Windows Xp nears End Of Life (THANK GOD!) Zero Day Forever April 8 2014

[J N Winkler]

I can afford to spend a hundred or two if I need to replace something, but I don't want to spend it if tht something still works. I'm more concerned with the time cost of migrating to a new computer, as outlined in my previous post.  And stuff that just won't migrate, like old software.  (I have a Win3.1 app which I still use once in a blue moon, as an extreme example.)

One point I am trying to get at is that as a computer ages, a point is reached where it starts acting like a Giffen good, in the sense that the ongoing time losses that result from using the obsolescent setup cost more than the purchase cost of a new computer plus the time cost of migrating software and data.  An older computer takes longer to load software and longer to process computationally intensive tasks, and over time that adds up.  Let's say that you spend an extra five minutes a day on an older computer that you would save on a newer computer with a CPU passmark about four times higher:  at (1/12) * 365 * $7.25 (assuming your time is worth at least minimum wage) this is $220 a year, which is enough to buy at least a used laptop with entry-level specs.

I contend, therefore, that it is myopic to place such a premium on cash in hand that you will allow an old computer to steal your time from you, a little bit on each occasion, until the losses due to its intrinsic inefficiencies add up to several multiples of the purchase cost of a new computer and the time cost of migration.  (Moreover, I would contend that postponement of migration often amounts to a foregone opportunity to build new efficiencies into your setup.  I didn't migrate a fair amount of software to my current 7 machine that I used on XP because I realized it saved me time to do certain routine things with scripts rather than application-specific actions which require the application to be launched and input files to be placed into specific hot folders.)  Almost the only people for whom it makes sense to place such an extreme premium on cash in hand are those whose income is so constrained that pocket-money losses have a serious dislocating effect--the example that comes to mind is a teacher who has to forgo lunch in order to afford classroom supplies.

[bugo]

Your argument is a fallacy because XP ran just as fast as 7, because it was a lot less bloated.

[J N Winkler]

Since the announced end-of-life date is a Tuesday, I expected a final few updates to be pushed, one of them being an obnoxious notification to let people know of XP's obsolescence, like the one I declined to download last week.  But my computer hasn't notified me of any available updates today.

My old XP laptop advised me yesterday--well after end of support--that two updates were available for installation.  These updates were not available on April 6 or 7 when I did a last round of updating on the two XP computers I run (in both cases one of the updates available was the "end of support" reminder, which I installed and which turned out to be a dialog box notification with a "Don't show again" checkbox).  It seems that Microsoft is continuing to run the update server indefinitely for XP updates that were released before the end of support.

[J N Winkler]

Your argument is a fallacy because XP ran just as fast as 7, because it was a lot less bloated.

Nope, it isn't, since I am considering the composite of computer plus operating system, not just the operating system.  XP is lightweight compared to 7 but the difference between the two is narrow for XP SP3 and the low passmarks associated with old XP machines more than overcome the smaller footprint of XP.  Most of the "I'll keep on using XP" comments in this thread have originated from contributors (myself included) who want to keep on using obsolete hardware without upgrading the OS beyond XP.

I'll go even further:  I think the "Keep on using XP" crowd underestimates the extent to which hardware obsolescence makes old XP computers difficult to use even for casual users (my mother's experience being a case in point).

[algorerhythms]

Incidentally, if you have old programs that run on XP and not newer versions of Windows (or Linux), this article may be of interest.

Would this also apply to older games that worked on XP but don't anymore on 7 due to the 64-bit issue?

Pretty sure it would, since it uses the 32-bit version of XP, which still had 16-bit support.

[vdeane]

Also note that 7 DOES have a 32-bit edition (as does 8).

Also note that it is impossible to accurately measure the footprint of any version of Windows beyond XP.  XP and earlier would use a certain amount of memory, CPU, etc. and that was it, didn't matter if you weren't using the computer at the moment or if you really needed the extra resources.  Starting with Vista, however, Windows' hardware utilization became dynamic.  When the computer is idle, it increases the amount it uses for background tasks (why waste computing power?), and during intense usage, it would back off to minimal amounts.

[JREwing78]

The big issue I've found with Windows XP systems is modern software and its appetite for RAM memory.

