgrade if we don't want to.

Having said that, as a regular desktop OS it is starting to look pretty weak. It's always had awful security, and doesn't support SSDs, which is going to become a real issue by the end of it's life cycle. And don't get me started on how crap Windows Explorer is.

[Exodist]

Looking back on when I picked up my copy of XP and installed it 3months after XP was released, XP had many issues. But like all MS products it takes 2 service packs to get it fixed. XP has had a long hall its ready to be barned up. Vista with the two current service packs is finally stable, but it still has to be tweeked to get to run smoothly (I.e. Turning of Searching, SuperFetch and Drive Indexing). But windows7 looks more promising, yes its not perfect. But by the time XP is no longer supported (like about 4 more years of support) Win7 should have 2 or 3 service packs and be very stable and a good WinXP replacement.

One thing to note, if MS doesnt stick XP in the barn then they will never move forward. XP had a good run, but time to let it rest.

[madhi19]

Nevertheless it an interesting question. Right now Microsoft is in one hell of a pickle and I don't envy them. This is the things that might be keeping a few Ms suits awake at night.

1. The hardware gap between average need say 80% of the PC market and more importantly 100% of the remaining XP market and the cutting edge need is huge. This mean that the average PC users does not need all that much more than a first generation Pentium 4 PC with maybe one or two GB of Ram. And PC users have started to realize and that caused Vista to flops this lead to the second point the Netbook.

2. The Netbook is Microsoft worst nightmare. It a cheap low margin device that could not possibly run their flagship Vista when they first hit the market and that run Linux only for the first six months until in a panic Microsoft started giving away XP for free or almost free to OEM's.
They did everything they could to own the market and mostly they succeed in getting about 70% of the market the problem is that market is not making them any money. The low price and profit margin mean that you can't possibly hide a big fat Windows license in the price.

When they realized that it not going to be a temporary fad they started doing things to kill it at the same time that they revived XP their deal with OEM's was made restrictive to prevent the creation of a second generation of Netbook. I estimate that they managed to stall the creation of that second generation by close to a year! They also tried but fail to get sellers to change the name to something less appealing and less catchy than Netbook to muddy the water and get customer confused. Amazon is still listing them as Netbook so we can safely say this one was a lost for Ms. The expression "It a second computer!" probably came from Ms too. Now this is the fun part by reviving XP for the Netbook they probably gave more credibility to something that really could have been a fad had they left it alone!

Now the cat out of the bag and even if Ms were to tell OEM's that the deal off and that from now own it the standard Windows license price they would just shrug off and go back to Linux. A Linux that a hell of lot better at running on Netbook now than it was three years ago by the way!
The bigger the Netbook market get the smaller the market for the more lucrative high end laptop get and they also have to deal with a competitor in the high end section with the Apple Macbook! They still got the desktop but who want to bet that OEM's will start or have already started using Linux as a stick to get a better deal on the desktop too!

We come back to the still large XP market that crowd did not upgrade their hardware in a while and I suspect that their a few reason for that first they don't need to second they know it third they don't have the budget and fourth the budget that they got they are spending it on Netbook! Think about it for the price of one high end laptop you can easily equip a family of three or four peoples with one Netbook each in that scenario the old family desktop is relegated to a files and media server role. And everybody here know that you can build a file/media server for dirt cheap out of just about any desktop!

Well you get the idea squeezed from the bottom, squeezed from the top and probably squeezed from the front too not to mention that Cloud OS that going to squeeze them from the back soon if Microsoft did not have another cash cow like Office I say their future look grim. And that why they would be fools not to support XP longer. I see them offering an XP Service Pack every year or two as an optional paid upgrade. It would be a good revenue stream to tap while waiting for the XP crowd to slowly upgrade. If they try too hard to kill XP by dropping security patch they might just get a users revolt and a massive shift toward Linux, Mac or the Chrome OS. XP as become the Albatross that Microsoft must carry or face some serious drop in market share. If Apple had any brain they be thinking about licensing OSX to OEM's in the near future!

My prediction for 2010 will be the year when Microsoft will start to look somewhere else than the OS/Office business for their primary revenue stream! This is how I see it I might be wrong but I don't think it is by far I don't think Microsoft will lose all that much market share am just not sure they be able to monetize the OS market the way they use to.

[Exodist]

Nevertheless it an interesting question. Right now Microsoft is in one hell of a pickle and I don't envy them. This is the things that might be keeping a few Ms suits awake at night.

1. The hardware gap between average need say 80% of the PC market and more importantly 100% of the remaining XP market and the cutting edge need is huge. This mean that the average PC users does not need all that much more than a first generation Pentium 4 PC with maybe one or two GB of Ram. And PC users have started to realize and that caused Vista to flops this lead to the second point the Netbook.

2. The Netbook is Microsoft worst nightmare. It a cheap low margin device that could not possibly run their flagship Vista....


You do realize that Win7 (with correct drivers) can run on most the same hardware as WinXP does and Vista is no longer the flagship of MS anymore? Also currently Vista drivers are compatible with Win7.

[pwnst*r]

well, keep it alive as in support it, but as far as selling it, no, kill it. Win7 is better in all regards.

[RiceMonster]

It's going to take a long time for XP to go away, but yes, I think they should slowly phase it out, which I believe they are trying to do. Obviously they don't have much choice but to support it for a few more years.


Unfortunately nothing they have thats current is even as good as XP.

I don't agree. I think Windows 7 is better than XP, and not just because it looks flashy.

[Skripka]

I think Windows 7 is better than XP, and not just because it looks flashy.

This.

[Skripka]

and those of us that keep it as a gaming platform don't have to upgrade if we don't want to.


I wouldn't say that. Games are already out that are DX10 dependant, and do not suppost DX9. Not that this is a good or bad thing, mind you.

[andras artois]

No point keeping it alive what with Windows 7 being better than it in every single way.

[louieb]

:lolflag: Keep XP supported - kill Vista.

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

:lolflag: Keep XP supported - kill Vista.
I like Vista. It had many improvements over XP. Sure it there were some driver issues at first, but now that it's all said and done it's a good OS. Not to mention I was able to get games from the 98 era to run on that OS :) Win 7 is just Vista Service Pack 3.

[alakazam]

WinXP comes on a 699mb CD

Win7 comes on a 4GB DVD

Where has all the bloat come from?:(

[Skripka]

WinXP comes on a 699mb CD

Win7 comes on a 4GB DVD

Where has all the bloat come from?:(

Hmmm let us think here. Win7 basically has all hardware working out-of-the-box with either generic drivers or vendor drivers. WinXP, after install, you spent the next 5 hours hunting down drivers on your broadband connection.

[RiceMonster]

WinXP comes on a 699mb CD

Win7 comes on a 4GB DVD

Where has all the bloat come from?:(

Is your hard drive that small that it actually matters?

[pwnst*r]

but...but...storage is so expensive!

[SmittyJensen]

Is your hard drive that small that it actually matters?
netbooks are a little different i'd think. then again i've never had one. :) still, i'd rather not have windows 7 take up 10-20 gb of my space on my hard drive.

i've gotta think that microsoft is making new windows versions evolutionary instead of revolutionary. the only problem with this is you're currently paying $100-$200 for a license. that's just sick.

[RiceMonster]

but...but...storage is so expensive!

Indeed. Software vendors shouldn't take into account that computers are far more powerful than they were 10 years ago, and thus shouldn't include more features and hardware support in the default install so I can brag about how my OS only uses 2 MB of RAM on bootup and takes up 150MB space.

[SmittyJensen]

but...but...storage is so expensive!
ssds are expensive.

