AARoads Forum

http://www.paritynews.com/2013/08/16/2358/hackers-stockpiling-windows-xp-zero-days-as-eol-nears/

Well, Xp will begin to wind down, once APril 8 2014 comes around, bugs will not be fixed, security flaws won't be addressed

Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 13, 2013, 05:04:15 PM
http://www.paritynews.com/2013/08/16/2358/hackers-stockpiling-windows-xp-zero-days-as-eol-nears/

Well, Xp will begin to wind down, once APril 8 2014 comes around, bugs will not be fixed, security flaws won't be addressed

gonna miss it. lots of memories using it throughout high school and college. windows 8 is too tablet oriented for me.

Yeah, it's really good for those little old ladies who use their XP computers to check their email and nothing more...they're either going to have to buy a new computer or be vulnerable.  It's like a car that quits running after a certain time.

Steve Gum: You love Vista, but hate XP?  That's fucked up.

Quote from: bugo on December 13, 2013, 06:22:35 PM
Yeah, it's really good for those little old ladies who use their XP computers to check their email and nothing more...they're either going to have to buy a new computer or be vulnerable.  It's like a car that quits running after a certain time.

Steve Gum: You love Vista, but hate XP?  That's fucked up.

The fact that you hate vista is because you drank the flavor aide. Vista isn't that bad, i don't use it any more now that i have a newer laptop, i always ran 7 on my desktop

more like a car that quits running after you stop doing oil changes..

Quote from: bugo on December 13, 2013, 06:22:35 PM
Yeah, it's really good for those little old ladies who use their XP computers to check their email and nothing more...they're either going to have to buy a new computer or be vulnerable.  It's like a car that quits running after a certain time.

Sucks to be the little old ladies, huh?

I don't get the enthusiasm here for forcing them onto the upgrade treadmill, which involves hassle as well as spending money that some of them don't have.  Yeah, it's not practical to keep supporting old software forever, but let's be a little sensitive to people with marginal computer literacy, who would rather not have to change something that works well enough for them.

BTW, my desktop computer has Vista, which is kind of sucky (I liked XP more), but at least it runs some of my older software that I can't use on my Windows 7 notebook. 

It has been 12 years though and XP's life cycle has been extended a bunch of times already- it's not like they're forcing people off Windows 7 or something. The internet has more or less evolved beyond XP's capabilities.

Quote from: corco on December 13, 2013, 07:48:56 PM
It has been 12 years though and XP's life cycle has been extended a bunch of times already- it's not like they're forcing people off Windows 7 or something. The internet has more or less evolved beyond XP's capabilities.

Coutner argument from bugo prediction:

BUT THEY SHOULD UPDATE THE OS TO SUPPORT MORE

I hate Vista, not crazy about 7, have not experienced 8. I like XP just fine. It's what's running on the two old Windows laptops and my netbook and I have no plans to upgrade, since I rarely use those machines anyway.

It's the every other version problem with Windows. Windows 95 had problems. Windows 98 was great. Windows ME sucked. Windows XP was great. Vista had problems, but wasn't as bad as people remember. Windows 7 is excellent and is easily the best Windows release. Windows 8 sucks so much that I bought a MacBook.

Quote from: mass_citizen on December 13, 2013, 07:21:17 PM
more like a car that quits running after you stop doing oil changes..

Except you can't do your own oil changes and the manufacturer won't do it for you anymore

I use Windows 8, and I can't see why anyone has issues with it. I have zero problems with the OS. I loved 7, and I was able to deal with Vista. I loved XP because of how it was such a big leap from Windows Millennium (which yes, sucked), but also how smooth it ran and how nice the UI looked. But really, I think most PCs nowadays should be able to handle Windows 7. As amazing as XP is, it's time to let it rest.

I have an issue:  There are several older games that refuse to run on anything newer than XP.  If only the newer operating systems had much better compatibility modes . . .

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 13, 2013, 11:52:38 PM
I have an issue:  There are several older games that refuse to run on anything newer than XP.  If only the newer operating systems had much better compatibility modes . . .

+1

Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 13, 2013, 05:04:15 PM
http://www.paritynews.com/2013/08/16/2358/hackers-stockpiling-windows-xp-zero-days-as-eol-nears/

Well, Xp will begin to wind down, once APril 8 2014 comes around, bugs will not be fixed, security flaws won't be addressed

That's for Microsoft core OS. There has been non-support for other Microsoft products for a while already. Internet Explorer 8 was the last IE browser that supported XP.

Other vendors have ceased support for Windows XP already, while others will be supporting Windows XP for a little while longer.

Quote from: oscar on December 13, 2013, 07:43:36 PM
I don't get the enthusiasm here for forcing them onto the upgrade treadmill, which involves hassle as well as spending money that some of them don't have.  Yeah, it's not practical to keep supporting old software forever, but let's be a little sensitive to people with marginal computer literacy, who would rather not have to change something that works well enough for them.

Tell that to some of the bean counters. Sometimes, the employees are stuck with older equipment that needs to be upgraded, but until it actually affects the SVPs, it's "make do because it works, and it ain't broke". :banghead: Hey, as long as it doesn't affect the SVP's bonus.....  :pan:

And, my rule of thumb has been that a computer has a life cycle of around 5-7 years. Unless, it's a Apple product, in which case, it's less.

Quote from: realjd on December 13, 2013, 10:32:44 PM
Vista had problems, but wasn't as bad as people remember.

I always thought a major issue is that when Vista was released, you really needed a top-end machine (expensive) for it to really run smoothly.  Sure it would run on lower-end/budget machines - and in MS's desire to push it, it would be pre-installed on them, but it would run like crap. 

With Windows 7's system requirements being pretty much the same, but it being a few years later - what was an expensive high-end machine when Vista came out was a much more affordable computer when 7 was released.

I still use XP on the laptop I have, mostly because I'm cheap and just use it for web browsing, and occasionally an old scanner I can't get working on newer OS's.  But nothing lasts forever.

Quote from: ZLoth on December 14, 2013, 05:24:06 AM
And, my rule of thumb has been that a computer has a life cycle of around 5-7 years. Unless, it's a Apple product, in which case, it's less.

Hey, my school still has some of the old coloured Macs (OS8, baby!), and they run like champs.

I regard the ending of support for XP as a non-event.  I have already had to disable automatic updates on my lone XP computer because the Windows Update client has turned into a CPU hog.  I use this laptop mainly for taking notes at libraries and archives, playing video over a LAN, and logging into my main machine through Remote Desktop Connection.  All of those things will continue to be possible after support for XP ends.  CPU power is already the main constraint on what I can do with it--for example, I don't have enough to play Blu-Ray rips.

The real concern, I feel, is the dropping of antivirus and browser support for XP when Microsoft support for the OS lapses.  If I cannot update Firefox (version 8, which is what it has installed, now will no longer start without throwing up a plugin check with every launch) or get another year of Avast from next September, then I will still be able to use my XP machine as a thin client but it won't be available for general-purpose Web surfing.

In principle I can deal with the problems of software/OS obsolescence as well as limited CPU by buying a brand-new computer, but that is a pretty expensive solution.  The last time I investigated this possibility, the lowest price I found for a new laptop having CPU specs I would consider minimally acceptable for a second computer (i.e., not nearly as good as my main computer) was $450.

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 13, 2013, 11:52:38 PM
I have an issue:  There are several older games that refuse to run on anything newer than XP.  If only the newer operating systems had much better compatibility modes . . .

There are compatibility issues beyond just the OS. Some older games cannot run on 64-bit systems (there is no fix for this without modifying the software). Some older games cannot run on dual or quad core processors (the fix for this is to adjust the path so the program runs on only one core). Some older games are not meant to be widescreen and look funny when your monitor doesn't have a 4:3 aspect ratio.

But yes, the fact that versions of Windows from Vista onward are no longer DOS-based does mean they can't run programs which depended on that. If you have a program that is a pure DOS program you can run it using DOSBox. It's programs designed to run on Windows 3.X/95/98 that are the tough ones to figure out.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 13, 2013, 05:04:15 PM
http://www.paritynews.com/2013/08/16/2358/hackers-stockpiling-windows-xp-zero-days-as-eol-nears/

Well, Xp will begin to wind down, once APril 8 2014 comes around, bugs will not be fixed, security flaws won't be addressed

Color me skeptical.  Last figures I saw showed that of the installed base of Windows users worldwide, 31% were still using XP...almost a third.  No company drops support for almost a third of its installed base without consequences.  I guess M$ thinks they can weather the storm.

Deadlines like these have been pushed back before.  I'll believe it when I see it.

Quote from: Duke87 on December 14, 2013, 04:44:30 PMIf you have a program that is a pure DOS program you can run it using DOSBox.

Not if that program needs access to certain hardware like printers.  Windows Vista and beyond have hardware access locked down tight.

I have a business-critical DOS app at work that requires printer access to function the way we need it to be.  We tried it on DOSBox, but no joy.  That keeps two of my machines on XP for the foreseeable future.

Quote from: SidS1045 on December 14, 2013, 04:51:35 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on December 14, 2013, 04:44:30 PMIf you have a program that is a pure DOS program you can run it using DOSBox.

Not if that program needs access to certain hardware like printers.  Windows Vista and beyond have hardware access locked down tight.

I have a business-critical DOS app at work that requires printer access to function the way we need it to be.  We tried it on DOSBox, but no joy.  That keeps two of my machines on XP for the foreseeable future.

7 and Vista 32 bit kept MS-DOS support, identical to XP except no full screen mode

Quote from: SidS1045 on December 14, 2013, 04:51:35 PM
Not if that program needs access to certain hardware like printers.  Windows Vista and beyond have hardware access locked down tight.

I have a business-critical DOS app at work that requires printer access to function the way we need it to be.  We tried it on DOSBox, but no joy.  That keeps two of my machines on XP for the foreseeable future.

I would argue that if you have a business-critical program running on DOS that perhaps it's time to get a more up to date program.

I see reverse compatibility largely as a concern for playing old games, which can't just be "replaced" with new games. For business programs, old software should be easy to substitute for with new software, you just have to be willing to make the investment.

Quote from: Duke87 on December 14, 2013, 04:44:30 PM

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 13, 2013, 11:52:38 PM
I have an issue:  There are several older games that refuse to run on anything newer than XP.  If only the newer operating systems had much better compatibility modes . . .

There are compatibility issues beyond just the OS. Some older games cannot run on 64-bit systems (there is no fix for this without modifying the software). Some older games cannot run on dual or quad core processors (the fix for this is to adjust the path so the program runs on only one core). Some older games are not meant to be widescreen and look funny when your monitor doesn't have a 4:3 aspect ratio.

But yes, the fact that versions of Windows from Vista onward are no longer DOS-based does mean they can't run programs which depended on that. If you have a program that is a pure DOS program you can run it using DOSBox. It's programs designed to run on Windows 3.X/95/98 that are the tough ones to figure out.

Windows 3.X runs fine in DOSBox.

For the extremely rare game that won't run on Win7 x64, and won't run after adjusting the compatibility settings, why not go grab VMWare? It's free and the virtualization capabilities built into modern processors mean it runs extremely fast.

Quote from: Zeffy on December 13, 2013, 11:43:16 PM
I use Windows 8, and I can't see why anyone has issues with it. I have zero problems with the OS.

Functionally, Win 8 is fine. It's good and stable. My issues are entirely with the UI. If I can't figure out how to shut down the computer without using Google, there's something broken. It took me 20 minutes to figure out how to set a manual IP address on a Win 8 laptop. Windows 8.1 is better but still suffers from trying to shoehorn a touch OS onto a mouse interface.

Windows 7 was great and it's still what I run at work and on my desktop PC, but I'm very happy with my new MacBook.

I work for a provider of IT services for small businesses, so this is pretty much old news for me. We have been migrating end users to Windows 7 since it came out in 2009.

There's nothing wrong with Windows XP - as long as it never goes out to the internet. That's kind of a sticking point for most folks, who regard the internet as the "killer app".

Microsoft has long since exhausted any commercial value from Windows XP. They figure the 31% of the market still on XP won't upgrade until forced to - say, by a flurry of viruses and other malware infecting Windows XP computers. Those who won't upgrade by virtue of being cheap - well, Microsoft figures the "consequences" of not supporting non-paying users is a non-issue.

It's astounding that Windows XP has had the longevity it has - it came out in late 2001. That's longer than many marriages (including mine). Only recently have cars been able to routinely last that long.

Microsoft has made major investments in Windows XP to keep it viable, but it now has more patches in it than a city street in Detroit. They need to expend their energy in making their new operating systems usable.

Quote from: realjd on December 14, 2013, 08:43:47 PM
My issues are entirely with the UI. If I can't figure out how to shut down the computer without using Google, there's something broken. It took me 20 minutes to figure out how to set a manual IP address on a Win 8 laptop. Windows 8.1 is better but still suffers from trying to shoehorn a touch OS onto a mouse interface.

Windows 7 was great and it's still what I run at work and on my desktop PC, but I'm very happy with my new MacBook.

Try Classic Shell for Windows 8 - it gives you a Windows 7 taskbar with full functionality and look and feel of the Windows 7 one. But yeah, when I tried to shut it down without it I did have trouble finding it (why the hell is it in a settings menu?), which is one of the main reasons I eventually made a shortcut to shutdown my PC (along with restart) on my desktop.

Quote from: Duke87 on December 14, 2013, 07:18:18 PM
I would argue that if you have a business-critical program running on DOS that perhaps it's time to get a more up to date program.

There is no later version of this program that functions as its users need it to, and as I stated it is business-critical.

Why is this called "Zero Day"? (as in the thread title)

Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2013, 11:08:28 PMWhy is this called "Zero Day"? (as in the thread title)

It is a reference to zero-day vulnerabilities (i.e., ones which have no patches yet and so are still at "day zero").  The thinking is that when support for XP ends, it will be "zero day forever" for it, since malware authors will be able to reverse-engineer patches for vulnerabilities discovered for other versions of Windows and use the results to attack XP since patches won't be developed for it.

And, since many vulnerabilities affect multiple versions of Windows, many of these unused flaws being held by malware authors will affect Vista/7/8 as well (though not all of them).

Another point: it's counter-intuitive, but XP actually has more vulnerabilities than Vista and later versions do.  This is because it was engineered in an era when security was an afterthought at best.  Vista particularly was created with security as a primary goal, resulting in operating systems that are inherently more secure than XP ever can be.  It's also a major cause of Vista being perceived as bad - Windows couldn't introduce security concepts that had existed in the Unix world for decades without breaking some backwards compatibility and causing some user annoyance.

There are also a few interface conveniences that exist in Vista+ that don't in XP, like start menu search (which was supposed to obsolete the run command, and is curiously missing from classic shell applications for 8), the shortcut to the "new folder" command in explorer, the explorer "breadcrumbs bar", etc. that make using XP again annoying for me.

I also don't like that 8 removed most of the eye candy that 7 had, but that's a whole different thread (aside from the fact that XP doesn't have said eye candy either).

As for games, if they're old enough to not work on modern Windows versions, they're probably old enough that they could run just fine on a virtual machine hosted on a modern computer.  Business applications that don't have modern equivalents are probably a niche situation and most could probably all have the same solution.  Usually there's an equivalent somewhere, you just have to look for it (although it might have annoyances that the original didn't have).

QuoteAs for games, if they're old enough to not work on modern Windows versions, they're probably old enough that they could run just fine on a virtual machine hosted on a modern computer.  Business applications that don't have modern equivalents are probably a niche situation and most could probably all have the same solution.  Usually there's an equivalent somewhere, you just have to look for it (although it might have annoyances that the original didn't have).

I think the main issue is for large corporations with proprietary software. For instance, the hotel chain that I used to work at's software for managing reservations/accounting/all hotel operations wouldn't run on anything newer than XP, so for them it's a multimillion dollar upgrade to change operating systems because they'll have to rewrite their entire internal operating software suite, so they've put it off as long as possible. That's niche in that there's probably only a handful of companies to which that really applies, but those companies have thousands of computers. Presumably they knew that this day was coming and budgeted for that though, so I don't really feel sorry for them.

I still use Windows XP (was on SP1 or 2 for a long time, put SP3 on in September) because I am trained with this interface and really, for a computer that should've died years ago, this one is doing quite well since we put SP3 on. I tried 8 at a Best Buy in Wayne a few weeks ago, to say the least the UI was driving me nuts because I had no clue what the hell to do.

7 and Vista I've used and while Vista was a nice little upgrade, nothing kept me from XP, which is my favorite of them and still love using it. If something goes wrong, oh well. I ain't upgrading till the computer dies. I should add the fact, despite the fact I am 22, I'm not a techie most of this generation is, just never functioned well with modern tech.