For example, I routinely have web browser sessions that exceed 2GB of RAM use on their own (I keep a lot of tabs open). Even with just one window open, they can easily take 512MB on their own. When XP only sees about 3GB maximum, that's a gigantic chunk.

And, I rarely see Windows XP systems today that don't use less than 1GB for the operating system, antivirus, and other items running the background. Add a copy of iTunes or Spotify running, a mail client, maybe a PDF in Adobe Reader, the software for your printer, etc, and 3GB suddenly is pretty skimpy.

If it was running circa-2005 software, and the hackers hadn't gained 9 years of experience hacking into Windows XP, there's no reason to scrap it. But it's 2014, and XP is an antique.

I keep a XP laptop around for gaming purposes, but it never goes on the internet.

[ZLoth]

For example, I routinely have web browser sessions that exceed 2GB of RAM use on their own (I keep a lot of tabs open). Even with just one window open, they can easily take 512MB on their own. When XP only sees about 3GB maximum, that's a gigantic chunk.

And, I rarely see Windows XP systems today that don't use less than 1GB for the operating system, antivirus, and other items running the background. Add a copy of iTunes or Spotify running, a mail client, maybe a PDF in Adobe Reader, the software for your printer, etc, and 3GB suddenly is pretty skimpy.

The 3 GB limit (which is actually 4GB, but hardware and memory addressing issues reduce it to 3-3.5GB) is not a limitation of Windows XP per se, but rather a limitation of the 32-bit operating systems, including 32-bit versions of Linux and Windows 7/8. Now, when XP first came out, it was fairly common for computers to have 256-512 MB of memory, and 4GB was just a pipe dream, so that memory limitation didn't matter then.

It should be noted that there was a 64 bit version of Windows XP, but I'm hard pressed to find anyone who used it or any software that supported it. Now, Vista started to make 64-bit operating systems commonplace, and I was surprised when Windows 8 still came out in a 32-bit flavor.

[vtk]

My XP computer is not an "old" machine. It was built in 2008 with the objective "it should run Flight Simulator X well".  Like I said, it is awesome.  I don't believe it has become a "Giffen good" because it still performs very well.  I don't spend any noticeable time just waiting for it.

And again, I'd like to point out that my primary concern of upgrading is not the financial cost, but the time cost.  I don't want to lose a week's worth of free time migrating and acclimating (and helping my boyfriend do the same).

[J N Winkler]

My XP computer is not an "old" machine. It was built in 2008 with the objective "it should run Flight Simulator X well".  Like I said, it is awesome.  I don't believe it has become a "Giffen good" because it still performs very well.  I don't spend any noticeable time just waiting for it.

If it is a custom job and it still performs well, then the logic I spelled out above doesn't apply to you--I was thinking mainly of Roadgeek Adam and his comment about having to wait three hours for cleanup on his XP machine.

And again, I'd like to point out that my primary concern of upgrading is not the financial cost, but the time cost.  I don't want to lose a week's worth of free time migrating and acclimating (and helping my boyfriend do the same).

I had the time cost of migration in mind as well, but I didn't throw out any specific numbers because people's approaches to migration are very individual, and depending on how the migration is actually accomplished, the time cost is amortized not just by the greater speed of the new computer but potentially also by time-saving changes in how routine tasks are accomplished, which in some cases are made possible by new capabilities in the OS (robocopy, for example, does not come baked into XP and the version that is usually installed on XP is fooled by DST changes, while 7 comes with robocopy out of the box, and its version can be set to ignore DST).

When my new 7 machine arrived in September 2011, I think I had migration substantially finished within 48 hours (the hardest part of the transition was actually copying over the files), but it took about a week of working at slightly less than normal efficiency to adjust to some subtleties of 7, such as the way focus changes from one pane to another in Windows Explorer--if you are not careful, you can delete a whole directory hierarchy instead of just one file in it, thinking that system focus is on the directory pane when it is actually on the tree pane (there is a color distinction that is supposed to prevent you from making this mistake, but in vanilla Aero it is very subtle).