[forrestcupp]

Should Ubuntu keep Warty Warthog alive? Because it's 3 years newer than Windows XP. ;)

[pwnst*r]

netbooks are a little different i'd think. then again i've never had one. :) still, i'd rather not have windows 7 take up 10-20 gb of my space on my hard drive.

i've gotta think that microsoft is making new windows versions evolutionary instead of revolutionary. the only problem with this is you're currently paying $100-$200 for a license. that's just sick.

<10GB. don't make up things.

[Skripka]

netbooks are a little different i'd think. then again i've never had one. :) still, i'd rather not have windows 7 take up 10-20 gb of my space on my hard drive.

i've gotta think that microsoft is making new windows versions evolutionary instead of revolutionary. the only problem with this is you're currently paying $100-$200 for a license. that's just sick.

I can't think of a netbook that does NOT come with a 160GB HDD. 10GB is nothing.

[pwnst*r]

ssds are expensive.

most aren't using them, so don't even go there.

[Skripka]

Indeed. Software vendors shouldn't take into account that computers are far more powerful than they were 10 years ago, and thus shouldn't include more features and hardware support in the default install so I can brag about how my OS only uses 2 MB of RAM on bootup and takes up 150MB space.

They should also include SkiFree and CHiPs Challenge.

[RiceMonster]

They should also include SkiFree and CHiPs Challenge.

They should at least have them up for download on microsoft.com. I still play both those games, because they rule. Well, at least you can download skifree from the original author here (http://ski.ihoc.net/).

[SmittyJensen]

<10GB. don't make up things.
no, because i've installed windows 7. then there's the system requirements (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/get/system-requirements.aspx).

[Exodist]

ssds are expensive.
Hard Drives are not, SSD Drives are.
A 250-300GB WD Caviar SATA3 7200RPM drive that is perfect for normall users is only $50 bucks. I have one to store my files.

SSDs are for extremest and are NOT required to run Windows anything..

[Exodist]

I like Vista. It had many improvements over XP. Sure it there were some driver issues at first, but now that it's all said and done it's a good OS. Not to mention I was able to get games from the 98 era to run on that OS :) Win 7 is just Vista Service Pack 3.
Your basicly correct. Its the same kernel with minor fixes. Its basicly the WinME of Win98.

[CharlesA]

Hard Drives are not, SSD Drives are.
A 250-300GB WD Caviar SATA3 7200RPM drive that is perfect for normall users is only $50 bucks. I have one to store my files.

SSDs are for extremest and are NOT required to run Windows anything..

This. It really only gets expensive when you are buying huge drives, or "RE" drives. 2TB desktop drive = 200 bucks. 2TB "RE" drive = 400-500 bucks.

SSD are more expensive overall tho.

[Skripka]

Its basicly the WinME of Win98.

No. WinME was downright awful, and unusable.

[Frak]

most aren't using them, so don't even go there.
My netbook has a normal 250GB SATA HD.


No. WinME was downright awful, and unusable.
I honestly never had an issue with ME.

[HappyFeet]

Make no mistake. Alot of people still use XP, and won't part with it until you can pry it from their cold, dead hands.

[CharlesA]

Does that mean that they should blame corporations for not wanting to spend more money to upgrade machines running XP so that they can run Windows7 at the saem level of performance?

[ctrlmd]

No.

[k64]

The proprietary zombie called XP. It has got to go. It does nothing more than hamper Ubuntu's goal. You should know that!

[pwnst*r]

The proprietary zombie called XP. It has got to go. It does nothing more than hamper Ubuntu's goal. You should know that!

Ubuntu's goal of what?

[Queue29]

Ubuntu's goal of what?

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1

Bug #1, my friend.

[RiceMonster]

The proprietary zombie called XP. It has got to go. It does nothing more than hamper Ubuntu's goal. You should know that!

Right, ok.

[pwnst*r]

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1

Bug #1, my friend.

lol

[Skripka]

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1

Bug #1, my friend.

Ubuntu, The New Borg. :rolleyes:

[The Secret]

Should .. ? Why to ask this if it's still the most used MS product ? They won't and can't take it off of the circle ..

[pwnst*r]

http://terrifieddad.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/buck_twiki011.jpg

[phrostbyte]

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1

Bug #1, my friend.

That's a hard bug to solve. :)

[lisati]

:lolflag: Keep XP supported - kill Vista.
Haven't had any major hassles with Vista here.....

WinXP comes on a 699mb CD

Win7 comes on a 4GB DVD

Where has all the bloat come from?:(
Good question. My old machine has a 3Gb hard drive, and it originally came with 1Gb! Oh no! There's too much of Win7 to use it on this machine!

Hmmm let us think here. Win7 basically has all hardware working out-of-the-box with either generic drivers or vendor drivers. WinXP, after install, you spent the next 5 hours hunting down drivers on your broadband connection.
No problems here hunting down drivers here. Most of what I need for the setup on my main desktop came on the recovery partition, including a driver that works with a PCI ethernet card I had in the machine for a short while. The only driver I needed to install was for a video capture card. Thankfully I still have the installation disk that came with the card. I didn't need to hunt down drivers for my previous laptop either. The recovery DVD came with everything needed for a basic setup.

Is your hard drive that small that it actually matters?
Yes. See above.... (3Gb aint a lot these days)

Should Ubuntu keep Warty Warthog alive? Because it's 3 years newer than Windows XP. ;)


No. WinME was downright awful, and unusable.
My old machine has Dapper Drake on it. Is that likely to be a problem?


Make no mistake. Alot of people still use XP, and won't part with it until you can pry it from their cold, dead hands.
I still have it in a dual boot configuration on one of my machines, mainly as a backup. :)

[Skripka]

No problems here hunting down drivers here. Most of what I need for the setup on my main desktop came on the recovery partition, including a driver that works with a PCI ethernet card I had in the machine for a short while. The only driver I needed to install was for a video capture card. Thankfully I still have the installation disk that came with the card. I didn't need to hunt down drivers for my previous laptop either. The recovery DVD came with everything needed for a basic setup.

A recovery DVD sure. The post I was responding to was someone talking about OEM vanilla XP CDs. And astounded that Win7 with drivers needs a DVD, and OEM XP could fit on a CD--and talking about "bloat". XP OEM discs didn't come with any spare drivers-and you had to go download or install/reboot all of them yourself-a time consuming and annoying task.



My old machine has Dapper Drake on it. Is that likely to be a problem?


No, my point was simply that WinME was awful. I still get nightmares about it.

[alexfish]

Of Course

providing it is installed on an external usb drive .

PS HAVE FUN TRYING TO DO THAT ONE=P~

Either The USB drive Croaks At the Thought of XP been On :lolflag:

Or Xp CROAKS at Been on anything portable That's fine by me :guitar:

There is a tip here

http://ploo.co.uk/archives/157

[ratcheer]

I agree that MS should go ahead and kill XP. Even though my Win PC is still on XP.

Heh heh, that would be just the incentive I need to go all-Linux.

Tim

[adeypoop]

XP is looking a bit dated these days. I'm sure there are lots of people who don't want to let go but I think you cant fight progress. Its the right business descision for microsoft to stop supporting it.

[pwnst*r]

XP is looking a bit dated these days. I'm sure there are lots of people who don't want to let go but I think you cant fight progress. Its the right business descision for microsoft to stop supporting it.

"looking" dated? as in visually? if so, is that a reason to switch to another OS?

[hessiess]

No, they should kill it off ASAP. XP is an antique.

[HappyFeet]

There are still people that swear by win2000, and even some win98 users out there. Hey, whatever floats your boat.

But if you're someone who doesn't need DX10, then XP is still a very viable option. And there are still many businesses that refuse to let go of XP.

[CharlesA]

Hell my company still has servers running NT, but most are running 2000 or 2003. Almost all the desktops are running Windows 2000, with a few running XP.. wonder what that says...