Quote from: realjd on December 14, 2013, 08:36:17 PM
Windows 3.X runs fine in DOSBox.

Interesting, I would not have thought to attempt that!

Of course, since I no longer have access to a copy of Windows 3.X (thanks mom for throwing all that stuff away without asking me first), it doesn't really matter.

I did Windows 3.1 for DOSBox a few years ago- it was fun. You can quasi-legally download Windows 3.11 from most Abandonware sites. I don't think it's ever been technically classified as Abandonware, but Microsoft isn't exactly chasing down the three people who want to have it- it's available for download without having to go to the internet's darkest underbellies.

On a related note, I attempted to install Windows NT 3.5.1 on a laptop not too long ago. It actually worked well- no wireless support or flash or anything but I was able to get an old version of Firefox going on it and get it running on the internet with a calbe.

Quote from: corco on December 15, 2013, 04:44:28 PM

QuoteAs for games, if they're old enough to not work on modern Windows versions, they're probably old enough that they could run just fine on a virtual machine hosted on a modern computer.  Business applications that don't have modern equivalents are probably a niche situation and most could probably all have the same solution.  Usually there's an equivalent somewhere, you just have to look for it (although it might have annoyances that the original didn't have).

I think the main issue is for large corporations with proprietary software. For instance, the hotel chain that I used to work at's software for managing reservations/accounting/all hotel operations wouldn't run on anything newer than XP, so for them it's a multimillion dollar upgrade to change operating systems because they'll have to rewrite their entire internal operating software suite, so they've put it off as long as possible. That's niche in that there's probably only a handful of companies to which that really applies, but those companies have thousands of computers. Presumably they knew that this day was coming and budgeted for that though, so I don't really feel sorry for them.

This is true, but Steve Gum thinks it's a great thing.

Quote from: corco on December 15, 2013, 04:44:28 PM

QuoteAs for games, if they're old enough to not work on modern Windows versions, they're probably old enough that they could run just fine on a virtual machine hosted on a modern computer.  Business applications that don't have modern equivalents are probably a niche situation and most could probably all have the same solution.  Usually there's an equivalent somewhere, you just have to look for it (although it might have annoyances that the original didn't have).

I think the main issue is for large corporations with proprietary software. For instance, the hotel chain that I used to work at's software for managing reservations/accounting/all hotel operations wouldn't run on anything newer than XP, so for them it's a multimillion dollar upgrade to change operating systems because they'll have to rewrite their entire internal operating software suite, so they've put it off as long as possible. That's niche in that there's probably only a handful of companies to which that really applies, but those companies have thousands of computers. Presumably they knew that this day was coming and budgeted for that though, so I don't really feel sorry for them.

I'll do you one better–the slot accounting system at work can only be accessed via some sort of IBM character-cell emulator, which apparently uses Telnet in some fashion based on some error messages it's thrown. That being said, since that's just the client program, we were able to upgrade to Windows 7 okay as far as I'm aware.

"Let's try to make a single user interface to run on all your devices" -the concept of which Windows 8 was born. Don't get me wrong, it is a good idea in theory, but in principle when you use a mouse-keyboard device, it feels very obtuse and unnatural. Though I'm absolutely not an apple fanboy (I love my Alienware aurora with Win7), I do believe they had the right idea of bringing multi-touch concepts to a desktop interface, rather than pushing a tablet OS into non-touchscreen devices (or laptops and desktops in general; touchscreen laptops make my entire arm want to fall off after a while).

Quote from: Molandfreak on December 16, 2013, 11:28:55 AM
"Let's try to make a single user interface to run on all your devices" -the concept of which Windows 8 was born. Don't get me wrong, it is a good idea in theory, but in principle when you use a mouse-keyboard device, it feels very obtuse and unnatural.

New Google Maps being a another example of this, though it has improved the UI since I tested it (any .com, rather than .co.uk, link and I have New Maps as they have deleted Classic Maps from the .com servers) and the main problem now is the awful cartography.

I agree with JREwing78; Windows XP, despite being Microsoft most popular and long-lasting OS, is now an ugly heap of patches and isn't worth maintaining anymore. As far as computing technology is concerned, it's obsolete, at least when it comes out of the box. It's gotten ridiculously long to get a new XP install up and running, especially with all those updates.

Like Duke87 said, there's a bunch of virtualization and emulation solutions available. DOS and Win16 apps work well in DOSBox, provided you don't need networking support; and if you do, there are ways to get Windows 3.11 to run in VMware, with Internet access and everything (you just need to spend some time setting up several drivers and updates). Otherwise, most recent versions of Windows run just fine in VMware, VirtualBox, Parallels, qemu, or bochs (if you're a masochist), and most of these have free versions.

By the way, Duke, I have almost all versions of Windows here, from 1.03 to 8-CP. I think I'm only missing Millenium Edition. I even have the original CD of NT 3.51 Beta somewhere.

Those of you who are mad that Xp is dying.

Did you cry when they shut off analog TV?

Did you cry when Analog Cell Phone service was shut down in 2008?

Did you cry when they stopped selling VHS tapes?

Did you cry when windows 95-Me had support dropped in 2006?

Did you cry when it happened to 2000 Pro in 2008?

Losing analog TV was fucking annoying for those of us in rural areas that got poor but still watchable reception because suddenly we had no reception- and what did we get out of that? The ability to watch HD over the air in a few major markets? Was anybody actually doing that anyway?

Quote from: corco on December 16, 2013, 02:33:49 PM
Losing analog TV was fucking annoying for those of us in rural areas that got poor but still watchable reception because suddenly we had no reception- and what did we get out of that? The ability to watch HD over the air in a few major markets? Was anybody actually doing that anyway?

I only lost ABC when I use my antenna. 40 miles from the transmission site

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.

Quote from: corco on December 16, 2013, 02:55:48 PM
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 problem is that 6ABC stuck on the VHF band instead of going to UHF, the limitations of VHF-DT were known, nobody knows why they didn't switch to UHF

Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 16, 2013, 02:25:28 PMDid you cry when they shut off analog TV?

The switchover made our signal suck (it's now OK now it's completely done), having had digital TV for years before. However I didn't cry, as we got cable out of the loss of TV signal* and our 'unlimited' internet putting a cap on us and us struggling to keep it, even with heavily limiting usage (no streaming or downloading video or music).

Our complaints with the TV were much better received than our complaints when the internet company told us we would be capped for using too much, despite paying for unlimited internet, and when they complained that we were still using too much and were going to bill us more for breaking the cap. TV switchover people simply apologised and sent someone over to have a look, whereas Internet people just yelled at us, even when we agreed to pay half-as-much-again for their fastest broadband, even though we got nowhere near half the speed that we were currently paying for. We dropped them as soon as our contract ended.

*Ironically the change they made was designed to give people better signal on a multiplex that we had good signal on, but we lost it. We also lost a multiplex that we were supposed to have 'strong' signal for, but was always a little iffy. From all the channels, we dropped to half the channels.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 16, 2013, 02:25:28 PM
Did you cry when they stopped selling VHS tapes?

The local Best Buy and office supply stores still stock VHS and cassette tapes.

Quote from: corco on December 15, 2013, 04:44:28 PM

QuoteAs for games, if they're old enough to not work on modern Windows versions, they're probably old enough that they could run just fine on a virtual machine hosted on a modern computer.  Business applications that don't have modern equivalents are probably a niche situation and most could probably all have the same solution.  Usually there's an equivalent somewhere, you just have to look for it (although it might have annoyances that the original didn't have).

I think the main issue is for large corporations with proprietary software. For instance, the hotel chain that I used to work at's software for managing reservations/accounting/all hotel operations wouldn't run on anything newer than XP, so for them it's a multimillion dollar upgrade to change operating systems because they'll have to rewrite their entire internal operating software suite, so they've put it off as long as possible. That's niche in that there's probably only a handful of companies to which that really applies, but those companies have thousands of computers. Presumably they knew that this day was coming and budgeted for that though, so I don't really feel sorry for them.

XP mode?

Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 16, 2013, 04:35:27 PM

Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 16, 2013, 02:25:28 PM
Did you cry when they stopped selling VHS tapes?

The local Best Buy and office supply stores still stock VHS and cassette tapes.

They may sell blanks, but you cannot buy pre-recorded films.

Speaking of obsolete film formats: http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/betamaxhd.html :sombrero:

Quote from: Molandfreak on December 16, 2013, 05:46:22 PM
Speaking of obsolete film formats: http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/betamaxhd.html :sombrero:

I love their april fools gags.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 16, 2013, 02:51:47 PM

Quote from: corco on December 16, 2013, 02:33:49 PM
Losing analog TV was fucking annoying for those of us in rural areas that got poor but still watchable reception because suddenly we had no reception- and what did we get out of that? The ability to watch HD over the air in a few major markets? Was anybody actually doing that anyway?

I only lost ABC when I use my antenna. 40 miles from the transmission site

Tailgating at Eagles games, I used an HD receiver on my TV.  No problems getting Channels 3, 10, 29 and others in.  But Channel 6 - even though I could SEE the antennas less than 10 miles away, I still couldn't get their signal.

Late in the analog era, Channel 6 in Philly started using their position on the radio dial (Channel 6 = 87.7 on the radio dial anywhere in the country, for those areas that had a Channel 6) to their advantage...they would mention 87.7 FM as a way to keep updated about storms and such.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 16, 2013, 05:35:58 PM

Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 16, 2013, 04:35:27 PM

Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 16, 2013, 02:25:28 PM
Did you cry when they stopped selling VHS tapes?

The local Best Buy and office supply stores still stock VHS and cassette tapes.

They may sell blanks, but you cannot buy pre-recorded films.

Not there, but Amazon has some titles still available in VHS, both new and used.  Here's one example (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_4?url=search-alias%3Dmovies-tv&field-keywords=1984+movie&sprefix=1984%2Cmovies-tv%2C368) (for a title I've put on my wish list, in DVD format, to buy after the holidays).

I haven't gotten rid of all my old VHS tapes, but I wouldn't be surprised if the VHS part of my VHS recorder/DVD player (which has received no maintenance in many years) doesn't work anymore. 

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 16, 2013, 06:07:14 PM

Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 16, 2013, 02:51:47 PM

Quote from: corco on December 16, 2013, 02:33:49 PM
Losing analog TV was fucking annoying for those of us in rural areas that got poor but still watchable reception because suddenly we had no reception- and what did we get out of that? The ability to watch HD over the air in a few major markets? Was anybody actually doing that anyway?

I only lost ABC when I use my antenna. 40 miles from the transmission site

Tailgating at Eagles games, I used an HD receiver on my TV.  No problems getting Channels 3, 10, 29 and others in.  But Channel 6 - even though I could SEE the antennas less than 10 miles away, I still couldn't get their signal.

Late in the analog era, Channel 6 in Philly started using their position on the radio dial (Channel 6 = 87.7 on the radio dial anywhere in the country, for those areas that had a Channel 6) to their advantage...they would mention 87.7 FM as a way to keep updated about storms and such.

Their signals have issues going through buildings, WPVI and WHYY both stuck on the VHF band for some reason.

the VHF signal has a shorter wavelength, and can be fouled by buildings a lot easier with the digital signal, wheras UHF has a shorter wavelength that can carry more data, penetrating the buildings a bit better.

Let me put this question in. My family has no money whatsoever to spend. We have XP computers (and one with 7 because it was given from my father's old company.) We cannot afford to upgrade and really, is it the end of the world that we use outdated technology?  My family has never owned a high-definition television (and only once a high-definition computer monitor), we still have our 45-50 year old speakers with the 35-ish year old stereo. Hell my dorm room here has my XP computer, a 19in SD television and a VCR.

We can't afford luxuries and neither does my family really care? There's not one motivation to upgrade (and as I said, I love XP for the interface I was raised on.) and its a non-issue really. What are we supposed to do on April 8? Just fork over money we don't have? It just seems we're arguing needs vs. wants here.

You're not supposed to do anything (unless you want to). Your computer with XP on it will continue to work just fine on April 9, 2014. But you will not receive any more updates for the OS after that date... which has no particular implications for its function other than that any remaining bugs and security flaws will never be fixed. The real reason to upgrade comes when newer software that you want to use does not run on XP, and from the fact that when your programs (web browser, Adobe, etc.) stop updating, you will gradually find that more and more things which rely on newer functionality do not work on your computer.

A lot of modern technology becomes functionally obsolete before it becomes physically obsolete. My parents still have their stereo that they bought in 1985 when they got married, and it still works! But it rarely gets used anymore since they both have iPods. Meanwhile, if you don't want to or can't spend money on something newer, there is nothing inherently wrong with the 30 year old stereo. Upgrading on something like that is done purely for greater convenience and more advanced features (although I'm sure there will come a day when nobody is releasing music on CD anymore, and then...).

Well...one alternative could be to simply move your system to a Linux-based OS, such as Ubuntu or Mint. They don't require nearly as much RAM as WinXP, they are compatible with most modern apps....and best of all, they are free to download and install.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 16, 2013, 11:47:23 PM
Well...one alternative could be to simply move your system to a Linux-based OS, such as Ubuntu or Mint. They don't require nearly as much RAM as WinXP, they are compatible with most modern apps....and best of all, they are free to download and install.

I seriously don't think my computer can handle any change. After all my specific computer, which is the source of many jokes, including my own, is really surviving because I gave it a lifeline in September of adding Service Pack 3.

Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on December 16, 2013, 11:50:12 PM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 16, 2013, 11:47:23 PM
Well...one alternative could be to simply move your system to a Linux-based OS, such as Ubuntu or Mint. They don't require nearly as much RAM as WinXP, they are compatible with most modern apps....and best of all, they are free to download and install.

I seriously don't think my computer can handle any change. After all my specific computer, which is the source of many jokes, including my own, is really surviving because I gave it a lifeline in September of adding Service Pack 3.

It took you that long to get SP3?

but yeah, my cousin on a 2.8GHZ Pentium 4 with 256mb of ram had xp, instead of redoing it for him (it was given to him without a password to the XP Home install) with XP, I put Lubuntu on it, and then ordered more ram for him (15 bucks for 2gb) thing flies

Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 16, 2013, 02:25:28 PM
Did you cry when they shut off analog TV?

Digital TV is terrible.  I live right in the middle of town, and I can't pick up one of the local stations at all.

Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on December 16, 2013, 10:56:49 PM
Hell my dorm room here has my XP computer..

OT: Wait, your Uni doesn't offer some sort of free to use/ low cost leasing of laptops?

Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 16, 2013, 06:20:46 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 16, 2013, 06:07:14 PM

Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 16, 2013, 02:51:47 PM

Quote from: corco on December 16, 2013, 02:33:49 PM
Losing analog TV was fucking annoying for those of us in rural areas that got poor but still watchable reception because suddenly we had no reception- and what did we get out of that? The ability to watch HD over the air in a few major markets? Was anybody actually doing that anyway?

I only lost ABC when I use my antenna. 40 miles from the transmission site

Tailgating at Eagles games, I used an HD receiver on my TV.  No problems getting Channels 3, 10, 29 and others in.  But Channel 6 - even though I could SEE the antennas less than 10 miles away, I still couldn't get their signal.

Late in the analog era, Channel 6 in Philly started using their position on the radio dial (Channel 6 = 87.7 on the radio dial anywhere in the country, for those areas that had a Channel 6) to their advantage...they would mention 87.7 FM as a way to keep updated about storms and such.

Their signals have issues going through buildings, WPVI and WHYY both stuck on the VHF band for some reason.

the VHF signal has a shorter wavelength, and can be fouled by buildings a lot easier with the digital signal, wheras UHF has a shorter wavelength that can carry more data, penetrating the buildings a bit better.

As part of the transition, VHF channels were restricted to a power output of 20 kW. That's the bigger problem.

A few stations also used the digital transition to lower transmitter power because they had a scapegoat in the transition.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 16, 2013, 02:25:28 PM
Did you cry when they shut off analog TV?

Quote from: corco on December 16, 2013, 02:55:48 PM
...it's important to make sure that the progress is actually useful progress.

^ This.

It's not about the "crying", it's about losing something that was once free to use for something that's inferior and requires a digital antenna (semi-subsidized as it may be).

That's what sucks about it. There was nothing wrong with existing analog TV, imperfect as it was. But the spectrum was for sale, and even in the ether...location location location is all that matters to the highest bidder.

The alternative is paying for the ever-rising cost of cable or satellite TV, which I barely use (and care about) less and less with each day. Probably because I really don't care as much for sporting events as I used to, and to hell with all that pop culture noise and dust. I can use the internet for most of what I care to keep in touch with.

The fact that an operating system is maintained at all past it's due date is remarkable, in an age of fly-by-night software. Nobody promised that games would be updated or patched years ago, no entity promised any backwards compatibility until about 15 years ago. You started anew every 3-4 years; only since the advent of the public internet has a computer that handles several applications could theoretically (even if slowly) last a decade.