[SteveG1988]

Going from Xp to 7 is not that big of a leap, you get a different UI out of it, but it is mostly the same. If you are like some people and perfer the full size tabs on the taskbar you can make them that way. You can install 7 over Xp and have the files still on the hard drive, just have to cut and paste them into the new documents area that 7 makes. your old program files will be saved as My Programs.Old, once done you delete the .old folders.

Going from xp 32 bit to x64 windows 7 will also improve performance since it allows for more than 4gb of ram if your system can handle it.

[Zeffy]

I guess I'm the only one here who went from XP->Vista when it came out.    And, I bet I'm in the underwhelming minority of people who liked Windows Vista. I've actually had no problems with every version of Windows from XP and on.

But, I did not like how many of my games and programs didn't run for the first few weeks on Vista until compatibility fixes came out. I eventually just did a fresh install of Vista and I had nearly 0 problems with it. And, my PC at the time was a POS! Nvidia 5200 FX graphics card with an Intel Pentium processor! 2 GB of ram! It was made in 2001, but Vista ran fine on it. Now I'm on a gaming laptop that does have a touch screen, but I still use my mouse for everything since I installed Windows 8. I just think some people hate Microsoft/Vista/8/(Future 10) to be trendy.

By the way - I installed UXStyle, now how do I get my Aero back? 

[vtk]

I've had less than satisfying experiences with computers that started with one version of Windows and upgraded to a newer version "in-place".  These experiences may very well be quite outdated, but they still influence my opinions.  So when I talk about upgrading my computer, I generally mean acquiring a completely new computer, and using both until I'm completely migrated to the new one (then probably using the old one as a server and/or long-compute box).  So really there's a space cost as well as time and money costs.

[SteveG1988]

I've had less than satisfying experiences with computers that started with one version of Windows and upgraded to a newer version "in-place".  These experiences may very well be quite outdated, but they still influence my opinions.  So when I talk about upgrading my computer, I generally mean acquiring a completely new computer, and using both until I'm completely migrated to the new one (then probably using the old one as a server and/or long-compute box).  So really there's a space cost as well as time and money costs.

It isn't the same as an old upgrade.

See, you cannot go xp straight to 7, you litearally create a whole new copy of windows on the hard drive, Xp has its windows directory renamed. you have a fresh install of windows in the end

[vtk]

I've had less than satisfying experiences with computers that started with one version of Windows and upgraded to a newer version "in-place".  These experiences may very well be quite outdated, but they still influence my opinions.  So when I talk about upgrading my computer, I generally mean acquiring a completely new computer, and using both until I'm completely migrated to the new one (then probably using the old one as a server and/or long-compute box).  So really there's a space cost as well as time and money costs.

It isn't the same as an old upgrade.

See, you cannot go xp straight to 7, you litearally create a whole new copy of windows on the hard drive, Xp has its windows directory renamed. you have a fresh install of windows in the end

That's not much better, because then I essentially give up the use of my awesome computer until I get it to run just as awesomely with the new OS.  And I don't imagine that being a short time, since I may have to upgrade some hardware to support the newer OS, and find replacements for some of the old software I use.

[NJRoadfan]

It should be noted that there was a 64 bit version of Windows XP, but I'm hard pressed to find anyone who used it or any software that supported it. Now, Vista started to make 64-bit operating systems commonplace, and I was surprised when Windows 8 still came out in a 32-bit flavor.

The 32-bit version of Windows 8 is seeing a bit of a renaissance in low end Atom powered tablets. Most of them only come with 2GB of RAM, so there is no need for the bigger footprint of a 64-bit OS. Kinda makes Apple look silly bragging about the 64bit-ness of iOS 7.

[Scott5114]

The Oklahoma lottery machines run XP.

As do VGT, Multimedia, and Rocket slot machines. I wonder if they are going to bother upgrading. (VGT machines would probably be easiest since they boot from a DVD. Rocket still hasn't discovered that DHCP exists, so I doubt they will ever bother.)

Most of the major slot machine vendors that you find in Vegas (WMS, Bally, Aristocrat) run a custom Linux distro. IGT and Aruze appear to use a custom OS. I don't know about Konami...their older machines clearly run a custom OS, but the newer ones might be using some version of Windows.