[Skripka]

Hell my company still has servers running NT, but most are running 2000 or 2003. Almost all the desktops are running Windows 2000, with a few running XP.. wonder what that says...

It says that some folks will be griping soon about being completely obsolete and unsupported fairly soon.

Microsoft's problem is similar to Apple's problem, prior to the release of OS X--trying to support hardware and software that is too old.

[alexfish]

My netbook has a normal 250GB SATA HD.


I honestly never had an issue with ME.

have to agree with you there

i was given a beta version for testing /

Microsoft missed the beat . Think we all know the the reasons, XP =B$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$llions .thankfully not mine

[VastOne]

There are still people that swear by win2000, and even some win98 users out there. Hey, whatever floats your boat.

But if you're someone who doesn't need DX10, then XP is still a very viable option. And there are still many businesses that refuse to let go of XP.

XP was nothing more than 2000 rebranded, like 7 is now to Vista with 7 taking the BS out of the way.

[pwnst*r]

XP was nothing more than 2000 rebranded, like 7 is now to Vista with 7 taking the BS out of the way.

yeah, it's just like that.

[judge jankum]

For me to run Vista or 7 I would have to buy a new machine,or upgrade hardware and ram.....That cost on top of buying the os.... I don't like XP btw,but they better stay with it if it worked..Ubuntu/Linux has the right idea, have something that works for most all machines....

[Paqman]

Hell my company still has servers running NT, but most are running 2000 or 2003. Almost all the desktops are running Windows 2000, with a few running XP.. wonder what that says...

It's not unusual. My company migrated from 2000 to XP about a year ago.

[Frak]

yeah, it's just like that.
elementary

[Cam42]

7 is much much much better than XP. Jumplists, the new task bar, the start menu, gadgets not confined to the sidebar, all great.

[toupeiro]

I don't agree. I think Windows 7 is better than XP, and not just because it looks flashy.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion. However, I've compared the guts of 7 and the guts of vista in the 64-bit environment and they are virtually the same guts. Aero is just a desktop effect.. I don't care about the visual comparasons of XP/Vista/7, I care about resource management, stability, and DRM (in the way of what parts of my hardware my OS lets me leverage and which parts they don't.) I usually disable Aero. In the spaces I hated Vista, 7 is not much different. They were a little smarter about UAC in 7, and RDP7 is an improvement over its predecessors. Thats not worth the upgrade or new install price-tag though. XP, in its time of being a flagship windows OS version, was worth its cost IMO, but seriously people need to stop relying on a near decade old product. If that product has gone downhill to the point that you can't stay current on versions, maybe the product is not as much of a problem as the decision makers of that product. Thats why I stopped using Microsoft OSes over 4 years ago now. There is no compelling reason to. Now that I'm on something that allows me to do everything I need to do at 100% less of the cost, Microsoft has to earn my business back. I won't go as far to say that 7 is an improvement in stability and resource management than XP, but it is an improvement over Vista. However, if vista was crap, and if you do tell someone that you like 7 because its better than vista, then you're basically saying you dropped a few hundred dollars on Windows 7 because it's better than crap. Sorry, I demand more than that from a corporation that wants my business.

[alakazam]

7 is much much much better than XP..


;-) Benchmarks would differ.

[Exodist]

No. WinME was downright awful, and unusable.
LOL well its was the closest comparison. :)
I skipped ME, my freinds used it a lot tho. They didnt have any more issues out of it then i did with Win98. Which was basic instability, constant blue screens, hard to find "quality" drivers, poor performance and just damn ugly! :)

[murderslastcrow]

They could've just improved the security model in XP, added some nice themes like WindowsBlinds has been doing for years, a really lightweight theming engine that works with all video cards instead of this Aero BS, optimized the code, and they would be a viable competitor. I think they should have at least ENDED with XP, if they weren't planning on making anything better.

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

LOL well its was the closest comparison. :)
I skipped ME, my freinds used it a lot tho. They didnt have any more issues out of it then i did with Win98. Which was basic instability, constant blue screens, hard to find "quality" drivers, poor performance and just damn ugly! :)Likewise.


They could've just improved the security model in XP, added some nice themes like WindowsBlinds has been doing for years, a really lightweight theming engine that works with all video cards instead of this Aero BS, optimized the code, and they would be a viable competitor. I think they should have at least ENDED with XP, if they weren't planning on making anything better.
Vista and Win7 are superior to XP. Both of them. XP is a dinosaur. There are a lot of features that you'll probably never know about because you're an end user, but trust me, people that make software that you use, use those features daily. That is...if you use Doze.

My only complaint with the post xp versions of Windows is that the defragmenting tool included in the OS is an enigma. It doesn't tell you what it's doing and it takes forever.

[madhi19]

You do realize that Win7 (with correct drivers) can run on most the same hardware as WinXP does and Vista is no longer the flagship of MS anymore? Also currently Vista drivers are compatible with Win7.

For the record I was a little... Well lets admit it I was totally wasted when I wrote that last night but that a moot point I stand by my drunk post XP and the Netbook is the Albatross around Microsoft neck and it look like they will not get it off anytime soon.

[faical117]

make it open source !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :guitar:

[RiceMonster]

make it open source !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :guitar:

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

[peakpc]

It is a good thing to let old "XP" die. Otherwise it will be the only thing that masses will ever know and compare everything too. Maybe if they have to learn something new ANYWAY, then it would easier to have them try Linux. Some people won't even try something for free unless they are forced to. Who knows, they might actually achieve some progress into the future, for the rest there's Windows 7 for a few hundred dollars.

[judge jankum]

I bought a Gateway in 02 with XP Home...128 ram, slow but ok....Then comes sp2...ok" upgrade to 256 ram...finally 512 ram and decent....Then comes Vista! but"but" damn" outta slots"
Then comes buntu and "IT'S ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Paqman]

My only complaint with the post xp versions of Windows is that the defragmenting tool included in the OS is an enigma. It doesn't tell you what it's doing and it takes forever.

Windows defragging tools have always been turds. A decent 3rd party defrag tool is a must-have on a Windows system IMO.

The suite of admin tools in XP is lame as hell. At least you get a reasonable partition editor with Windows these days.

[Autodave]

Actually, I still have a machine that runs Win98....and of my Winblows machines, it is still my favorite: boots up quickly, shuts down in about 2 seconds, and never crashes. Doesn't get used for much besides copying old cassette tapes to CDs, but it works great for that.

[HappinessNow]

Came across the news today. Its old new but do you think MS should kee XP alive?

http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/year-after-windows-xps-death-users-keep-it-alive-and-kicking-247
A poll would be helpful.

to the OP, go to: Thread Tools>Add a Poll to this Thread

just a friendly suggestion. :P

[judge jankum]

yeah yeah a poll. I like polls,,,gimme poll

[Yvan300]

Yeah, they should get rid of xp seeing that windows 7 is it's successor.

[Frak]

;-) Benchmarks would differ.
Benchmarks say Win98 is faster on a modern computer than XP is, but that doesn't make it better.

[pwnst*r]

You forgot the obligatory wink.

[judge jankum]

You forgot the obligatory wink.

In Alabama it's "wank" but I think it has the same meaning

[RiceMonster]

Benchmarks say Win98 is faster on a modern computer than XP is, but that doesn't make it better.

But windows 7 uses your ram!!!!1111

[siimo]

I'm sorry but XP has to DIE. I have nothing against the OS, it is very stable and fast to use but Microsoft HAS TO support IE6 as long as XP is alive because XP came with IE6. IE7 and IE8 aren't forced onto the users by MS.

I want XP to DIE just so IE6 will be buried into the ground with it. But MS has already extended XP support till 2014! :( Please do not extend it further.