But like a VW Beetle, a Douglas DC3, a Technics 1200 turntable, some things were pretty darn good and sturdy to begin with. That's why we get nostalgic...

It's not even obsolete.

It's called planned obsolescence.

PS: Billy, stop whining.

You can still use XP - just don't go dicking around on the shady sites of the Internet and you won't get a mega virus that eats your harddrive from the inside out. If you want to stick with an OS that's a decade old, well, that's your choice. But you must know that you're doing so on your own accord, and that you won't be receiving any sort of support for it. There's definitely not going to be some massive influx of people upgrading from XP anytime soon - which is fine, it's just that Microsoft has bigger and better things to do than assist people in using a 12 year old operating system. I'm sure web forums on the Internet will provide support in any ways they can, but software and hardware manufacturers will probably move on from XP's dated technologies and develop solutions for Windows 7 / Windows 8.1.

Okay, I understand why XP is being phased out. What I don't understand is why people are actually actively happy to see it happening- there's really two logical reactions

1) Damn, my XP computer isn't going to be getting patches. Do I need to upgrade? That's kind of annoying if I do.
2) Oh, I don't have an XP computer. This is non-news.

Why are people thanking god that XP is being phased out? Is its presence really negatively affecting your life that much?

I wish there was damn like button for what you just posted! That was exactly where I was going with that thought. (until NE2 had to miss every point I made!!!!!!!)

:bigass:

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on December 17, 2013, 10:19:33 PM
Dude, you did not clearly understand what I had said. You're just talking out of your bosiferous asshole. I was not whining. You and a few others were doing most of that.

Just bugger, off NE2. Please. I'm done with you. You didn't get what I said, tough fucking luck, your loss! Deal with it.

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on December 17, 2013, 10:35:34 PM
Just bugger, off NE2. Please. I'm done with you. You didn't get what I said, tough fucking luck, your loss! Deal with it.

If you agree that there's no reason to celebrate XP's demise, why did you write so many paragraphs about it?

Forget it. I don't care to explain anymore. I am in no mood to argue anymore, so I am not going to tell you why.

Quote from: formulanone on December 17, 2013, 08:36:58 AM
About the "crying", it's about losing something that was once free to use for something that's inferior and requires a digital antenna (semi-subsidized as it may be)

There is no such thing as a "digital" antenna, its a marketing term. I personally have a hand me down, dug out of a box, set top antenna from the 80's that works perfectly with my HDTV. Location and your surroundings are what really have an impact on signal strength. Also remember DTV is severely impacted by the "digital cliff", where as analog fades much more gradually and is generally useable from longer distances from the transmitter.

The federally run converter box coupon program ended in 2009.

P.S. Maybe this DTV discussion should be split into its own thread.

I don't like being told I "have to" upgrade.  I understand I have two choices: hope my computer isn't attacked, or spend time and money I don't have trying to make a new operating system work on a 5 year old computer while attempting to migrate as much software and user preferences as possible, some of which simply won't migrate.  I don't like it.  I don't have to like it, but I do have to face the reality.  I may quietly grumble about it, and that's only human.

I object to other people's implications that I should have upgraded already, or that upgrading is easy or inexpensive.  Those who still use XP for one reason or another deserve respect and sensitivity, if not sympathy.  This is not a trivial matter, or we'd have already upgraded.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on December 18, 2013, 12:16:35 AM

Quote from: formulanone on December 17, 2013, 08:36:58 AM
...and requires a digital antenna (semi-subsidized as it may be)

There is no such thing as a "digital" antenna, its a marketing term.

I meant the converter box, but yes; antennae are all the same.

I could see people being happy about the XP phaseout if they work in IT or a related field. It's one fewer OS version to support. Likewise, not having XP means the final death of IE6, which was a major source of headaches for web designers back in the day. It might benefit you by giving your dad a reason to replace his obsolete computer, too, so when he breaks it you don't have to remember commands to fix it from ten years ago.

When XP came out, the twin towers were still standing...do you still use your computer for the same things now that you did in 2001?

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2013, 06:25:13 AM
do you still use your computer for the same things now that you did in 2001?

Generally speaking, yes. But i didn't get my current computer until 2008; it was my first XP computer, and XP seemed the best windows available at that time. And i do use mostly the same software now as i did then, in many cases the same versions even.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2013, 06:25:13 AMWhen XP came out, the twin towers were still standing...do you still use your computer for the same things now that you did in 2001?

It's an interesting question.  In my case, I have all of the major software packages installed that I did in 2001, but the versions are not always the same (for example, Microsoft Office 2000 Professional would not install on my present Windows 7 computer using any of the compatibility modes available to me).  The task mix is also very different.  In 2001 I was doing a lot of picture editing in Photoshop and writing in Word; now I do a lot more scripting and reviewing in Acrobat.  My general style of using software has changed; in 2001 I went to the Start menu to launch applications, while nowadays I achieve the same almost exclusively by double-clicking on documents in Windows Explorer and letting file associations do the rest.  In 2001 I was a bit more naïve about the possibilities of using Word as a collaborative tool, and was willing to hold my nose against its disadvantages (no explicit markup, poor reflowability of text, etc.) in the interests of using the same major package my colleagues were using.  Now I use LaTeX for general word processing in spite of its disadvantages (no WYSIWYG, dependence on packages which are not necessarily uniformly available and may have versioning issues, etc.) because its principal input is in plain text, not a proprietary format, which maximizes the repurposability of my written work.  I am also much more sophisticated about networking.  In 2001 I used an Ethernet cable to connect my network card to a wall jack, and manually set the parameters for a static IP, subnet mask, and two DNS servers (DHCP was not available at the time; I think the standard existed, but it hadn't been implemented where I was).  In 2013 my computer connects to the Internet through a LAN I designed myself, has SMB folder shares enabled, can function as a server for both VPN and Remote Desktop Connection, and is configured for wake-on-LAN (including boot-on-LAN).  In 2001 I had turned my back on television; in 2013, thanks to VLC and DVD player software, I am reasonably current on movies and TV shows.

Quote from: Zeffy on December 17, 2013, 10:12:20 PM
You can still use XP - just don't go dicking around on the shady sites of the Internet and you won't get a mega virus that eats your harddrive from the inside out.

That's what third-party anti-virus programs like McAfee or Norton are for. As long as they continue to offer updates for XP, then XP users should be OK.

AV has limited effectiveness though, especially against viruses that are too new to be in the definitions files.  And the first thing most viruses do is tamper with the AV to remain undetected.

As for computer use, my isn't even remotely similar, though it's worth noting that I didn't even have my own computer yet in 2001.  I still remember the program manager from Windows for Workgroups 3.11, though!

Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2013, 01:28:51 PM

Quote from: Zeffy on December 17, 2013, 10:12:20 PM
You can still use XP - just don't go dicking around on the shady sites of the Internet and you won't get a mega virus that eats your harddrive from the inside out.

That's what third-party anti-virus programs like McAfee or Norton are for. As long as they continue to offer updates for XP, then XP users should be OK.

If by "shady" sites, you mean anything with an advertisement on it, then I agree. I can't tell you how many computers have come through my shop from viruses people caught by inadvertently clicking a malicious ad that happened to be on Yahoo or MSN or a local newspaper website.

It doesn't matter if third-party anti-virus programs are up to date. In fact, Windows Updates are patching problems in Windows that let malware authors bypass the anti-virus programs altogether. The only thing your anti-virus will do in Windows XP after April is increase your electric bill.

If you like your existing computer and don't want to give Microsoft more money for an upgrade to Windows 7 or 8, it's time to look at one of the many good free Linux options out there, like Mint or Ubuntu. As long as you don't have to run Windows software, it works great!

Antiviruses do their best to stop viruses from progressing after they've entered through holes in the OS that have not been patched. Relying solely on an A/V on an exploitable OS is what I call kludgy. And certainly not 100% effective.

Quote from: vdeane on December 21, 2013, 03:13:49 PM
AV has limited effectiveness though, especially against viruses that are too new to be in the definitions files.  And the first thing most viruses do is tamper with the AV to remain undetected.

As for computer use, my isn't even remotely similar, though it's worth noting that I didn't even have my own computer yet in 2001.  I still remember the program manager from Windows for Workgroups 3.11, though!

Windows XP still had the Program Manager, up until SP3 removed it.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about using an XP computer after next April, even on the Internet, as long as it is not the user's primary computer.  And yes, using antivirus software to cover the holes in an unupdated OS is a kludge at best, but it is possible to shave the risk still further by using Firefox with the Adblocker Plus plugin, by installing an ad-blocking HOSTS file (I am a fan of the one offered by MVPS.org (http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm)), and by setting the email client to display incoming email only as plain text if it is necessary to use an email client at all.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2013, 06:25:13 AM
When XP came out, the twin towers were still standing

Not quite, it wasn't fully released until October 2001.

Quotedo you still use your computer for the same things now that you did in 2001?

Most certainly not, although for me we're talking about the difference between a 25 year old and a 13 year old, so it isn't really a fair comparison.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2013, 06:25:13 AM
When XP came out, the twin towers were still standing...do you still use your computer for the same things now that you did in 2001?

Basically yes.  IRC has been replaced by various chatrooms, several different web browsers were used, and I have a laptop now which is very handy but I pretty much do the same things I did back then: listen to music, use the internet, check email, use AIM and other programs, and (rarely) watch videos.

As of today, Windows XP has 99 days left before End-Of-Life as declared by Microsoft.

Quote from: bugo on December 25, 2013, 11:55:34 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2013, 06:25:13 AM
When XP came out, the twin towers were still standing...do you still use your computer for the same things now that you did in 2001?

Basically yes.  IRC has been replaced by various chatrooms, several different web browsers were used, and I have a laptop now which is very handy but I pretty much do the same things I did back then: listen to music, use the internet, check email, use AIM and other programs, and (rarely) watch videos.

You have replaced a plain all-text protocol with several other protocols, most of which probably support sending and receiving rich content. You have switched between different browsers, which probably support more and more standards and web applications (did the browser you were using in 2001 support have native SVG support? did it support the kind of AJAX applications that we have today?) Your music in 2001 was probably stored in lower-quality formats than you would store them in today. Your internet is probably much faster now than it was then.

So while you are basically doing the same tasks, the answer to the question is probably no, unless you just really have an affinity for software written during Bush's first term of office.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2013, 03:35:53 AM

Quote from: bugo on December 25, 2013, 11:55:34 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2013, 06:25:13 AM
When XP came out, the twin towers were still standing...do you still use your computer for the same things now that you did in 2001?

Basically yes.  IRC has been replaced by various chatrooms, several different web browsers were used, and I have a laptop now which is very handy but I pretty much do the same things I did back then: listen to music, use the internet, check email, use AIM and other programs, and (rarely) watch videos.

You have replaced a plain all-text protocol with several other protocols, most of which probably support sending and receiving rich content. You have switched between different browsers, which probably support more and more standards and web applications (did the browser you were using in 2001 support have native SVG support? did it support the kind of AJAX applications that we have today?) Your music in 2001 was probably stored in lower-quality formats than you would store them in today. Your internet is probably much faster now than it was then.

So while you are basically doing the same tasks, the answer to the question is probably no, unless you just really have an affinity for software written during Bush's first term of office.

Bloatware.

Hey, you're the one that stopped using IRC and switched browsers...

But I basically do the same things except I watch videos occasionally.  I no longer use mIRC because the chatroom I went to abandoned the protocol.  Are computers and operating systems and applications now really that much better than they were back then?  I see more bloat than I see real improvement.

The main reason I'm rarely on IRC anymore is lack of free time. There are a few channels today (mostly related to open-source projects) I'd like to be a "regular" in if sitting at the computer all day (or even the same time every day) were practical.  The protocol is certainly not dead.

I can't speak all that much for Windows, since I haven't used it as my primary OS since 2005, but Linux has certainly seen a markedly large improvement since 2005, especially in terms of hardware support and ease of software installation and upgrades (yum/apt, the 'app store' before there was such a thing).

When I do use Windows 7, I have noticed that it gets on my nerves less than Windows XP (less focus stealing, for example). I have only used Windows 8 to run a specific application on a tablet, but in my experience it isn't really as bad as it's made out to be.

One thing that I do know is that browsers are totally different–IE6, which shipped with Windows XP, only supported one page per window (no tabbed browsing!), transparent PNGs were rendered with a gray background, and SVGs could only be displayed with a plug-in. Not to mention all the things that are possible now with HTML5 that weren't doable back then...

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 31, 2013, 07:54:12 AM
One thing that I do know is that browsers are totally different–IE6, which shipped with Windows XP, only supported one page per window (no tabbed browsing!), transparent PNGs were rendered with a gray background, and SVGs could only be displayed with a plug-in. Not to mention all the things that are possible now with HTML5 that weren't doable back then...

That's why people upgrade their browsers – the software responsible for a single function of the computer.  None of these features require any change to the OS – changing the OS has impacts on all functions of the computer.  And these impacts can't be guaranteed to all be positive.

Quote from: bugo on December 31, 2013, 07:26:15 AMAre computers and operating systems and applications now really that much better than they were back then?  I see more bloat than I see real improvement.

I struggle to think of an OS-related feature in Windows 7 I use regularly that is not available in Windows XP.  The only thing that comes to mind is robocopy, which Windows 7 ships with but which has to be specially installed on XP; plus, the version that 7 ships with is more advanced and can be run with a /dst flag that allows it to ignore source/destination date and time differences which are entirely due to a daylight saving time change.

For Windows 98 versus XP, the story is different.  98 didn't support a lot of things that are now part of day-to-day life with XP, such as WPA wireless encryption, NT batch (it had DOS batch instead, with a somewhat different and less capable command set), etc.

In regard to Scott5411's comments regarding Ajax etc., I feel that is very much a mixed blessing.  Most of my nuts and bolts experience with website design these days is in connection with collecting construction plans from state DOT sites, and I have noticed that for many DOTs, Ajax and its cousins (like Prado) are critical to the electronic database management systems they use to overcome the scale issues that result from making enormous quantities of information available over the Web.  (One example of such an issue:  one state DOT used to allow you to download a directory listing with one link for every single project that DOT had scanned and put online.  Just retrieving this directory listing, which had many thousands of lines and ran into the megabytes, was often enough to overload the server and pull it offline.)  The flip side is that Ajax does not come out of the box with support for data scraping.  This means that a decision on a DOT's part to use an Ajax-driven platform for plans distribution amounts to asking the end user to be a "click monkey," clicking once, twice, or even three or four times on every single file in order to download it.  Realistically, the only way around this problem is for a savvy user to sit down with Fiddler (or Wireshark as appropriate) and write wget wrapper code to automate plans retrieval, at a typical cost of about 8 hours of coding time per DOT.  It takes accretive learning over a long period (or focused study over a rather shorter time) to pick up the know-how to finish such coding jobs that quickly.

Windows 9x was unstable because of the DOS connection and the complex memory system.  XP wasn't tethered to those limitations like 9x was.

Quote from: bugo on December 31, 2013, 11:18:17 AM
Windows 9x was unstable because of the DOS connection and the complex memory system.  XP wasn't tethered to those limitations like 9x was.

95 was still in the relative infancy of graphical desktop environments.  By 98 SE it had been made pretty solid.  ME was a flop, downright terrible.

XP was perceived to be more reliable because you didn't see the BSoD as often.  One thing XP did like to do, however, was reboot itself instantaneously for no apparent reason - what was actually happening was a BSoD, but MS programmed it to automatically reboot, rather than waiting for you to press a key to initiate it.  Usually you didn't see it - but depending on how much of the memory was in use, the crash dump would sometimes take just long enough for you to see the blue screen flash before it rebooted.  The only time a blue screen stayed up in XP or later was when the computer totally locked up during the crash dump, and thusly could not execute the automatic reboot, at which point you had to reach for the reset button.

As for Linux, I'm about ready to not look back.  My next computer will be grossly overbuilt on purpose, so I can run Linux (probably Ubuntu) as the primary OS, and run Windows in a VM with large reserves for anything that is Windows-only that won't work under WINE.

I am currently posting from a 2,1 Macbook that I resurrected.  I got it for free, it came to me with a bad hard drive.  Upgraded it from the 1GB of RAM it came with to 4GB (3GB usable) and instaled Ubuntu 12.04 LTS on it.  This thing gives my current desktop a VERY good run for its money, and it's six years old, with a 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo (dual-core, as the name would suggest) and only 3 usable gigs of RAM.

The desktop, for comparison, is 3 years newer, with an AMD quad-core 3GHz CPU and 4GB of RAM, all of which is usable.  Using the same OS, Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, like applications load in about the same amount of time on both systems, but graphics are snappier on the desktop.  No surprise there, as laptops are usually lacking in the graphics area, and the desktop has a nVidia GTX 460 graphics card.