[ET21]

Incidentally, if you have old programs that run on XP and not newer versions of Windows (or Linux), this article may be of interest.

Would this also apply to older games that worked on XP but don't anymore on 7 due to the 64-bit issue?

Pretty sure it would, since it uses the 32-bit version of XP, which still had 16-bit support.

I will try this out when I get the time after finals. I've been trying to find backdoor routes to get my old games to work on Win7

[Dr Frankenstein]

If those old games are DOS or Win16 games, you might be better off with something like DosBox, which provides a much better, more accurate and more customizable emulation of DOS. Windows 3.11 will run fine on it, too (well, Program Manager would throw random GPFs at me, but installing Calmira got rid of the problem).

I've heard of issues running some 32-bit games in the 64-bit edition of Windows XP, but I haven't run into such an issue with my 64-bit Windows Vista or 7. Do they still have these problems?

[mwp3]

So you lost something you had before- that's why people don't like change.

I accept that progress is the price of living in a capitalistic society, and I'd rather have it than the alternatives, but it's important to make sure that the progress is actually useful progress.

The DTV transition was not capitalistic. It was government-imposed.

[corco]

So you lost something you had before- that's why people don't like change.

I accept that progress is the price of living in a capitalistic society, and I'd rather have it than the alternatives, but it's important to make sure that the progress is actually useful progress.

The DTV transition was not capitalistic. It was government-imposed.

Government imposed...in the interest of capitalism! The idea was to consolidate to free up those other radio frequencies for...private industry! to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wireless_spectrum_auction

[Pete from Boston]

So you lost something you had before- that's why people don't like change.

I accept that progress is the price of living in a capitalistic society, and I'd rather have it than the alternatives, but it's important to make sure that the progress is actually useful progress.

The DTV transition was not capitalistic. It was government-imposed.

Government imposed...in the interest of capitalism! The idea was to consolidate to free up those other radio frequencies for...private industry! to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wireless_spectrum_auction

Oh, you mean when the federal government gave a small handful of private companies a hugely profitable portion of public property for something like 8% of their combined annual revenues for that year (working out to roughly 1/150th of the 2008 federal budget)?

We must have some lousy capitalists in the government if that's what passes for getting us shareholders return on what's ours.  Wouldn't it be nice if someone could buy regulation in our interests like Verizon can for its?

[corco]

So you lost something you had before- that's why people don't like change.

I accept that progress is the price of living in a capitalistic society, and I'd rather have it than the alternatives, but it's important to make sure that the progress is actually useful progress.

The DTV transition was not capitalistic. It was government-imposed.

Government imposed...in the interest of capitalism! The idea was to consolidate to free up those other radio frequencies for...private industry! to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wireless_spectrum_auction

Oh, you mean when the federal government gave a small handful of private companies a hugely profitable portion of public property for something like 8% of their combined annual revenues for that year (working out to roughly 1/150th of the 2008 federal budget)?

We must have some lousy capitalists in the government if that's what passes for getting us shareholders return on what's ours.  Wouldn't it be nice if someone could buy regulation in our interests like Verizon can for its?

Well, right, in this case it was capitalists taking advantage of government in the name of progress. That's still an entirely different thing than a government imposed draconian thing just to annoy us, as it was made out to be by the OP.

[SteveG1988]

T-Mobile got some spectrum from verizon in a later sale, the 700mhz band is desired by many companies due to the fact that due to the GHZ bands having limitations on cell sizes due to the shorter wavelength, smaller and not able to travel as far. (T-Mobile/Sprint hang around the 1.8/1.9ghz area for 3G/LTE/HSPA+ and Voice) Verus 700mhz which does carry a lot farther on its own, sort of like how FM travels shorter distances than AM and AM travels shorter than most shortwave transmissions, and shortwave travels farther than ground wave, and so on. The lower the frequency the farther it travels.

That is partially why the FCC sold it, they had issues with crowding on the higher bands, and the already issued 850mhz band. (verizon/AT&T mostly)

[SteveG1988]

First patch tuesday after XP's death, with just one update for internet explorer late last month xp has not had any of the critical updates 7/vista/2003/8 recieved