[cascade9]

I want XP to DIE just so IE6 will be buried into the ground with it. But MS has already extended XP support till 2014! :( Please do not extend it further.

Of course WIn XP support has been extended for a few years. There are a lot of netbooks that are coming out with Win XP now, mostly because win7 uses more battery power than XP-


When we ran our standard battery test on the Toshiba NB205 (http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptop/toshiba-mini-nb205-n210.aspx) ($309.00 (http://www.laptopmag.com/review/shop.aspx?pm=pg_blogembed&ppid=1917&utm_source=Blog&utm_medium=textprice&utm_content=toshiba_nb205&utm_campaign=smartlinks)) under Windows 7, it lost more than 3 hours. Under XP it got an amazing 9 hours and 24 minutes, but with Windows 7 it only lasted for 6 hours and 15 minutes. Installing new Win 7 drivers from Toshiba only resulted in an extra half hour or so (6:53).

http://blog.laptopmag.com/windows-7-bad-for-netbook-battery-life

So, to all the 'drop support now' people..if XP is so bad, why are microsoft still selling it? Because they can make money of it, its a better solution than Win 7 in some situations, and if they didnt they are just going to open the door for the netbook market to become owned by linux distros.

Even if microsoft stopped selling XP, right now, they have to extend support for at least a few more years. Dropping security updates to XP would be rude for all the people who have just bought it. It would also be counterproductive for microsofts interests, by pushing some significant number of them into linux distros.

Sure, if you dont like XP, dont buy it, or dont use it. I dont mind. But to expect microsoft to stop support is out and out wrong. Not only does microsoft want to stop market penatration by linux, with all the nasties out there dropping XP support would be a bad thing for the internet.

[Throbbing Gristle]

I bought a Gateway in 02 with XP Home...128 ram, slow but ok....Then comes sp2...ok" upgrade to 256 ram...finally 512 ram and decent....Then comes Vista! but"but" damn" outta slots"
Then comes buntu and "IT'S ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You said it Buddy! Ubuntu:P

[james_bandido]

i'd rather choose WinXP over Vista or Win7 ...

[mmix]

yes, until reactos replace win{xp,2x,7,8,9}

[insane_alien]

doesn't win7 have XP mode? basically a virtual winxp machine. sounds like they are keeping it alive, just not in a full form.

[LookTJ]

doesn't win7 have XP mode? basically a virtual winxp machine. sounds like they are keeping it alive, just not in a full form.
Only in Professional and up

[HappinessNow]

A poll would be helpful.

to the OP, go to: Thread Tools>Add a Poll to this Thread

just a friendly suggestion. :P
Still No Poll! :P

(made a request to the staff: "Could the staff please make a poll for this thread?")

[t0p]

I think that when XP support ends, Microsoft should open the source and give it to the hacker community. Of course they won't do that. But they should.


Its basicly the WinME of Win98.

Uh, no. WinME is the WinME of Win98.

[Simon17]

yes, until reactos replace win{xp,2x,7,8,9}

That'll happen the year after The Year of the Linux Desktop.

[pwnst*r]

In Alabama it's "wank" but I think it has the same meaning

Probably there, yes.

[pwnst*r]

i'd rather choose WinXP over Vista or Win7 ...

Because you've never tried 7 or just because you have super old hardware?

[Psumi]

They should, since they plan to remove 32-bit arch in Windows 8, and Windows 7 probably won't work on my crappy ThinkPad (though I love it.)

[mickie.kext]

Do you think MS should keep WinXP alive
No. All *******s needs to die. All Microsofts needs to die too. Freedom to people.

[Sand & Mercury]

XP needs to be put to bed, it is getting way beyond long in the tooth -- it's had a good run and all, but ffs it is almost 10 years old and it sure as hell feels like it too to use.

[Nerd King]

Of course WIn XP support has been extended for a few years. There are a lot of netbooks that are coming out with Win XP now, mostly because win7 uses more battery power than XP-



http://blog.laptopmag.com/windows-7-bad-for-netbook-battery-life

So, to all the 'drop support now' people..if XP is so bad, why are microsoft still selling it? Because they can make money of it, its a better solution than Win 7 in some situations, and if they didnt they are just going to open the door for the netbook market to become owned by linux distros.

Even if microsoft stopped selling XP, right now, they have to extend support for at least a few more years. Dropping security updates to XP would be rude for all the people who have just bought it. It would also be counterproductive for microsofts interests, by pushing some significant number of them into linux distros.

Sure, if you dont like XP, dont buy it, or dont use it. I dont mind. But to expect microsoft to stop support is out and out wrong. Not only does microsoft want to stop market penatration by linux, with all the nasties out there dropping XP support would be a bad thing for the internet.
Actually dropping support for it might be good for the internet. Most of the nasties on the net come from XP machines. Drop support for it, force migration, and you've got a much safer internet.

[mickie.kext]

Actually dropping support for it might be good for the internet. Most of the nasties on the net come from XP machines. Drop support for it, force migration, and you've got a much safer internet.

Internet is very safe if you use Ubuntu. If Windows XP makes it unsafe for Vista/7 users, then XP should stay as long as it can because it actually helps Ubuntu and Linux in general.

[pwnst*r]

No. All *******s needs to die. All Microsofts needs to die too. Freedom to people.

lol

[cascade9]

Actually dropping support for it might be good for the internet. Most of the nasties on the net come from XP machines. Drop support for it, force migration, and you've got a much safer internet.

From XP machines with updates turned off, possibly. Theres only 1 reason to have XP connected to the net and turn updating off- Windows Genuine Advantage. That is for people who haven't figured out yet that you can set the updates to 'tell me but dont dl them automatically', and I'm pretty sure that Vista and Win7 will be nearly as bad for nasties with no updates.

You will get malware installed by the user, WinXP, vista or 7 (and even linux for that matter) but user error is pretty hard to fix. Dropping support for XP would probably create _more_ malware issues as a bunch of people go out to get new stuff to run on the new OS they just got. That bunch of users, by and large, are not computer literate....if they were they would be getting updates and have some idea of where to go to get safe programs.

'Frocing migration' is impossible, for several years yet...like has been posted, winXP support will continue to 2014, at least. Besides the enviromental damage that such a move would create (I can see piles and piles of good winXP boxes being trashed just because of withdrawn support and being unable to run vista or 7)

I really dont get why people are so down on XP. Sure, its got issues.....but what OS hasnt got issues?

[starcraft.man]

MS needs to terminate support for XP and create a new OS that doesn't live in the past. Else, I see only a slow spiral downwards for them. They haven't had to innovate in any meaningful way in a decade or so. If they want to continue their path I don't really care one way or other, though I continue to use windows for my windows only apps.

[ssulaco]

winXP support will continue to 2014, at least.
I really dont get why people are so down on XP. Sure, its got issues.....but what OS hasnt got issues?
The company I work for employees thousands of people and uses thousands of computers,and to the best of my knowledge most of these computers are running XP,Ive asked the IT guys if Vista is coming,the answer was a resounding NO,reason being XP just works,dont need all the bells and whistles....Just need internet and intranet.
I use XP and Ubuntu Dual/boot,my wifes computer uses Vista,I cant personally bash Vista,its been pretty solid for me,Xp is rock solid and great for lower end computers,for those who love XP (myself)I say let it live.

[RiceMonster]

No. All *******s needs to die. All Microsofts needs to die too. Freedom to people.

Go outside and find something better to get angry about.

[mickie.kext]

Go outside and find something better to get angry about.

I am outside :popcorn:

[pwnst*r]

i am outside :popcorn:

grrrrr

[Frak]

I am outside :popcorn:
More outside, outside of the gazebo.