I don't think my computer experience has improved much since I first started using XP.  7 is nice, but not really much of an improvement.  I don't use Yahoo Messenger or MSN Messenger much anymore, and I rarely use AIM these days, but none of those programs have been significantly improved. 

IMHO, Microsoft should repackage XP with all the existing updates since SP3 and make it available at $29.99 or less. Only paid support - all other support would be what is accessible online. No feature add - just security code maintenance.

And if MS won't do it, spin it off or sell it to someone that will.

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 31, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
I struggle to think of an OS-related feature in Windows 7 I use regularly that is not available in Windows XP. 

The start menu search is the biggest thing I miss when I'm using XP. It's much easier to run a program by hitting the windows key then typing the first few letters than it is having to mouse through the start menu.

Quote from: realjd on January 02, 2014, 12:09:30 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 31, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
I struggle to think of an OS-related feature in Windows 7 I use regularly that is not available in Windows XP. 

The start menu search is the biggest thing I miss when I'm using XP. It's much easier to run a program by hitting the windows key then typing the first few letters than it is having to mouse through the start menu.

But, does a menu of programs still exist somewhere? The whole point of a menu is for people who don't know what options exist. Learning new restaurants, sotware, and OSes is difficult without menus.

Quote from: vtk on January 02, 2014, 01:13:41 PMBut, does a menu of programs still exist somewhere? The whole point of a menu is for people who don't know what options exist. Learning new restaurants, software, and OSes is difficult without menus.

7 has a two-layer program menu--top layer (first push of the Start button) shows the most frequently used ones, while second layer (mouse-click on "All Programs") shows the full program listing, in a folder structure similar to that used by XP.

I basically agree with what Realjd says, but with a few nuances.  Being able to type a few letters to choose a program is useful mainly for applets that tend to get buried several folder layers down in the program menu--Task Scheduler and the built-in disk defragmenter are classic examples.  People's styles of using Windows vary widely, and personally I don't go to the Start menu that often to launch productivity programs:  I usually go to it for Task Scheduler and other buried applications (using Start menu search), and for front-row applications listed on the top layer like Acrobat and ACDSee when I want to launch them without a document open.  I almost never click on "All Programs."  Thunderbird and Firefox (both on the top layer) are the only applications I routinely launch from the Start menu; in theory I could pin them to the taskbar to reproduce the quick-launch functionality of XP, but I don't do that because I dislike how 7 handles pinned applications.  The same icon repeated, once framed and once unframed, on the taskbar just looks untidy.

From my perspective, the real problem with the program menu behind the XP Start button is the sheer length of time it takes to draw, especially when a folder layer has many icons.  However, this can be mitigated somewhat by menu cleanup.  I usually configure the XP menu to remove application-specific folders (they are usually moved to a Desktop folder called "Relleno sanitario"--Spanish for "sanitary landfill") as well as icons for programs that I will always launch from Explorer or the command line using file associations, rather than through the Start menu.  I suspect CPU speed may be a factor in the menu drawing issue, however--the two XP computers I use routinely have 1/7 and 1/14 the passmark ratings of my 7 machine.

I set 7 (and 8 if I have to use it) to combine icons when the taskbar is full and use small icons.  It makes it behave a bit more like Vista/XP/9x and IMO gives the best of both worlds.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 02, 2014, 01:42:58 PM
...in theory I could pin them to the taskbar to reproduce the quick-launch functionality of XP, but I don't do that because I dislike how 7 handles pinned applications.  The same icon repeated, once framed and once unframed, on the taskbar just looks untidy.

I think what was intended here was for the pinned icon to just get the frame, but for whatever reason, this doesn't happen most of the time.

Quote
I usually configure the XP menu to remove application-specific folders...

Thanks for reminding me of this. The start menu ending up being organized by product vendor is awful. I know this isn't Microsoft's fault, but when they saw the trend developing, they should have found a way to correct it. Rarely do I think "Gee, what programs by Dyzamo Software, Inc. do I have installed? I want to run all of them."

Linux desktop environments typically use a launcher menu organized by program category, with subfolders such as "Administration", "Development", "Games", "Graphics", "Internet"... This makes for a much easier user experience, since the thought flow is "I want to edit this photo...Applications, Graphics, Image Editor...okay, it's lauching GIMP." Sorting by program vendor presupposes you are familiar with what type of software that company produces and what it does. Of course, this isn't done for usability's sake, anyway, it's done out of branding/vanity on the part of the software companies, partly because everyone else is doing it.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 02, 2014, 06:43:17 PM

Quote
I usually configure the XP menu to remove application-specific folders...

Thanks for reminding me of this. The start menu ending up being organized by product vendor is awful. I know this isn't Microsoft's fault, but when they saw the trend developing, they should have found a way to correct it. Rarely do I think "Gee, what programs by Dyzamo Software, Inc. do I have installed? I want to run all of them."

Linux desktop environments typically use a launcher menu organized by program category, with subfolders such as "Administration", "Development", "Games", "Graphics", "Internet"... This makes for a much easier user experience, since the thought flow is "I want to edit this photo...Applications, Graphics, Image Editor...okay, it's lauching GIMP." Sorting by program vendor presupposes you are familiar with what type of software that company produces and what it does. Of course, this isn't done for usability's sake, anyway, it's done out of branding/vanity on the part of the software companies, partly because everyone else is doing it.

I've done this since I figured out how to rearrange program groups in Program Manager back in Win3.1.

I did it once, but keeping it organized properly when adding new programs was too much of a headache, and I found at the time that it made it more difficult to help other people with computer problems (which was something I did a lot of when I used Windows) because I didn't have a frame of reference for where things "normally" go.

In September, i am stop using Windows XP, so i am using Windows 7 and yeah thats my favourite windows. Of course, idk If Windows XP could handle it or not. Because the Windows XP was released 2001(or i don't know the release date of Windows XP yet).

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 05, 2014, 03:41:19 AM
I did it once, but keeping it organized properly when adding new programs was too much of a headache...

Same here; keeping two (eventually more) computers aligned is a nuisance. Between the two laptops and a PC, after I've pinned down / Quick Launched the most common ones, it's not a big deal for an application you might use once or twice a year.

My wife has a Windows 8 laptop, and for a variety of reasons, it's designed around tablets and the annoying concept of "you-should-always-be-on-the-cloud" which isn't always desirable if you're truly multitasking.  An ad during a game of FreeCell? What the fuck!?! I paid for this software bundle, it wasn't free. Having used the Surface, it's okay for haptic interfaces, but the desktop concept was working fine for PCs, since mouse/touchpad interfaces are slower, but more precise.

Quote from: Stratuscaster on January 01, 2014, 08:28:32 PM
IMHO, Microsoft should repackage XP with all the existing updates since SP3 and make it available at $29.99 or less. Only paid support - all other support would be what is accessible online. No feature add - just security code maintenance.

And if MS won't do it, spin it off or sell it to someone that will.

But that would only encourage BIG CORPORATION to stick with IE 6, perhaps one of the least safe, buggy, and most standard unfriendly browsers ever.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 06, 2014, 12:38:10 AM

Quote from: Stratuscaster on January 01, 2014, 08:28:32 PM
IMHO, Microsoft should repackage XP with all the existing updates since SP3 and make it available at $29.99 or less. Only paid support - all other support would be what is accessible online. No feature add - just security code maintenance.

And if MS won't do it, spin it off or sell it to someone that will.

But that would only encourage BIG CORPORATION to stick with IE 6, perhaps one of the least safe, buggy, and most standard unfriendly browsers ever.

Wouldn't the ultimate patched version have a more recent version of IE? Or is IE6 the latest one that runs on XP?  I don't even know what version I have because I don't use it, but I thought I upgraded it anyway at some point...

Quote from: vtk on January 06, 2014, 12:45:32 AM

Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 06, 2014, 12:38:10 AM

Quote from: Stratuscaster on January 01, 2014, 08:28:32 PM
IMHO, Microsoft should repackage XP with all the existing updates since SP3 and make it available at $29.99 or less. Only paid support - all other support would be what is accessible online. No feature add - just security code maintenance.

And if MS won't do it, spin it off or sell it to someone that will.

But that would only encourage BIG CORPORATION to stick with IE 6, perhaps one of the least safe, buggy, and most standard unfriendly browsers ever.

Wouldn't the ultimate patched version have a more recent version of IE? Or is IE6 the latest one that runs on XP?  I don't even know what version I have because I don't use it, but I thought I upgraded it anyway at some point...

They did. I believe IE 7-8 work on XP, but a lot of large corps standardized on IE 6 for many vital in-house applications.

This is because, starting with IE7, Microsoft started to somewhat make an effort to make IE follow browser standards. Many applications prior to this time were designed around IE's non-standard behavior because, after Netscape faded away but before Firefox, there wasn't really a competitor to IE. Once IE got its act together and started acting the way it was supposed to all along, these applications designed for IE's quirks started to break.

Reading Web design stuff from the IE6 era is interesting. After showing you the proper, standard way of doing things, there would be an addendum of "Now here's all the rules you have to break to get IE to render things the way you want." A lot of times you would essentially have to code the page twice, one for IE, and one for everyone else.

While the latest versions of Firefox and Chrome will work with XP, the last available version of IE that worked with XP was Internet Explorer 8 that was initially released in March, 2009.

However, many companies had to stick with Internet Explorer 6 because of internal application support that refused to work with IE7 and later. (Part of the blame belongs with something called Frontpage). Remember that Internet Explorer 6 was released in August, 2001, while Internet Explorer 7 was released in October, 2006. One noticeable thing about Internet Explorer 6 is that it did not follow the web standards, and, as a web developer, it was easier to develop web pages on another browser and kludge it for IE6.

Of course, for at least the past eight years, probably more, companies are loathe to spending money on upgrades, and have taken up the attitudes of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and "increase revenue, reduce costs", and a lot of IT comes under the "reduce costs" category. It's only when something personally affects a senior vice president that upgrades get approved. While there will be updates to XP beyond the April, 2014 EOL date, companies will have to pay through the nose on a per-machine basis to get those updates, and even thats only good for another two years.

In my day job as a systems integrator, we have several large clients in a number of fields that are still deploying new systems with Windows XP.

Quote from: ZLoth on January 06, 2014, 05:12:54 AM
However, many companies had to stick with Internet Explorer 6 because of internal application support that refused to work with IE7 and later. (Part of the blame belongs with something called Frontpage).

Its not so much Frontpage, but Microsoft's whole circa 2001-04 application "eco system". A lot of those "only work in IE6" use Active Server Pages in addition to custom built ActiveX controls that rely on API hooks/behaviors only found in IE6. Whats funny is that dependance completely defeated the point of making the program a web-based application to begin with! If it was targeted as a Win32 program, it likely would work without too much problem on newer versions of Windows.

Apparently Microsoft is yanking Microsoft Security Essentials from XP after support ends: http://mobile.pcmag.com/?origref=#!/article/52d1a123ec0691c7310002ce-when-windows-xp-dies-so-does-its-microsoft-security-essentials

QuoteBad news for those still planning to cling to their legacy Windows XP systems after the operating system's official "death" on April 8, 2014: While the OS will certainly work come April 9, you're going to start heading into the wild, wild West of viruses, exploits, and other unfriendly computer hijinks.
Not only is support for the operating system ending, but you will also lose your ability to benefit from Microsoft's free antivirus and anti-malware app, Microsoft Security Essentials.
Microsoft's official, end-of-support date for Windows XP shouldn't come as news for anyone who has touched a computer in the past five years or so. In fact, we can recall a pledge the company made back in 2008 that it would support Windows XP all the way through 2014.
Well, almost all the way. April 8 is the official cutoff, which means that Microsoft will publish a grand total of zero automatic updates for the operating system after the fact. You'll still be able to activate your version of Windows XP, you just won't receive any new patches — and likely won't be able to find any updated drivers — for your operating system. Companies will still be able to pay Microsoft for additional support after-the-fact; normal users will almost certainly be out of luck.
Worse, Microsoft Security Essentials is going away as well. And we don't just mean that Microsoft won't be updating the app with any new virus definitions or signatures. According to Microsoft's official "end of support" site for Windows XP, it will no longer provide Microsoft Security Essentials for download on Windows XP.

Eventually they'll probably pull the plug on activation too, as well as downloading updates already out.  It's already near impossible to set up XP as a new install now, thanks to the current version of Windows Update not supporting base SP3.

Quote from: vdeane on January 12, 2014, 05:06:04 PM
It's already near impossible to set up XP as a new install now, thanks to the current version of Windows Update not supporting base SP3.

It's highly dependent on the hardware manufacturer deciding (or not) to write XP drivers.  I've been downconverting some Win7 machines to XP due to incompatibilities with some software my company uses, and HP has a full set of XP drivers available for those 18-month-old PC's.

I wasn't talking about drivers, but just getting security updates.  Windows Update goes into an infinite loop unless you know whatever unique trick you need these days to get it working.  I had that problem the last time I tried to set up a copy of XP, a couple months ago in a VM.

Quote from: vdeane on January 12, 2014, 11:53:49 PM
I wasn't talking about drivers, but just getting security updates.  Windows Update goes into an infinite loop unless you know whatever unique trick you need these days to get it working.  I had that problem the last time I tried to set up a copy of XP, a couple months ago in a VM.

That's actually a common problem.  Fresh installs of XP/SP3 have a problem with SVCHOST.EXE gobbling up between 50 and 100% CPU while Windows Update is running.  Unless you fix that first, you can wait hours for Windows Update to show what updates are available...but it will eventually show them.

Quote from: SidS1045 on January 13, 2014, 11:22:59 AMThat's actually a common problem.  Fresh installs of XP/SP3 have a problem with SVCHOST.EXE gobbling up between 50 and 100% CPU while Windows Update is running.  Unless you fix that first, you can wait hours for Windows Update to show what updates are available...but it will eventually show them.

In my experience (and, it sounds like, Vdeane's as well) this is actually a recurrent problem.  Every so often XP comes in with a broadcast update that "breaks" Windows Update and results in svchost.exe driving CPU usage to 100%.  The latest instance of this is apparently resolved by installing a cumulative update to Internet Explorer (different KB numbers according to whether the version of IE involved is 7 or 8).  There have been other instances in the past which have had different causes and different remedies, but shared the common feature of svchost.exe driving CPU usage to 100%.

Microsoft does such an extraordinarily poor job of vetting broadcast updates that I never set any copy of Windows to update automatically.  For preference, I set Windows Update to notify me of updates and to download them, but not to install them.  Frankly, I would prefer it if Windows Update downloaded updates automatically, but did not notify me of them (I hate nag bubbles), and would allow me to shut down Windows cold without installing accumulated updates.  There are some situations where a warm reboot (restart) won't resolve OS or driver issues and I really resent being forced to install updates in order to do a cold boot.

In our lab, one of our postdocs had a hare-brained idea of connecting our experimental control computer to the internet, but firewalling it so the only things it could access were our fileserver and Windows Update. So every once in a while, Windows Update would decide to update, and it was usually right in the middle of when I was trying to run an experiment. Windows Update would suddenly take 100% of the CPU, destroying the data I was trying to collect. So now automatic updates are off...

As for the original topic, that control computer runs XP, and as difficult as it was to get all the software to work on it in XP, my response to the idea of updating it to a newer version of Windows is "From my cold, dead hard drive."

Actually, not even then. I have a backup of the hard drive.

Quote from: vdeane on January 12, 2014, 05:06:04 PMEventually they'll probably pull the plug on activation too, as well as downloading updates already out.

I hope this doesn't happen. I hope they leave a dummy activation server that always passes, or make a patch available, kind of like Adobe did with CS2.

There will always be a small number of legitimate reasons for running an old OS. I still have VMs running DOS/Win 3.11 (for old games) and Windows 98 (for a couple of old games and dev tools).

Quote from: SidS1045 on January 13, 2014, 11:22:59 AM
That's actually a common problem.  Fresh installs of XP/SP3 have a problem with SVCHOST.EXE gobbling up between 50 and 100% CPU while Windows Update is running.  Unless you fix that first, you can wait hours for Windows Update to show what updates are available...but it will eventually show them.

It's not just XP/SP3 - I've had plenty of problems with svchost.exe eating my CPU on both Windows Vista and 7. I have not had it happen on Windows 8 / 8.1 yet.

Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on January 13, 2014, 01:37:03 PM

Quote from: vdeane on January 12, 2014, 05:06:04 PMEventually they'll probably pull the plug on activation too, as well as downloading updates already out.

I hope this doesn't happen. I hope they leave a dummy activation server that always passes, or make a patch available, kind of like Adobe did with CS2.

There will always be a small number of legitimate reasons for running an old OS. I still have VMs running DOS/Win 3.11 (for old games) and Windows 98 (for a couple of old games and dev tools).

There's rumors that they'll release a patch for activation, but I've already seen the windows update removal with 98.

Quote from: SidS1045 on January 13, 2014, 11:22:59 AM
That's actually a common problem.  Fresh installs of XP/SP3 have a problem with SVCHOST.EXE gobbling up between 50 and 100% CPU while Windows Update is running.  Unless you fix that first, you can wait hours for Windows Update to show what updates are available...but it will eventually show them.

The "fix" is to install IE8 and then install the latest security rollup. Personally I'd just make an offline update disc/USB drive and install all the updates from that.

http://download.wsusoffline.net/

Works for Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8.x (plus their server counterparts) and Office 2003-2013.

Quote from: vdeane on January 12, 2014, 11:53:49 PM
I wasn't talking about drivers, but just getting security updates.  Windows Update goes into an infinite loop unless you know whatever unique trick you need these days to get it working.  I had that problem the last time I tried to set up a copy of XP, a couple months ago in a VM.

Muh? I had Windows Update turned off completely on my old XP machine.

I've been having to do that ever since MS published that "the automatic update service now prevent manual updates from installing" thing.

Quote from: vdeane on January 16, 2014, 04:15:13 PM
I've been having to do that ever since MS published that "the automatic update service now prevent manual updates from installing" thing.

Easily fixed with a registry key.

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate

Set or create the DWORD key DisableWindowsUpdateAccess and set its value to 0.

I'll have to remember that the next time I need to set up Windows.

Microsoft announced today that they're extending Security Essentials for XP until July 2015.

Not that it makes any difference - they're not fixing the flaws in XP allowing malware authors to bypass the antivirus.

Maybe it's all just a delayed April Fools joke.

Quote from: JREwing78 on January 21, 2014, 08:47:26 PM
Not that it makes any difference - they're not fixing the flaws in XP allowing malware authors to bypass the antivirus.

You can't really do that unless the AV is so fully integrated to the OS that it makes IE look like a stand-alone browser.  No amount of patches can change the fact that the AV runs on top of the OS, and if you get the OS, you can fool the programs into believing anything.  Plus XP was architected in an era where security was an afterthought at best.  There are just some ways that it can't be fixed because you'd have to re-write the code from scratch.

65 days to go.

Thirty days to go.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 13, 2013, 05:04:15 PM
http://www.paritynews.com/2013/08/16/2358/hackers-stockpiling-windows-xp-zero-days-as-eol-nears/

Well, Xp will begin to wind down, once APril 8 2014 comes around, bugs will not be fixed, security flaws won't be addressed

I read an article about that on WGXA's web page. They are a Fox/ABC affiliate in Macon, Ga. That is exactly 31 days from now.

I still don't get all this apparent joy over the sunsetting of XP.

Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2014, 01:43:57 PM
I still don't get all this apparent joy over the sunsetting of XP.

I'm a PC technician. It's one less operating system to have to support.

Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2014, 01:43:57 PM
I still don't get all this apparent joy over the sunsetting of XP.

Me either.  I think Steve Gum posted the title of this thread in an attempt to get a reaction from me.  XP is a great OS and Windows 7 isn't much better.  8 is inferior.

7 has start menu search, greater security (mostly under the hood), and the addition of UAC means that limited user accounts are actually usable (which is good since 93% of Windows vulnerabilities only apply to administrator accounts, and it means that software developers no longer assume all users are an admin, which is where a lot of the Vista complaints resulted from), and Aero just plain looks better than XP's interface.  The breadcrumb bar is explorer is very nice too (it's the main Windows feature I miss in Linux).  Desktop gadgets are a godsend (why oh why were they removed in 8?).

Quote from: vdeane on March 08, 2014, 03:02:44 PM
Desktop gadgets are a godsend (why oh why were they removed in 8?).

Quote from: Microsoft
the Windows Sidebar platform in Windows 7 and Windows Vista has serious vulnerabilities. Microsoft has retired the feature in newer releases of Windows. Gadgets could be exploited to harm your computer, access your computer's files, show you objectionable content, or change their behavior at any time. An attacker could even use a gadget to take complete control of your PC.

Source (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-CA/windows/gadgets)

Quote from: sammi on March 08, 2014, 01:50:01 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2014, 01:43:57 PM
I still don't get all this apparent joy over the sunsetting of XP.

I'm a PC technician. It's one less operating system to have to support.

This. A million times this. It's also a very helpful tool to get cheapskate clients to replace computers that are old and proving troublesome. It's astounding what a difference new hardware and a fresh installation of Windows makes.

Quote from: sammi on March 08, 2014, 03:09:42 PM

Quote from: vdeane on March 08, 2014, 03:02:44 PM
Desktop gadgets are a godsend (why oh why were they removed in 8?).

Quote from: Microsoft
the Windows Sidebar platform in Windows 7 and Windows Vista has serious vulnerabilities. Microsoft has retired the feature in newer releases of Windows. Gadgets could be exploited to harm your computer, access your computer's files, show you objectionable content, or change their behavior at any time. An attacker could even use a gadget to take complete control of your PC.

Source (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-CA/windows/gadgets)

But why not fix the vulnerabilities or disable the ability to install third party gadgets?  Why remove the feature entirely?  Now it's no longer possible to check the current temperature at a glance.  You either need to call up the start screen and hope the weather "live tile" is actually live or navigate to a weather website.  It's a step backwards.

Quote from: vdeane on March 08, 2014, 09:05:52 PM

Quote from: sammi on March 08, 2014, 03:09:42 PM

Quote from: vdeane on March 08, 2014, 03:02:44 PM
Desktop gadgets are a godsend (why oh why were they removed in 8?).

Quote from: Microsoft
the Windows Sidebar platform in Windows 7 and Windows Vista has serious vulnerabilities. Microsoft has retired the feature in newer releases of Windows. Gadgets could be exploited to harm your computer, access your computer's files, show you objectionable content, or change their behavior at any time. An attacker could even use a gadget to take complete control of your PC.

Source (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-CA/windows/gadgets)

But why not fix the vulnerabilities or disable the ability to install third party gadgets?  Why remove the feature entirely?  Now it's no longer possible to check the current temperature at a glance.  You either need to call up the start screen and hope the weather "live tile" is actually live or navigate to a weather website.  It's a step backwards.

Macintosh has a dashboard. Is that what "live tile" is on Windows?

Quote from: JREwing78 on March 08, 2014, 05:03:28 PM

Quote from: sammi on March 08, 2014, 01:50:01 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2014, 01:43:57 PM
I still don't get all this apparent joy over the sunsetting of XP.

I'm a PC technician. It's one less operating system to have to support.

This. A million times this. It's also a very helpful tool to get cheapskate clients to replace computers that are old and proving troublesome. It's astounding what a difference new hardware and a fresh installation of Windows makes.

It's not hard to support XP.  It's also something that sticks with you like riding a bicycle.  I haven't used XP in a few years and I can still remember how do do everything in it.

Well, I, for one, am not terribly happy about it.  I have 3 desktops and two laptops... and three of them are XP units.  I like XP.   The two other desktops, one is W7 and the other is dual boot with W7 and W8 - the W8 machine is my main computer, but I've gone in with add on programs like Classic Shell to make it act more like XP did. 

I'm using my main XP laptop to write this...  I've had this computer for like 7 years now and with all the heavy use I've put it through, I'm surprised the thing still works. I'm on the 3rd monitor and 2nd keyboard and 2nd touchpad...  But never had any XP software issues. 

-Andy

Quote from: bugo on March 09, 2014, 01:46:27 AM

Quote from: JREwing78 on March 08, 2014, 05:03:28 PM

Quote from: sammi on March 08, 2014, 01:50:01 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2014, 01:43:57 PM
I still don't get all this apparent joy over the sunsetting of XP.

I'm a PC technician. It's one less operating system to have to support.

This. A million times this. It's also a very helpful tool to get cheapskate clients to replace computers that are old and proving troublesome. It's astounding what a difference new hardware and a fresh installation of Windows makes.

It's not hard to support XP.  It's also something that sticks with you like riding a bicycle.  I haven't used XP in a few years and I can still remember how do do everything in it.

Do you do IT support for a living? It's all well and good if you want to keep running your old Windows XP computer. But when you're charged with making business IT work, XP is simply a pain in the ass.

Increasingly, modern software won't run on it (at least without difficulty). The 3GB RAM memory limit means it won't run multiple programs smoothly. XP also doesn't have the support for modern hardware (multi-core processors, solid-state hard drives, modern graphics cards), and lacks the intelligent memory management that improves performance in Windows 7 or 8.

"Forcing" people off of XP means they buy new hardware that can run modern software, and a fresh installation of Windows. That dramatically cuts down on the support calls.

Windows XP is more likely to be infected with malware by end users (many important security changes were implemented in Vista, 7, and 8). Want to run as a user without administrator privileges (a crucial step to preventing malware)? It's much more difficult in XP - lots of software simply won't run at all.

Modern versions of Windows make running as a Standard user easy, both for the user, and for the technician supporting them. Standard user rights means they're far less likely to unwittingly infect their computer with malware, which cuts down on the support calls.

One of the most important factors in supporting end users is standardizing the equipment and software that's being run within the organization. Having different operating systems makes management more complex, and therefore more expensive. The longer Microsoft keeps supporting XP, the longer I have to deal with clients who insist on using it, and the harder it is to get said clients to replace old, worn out hardware.

XP had a good run. It became an excellent operating system (once Microsoft started paying attention to security), and demonstrated surprising longevity. But it's now become a pain in the ass. Good riddance.

I have XP on my little Acer netbook. I also have XP installed on my Parallels partition on my Mac. I have no plans to change.

Quote from: hbelkins on March 09, 2014, 04:31:38 PM
I have no plans to change.

Oh you really don't have to, but if something goes wrong, don't expect anyone to know how to fix it.

Quote from: JREwing78 on March 09, 2014, 04:26:28 PM
"Forcing" people off of XP means they buy new hardware that can run modern software, and a fresh installation of Windows. That dramatically cuts down on the support calls.

What if it's an 80 year old couple on a fixed income that use their computer to look at pictures of their family?  Why should they be forced to pay several hundred dollars for a new computer because Microsoft is too cheap to support something they created just a few short years ago?

Quote from: bugo on March 09, 2014, 07:56:57 PMMicrosoft is too cheap to support something they created just a few short years ago?

Since when is nearly 13 years considered a "few short years ago", especially in the tech world?

Many products last more than 15 years.  What if your refrigerator suddenly stopped working on a certain date?  What if your car quit running after 15 years?  What if your toilet quit functioning because the company wanted to force you to buy a new one? 

It isn't not working. They're not forcing anyone to buy anything. They just don't care about this particular version of Windows anymore because they're focusing on newer, better ones (7 and 8.1).

When these XP machines become infected with viruses (which they will), they will indeed quit working. 

Without planned obsolescence this country would have become a Russian oblast.

Yeah but most planned obsolescence doesn't end up with the product being unusable.  Before the '70s, car companies redesigned their cars every year.  They might have been out of fashion the next year, but they still ran.

Why do you think China makes our cars?

Did you have this particular love for Windows 98?  95?  Vista? 

This is hardly the first time Windows stopped supporting a product.  It's pretty well known they do stop supporting older versions of windows after many years.

Quote from: bugo on March 09, 2014, 08:22:49 PM
Many products last more than 15 years.  What if your refrigerator suddenly stopped working on a certain date?  What if your car quit running after 15 years?  What if your toilet quit functioning because the company wanted to force you to buy a new one? 

No one is saying Windows XP won't work.  They're just saying they'll stop supporting the product.

And that does happen quite frequently.  In fact, products related to transportation, and especially products related to toll equipment, mass transit vehicles, payment machines, etc, they do hit a date the vendors stop making replacement parts.  Usually the maintenance staff is handy in keeping the machines running, and as units are taken out of service permanently, those parts are used to keep the other units going.

Quote from: bugo on March 09, 2014, 08:22:49 PM
Many products last more than 15 years.  What if your refrigerator suddenly stopped working on a certain date?  What if your car quit running after 15 years?  What if your toilet quit functioning because the company wanted to force you to buy a new one?

The expected lifespan for a personal computer is much shorter for a personal computer than it is for a refrigerator, car, and toilet. And, quite frankly, the personal computer is much more functional than those items.

Quote from: NE2 on March 09, 2014, 08:33:23 PM
Why do you think China makes our cars?

Parts for our cars, perhaps. Last I checked, no Chinese-manufactured vehicles were sold in the US at this time.

Planned obsolescence isn't just part of the tech industry.  Appliances, including refrigerators and washing machines, are guilty of being engineered to last just a few years before breaking and requiring the item to be replaced, though this is a relatively recent trend.  An appliance from 30-40 years ago is generally still usable.  An appliance from 10 is not.

Quote from: ZLoth on March 09, 2014, 09:11:52 PM

Quote from: bugo on March 09, 2014, 08:22:49 PM
Many products last more than 15 years.  What if your refrigerator suddenly stopped working on a certain date?  What if your car quit running after 15 years?  What if your toilet quit functioning because the company wanted to force you to buy a new one?

The expected lifespan for a personal computer is much shorter for a personal computer than it is for a refrigerator, car, and toilet. And, quite frankly, the personal computer is much more functional than those items.

By whose expectations?

The PC I am currently using runs a processor that was new back in 2006 - an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600. It's 8 years old now. Does everything I ask it to do.

My PC can't keep my food cold, flush my crap away, or get me to work. It's functional, but not "more functional" than a fridge, a toilet, or a car.

Microsoft may stop supporting XP directly, but there is still 15 years of XP knowledge on the Internet to use.

I've encountered a number of XP systems in the last 6 months that were never upgraded to Service Pack 3, let alone had any other Windows Updates installed. I hope they all have backups of the really important stuff.

Moving to a new system and/OS is scary to some people. Perfect time for some folks to step up to  offer upgrades and training assistance, perhaps.

Quote from: Stratuscaster on March 09, 2014, 09:15:02 PM

Quote from: NE2 on March 09, 2014, 08:33:23 PM
Why do you think China makes our cars?

Parts for our cars, perhaps. Last I checked, no Chinese-manufactured vehicles were sold in the US at this time.

You're feeding the troll.

Quote from: Stratuscaster on March 09, 2014, 09:27:13 PM
My PC can't keep my food cold, flush my crap away, or get me to work. It's functional, but not "more functional" than a fridge, a toilet, or a car.

A PC can't do the things a refrigerator can, but it can do more things than a refrigerator, hence "more functional".

And a PC can get you to work in some cases. :bigass:

Quote from: sammi on March 09, 2014, 08:27:47 PM
They just don't care about this particular version of Windows anymore because they're focusing on newer, better ones (7 and 8.1).

Newer?  Yes
Better?  Yes for Windows 7, a definite NO for Windows 8!  :biggrin:

I still have XP in a Parallels VM so I can still play SimCity 4 along with some other older games.  My main Windows "PC" runs Win 7 installed in a Boot Camp partition which I also access through Parallels.

Quote from: Takumi on March 09, 2014, 09:33:21 PM

Quote from: Stratuscaster on March 09, 2014, 09:15:02 PM

Quote from: NE2 on March 09, 2014, 08:33:23 PM
Why do you think China makes our cars?

Parts for our cars, perhaps. Last I checked, no Chinese-manufactured vehicles were sold in the US at this time.

You're feeding the troll.

China does manufacture a lot of the aftermarket or non-OEM stuff.

Of course, China does make a lot of said troll's bicycles.

What's the harm in knowing how to support one more thing? If anything, it makes you that much more knowledgeable, and puts another tool in your skillset.

Microsoft is anti user, forcing people to buy CD-ROM drives for windows 98, requiring a 486 for windows 95, requiring a DVD drive for vista and newer disc media. Not engineering in 16 bit and MS-DOS compatibility in their 64 bit versions of windows. Forcing users to install service packs for continued support (Vista SP1 and earlier is no longer supported, nor is 7 without service pack 1)

I am not "forgetting" how to maintain XP systems. I just don't have to know anymore. But if someone comes up to me and says their computer got a virus, it's because they should have upgraded sometime ago. (I'd try to fix it anyway.)

Quote from: myosh_tino on March 10, 2014, 02:58:57 AM
Newer?  Yes
Better?  Yes for Windows 7, a definite NO for Windows 8!  :biggrin:

I'm a tablet user. I actually like Windows 8. :spin:

How about all the hard drive manaufactuers dropping support for IDE hard drives, western digital has stopped making them, once the last batch they made in 2013 goes out of stock, you're stuck.