[alexfish]

I'm sorry but XP has to DIE. I have nothing against the OS, it is very stable and fast to use but Microsoft HAS TO support IE6 as long as XP is alive because XP came with IE6. IE7 and IE8 aren't forced onto the users by MS.

I want XP to DIE just so IE6 will be buried into the ground with it. But MS has already extended XP support till 2004! :PPlease do not extend it further.:P

hows that:lolflag:

[magmon]

Came across the news today. Its old new but do you think MS should kee XP alive?

http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/year-after-windows-xps-death-users-keep-it-alive-and-kicking-247

I'd use it over shista.

[Khakilang]

There I manage to put into poll. Vote now.

[gn2]

I'm still using W2kSP4 and would like security updates for it to be kept going for a while yet.

[Johnsie]

Windows XP is by far the best operating ever made. That's one of the reasons so many people are hanging on to it. And no, it's not because Vista or Win7 sucks... They could move to Ubuntu, but they don't because XP can do anything that most people want it to do, looks good and it works well.

To the people who who are saying it's 9 years old... It's been updated so many times over those 9 years. It's matured, security has improved and alot of the little glitches have been removed.

[ksennin]

Indeed. Software vendors shouldn't take into account that computers are far more powerful than they were 10 years ago, and thus shouldn't include more features and hardware support in the default install so I can brag about how my OS only uses 2 MB of RAM on bootup and takes up 150MB space.

I however have issues with new OS versions seeming to take the improvements in hardware for granted to support their accumulation of features and fail to optimize their code so that the hardware requirements not only allow the new features but also produce significantly faster and more powerful machines in all productivity aspects. The true (and considerable) improvements in modern computing seem to be in media and graphics manipulation/processing, otherwise I see powerful modern machines with similar boot times to old machines running the OS of their time. Is that progress? Are general improvements only the accumulation of features? When will we get really lightining fast computers that run a mainstream OS? Or should I just shift to Slitaz?

In some respects, modern OSes seem like a modern car that has added air conditioning, GPS, onboard computer, dvd player, adjustable seats, electric windows, etc. but can still run only at the same speed of a Ford model T.

[Groucho Marxist]

I want them to, but they're too busy pushing the "latest and greatest" OS in the form of 7.

[pwnst*r]

I'd use it over shista.

Wow...

[ksennin]

Because you've never tried 7 or just because you have super old hardware?

I do have super old hardware, but even in new machines, I tend to disable all the flashy stuff to maximize performance. An OS is to me the platform upon which to run the programs. I trim my XP installs as much as possible since many of the features are of little use for my particular purposes, and hey, I always change the theme to classic windows, which IMO is better than the standard FisherPrize look.

[RiceMonster]

I do have super old hardware, but even in new machines, I tend to disable all the flashy stuff to maximize performance. An OS is to me the platform upon which to run the programs. I trim my XP installs as much as possible since many of the features are of little use for my particular purposes, and hey, I always change the theme to classic windows, which IMO is better than the standard FisherPrize look.

You didn't answer the question. Have you tried 7? It's significantly faster than Vista and therefore contradicts your argument.

[Frak]

Wow...
Bandwagoning gettin ya down?

[ksennin]

I have tried both Vista and windows7. Perhaps since my sampling of vista was postService Pack, I never found it that awful, really. I just found it too resource-consuming. Seven did seem faster indeed, but not faster than a trimmed Xp that runs perfectly on less than 256mb ram. So on my older machines its still xp and lightweight distros. I do understand that the multiple added features expand functionality for many, and allow better interaction with multiple modern devices, but I still prefer to watch movies on tv, and hear music on a stereo, and if I must edit pics, I can open acdsee or gthumb and not have a heavier-from-the-start system. But THAT is indeed my preference because of my personal pc habits/use. My sister cannot find or install a 2nd-source program on her own, so having the added functionality of vista was great for her.

And what all this relativistic chat is about is that different people have different expectations, needs or allowances about computer usage, so I see no need to draconically ask to limit their SO choices. I see no problem in XP coexisting with VIsta or 7, since gradual accumulative updates had kept it from becoming too obsolete, and thus, it is like a light "MS distro" comprared to the heavier "MS distros", like u-lite compared to full ubuntu.

Power of choice and all that, remember?

[pwnst*r]

Bandwagoning gettin ya down?

If it wasn't Wednesday...

[ksennin]

Of course, while I support the continued existance of XP as lower-end MS OS, this position should also be reflected in its pricing.

[Frak]

If it wasn't Wednesday...
It's Thursday where I live :)

[chessnerd]

There is an appointed time for everything... A time to give birth, and a time to die; A time to plant, and a time to uproot what is planted.
- Ecclesiastes

2014 is XP's time. It will have had 13 long years, during which it was the most successful and prominent Windows OS in history. It was a solid and stable OS that deserves a proper burial, but a burial nonetheless.

[Qualia]

Windows XP had a good run, but it has the crappiest security I have seen though. It has its uses for gaming especially, but it needs to be replace with Windows 7.

[BrokenKingpin]

With two OSs released by MS after XP, I see no reason for them to keep supporting it.

[Psumi]

With two OSs released by MS after XP, I see no reason for them to keep supporting it.

Yeah, especially when I can't afford Windows 7 or even a new computer to handle Windows 7.

200-300 USD is too much for an OS.

[ukripper]

MS should make XP open sourced. We will make it better!

[pwnst*r]

Yeah, especially when I can't afford Windows 7 or even a new computer to handle Windows 7.

200-300 USD is too much for an OS.

except it's not (http://www.google.com/product_url?q=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx%3FItem%3DN82E16832116752%26nm_mc%3DOT C-Froogle%26cm_mmc%3DOTC-Froogle-_-Software%2B-%2BOperating%2BSystems-_-Microsoft-_-32116752&fr=AK8I0hfvKS7a0JzCsjW-VhZ4Oxo0zsp9d8zhJIHPe0-XTHASWF8zbbR-FHfjoOUMkOCgxK7wtN3ZqRoLzk22Xqk4B84nkIZ2Edxz2mvMS6 8L8ejgoW051vFuLFcDaykbTuemsViCaBD3WqvWQDpPtS9bptLP cSMXTQIddgLY18La_KTDqXsc5COvqmz79jru9t9YywudfuIFI0 k-sfK5Gkx-lZPM-yuYUhjULIsupVzyYE9bCkZT7Rt5cRc2e-EPuy1RWx7c7ILGc73s8tTtBmIAAAAAAAAAAA&gl=us&hl=en) that much.

[Psumi]

except it's not (http://www.google.com/product_url?q=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx%3FItem%3DN82E16832116752%26nm_mc%3DOT C-Froogle%26cm_mmc%3DOTC-Froogle-_-Software%2B-%2BOperating%2BSystems-_-Microsoft-_-32116752&fr=AK8I0hfvKS7a0JzCsjW-VhZ4Oxo0zsp9d8zhJIHPe0-XTHASWF8zbbR-FHfjoOUMkOCgxK7wtN3ZqRoLzk22Xqk4B84nkIZ2Edxz2mvMS6 8L8ejgoW051vFuLFcDaykbTuemsViCaBD3WqvWQDpPtS9bptLP cSMXTQIddgLY18La_KTDqXsc5COvqmz79jru9t9YywudfuIFI0 k-sfK5Gkx-lZPM-yuYUhjULIsupVzyYE9bCkZT7Rt5cRc2e-EPuy1RWx7c7ILGc73s8tTtBmIAAAAAAAAAAA&gl=us&hl=en) that much.

Sorry, but I hate buying online, so no dice. Not that it matters, my current computer won't handle Windows 7, plus, none of the games I originally played, etc. Not that I liked them anyway. I'm content with my IBM T41 as long as linux is light enough.