Quote from: sammi on March 10, 2014, 09:48:16 AM

Quote from: myosh_tino on March 10, 2014, 02:58:57 AM
Newer?  Yes
Better?  Yes for Windows 7, a definite NO for Windows 8!  :biggrin:

I'm a tablet user. I actually like Windows 8. :spin:

Windows 8 on a tablet is probably OK but putting a tablet OS on a desktop PC is definitely NOT OK!  :angry:

Quote from: myosh_tino on March 10, 2014, 02:58:57 AM

Quote from: sammi on March 09, 2014, 08:27:47 PM
They just don't care about this particular version of Windows anymore because they're focusing on newer, better ones (7 and 8.1).

Newer?  Yes
Better?  Yes for Windows 7, a definite NO for Windows 8!  :biggrin:

I still have XP in a Parallels VM so I can still play SimCity 4 along with some other older games.  My main Windows "PC" runs Win 7 installed in a Boot Camp partition which I also access through Parallels.

SimCity 4 runs just fine on Windows 7, you don't need a VM for it. Though there are a lot of older games that don't run so well on Windows 7. Shortly after Windows 7 was released, I bought a game that for some reason only ran on XP, but required a video card that was released after Vista was. At the time, I had a computer than ran 7 that couldn't run the game because of the Windows version, and a computer that ran XP that didn't have a new enough video card... The game was called Shattered Union. I don't recommend it, when I eventually did get it running (bought a new video card for the XP machine), it turned out to not be that great of a game.

Quote from: algorerhythms on March 10, 2014, 12:21:54 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on March 10, 2014, 02:58:57 AM

Quote from: sammi on March 09, 2014, 08:27:47 PM
They just don't care about this particular version of Windows anymore because they're focusing on newer, better ones (7 and 8.1).

Newer?  Yes
Better?  Yes for Windows 7, a definite NO for Windows 8!  :biggrin:

I still have XP in a Parallels VM so I can still play SimCity 4 along with some other older games.  My main Windows "PC" runs Win 7 installed in a Boot Camp partition which I also access through Parallels.

SimCity 4 runs just fine on Windows 7, you don't need a VM for it. Though there are a lot of older games that don't run so well on Windows 7. Shortly after Windows 7 was released, I bought a game that for some reason only ran on XP, but required a video card that was released after Vista was. At the time, I had a computer than ran 7 that couldn't run the game because of the Windows version, and a computer that ran XP that didn't have a new enough video card... The game was called Shattered Union. I don't recommend it, when I eventually did get it running (bought a new video card for the XP machine), it turned out to not be that great of a game.

A few badly ported games are like that. Star Trek Legacy for example does not let you change the control layout despite being a PC game, and is best played with the only joystick it supports...the xbox 360 controller. If you do play it on Vista+ you will lose out any multiplayer due to Vista+ changing the network stack for stability and faster transfers (xp is inefficent when doing file transfers between systems)

Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 10, 2014, 09:54:50 AM
How about all the hard drive manaufactuers dropping support for IDE hard drives, western digital has stopped making them, once the last batch they made in 2013 goes out of stock, you're stuck.

Which sucks for me (and my band), as our ADAT HD24 uses IDE drives.  Getting a few extra is something that we've been planning on doing, and need to get around to.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.fjcdn.com%2Fpictures%2FNEVER%2BOBSOLETE.%2BFound%2Bthis%2Bwhen%2Bsetting%2Bup%2Bmy%2Bgramma%2Bs%2Bfax_a9a823_3625270.jpg&hash=f49f4ebe75a1e7ad6e9ca3b181db7e7ac245c168)

Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 10, 2014, 05:23:08 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.fjcdn.com%2Fpictures%2FNEVER%2BOBSOLETE.%2BFound%2Bthis%2Bwhen%2Bsetting%2Bup%2Bmy%2Bgramma%2Bs%2Bfax_a9a823_3625270.jpg&hash=f49f4ebe75a1e7ad6e9ca3b181db7e7ac245c168)

Never Obsolete?!?!?   :rofl:

QuoteTHIS COMPUTER IS NEVER OBSOLETE

fast, reliable internet powered by MCI/UUNET.

The worlds richest internet content provided by Netscape.

Surf! Email! Invest! Shop! Chat! and more.

Plus, upgrade your PC to the fastest model on the market every 2 years for only $99!

:-D :-D :-D :-D

So for 578.76 (2 years after buying it with the expensive internet plus the 99 buck fee to "upgrade") you will get another low end emachines.

Emachines were the KIA Motors of its day, outdated and finicky...still less troublesome than a Packard Bell. Although KIA has improved quite a bit in reliability and desirability, recently.

Interesting stat in a Boston Globe article today about the end of XP:  It still has a 29.5% market share, according to NetMarketShare.

An even scarier stat from the article:  95% of the world's automatic teller machines run on XP, according to NCR Corporation.  I don't see ATM's being frantically replaced because of this.

Quote from: vdeane on March 08, 2014, 03:02:44 PM
The breadcrumb bar is explorer is very nice too (it's the main Windows feature I miss in Linux). 

Dolphin has a breadcrumb bar. If you don't see it, click the blue check mark to the right of the location bar.

Quote from: SidS1045 on March 13, 2014, 03:21:11 PM
Interesting stat in a Boston Globe article today about the end of XP:  It still has a 29.5% market share, according to NetMarketShare.

An even scarier stat from the article:  95% of the world's automatic teller machines run on XP, according to NCR Corporation.  I don't see ATM's being frantically replaced because of this.

The old ATM os was IBM OS/2. XP on an ATM will not prove to be as big of an issue as it sounds, since access to the hardware/software is limited, i would not be suprised if the OS itself is on a ROM board. Windows XP Embedded is the OS, and there is a version that is supported til 2019 based on it (that is the ONLY version of Xp Post April 8 2014 that will get any updates, and it was never available for retail sale, and it is actually a cutdown version of Xp for point of sale terminals and stuff like that.)

https://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/product-lifecycles.aspx

These versions are sold in bulk to companies for installation on specialized hardware that does not need the full GUI, just the windows kernel and API. For example it may have access to a web browser, media player, and stuff like that for a Kiosk at a library. Or just enough stuff to access a sales database

Quote from: SidS1045 on March 13, 2014, 03:21:11 PM
Interesting stat in a Boston Globe article today about the end of XP:  It still has a 29.5% market share, according to NetMarketShare.

An even scarier stat from the article:  95% of the world's automatic teller machines run on XP, according to NCR Corporation.  I don't see ATM's being frantically replaced because of this.

ATMs (and other embedded XP devices) aren't as vulnerable to attack. I doubt NCR regularly ran upgrades on fielded ATMs anyway, so the end of patches won't really affect them. Even ATMs that use the internet as a communication medium instead of modems most likely are isolated through other means such as a router/firewall/VPN device built into the box but separate from the Windows board.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 14, 2014, 04:06:15 PM
Windows XP Embedded is the OS, and there is a version that is supported til 2019 based on it (that is the ONLY version of Xp Post April 8 2014 that will get any updates, and it was never available for retail sale, and it is actually a cutdown version of Xp for point of sale terminals and stuff like that.)

I have Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 setup in a VM, we'll see if the updates can be backported to retail XP.....

On a side note, its everything XP should have been originally. It runs like greased lightning AND it has a proper graphical setup program (using WinPE) that doesn't require a floppy drive to installed 3rd party disk drivers.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 15, 2014, 03:55:59 PM

Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 14, 2014, 04:06:15 PM
Windows XP Embedded is the OS, and there is a version that is supported til 2019 based on it (that is the ONLY version of Xp Post April 8 2014 that will get any updates, and it was never available for retail sale, and it is actually a cutdown version of Xp for point of sale terminals and stuff like that.)

I have Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 setup in a VM, we'll see if the updates can be backported to retail XP.....

On a side note, its everything XP should have been originally. It runs like greased lightning AND it has a proper graphical setup program (using WinPE) that doesn't require a floppy drive to installed 3rd party disk drivers.

Windows PE came about thanks to Vista, it was awesome to be able to use a USB drive for the SATA drivers.

Windows PE was actually released with Windows XP. I have been using the nifty BartPE tool to create XP live CDs for repair work for close to 10 years now.

18 Days

Three days, 11 hours, 49 minutes, and ~50 seconds! Microsoft has a counter.

Relevant. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aobfUPL2C0)

Quote from: Roadsguy on April 05, 2014, 12:09:17 PM
Three days, 11 hours, 49 minutes, and ~50 seconds! Microsoft has a counter.

Relevant. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aobfUPL2C0)

They should have went straight to Windows 9.

I believe I will continue with Windows XP after the "shutdown"... However I plan to update to Windows 7 or 8 soon.

Why "thank god"?  I mean, if you don't use it, what's the big deal?

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 05, 2014, 05:13:31 PM
Why "thank god"?  I mean, if you don't use it, what's the big deal?

I'm with you. It's my favorite version of Windows up until 7. There's a reason people were demanding it still be sold, and Microsoft relented, after Vista came out.

It's also not going to force people to upgrade (even though it really should). My college library is still full of XP machines, and they actually added card readers to them sometime in the last month, so they're not going anywhere.  :-/

Quote from: Roadsguy on April 05, 2014, 12:09:17 PM
Three days, 11 hours, 49 minutes, and ~50 seconds! Microsoft has a counter.

Relevant. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aobfUPL2C0)

Microsoft Bob? How old do they think XP is?

Aren't "computer years" about the same as "dog years"? 

I replaced one computer with a refurbished W7 unit, and upgraded my laptops to W7.  Bye Bye XP, except for XP-mode which I set up for an old flatbed scanner that I might still use. 

Quote from: getemngo on April 05, 2014, 05:33:14 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 05, 2014, 05:13:31 PM
Why "thank god"?  I mean, if you don't use it, what's the big deal?

I'm with you. It's my favorite version of Windows up until 7. There's a reason people were demanding it still be sold, and Microsoft relented, after Vista came out.

It's also not going to force people to upgrade (even though it really should). My college library is still full of XP machines, and they actually added card readers to them sometime in the last month, so they're not going anywhere.  :-/

If the current culture surrounding XP surrounded all Windows releases, the dominant OS would still be Windows for Workgroups 3.11.

Quote from: algorerhythms on April 05, 2014, 06:39:03 PM

Quote from: Roadsguy on April 05, 2014, 12:09:17 PM
Three days, 11 hours, 49 minutes, and ~50 seconds! Microsoft has a counter.

Relevant. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aobfUPL2C0)

Microsoft Bob? How old do they think XP is?

Believe it or not, the release of XP is closer to the release of Bob than to today.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 05, 2014, 05:13:31 PM
Why "thank god"?  I mean, if you don't use it, what's the big deal?

Steve Gum was attempting to troll me.  He knows I think it's irresponsible for a company to do what Microsoft is doing.  Steve thinks grandma should have to buy a new computer (with the wildly unpopular Windows 8) just to be safe from viruses and malware when all she uses her computer for is to download pictures of her grandkids.  He also thinks the still large nunber of Windows XP users still out there should be left vulnerable to the bad guys out there.

Quote from: bugo on April 06, 2014, 01:23:04 AM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 05, 2014, 05:13:31 PM
Why "thank god"?  I mean, if you don't use it, what's the big deal?

Steve Gum was attempting to troll me.  He knows I think it's irresponsible for a company to do what Microsoft is doing.  Steve thinks grandma should have to buy a new computer (with the wildly unpopular Windows 8) just to be safe from viruses and malware when all she uses her computer for is to download pictures of her grandkids.  He also thinks the still large nunber of Windows XP users still out there should be left vulnerable to the bad guys out there.

My grandma runs windows 7 on a 2010 Dell that cost less than 300 dollars new.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 06, 2014, 02:47:42 AM

Quote from: bugo on April 06, 2014, 01:23:04 AM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 05, 2014, 05:13:31 PM
Why "thank god"?  I mean, if you don't use it, what's the big deal?

Steve Gum was attempting to troll me.  He knows I think it's irresponsible for a company to do what Microsoft is doing.  Steve thinks grandma should have to buy a new computer (with the wildly unpopular Windows 8) just to be safe from viruses and malware when all she uses her computer for is to download pictures of her grandkids.  He also thinks the still large nunber of Windows XP users still out there should be left vulnerable to the bad guys out there.

My grandma runs windows 7 on a 2010 Dell that cost less than 300 dollars new.

$300 is a lot for somebody on a fixed income.  Microsoft is as shameful as the televangelists who steal money from poor old ladies.

Quote from: bugo on April 06, 2014, 03:02:29 AM

Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 06, 2014, 02:47:42 AM

Quote from: bugo on April 06, 2014, 01:23:04 AM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 05, 2014, 05:13:31 PM
Why "thank god"?  I mean, if you don't use it, what's the big deal?

Steve Gum was attempting to troll me.  He knows I think it's irresponsible for a company to do what Microsoft is doing.  Steve thinks grandma should have to buy a new computer (with the wildly unpopular Windows 8) just to be safe from viruses and malware when all she uses her computer for is to download pictures of her grandkids.  He also thinks the still large nunber of Windows XP users still out there should be left vulnerable to the bad guys out there.

My grandma runs windows 7 on a 2010 Dell that cost less than 300 dollars new.

$300 is a lot for somebody on a fixed income.  Microsoft is as shameful as the televangelists who steal money from poor old ladies.

My grandparents live on a fixed income, and they were able to get it. Also windows 8 costs 99 bucks, one time fee. if you shop around you can get windows 7 for about 65-80 bucks.

Also in 2002 Xp Pro UPGRADE cost 160 bucks.

Quote from: Steve Gum on April 06, 2014, 02:47:42 AM
My grandparents live on a fixed income, and they were able to get it. Also windows 8 costs 99 bucks, one time fee. if you shop around you can get windows 7 for about 65-80 bucks.

Also in 2002 Xp Pro UPGRADE cost 160 bucks.

$65 is still a lot of money to somebody who doesn't have it. 

Your example is not common because most XP computers won't run Windows 8.  Why does somebody who only uses their computer for emails and photos need 4 GB of RAM?  Their old computer worked just fine.

The bottom line is that hackers and virus writers are going to target XP and many computers will be vulnerable.  If only .002% of computers were XP it wouldn't be an issue but a high percentage of computers today still run XP.  XP is just as good as Windows 7 and far better than the hated Windows 8.  Why fix it if it ain't broke?

Quote from: bugo on April 06, 2014, 04:40:11 AM

Quote from: Steve Gum on April 06, 2014, 02:47:42 AM
My grandparents live on a fixed income, and they were able to get it. Also windows 8 costs 99 bucks, one time fee. if you shop around you can get windows 7 for about 65-80 bucks.

Also in 2002 Xp Pro UPGRADE cost 160 bucks.

$65 is still a lot of money to somebody who doesn't have it. 

Your example is not common because most XP computers won't run Windows 8.  Why does somebody who only uses their computer for emails and photos need 4 GB of RAM?  Their old computer worked just fine.

The bottom line is that hackers and virus writers are going to target XP and many computers will be vulnerable.  If only .002% of computers were XP it wouldn't be an issue but a high percentage of computers today still run XP.  XP is just as good as Windows 7 and far better than the hated Windows 8.  Why fix it if it ain't broke?

Because Microsoft doesn't make money unless it requires a one-time fee every few years? 

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 06, 2014, 07:44:24 AM

Quote from: bugo on April 06, 2014, 04:40:11 AM

Quote from: Steve Gum on April 06, 2014, 02:47:42 AM
My grandparents live on a fixed income, and they were able to get it. Also windows 8 costs 99 bucks, one time fee. if you shop around you can get windows 7 for about 65-80 bucks.

Also in 2002 Xp Pro UPGRADE cost 160 bucks.

$65 is still a lot of money to somebody who doesn't have it. 

Your example is not common because most XP computers won't run Windows 8.  Why does somebody who only uses their computer for emails and photos need 4 GB of RAM?  Their old computer worked just fine.

The bottom line is that hackers and virus writers are going to target XP and many computers will be vulnerable.  If only .002% of computers were XP it wouldn't be an issue but a high percentage of computers today still run XP.  XP is just as good as Windows 7 and far better than the hated Windows 8.  Why fix it if it ain't broke?

Because Microsoft doesn't make money unless it requires a one-time fee every few years? 

How much would it cost to do the bare minimum upgrades that would keep the OS usable?  As much money as they make, it wouldn't even make a dent in their profits.  It's all about extreme greed.

They don't build cars that have airbags and seat belts that quit working after a certain number of years.  Why should operating systems be any different?  It wouldn't be that expensive to maintain it.  If XP were obsolete and something like 0.02% of computers used it, it wouldn't be much of an issue.  But 30% of computers still use it.  This is going to be a major PR disaster for Microsoft and I'll be laughing when it happens.  Just watch.