[pwnst*r]

Sorry, but I hate buying online, so no dice. Not that it matters, my current computer won't handle Windows 7, plus, none of the games I originally played, etc. Not that I liked them anyway. I'm content with my IBM T41 as long as linux is light enough.

So then your previous post holds no water.

[RiceMonster]

Yeah, especially when I can't afford Windows 7 or even a new computer to handle Windows 7.

200-300 USD is too much for an OS.

No offense meant, but I don't think the fact that you can't afford Windows 7 is reason enough to not discontinue XP.

[MaxIBoy]

XP has been on life support for too long now. The expectation of retaining compatibility with it is holding a lot of software devs back. It's a security risk and a liability for the health of the Internet as a whole (more spambots and so on.) It is almost 9 years old and it is totally obsolete. I say dump it.

Problem is, Microsoft is being exploitative in charging for upgrades, so people unfortunately have a good reason to stick with XP. Upgrades ought to be free. Ideally, windows should just be on a rolling release system.

[Skripka]

Problem is, Microsoft is being exploitative in charging for upgrades, so people unfortunately have a good reason to stick with XP. Upgrades ought to be free. Ideally, windows should just be on a rolling release system.

That model might work for Linux distros...but not for billion $$$ megacorps needing revenue.

[Frak]

So then your previous post holds no water.

Considering who you're talking to, he'll come back with a "my situation" argument and treat it as a rule.


The expectation of retaining compatibility with it is holding a lot of software devs back.

Excluding programs that really tap into newer technologies, if you have a problem with XP compatibility, you're a terrible programmer.


Problem is, Microsoft is being exploitative in charging for upgrades, so people unfortunately have a good reason to stick with XP. Upgrades ought to be free. Ideally, windows should just be on a rolling release system.

Updates are free, and no. Rolling release for a stable OS is a BAD idea.

[NoaHall]

Updates are free, and no. Rolling release for a stable OS is a BAD idea.

And a bad way of making money.

[Dark Aspect]

Yeah, especially when I can't afford Windows 7 or even a new computer to handle Windows 7.


I doubt that, what are your specs? With some work/overclocking you should be able get some old hardware to load Windows 7.

[Psumi]

I doubt that, what are your specs? With some work/overclocking you should be able get some old hardware to load Windows 7.

It's an IBM ThinkPad T41.

-- 1.60 GHz Single-Core Intel Pentium M (centrino)
-- 512 MB of RAM (496 MB Usable)
-- 40 GB Harddrive
-- DVD-ROM/CD-RW Drive (DVDs Not Recordable from drive, just read-only.)
-- 14" Non-Widescreen Monitor (Integrated) (Horrible looking at any resolution but 1024x768.)
-- 2 USB Ports
-- Too little power supply to handle an external DVD Burner AND a flash drive.
-- PCMIA (or whatever) card slot (I believe), Modem Port and Ethernet port
-- Wireless B Card

In order to install Ubuntu, I have to use a mini.iso or the Xubuntu CD (Actually, Xubuntu takes up too much RAM itself.)

Processor can be upgraded to 2.0 GHz (Single-core), but I can't remember the number of the processor. But NONE of the processors that this machine can take can be overclocked, there are no BIOS settings for that.
RAM can be upgraded to 2 GB (70 USD per 1 GB PC2700 SoDIMM)

The battery lasts maximum of 2 hours, any more higher specs will cause shorter battery life I'm sure.

[NoaHall]

It's an IBM ThinkPad T41.

-- 1.60 GHz Single-Core Intel Pentium M (centrino)
-- 512 MB of RAM (496 MB Usable)
-- 40 GB Harddrive
-- DVD-ROM/CD-RW Drive (DVDs Not Recordable from drive, just read-only.)
-- 14" Non-Widescreen Monitor (Integrated) (Horrible looking at any resolution but 1024x768.)
-- 2 USB Ports
-- Too little power supply to handle an external DVD Burner AND a flash drive.
-- PCMIA (or whatever) card slot (I believe), Modem Port and Ethernet port
-- Wireless B Card

In order to install Ubuntu, I have to use a mini.iso or the Xubuntu CD (Actually, Xubuntu takes up too much RAM itself.)

Processor can be upgraded to 2.0 GHz (Single-core), but I can't remember the number of the processor. But NONE of the processors that this machine can take can be overclocked, there are no BIOS settings for that.
RAM can be upgraded to 2 GB (70 USD per 1 GB PC2700 SoDIMM)

The battery lasts maximum of 2 hours, any more higher specs will cause shorter battery life I'm sure.

Hm. I think, if you upgraded your hard drive to a larger size, it'd be able to use Windows 7.

[Psumi]

Hm. I think, if you upgraded your hard drive to a larger size, it'd be able to use Windows 7.

I don't need more than even 20 GB of Space, believe me or not. My documents are all on a flash drive. o_O currently, I have 24 GB of free space =/ All of it is dedicated to the operating system except for cache, pidgin logs, etc. all my music, documents, etc. are on my 8 GB flash drive.

[NoaHall]

I don't need more than even 20 GB of Space, believe me or not. My documents are all on a flash drive. o_O currently, I have 24 GB of free space =/ All of it is dedicated to the operating system except for cache, pidgin logs, etc. all my music, documents, etc. are on my 8 GB flash drive.

Well, a relatively fresh install(on my computer) of 7 64 bit - Program Files(both x86 and x86_64) + Windows folder is 43.1 GB. Of course, I have steam and other things in my Windows.old folder, which is about 500GB big.

[starcannon]

Microsoft is a company that has to consider shareholders; so, no they should end support of XP in 2013 as last I heard, was their intention. They do need to put XP behind them at some point, and by all accounts Se7en is good enough to let them do that.

That said, I think MS would do well to consider some extended support ideas; perhaps initial purchase of an OS or a computer with one of their operating systems on them would grant the user to 5 years of updates, and then after that the user would have to pay for future updates or something. No, I'm not looking to get flamed, but I am being realistic; if a for profit company is expected to continue supporting a piece of software indefinitely, then its end users have to pony up, its that or drop software in lieu of selling new software that essentially does the same thing as the old software. So it comes down to pay for upgrades/updates after x amount of time, or scrap it all and pay for the latest version; either way the enduser will pay.

Just my .02

[staf0048]

Well, a relatively fresh install(on my computer) of 7 64 bit - Program Files(both x86 and x86_64) + Windows folder is 43.1 GB. Of course, I have steam and other things in my Windows.old folder, which is about 500GB big.

Umm... is this a Linux forum or a MS forum. Pretty sure he said he was happy with Linux on his box - why try to get him to install 7? WTF??

Edit: Oh and let XP go. Holding on to the past has never helped things progress. Can you imagine running a Linux distro from 2001 still???

[NoaHall]

Umm... is this a Linux forum or a MS forum. Pretty sure he said he was happy with Linux on his box - why try to get him to install 7? WTF??

WTF to you. He said he couldn't - I was discussing it with him. This is a Ubuntu forum. Not a general GNU/Linux one.

[carbonbased]

It seems to be somewhat of a love/hate relationship. =)

[Frak]

Umm... is this a Linux forum or a MS forum. Pretty sure he said he was happy with Linux on his box - why try to get him to install 7? WTF??

Edit: Oh and let XP go. Holding on to the past has never helped things progress. Can you imagine running a Linux distro from 2001 still???
This is a forum where we give our thoughts to what is the best solutions for a particular situation, not an "OMG, UZ LINUX ALWAZE CUZ ITS TEH BEST!" forum.

[NoaHall]

This is a forum where we give our thoughts to what is the best solutions for a particular situation, not an "OMG, UZ LINUX ALWAZE CUZ ITS TEH BEST!" forum.

I NOES ITS LIEK SO SHINYZ MY EYEZ LOVEZ IT! I DONT NOES ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT IT BUT IT SO SHINYZ OMG!

k.

Disclaimer - I don't think GNU/Linux is so shiny that my eyes love it.

[johnb820]

The reason why XP still holds the largest market share of any OS is because there are a huge amount of people who either, don't know they can upgrade, don't know how to upgrade, or cannot justify buying the latest Windows or a new computer in this economy. This is what happens when you dumb down computers for the masses and do not provide an easy method for upgrading. Now almost two out of three people are still using a 9 year old OS without proper support.

[marco123]

They should definitely keep XP going. Window 7 is actually rather good, yet XP was a joke, and the main reason why I switched in the first place. People are less like to look for alternatives if their current product is good and works fine.

[staf0048]

This is a forum where we give our thoughts to what is the best solutions for a particular situation, not an "OMG, UZ LINUX ALWAZE CUZ ITS TEH BEST!" forum.

I'm sorry if my post came off that way. That is not at all what I was intending. What I saw was a discussion about 7 and a guy who didn't think he could install it on his computer, but was happy with Linux anyway - though I think he used the word "content". I did not see him asking for help to install 7, just commenting.

[Skripka]

This is what happens when you dumb down computers for the masses and do not provide an easy method for upgrading.

Um. No. It has NOTHING to do with "ease of upgrading" or of "dumbing down the masses" in this case for the most part.

1) Corporate IT. Need I say more? They know the last product works, and is in place....and getting newer Windows licenses and machines moved over, and training people on them--will cost FAR more than it is worth.

2) It is simply that MOST people barely have need of a mid-range Core2Duo-based machine. Of cCOURSE they won't buy a new supercomputer in light of that. Most people similarly have no need of the latest and greatest Windows as the prior did the job fine for the most part, and did fine for 10 years.

If you have a 2000 Toyota with 150,000 miles on it, and it is still going strong--would you dump it to get a new car tomorrow? Saying no is what a smart consumer does, and what lots of folks are doing.


Very few companies EVER find themselves in the position of being the 80% marketshare, and find they have to DEAL WITH the fact that their products completely saturate the market...and that after a while consumers rightfully question why they need to spend more money on something.

[pwnst*r]

They should definitely keep XP going. Window 7 is actually rather good, yet XP was a joke, and the main reason why I switched in the first place. People are less like to look for alternatives if their current product is good and works fine.

XP was a joke?

[Frak]

I NOES ITS LIEK SO SHINYZ MY EYEZ LOVEZ IT! I DONT NOES ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT IT BUT IT SO SHINYZ OMG!

k.

Disclaimer - I don't think GNU/Linux is so shiny that my eyes love it.
lol

[Skripka]

XP was a joke?

When it first came out, I'd say it was. After about SP1 it got serious.

[pwnst*r]

That's a VERY small time frame from an OS that's been around almost 10 years. I'd hardly consider calling XP a "joke".

[Frak]

That's a VERY small time frame from an OS that's been around almost 10 years. I'd hardly consider calling XP a "joke".
I'd seriously consider XP to be the longest used Operating system, excluding DOS if you think of it that way.

[johnb820]

If you have a 2000 Toyota with 150,000 miles on it, and it is still going strong--would you dump it to get a new car tomorrow? Saying no is what a smart consumer does, and what lots of folks are doing.


And it is ok for people to continue using an unsupported OS? I am saying grandma with her 9 year old computer running XP is not aware of security fixes, upgrades, or maintaining her computer. Joe Shmo just got laid off and can't afford a new computer. Does that mean he has a right to complain when an important security fix doesn't come and he gets a virus?

If grandma used an upgrade system like Linux she would automatically get the latest upgrades. If Joe Shmo had an affordable option to upgrade his computer he wouldn't get the virus.

[Skripka]

And it is ok for people to continue using an unsupported OS? I am saying grandma with her 9 year old computer running XP is not aware of security fixes, upgrades, or maintaining her computer. Joe Shmo just got laid off and can't afford a new computer. Does that mean he has a right to complain when an important security fix doesn't come and he gets a virus?

If grandma used an upgrade system like Linux she would automatically get the latest upgrades. If Joe Shmo had an affordable option to upgrade his computer he wouldn't get the virus.


CONGRATULATIONS!

You just admitted you did not even bother reading the OP! Try getting some learnings:

http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/what-microsofts-extended-xp-support-means-it-267

[johnb820]

CONGRATULATIONS!

You just admitted you did not even bother reading the OP! Try getting some learnings:

http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/what-microsofts-extended-xp-support-means-it-267

I did realize it was getting extended support a while back. However, it can't be supported forever and there lies the troubles. It's costing MS a lot of money to keep supporting XP and I am trying to point out why MS made a mistake and why they should dump it.

[Techsnap]

If that many people are still using it by 2014 it's possible they'll extend support a little longer anyway, they did this with 98SE, it went from 2004 to June/July 2006.

[xuCGC002]

A 250-300GB WD Caviar SATA3 7200RPM drive that is perfect for normall users is only $50 bucks.

I got a 500GB Hitachi Deskstar 7200RPM for $45 at Fry's, brand new.

[pwnst*r]

I did realize it was getting extended support a while back. However, it can't be supported forever and there lies the troubles.

But that's not what you meant originally:


And it is ok for people to continue using an unsupported OS?

[pwnst*r]

I got a 500GB Hitachi Deskstar 7200RPM for $45 at Fry's, brand new.

I still don't know why people complain about storage. It's pretty simple really - If you can't afford half a TB HDD, then you probably just need to get a job.

Storage is cheap, fact.

[TheNessus]

WinXP would outlive microsoft itself. It will be on some (not all, heh) computers on Mars colonies!

[pwnst*r]

Lol, probably

[NoaHall]

I still don't know why people complain about storage. It's pretty simple really - If you can't afford half a TB HDD, then you probably just need to get a job.

Storage is cheap, fact.

I think that's a little harsh, but true.

[Frak]

I think that's a little harsh, but true.
Same.

[MaxIBoy]

Excluding programs that really tap into newer technologies, if you have a problem with XP compatibility, you're a terrible programmer.I may have been over-reaching in saying that, as I don't have too much experience programming Windows per se. But the biggest examples I can think of are DX10/DX11, improved multiuser capabilities, symbolic links, and multitouch.

Rolling release for a stable OS is a BAD idea. You tell that to the Debian devs. Yes, I know that the *releases* aren't rolling, but the fact is, Debian Testing is still rock solid, to a far greater extent than most editions of Windows. One might make the case that Windows is not a "stable" OS anyway.

[Frak]

I may have been over-reaching in saying that, as I don't have too much experience programming Windows per se. But the biggest examples I can think of are DX10/DX11, improved multiuser capabilities, symbolic links, and multitouch.


Excluding programs that really tap into newer technologies...


You tell that to the Debian devs. Yes, I know that the *releases* aren't rolling, but the fact is, Debian Testing is still rock solid, to a far greater extent than most editions of Windows. One might make the case that Windows is not a "stable" OS anyway.

That's a nonsensical argument. I can point to the million-man bug-hunting parade that happened with Windows 7 to show that Windows is stable. (The amount of people who tested Windows 7 bypassed the ENTIRE Desktop Linux population) Microsoft goes through hoops to make sure that everything is stable.

[SmittyJensen]

I told you so, Pwnstar:

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/40/toldyou.jpg

i only have a firewall, utorrent, winrar, and microsoft security essentials installed. then i also removed most of the windows 7 features besides .net framework 3.5, ie8 and wmp 12.

dont make things up :popcorn:

[Frak]

I told you so, Pwnstar:

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/40/toldyou.jpg

i only have a firewall, utorrent, winrar, and microsoft security essentials installed. then i also removed most of the windows 7 features besides .net framework 3.5, ie8 and wmp 12.

dont make things up :popcorn:
lol

[CharlesA]

Does that deserve a lolwut?