Most automakers stop supplying OEM parts after 10-15 years.  Automakers rarely create service bulletins, campaigns, and recalls for ten-year old vehicles.

If it weren't for the tiny percentage of miscreants which create and distribute malware/viruses, the cessation of support for XP would be a complete non-issue. It isn't going to fail to work after the 9th of April.

Although it seems they'd created 8.x because they feared losing that 10% of market share to Apple, which is what sucks it up for the rest of us.

Quote from: bugo on April 06, 2014, 08:58:44 AM
They don't build cars that have airbags and seat belts that quit working after a certain number of years.  Why should operating systems be any different?  It wouldn't be that expensive to maintain it.  If XP were obsolete and something like 0.02% of computers used it, it wouldn't be much of an issue.  But 30% of computers still use it.  This is going to be a major PR disaster for Microsoft and I'll be laughing when it happens.  Just watch.

Air bags...do quit working reliably after a decade or so. Most manufacuters give them a decade before they may or may not deploy properly.

Can you go into a Chevrolet dealer and order a brand new engine for a 1990s saturn? How about an airbag?

And it won't be a PR disaster, it wasn't one when windows 9x was discontinued in 2006, or when 2000 Pro less than 6 years ago.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 06, 2014, 10:23:50 AMAnd it won't be a PR disaster, it wasn't one when windows 9x was discontinued in 2006, or when 2000 Pro less than 6 years ago.

9x and 2000 Pro were at less than ten percent market share when each reached end-of-support.  XP is still at almost 30%.  If it's not a PR disaster in the making, it's certainly tone-deaf on Microsoft's part, almost as tone-deaf as the constant pushing of Windows 8 as a replacement, an OS that computer users have overwhelmingly ignored (less than 11% market share after being on the market for almost two years).

I hate to be "That Guy" but this whole thing sort of illustrates the advantage of open-source software. As a comparison, when the Gnome project stopped supporting version 2.x of their software, telling people to upgrade to version 3.x (which a lot of people hated), a group of 2.x users decided to maintain the old version on their own. With Windows XP, that's not an option, because the source code, which any maintainer would need, isn't available, and Microsoft isn't going to release it any time soon.

Quote from: bugo on April 06, 2014, 08:58:44 AM
They don't build cars that have airbags and seat belts that quit working after a certain number of years.  Why should operating systems be any different?  It wouldn't be that expensive to maintain it. 

:paranoid: Nobody said that Windows XP will quit working after April 8th. It will continue to boot up. However, for us regular people, it will no longer get regular updates. And, be aware that Microsoft announced end of support for XP back in 2007 and that support was originally going to end in 2010 before it got pushed back to 2014. In addition, end of sale for Windows XP was 2008/2009. That was a lot of warning.

If you ever dealt with software development, either from a support perspective or from a programming perspective, then you would know how much costs increase when you have to support multiple operating systems and multiple configuration. The APIs and libraries for Windows XP are different from Windows Vista/7/8, not to mention that you have to check for 32 bit compatibility as well as 64 bit compatibility. The more you have to test and validate, the more expensive it becomes. And, too many people stuck with Internet Explorer 6 for a long time which came with Windows XP. Ask any web programmer what it was like to program in compatibility with Internet Explorer 6 style sheets, and they are like to respond in swear words.

Lets look at another item that was used for many years in cars: Leaded gas. It was introduced in the 1920s as a anti-knock additive in gasoline. Phaseout began in 1973 and leaded gasoline was no longer sold in California in 1992 and in the United States in 1995. (If you still drove a leaded gas vehicle, you also has to put in additive in). Unleaded vehicles were first sold in 1969, but became a requirement in 1975. Fueling stations were required to have unleaded pumps by July 4, 1974. There, the phaseout period was twenty years, but again, how long does an average person keep a car? Would ten years be a good number? And, even then, things change. In 2006 (when I last hunted for a new car), an audio input jack was almost unheard, with the desired feature being a CD player (and, even then, it didn't include MP3). Now, thanks to the iPhone introduced in June, 2007 followed by other smart phones, you are hardly unlikely to find a new vehicle (2012 and later) without an auxiliary audio input. To add that to my 2005 Malibu, I ended up having a FM Modulator installed since it was impossible to modify the radio for a audio input. My new vehicle, a 2013 Buick Verano, not only has an auxiliary audio input, but also a Bluetooth connection for telephone and media audio. On the other hand, tape decks stopped being included in cars in 2010, and I expected CD players to start disappearing from cars in a few years. (Part of the reason I installed a FM modulator was that it was cheaper than fixing the CD player!)

Unfortunately, the lifespan of a personal computer is much shorter than a lifespan of a car. The optimal lifespan of a computer is three years, and I tell people that you should expect five years of usage. The computer I am using was assembled -by me- in 2007. Sure, it initially had Windows XP on it, but I eventually updated to Windows 7 64-bit. But, then, the components that I purchased were considered near top-of-the-line in 2007 (Dual Core 6600 running at 2.4 GHz processor), and I was able to get additional life from expanding the memory (2 GB to 8 GB) and upgrading the video card (nVidia 8800 GTS to nVidia 460), and changing from a regular hard drive to a solid state drive. But, now, it's considered pokey slow for the modern games, and virtualization is a bit slow. But, then, I tend to push my computer. Many "average" people just use their computer to check email, browse the web, home banking, and perhaps word processing and spreadsheets, and they purchased lower-end machines that aren't easily upgraded.

I can see both sides of the argument, but I have to disagree (reluctantly) with Jeremy's position that a (not particularly computer-literate) senior citizen on a fixed income should be able to continue using an XP computer indefinitely for email and image browsing.  This has less to do with any shortcomings XP may have as an operating system, and more to do with the things that tend to go with XP on consumer-grade equipment, such as outdated hardware and very low processor speeds.  The latter two are particularly taxed by incremental upgrades that have been all but impossible to avoid during XP's lifecycle, some of which are part and parcel of ongoing XP product support, such as the transitions from newly released XP to XP SP3, browser version upgrades, Flash, Silverlight, etc.

In my household we have two XP computers that are still in occasional use.  One (a laptop I purchased in 2006, CPU passmark of about 950) stopped being a primary computer in 2011, while the other (my mother's former primary, a desktop purchased in 2004, CPU passmark of 380) went into semi-retirement in January 2014.  The laptop can play few if any DVDs authored in the last four years or so; PowerDVD shows the "Play" status message and promptly hangs.  It doesn't have a Blu-Ray drive, so it can't be used for software playback of movie Blu-Rays.  It can just barely handle rips of DVDs and broadcast TV shows because the bitrates are low enough, but it can't play Blu-Ray rips because the bitrates are far too high for the CPU to cope (VLC freezes and skips while mplayer says "Not enough CPU!").  The CPU and hardware limitation prevents a user of this laptop from accessing a now large and increasing share of recent movies (whether obtained legally or illegally) since both the studios and the mass-market retailers are phasing out DVDs in favor of Blu-Ray.

The XP desktop works well as a part-time FTP server, because basic networking is one of the functions least likely to tax an outdated computer.  This entails accepting some significant limitations, however.  It runs an old version of FileZilla Server since the current ones (as of about December 2013) no longer support XP.  Also, we never spent the extra money for XP Professional on any of our machines, so we must accept the limitations of the simple file sharing model used in the Home and Media Center editions of XP.  This means that if I want to avoid doing a console login on the XP machine just to transfer files via SMB from my primary computer to the "hot" folder for the FTP server, I have to give everyone behind my router write access to the "hot" folder, contrary to my preference for layered security both at the router and on the individual computers on the LAN.

For better or worse, these limitations don't affect more recent computers that have up-to-date drives, Windows 7 or 8/8.1 as the operating system, and passmarks of 4000 or better.

In regard to Jeremy's argument that senior citizens should continue to be able to browse images and read email using an XP machine, that will continue to be possible after support ends in two days.  It will merely be less safe to do so.  However, that expectation essentially puts older users on two discrete "islands" of functionality that are slowly being inundated.  What if an older user wants to go on the Web to find out how to set up his or her email or manipulate an image, for example?  And what about the ongoing deterioration of the user experience, such as slow logon, the lengthy delay before applications launch, etc.?  When my mother transitioned from an XP machine with CPU passmark of 380 to an 8.1 machine with CPU passmark over 6,000, her computer usage increased by about 50% since it was no longer necessary to sit through five-minute logons or wait for the Web browser or email client to start.

Keeping an obsolete OS on life support as a safety mechanism to prevent digital exclusion might very well have an effect diametrically opposite to that intended.

Quote from: algorerhythms on April 06, 2014, 11:19:27 AM
I hate to be "That Guy" but this whole thing sort of illustrates the advantage of open-source software. As a comparison, when the Gnome project stopped supporting version 2.x of their software, telling people to upgrade to version 3.x (which a lot of people hated), a group of 2.x users decided to maintain the old version on their own. With Windows XP, that's not an option, because the source code, which any maintainer would need, isn't available, and Microsoft isn't going to release it any time soon.

*nix systems? Good luck with that. As a rule, people are resistant to change even when things are better, and they tend to stick with the familiar.

I prefer *nix systems over Windows as servers. They tend to be rock-solid, and easier to maintain. I even build a test web server using Linux. Most people doesn't even realize -- or care -- that they are connecting to a non-Windows server as long as it serves up the web pages and whatever content they desire.

But, when it comes to their desktop, they don't want to learn another system. They are familiar with Office at work, and they want to use Office at home. No, they don't want to deal with LibreOffice, OpenOffice, ApacheOffice, or whatever office equivalent is out there and the potential incompatibilities. And, many of the good stuff that people use is on Windows or Mac, not Linux. 

XP will not magically stop working on April 8.  In fact, there's a good chance that living with XP will be no different than it was until May 13 - the first Patch Tuesday after XP support ends.  Even then, the machine won't grind to a hault.  The computer doesn't need a "keep alive" signal from MS that will cause it to just die if it isn't updated every month.  And since most vulnerabilities are cause by user actions (such as downloading an infected executable), the rest require open ports, and almost all require an administrative account, an XP computer operated under a NAT with a careful user will actually be quite safe, especially if that user has a limited account (this is also a reason to upgrade: it is far easier to use Vista and later on a limited account than XP).

It would pay to analyze where that 30% of computers comes from.  It's not Grandma.  A very large percentage of those are from Chinese pirated copies that have never been updated, not even to install the service packs.  They will be unaffected by the lack of support.  Much of the rest of them are from embedded systems like ATMs that are locked down and don't have users interact with the OS directly.  They will also be unaffected.  Many of the rest are tied up in enterprise computers that will continue to receive updates after April 8 if the company pays Microsoft.  These machines will continue on as usual.

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2014, 03:18:01 PMIt would pay to analyze where that 30% of computers comes from.  It's not Grandma.  A very large percentage of those are from Chinese pirated copies that have never been updated, not even to install the service packs.  They will be unaffected by the lack of support.  Much of the rest of them are from embedded systems like ATMs that are locked down and don't have users interact with the OS directly.  They will also be unaffected.  Many of the rest are tied up in enterprise computers that will continue to receive updates after April 8 if the company pays Microsoft.  These machines will continue on as usual.

I agree it would be useful to have a breakdown.  But do OS usage share surveys typically include ATMs and so on?  I was under the impression that many of the headcounts rely on browser user-agent headers, which embedded systems wouldn't ordinarily generate.

Quote from: ZLoth on April 06, 2014, 02:40:51 PM

Quote from: algorerhythms on April 06, 2014, 11:19:27 AM
I hate to be "That Guy" but this whole thing sort of illustrates the advantage of open-source software. As a comparison, when the Gnome project stopped supporting version 2.x of their software, telling people to upgrade to version 3.x (which a lot of people hated), a group of 2.x users decided to maintain the old version on their own. With Windows XP, that's not an option, because the source code, which any maintainer would need, isn't available, and Microsoft isn't going to release it any time soon.

*nix systems? Good luck with that. As a rule, people are resistant to change even when things are better, and they tend to stick with the familiar.

I prefer *nix systems over Windows as servers. They tend to be rock-solid, and easier to maintain. I even build a test web server using Linux. Most people doesn't even realize -- or care -- that they are connecting to a non-Windows server as long as it serves up the web pages and whatever content they desire.

But, when it comes to their desktop, they don't want to learn another system. They are familiar with Office at work, and they want to use Office at home. No, they don't want to deal with LibreOffice, OpenOffice, ApacheOffice, or whatever office equivalent is out there and the potential incompatibilities. And, many of the good stuff that people use is on Windows or Mac, not Linux. 

I'm not suggesting that people switch to Linux. That isn't ever going to happen, unless that Linux happens to be Android... Just pointing out the hypothetical that if XP were open source, this would be less of an issue because it would be possible for third parties who want to continue maintaining XP to do so.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 06, 2014, 03:28:33 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2014, 03:18:01 PMIt would pay to analyze where that 30% of computers comes from.  It's not Grandma.  A very large percentage of those are from Chinese pirated copies that have never been updated, not even to install the service packs.  They will be unaffected by the lack of support.  Much of the rest of them are from embedded systems like ATMs that are locked down and don't have users interact with the OS directly.  They will also be unaffected.  Many of the rest are tied up in enterprise computers that will continue to receive updates after April 8 if the company pays Microsoft.  These machines will continue on as usual.

I agree it would be useful to have a breakdown.  But do OS usage share surveys typically include ATMs and so on?  I was under the impression that many of the headcounts rely on browser user-agent headers, which embedded systems wouldn't ordinarily generate.

Most OS usage share surveys do not include ATMs, or any machines not connected to the web. Most, as you pointed out, rely on website log data, which relies on browser user-agent headers (which, of course, can be easily faked).

Website log data isn't actually that useful for figuring out usage shares though, as a particular site can have different stats because the target audience might be more or less likely to upgrade.  I'm not sure what usage shares use, but Microsoft's official count definitely includes ATMs.

The tech press is definitely sensationalizing April 8 (and other security news).  Even the security companies are guilty.  Symantec a couple weeks ago issued a press release talking about an ATM vulnerability where a crook could cause the ATM to "spew" out money with a cell phone.  The reality: the cell phone had to be physically connected to the ATM with a USB cable and plugged in, and could only get the ATM to output money at the normal rate.

Quote from: bugo on April 06, 2014, 04:40:11 AM

Quote from: Steve Gum on April 06, 2014, 02:47:42 AM
My grandparents live on a fixed income, and they were able to get it. Also windows 8 costs 99 bucks, one time fee. if you shop around you can get windows 7 for about 65-80 bucks.

Also in 2002 Xp Pro UPGRADE cost 160 bucks.

$65 is still a lot of money to somebody who doesn't have it. 

Your example is not common because most XP computers won't run Windows 8.  Why does somebody who only uses their computer for emails and photos need 4 GB of RAM?  Their old computer worked just fine.

The bottom line is that hackers and virus writers are going to target XP and many computers will be vulnerable.  If only .002% of computers were XP it wouldn't be an issue but a high percentage of computers today still run XP.  XP is just as good as Windows 7 and far better than the hated Windows 8.  Why fix it if it ain't broke?

Xp is not as good as 7 from a security standpoint. Running all users as administrators by default was an issue that vista started to fix with user account control.

Also, my grandmother's PC came with 4gb of ram and it was not expensive.

I noticed yesterday that Safeway's self-checkout machines still run on XP, as one was restarting while I was purchasing groceries up in Helena

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 06, 2014, 01:19:51 PM
I can see both sides of the argument, but I have to disagree (reluctantly) with Jeremy's position that a (not particularly computer-literate) senior citizen on a fixed income should be able to continue using an XP computer indefinitely for email and image browsing.  This has less to do with any shortcomings XP may have as an operating system, and more to do with the things that tend to go with XP on consumer-grade equipment, such as outdated hardware and very low processor speeds.  The latter two are particularly taxed by incremental upgrades that have been all but impossible to avoid during XP's lifecycle, some of which are part and parcel of ongoing XP product support, such as the transitions from newly released XP to XP SP3, browser version upgrades, Flash, Silverlight, etc.

Indeed. My mother had a relatively low-end laptop she purchased in 2002 which had XP. By 2007 it had become unusable because Microsoft had issued more system updates in the previous five years than the machine could handle. In order to get the computer to continue working, she had to reformat the hard drive and turn updates off. Shortly after she gave up on it and bought a new laptop with Vista.

Quote from: corco on April 06, 2014, 05:05:20 PM
I noticed yesterday that Safeway's self-checkout machines still run on XP, as one was restarting while I was purchasing groceries up in Helena

I observed about a month ago a bank ATM still running on XP. I get the sense that XP is still fairly common on such specialized machines designed only to perform one specific task, since they naturally have a longer lifecycle than a personal computer.