What version of Win7 btw?

[SmittyJensen]

yeah but then again i guess this is what i get for going to ubuntuforums.org regularly. i'm starting to realize more and more this place is filled with kids (sad because its true).


COOL STORY BRO

[Frak]

yeah but then again i guess this is what i get for going to ubuntuforums.org regularly. i'm starting to realize more and more this place is filled with kids (sad because its true).


COOL STORY BRO
Sorry your computer is odd?

[NoaHall]

yeah but then again i guess this is what i get for going to ubuntuforums.org regularly. i'm starting to realize more and more this place is filled with kids (sad because its true).


COOL STORY BRO

I can honestly say, I have no idea what you're talking about. Explain?

[KiwiNZ]

yeah but then again i guess this is what i get for going to ubuntuforums.org regularly. i'm starting to realize more and more this place is filled with kids (sad because its true).


COOL STORY BRO

Blow on a fire too close you are going to get burnt ;)

Play nice folks

Thanks

[samh785]

<10GB. don't make up things.
http://windows.microsoft.com/systemrequirements

[Frak]

http://windows.microsoft.com/systemrequirements
It doesn't take that much HD space, though. The DVD alone is only somewhere around 3.4GB and 6GB unpacked.

[judge jankum]

There's no way these old 98se and 2000 machines can run the newer MS OS's. To me that's where Buntu jumps way ahead of MS. Ubuntu didn't leave all of us with older machines dead in the water like MS...

[Frak]

There's no way these old 98se and 2000 machines can run the newer MS OS's. To me that's where Buntu jumps way ahead of MS. Ubuntu didn't leave all of us with older machines dead in the water like MS...
I have a PIII 900MHz that ran Windows 2000. It was new for the time. It runs Windows XP well, it runs Ubuntu like crap. Lesson? No it doesn't. Ubuntu was not made to revive your 10+ year old machine.

[KiwiNZ]

Really , 10 year old machines should be retired .You cannot realistically expect a new OS to run on them .

If you want to keep running a 10 year old PC , run a 10 year old OS on it. Horses for courses.

[witeshark17]

Microsoft made a choice to kill off XP and they should, its old. Unfortunately nothing they have thats current is even as good as XP. At any rate, no, XP should have a nice burial. It was one of MS's best OSes, but its dead, let it go! :P Pretty much!

[judge jankum]

I have a PIII 900MHz that ran Windows 2000. It was new for the time. It runs Windows XP well, it runs Ubuntu like crap. Lesson? No it doesn't. Ubuntu was not made to revive your 10+ year old machine.

Fraaaaaaaaaaaaaaak frak frak!!!! LOL!!! I know that" But still even though like crap on some I have too....MS would be impossible to run at all..
And as KiwiNZ posted, 10 year old machines should be retired.. And yes they're not for the new OS, but a still somewhat supported older system allows many more people to experiance the world of the puter... All the differant versions of Linux create an OS for everything from the dinosaur to the cutting edge.... That's what puts Ubuntu/Linux a few steps ahead...Sad most of the world dosn't know......yet..

[wolfdale]

I dual boot Ubuntu with my retail copy of XP. I use XP just for MMORPG gaming. I have no need for Window$ 7 nor the desire to pay for it. So I'm for keeping WinXP alive.

[samh785]

Really , 10 year old machines should be retired .You cannot realistically expect a new OS to run on them .

If you want to keep running a 10 year old PC , run a 10 year old OS on it. Horses for courses.
Better not be a 10 year old Windows OS, or you're going to be up vulnerability creek without a... patch. *sigh*

[khelben1979]

I don't care what they do with it, why should I?

[MaxIBoy]

Better not be a 10 year old Windows OS, or you're going to be up vulnerability creek without a... patch. *sigh*
+1



Really , 10 year old machines should be retired .You cannot realistically expect a new OS to run on them .

If you want to keep running a 10 year old PC , run a 10 year old OS on it. Horses for courses.You tell that to my PII server, which is running a MODERN operating system. I've got it running as a torrent slave, game server, Web server, print server, and backup server. And I frequently forward X11 over SSH and run Openoffice, Firefox, etc. on it as well. CPU usage never goes over 75%, and RAM usage rarely goes over 200 Mb.

[TyrantWave]

I may have been over-reaching in saying that, as I don't have too much experience programming Windows per se. But the biggest examples I can think of are DX10/DX11, improved multiuser capabilities, symbolic links, and multitouch.

Ditch DX and use OpenGL anyway I say...

[Matt_Johnson]

bury it

[Pogeymanz]

They need to kill it. It's old, it's outdated, it was never very good to begin with. The only reason people even think that it's good is because they've used it for 8 years straight.

And I'm not saying this so that more people start using Linux- they wont.

Clinging to WinXP is going to slow innovation, which is something I'm not okay with. For all those people that have computers that can't run Vista/7: Tell Microsoft that you are pissed at them for making those OSes very resource intensive.

Frankly, I hope that letting XP exist for so long really bites MS in the ***, which it looks like it is.

[KiwiNZ]

They need to kill it. It's old, it's outdated, it was never very good to begin with. The only reason people even think that it's good is because they've used it for 8 years straight.

And I'm not saying this so that more people start using Linux- they wont.

Clinging to WinXP is going to slow innovation, which is something I'm not okay with. For all those people that have computers that can't run Vista/7: Tell Microsoft that you are pissed at them for making those OSes very resource intensive.

Frankly, I hope that letting XP exist for so long really bites MS in the ***, which it looks like it is.

XP is not harming MS . Win7 is the fastest selling OS yet .

[Frak]

They need to kill it. It's old, it's outdated, it was never very good to begin with. The only reason people even think that it's good is because they've used it for 8 years straight.

And I'm not saying this so that more people start using Linux- they wont.

Clinging to WinXP is going to slow innovation, which is something I'm not okay with. For all those people that have computers that can't run Vista/7: Tell Microsoft that you are pissed at them for making those OSes very resource intensive.

Frankly, I hope that letting XP exist for so long really bites MS in the ***, which it looks like it is.
If Microsoft has a product on the market, being used day-to-day, it can never hurt them. XP is still a cash cow for Microsoft.

[roadtripdave]

It'll be hard to let go of WinXP...but I think it needs to happen. I want to get our gaming pc on Win7 one of these days.

I need to say something here though about Windows 7 and their commercials about how you can move half the window off your desktop and then it magically resizes to fit half the screen.. yeeeeeeeeeeah... lame, I hate how their marketing that dinky feature.. big deal. Not why I'd get on Win7...haha.. yeah not for that reason tit'all.

Anyway.. take WinXP off the shelves!

[Frak]

I need to say something here though about Windows 7 and their commercials about how you can move half the window off your desktop and then it magically resizes to fit half the screen.. yeeeeeeeeeeah... lame,

I'd really like it if it was offered in Linux. You don't know how useful it is until you try it.

[NoaHall]

I'd really like it if it was offered in Linux. You don't know how useful it is until you try it.

I find it a bit annoying sometimes, because I have multiple monitors - when I try to stretch a window over multiple windows, it starts "snapping" into place. Which would be great, if it was the place I wanted it to be.

[Blackmag+c]

People who say XP are dead are a little shortsighted. I will admit that the OS is not as pretty as windows 7 or Vista (gah!) or perhaps as "free" as Linux (that wasn't sarcasm :D) but it is fully functioning for the average user. I have had many happy and productive years using it and would like to think I am very familiar with it :)

I would like them to keep it alive, because as of yet Microsoft hasn't managed to best the longevity of this OS. It's not a perfect OS by any means but a definitive milestone for MS I would say.