The more different things you do with a computer, the earlier a grave you are likely to send it to. Note how when we talk about people with personal computers still using XP the key demographic is "old people who only use them to check email and look at pictures of their family". Since these people aren't installing a lot of software or downloading a lot of files, they aren't putting a lot of miles on their machines. Think of it as the difference between only driving your car to church on Sunday and to the store on Tuesday, and using your car to commute and take road trips.

QuoteI observed about a month ago a bank ATM still running on XP. I get the sense that XP is still fairly common on such specialized machines designed only to perform one specific task, since they naturally have a longer lifecycle than a personal computer.

Unfortunately, those are the uses that probably need security patches the most. An ATM with Windows XP seems like an ATM that I wouldn't want to use.

I'm guessing the Safeway machines aren't internet connected, maybe to a local ethernet but probably nothing else. The credit card swipes are controlled by a typical merchant pad or whatever those are called, not through the computer.

Of course, I have no sympathy for Safeway or ATM companies if they leave security holes exposed- they had the time and the money to upgrade.

The Oklahoma lottery machines run XP.

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2014, 03:18:01 PMIt would pay to analyze where that 30% of computers comes from.  It's not Grandma.

Looks like some of it consists of computers used by the British and Dutch governments, who have paid millions for one-year extensions of support:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/07/uk-government-microsoft-windows-xp-public-sector

(It's not like we are all that much better off, though--if memory serves, the Post reported recently that the Defense Department still has some XP computers which are not considered high priority for OS upgrades since they are buried in secure networks.)

Quote from: corco on April 06, 2014, 06:29:59 PM

QuoteI observed about a month ago a bank ATM still running on XP. I get the sense that XP is still fairly common on such specialized machines designed only to perform one specific task, since they naturally have a longer lifecycle than a personal computer.

Unfortunately, those are the uses that probably need security patches the most. An ATM with Windows XP seems like an ATM that I wouldn't want to use.

I'm guessing the Safeway machines aren't internet connected, maybe to a local ethernet but probably nothing else. The credit card swipes are controlled by a typical merchant pad or whatever those are called, not through the computer.

Of course, I have no sympathy for Safeway or ATM companies if they leave security holes exposed- they had the time and the money to upgrade.

ATMs probably need upgrades less, actually.  Almost all malware infections are trojan horses caused by users downloading something from the internet or visiting an infected webpage.  This cannot happen on an ATM.  The days of worms sniffing out computers are long gone thanks to the proliferation of NAT router firewalls.

T-5 hours, 40 minutes. :-( :-( :-(

The last day has begun.

Today is the day Windows XP support end. This also means that Internet Explorer 6 and Office 2003 is end-of-life as well.

Good riddance Internet Explorer 6.

If Microsoft is serious about ending XP's use, perhaps they should actively campaign for it, like with the IE 6 Countdown (http://www.modern.ie/en-us/ie6countdown) site.

I really liked Office 2003. Call me weird. (Though I can't stand Office 2004 for Mac.)

So today is the day. The end of support for Windows XP, but it will continue to work. However, about Office 2003 this doesn't affect me since I updated to Office 2007 a couple years ago.

My Windows XP computer is just as awesome today as it was when I acquired it nearly 6 years ago.  It hasn't become less awesome with age.  I have no desire to upgrade to an awesomer computer, because mine is awesome enough already.  This end-of-support thing is the only reason I have to even consider a replacement, and I don't think it's that big a deal.   At least, it doesn't seem like it's enough of a problem to warrant the financial expense of buying awesomer hardware just to run the more-bloated OS plus the OS itself, nor the time expense of migrating files, installing software, learning the new UI, and configuring things to my preferences.

Anybody know where I can get Win7 cheap?  The lowest I've heard so far (on another board) is $99.  I don't even have that right now.

Quote from: getemngo on April 08, 2014, 02:34:57 PM
If Microsoft is serious about ending XP's use, perhaps they should actively campaign for it, like with the IE 6 Countdown (http://www.modern.ie/en-us/ie6countdown) site.

I really liked Office 2003. Call me weird. (Though I can't stand Office 2004 for Mac.)

I also like 03 compared to 07.  Office 07 looks like nothing else out there, just itself.  as far as I know, no other programs have adopted the "ribbon" interface.  I hate the ribbon because it's constantly changing, and sometimes you just wonder "where the fuck did that button go"?  also, they ruined "save as".  how the fuck did they manage to do that!?  it's like ruining the enter key; I didn't think it was possible.

(Office 16 will probably ruin the enter key.  watch for it.)

Quote from: getemngo on April 08, 2014, 02:34:57 PM
I really liked Office 2003. Call me weird. (Though I can't stand Office 2004 for Mac.)

I still have Office 97 on my netbook; mainly just for a quick Word/Excel edit...they still work well for the limited and basic features I ask of them. Office 2003 was the last great iteration before it became even more bloated.

Office 2003 on my home PC, and 2010 on my work PC. Other than Outlook, I've yet to see/use/experience any astounding differences from 97 to 2003. I save most of my 2010 files to .doc/.xls format so OpenOffice can read them on my phone.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 08, 2014, 03:13:38 PM
as far as I know, no other programs have adopted the "ribbon" interface.

Nope. :sombrero: There's Microsoft's software, which you would kinda expect to be using the Ribbon, and then there are third-party programs using the .NET Framework that have implemented Ribbon interfaces. A lot of programs you've never even heard of before have Ribbons.

Even AutoCAD uses it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftechinch.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2Fimage.png&hash=57936da60cb25fc9902bbe94423fd0eec6434b33)

QuoteA lot of programs you've never even heard of before have Ribbons.

I suppose that's what I get for using primarily Photoshop CS2 and Inkscape.  I wonder if newer Photoshops have a ribbon.

Quote from: getemngo on April 08, 2014, 02:34:57 PM
If Microsoft is serious about ending XP's use, perhaps they should actively campaign for it, like with the IE 6 Countdown (http://www.modern.ie/en-us/ie6countdown) site.

They apparently are doing this promotion:
Microsoft will give you $100 to buy a new PC (http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/24/technology/windows-xp-upgrade/index.html?hpt=hp_t5)

QuoteIf you're still using Windows XP, you just won $100 from Microsoft.

The only catch is that you have to upgrade to a new Windows 8 computer.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 08, 2014, 03:46:01 PM

QuoteA lot of programs you've never even heard of before have Ribbons.

I suppose that's what I get for using primarily Photoshop CS2 and Inkscape.  I wonder if newer Photoshops have a ribbon.

Nope! At least, they didn't as of the first release of Creative Cloud last year. I haven't used any Adobe software in 6 months or more.

Looking at screenshots of CS2, Photoshop still doesn't look all that different today. I've seen almost no interface changes in any of the Adobe products I've used from CS5 to CS6 to CC, except things have been moved around in Dreamweaver CC.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/en-us/xp/default.aspx?SEMID=1&WT.srch=1&ocid=XPEOS_SEM_google_FAM_WINDOWS_BRAND_NULL_LEARN_windows%20xp&wt.mc_id=XPEOS_SEM_google_FAM_WINDOWS_BRAND_NULL_LEARN_windows%20xp

You can get a laptop for as low as 249 bucks

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. 

Not that I'm complaining.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 08, 2014, 06:42:25 PM
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/en-us/xp/default.aspx?SEMID=1&WT.srch=1&ocid=XPEOS_SEM_google_FAM_WINDOWS_BRAND_NULL_LEARN_windows%20xp&wt.mc_id=XPEOS_SEM_google_FAM_WINDOWS_BRAND_NULL_LEARN_windows%20xp

You can get a laptop for as low as 249 bucks

That's a lot of money for somebody with a low income.

Quote from: bugo on April 08, 2014, 11:26:29 PM

Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 08, 2014, 06:42:25 PM
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/en-us/xp/default.aspx?SEMID=1&WT.srch=1&ocid=XPEOS_SEM_google_FAM_WINDOWS_BRAND_NULL_LEARN_windows%20xp&wt.mc_id=XPEOS_SEM_google_FAM_WINDOWS_BRAND_NULL_LEARN_windows%20xp

You can get a laptop for as low as 249 bucks

That's a lot of money for somebody with a low income.

Chromebooks start at an even lower price. After that, I suppose you could wait for a hand-me-down PC from the family, after they've moved on.

Not that I have any intent on switching from XP even despite the end of support, but right now, computers would need to be a lot cheaper to even consider it, and even then, I'd probably see about a VirtualBox if possible.

Besides, Ol' Rustbucket (my desktop computer) is already struggling with XP Service Pack 3 on it (it took several hours to even get the cleanup ready for it). I don't think putting anything newer on it will even help.

Call me what you want, but XP stays for me.

Well, it's happened (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/enterprise/end-of-support.aspx).

My grandparents still use XP, and I'm even going to put it on an old laptop once a replacement for HP's IDE-to-proprietary-connector adapter arrives. There's nothing really wrong with still using it for home use if you're careful browsing, have antivirus, and know where to go for tech support other than Microsoft, but the vulnerabilities would be a problem for work use.

Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on April 09, 2014, 07:27:02 AM
Not that I have any intent on switching from XP even despite the end of support, but right now, computers would need to be a lot cheaper to even consider it, and even then, I'd probably see about a VirtualBox if possible.

Besides, Ol' Rustbucket (my desktop computer) is already struggling with XP Service Pack 3 on it (it took several hours to even get the cleanup ready for it). I don't think putting anything newer on it will even help.

Call me what you want, but XP stays for me.

I got a windows 7 compatible laptop for 159 bucks on ebay. 2.8GHZ Dual Core AMD Phenom II with 4gb of ram and a 160gb hard drive.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 09, 2014, 11:15:54 AM

Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on April 09, 2014, 07:27:02 AM
Not that I have any intent on switching from XP even despite the end of support, but right now, computers would need to be a lot cheaper to even consider it, and even then, I'd probably see about a VirtualBox if possible.

Besides, Ol' Rustbucket (my desktop computer) is already struggling with XP Service Pack 3 on it (it took several hours to even get the cleanup ready for it). I don't think putting anything newer on it will even help.

Call me what you want, but XP stays for me.

I got a windows 7 compatible laptop for 159 bucks on ebay. 2.8GHZ Dual Core AMD Phenom II with 4gb of ram and a 160gb hard drive.

We don't have $59 much less $159. And I am not switching.

Steve Gum thinks that $500 is pocket change and that everybody can afford new computers. 

The flip side of that argument:  if $159, $59, or some arbitrarily low amount is too much to spend on new computer hardware, then what do you do if an emergency arises that requires spending that approximate amount of money?

There's a huge difference in between coming up with money for something that is necessary vs an unnecessary purchase forced by collusion between computer companies and Microsoft.

Incidentally, if you have old programs that run on XP and not newer versions of Windows (or Linux), this article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/10/how_to_run_xp_on_new_windows/) may be of interest.

Quote from: algorerhythms on April 10, 2014, 12:23:45 PM
Incidentally, if you have old programs that run on XP and not newer versions of Windows (or Linux), this article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/10/how_to_run_xp_on_new_windows/) 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?

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 10, 2014, 11:43:59 AM
The flip side of that argument:  if $159, $59, or some arbitrarily low amount is too much to spend on new computer hardware, then what do you do if an emergency arises that requires spending that approximate amount of money?

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.)

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 10, 2014, 11:43:59 AM
The flip side of that argument:  if $159, $59, or some arbitrarily low amount is too much to spend on new computer hardware, then what do you do if an emergency arises that requires spending that approximate amount of money?

Keep in mind I meant the $59 as a form of we don't have money to spend on an unnecessary expense. What Jeremy said is effectively the point being made here.

Quote from: vtk on April 10, 2014, 01:10:58 PMI 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.

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

Quote from: vtk on April 08, 2014, 06:51:48 PMSince 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.

Quote from: bugo on April 10, 2014, 02:01:45 PMYour 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).

Quote from: ET21 on April 10, 2014, 12:48:24 PM

Quote from: algorerhythms on April 10, 2014, 12:23:45 PM
Incidentally, if you have old programs that run on XP and not newer versions of Windows (or Linux), this article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/10/how_to_run_xp_on_new_windows/) 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: JREwing78 on April 10, 2014, 08:55:07 PMFor 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.

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).

Quote from: vtk on April 11, 2014, 05:52:19 AMMy 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.

QuoteAnd 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).

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.

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?  :ded:

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.

Quote from: vtk on April 11, 2014, 02:04:51 PM
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

Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 11, 2014, 02:16:35 PM

Quote from: vtk on April 11, 2014, 02:04:51 PM
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.

Quote from: ZLoth on April 10, 2014, 10:51:30 PM
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.

Quote from: bugo on April 06, 2014, 06:30:05 PM
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.

Quote from: algorerhythms on April 10, 2014, 02:12:06 PM

Quote from: ET21 on April 10, 2014, 12:48:24 PM

Quote from: algorerhythms on April 10, 2014, 12:23:45 PM
Incidentally, if you have old programs that run on XP and not newer versions of Windows (or Linux), this article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/10/how_to_run_xp_on_new_windows/) 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

If those old games are DOS or Win16 games, you might be better off with something like DosBox (http://www.dosbox.com/), 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?

Quote from: corco on December 16, 2013, 02:55:48 PM
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.

Quote from: mwp3 on April 22, 2014, 11:29:00 PM

Quote from: corco on December 16, 2013, 02:55:48 PM
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

Quote from: corco on April 22, 2014, 11:30:30 PM

Quote from: mwp3 on April 22, 2014, 11:29:00 PM

Quote from: corco on December 16, 2013, 02:55:48 PM
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?

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 23, 2014, 09:13:57 PM

Quote from: corco on April 22, 2014, 11:30:30 PM

Quote from: mwp3 on April 22, 2014, 11:29:00 PM

Quote from: corco on December 16, 2013, 02:55:48 PM
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.

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)

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

Quote from: SteveG1988 on May 13, 2014, 06:43:09 PM
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

POSReady 2009 received some patches and they have already been modified to install on XP.

Just in case you missed all of the previous memos, no more security updates for XP (http://markholtz.info/xp).

Quote from: ZLoth on May 15, 2014, 11:16:36 AM
Just in case you missed all of the previous memos, no more security updates for XP (http://markholtz.info/xp).

Technically, but if you know where to look, there are May Patch Tuesday updates for XP floating around.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 20, 2014, 06:11:43 PM

Quote from: ZLoth on May 15, 2014, 11:16:36 AM
Just in case you missed all of the previous memos, no more security updates for XP (http://markholtz.info/xp).

Technically, but if you know where to look, there are May Patch Tuesday updates for XP floating around.

That's an awful lot of time and energy to keep slapping a creaky old operating system back together.

Presumably that's why the new updates are now enterprise-only and cost a lot of money.

Quote from: vdeane on May 21, 2014, 10:34:02 PM
Presumably that's why the new updates are now enterprise-only and cost a lot of money.

Exactly! I was referring to the end user's time and energy in finding and installing the correct update files without paying Microsoft to do it, but you make a good point. It takes a lot of time and energy to keep Windows safe and secure, and at some point Microsoft needs to get paid for it.

One could argue that the initial license fee is them getting paid for delivering a safe and secure OS right out of the gate, and if they would have fulfilled it then there wouldn't be a problem...

Quote from: JREwing78 on May 21, 2014, 11:34:12 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 21, 2014, 10:34:02 PM
Presumably that's why the new updates are now enterprise-only and cost a lot of money.

Exactly! I was referring to the end user's time and energy in finding and installing the correct update files without paying Microsoft to do it, but you make a good point. It takes a lot of time and energy to keep Windows safe and secure, and at some point Microsoft needs to get paid for it.

Considering how many security holes there are in the Windows OS, and how many companies do a better job of fixing these holes without charging for updates, I seriously think that this is just a cash grab.

Quote from: Thing 342 on May 22, 2014, 06:30:16 AM

Quote from: JREwing78 on May 21, 2014, 11:34:12 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 21, 2014, 10:34:02 PM
Presumably that's why the new updates are now enterprise-only and cost a lot of money.

Exactly! I was referring to the end user's time and energy in finding and installing the correct update files without paying Microsoft to do it, but you make a good point. It takes a lot of time and energy to keep Windows safe and secure, and at some point Microsoft needs to get paid for it.

Considering how many security holes there are in the Windows OS, and how many companies do a better job of fixing these holes without charging for updates, I seriously think that this is just a cash grab.

Microsoft isn't a non-profit.

Quote from: realjd on May 22, 2014, 10:21:00 AM

Quote from: Thing 342 on May 22, 2014, 06:30:16 AM

Quote from: JREwing78 on May 21, 2014, 11:34:12 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 21, 2014, 10:34:02 PM
Presumably that's why the new updates are now enterprise-only and cost a lot of money.

Exactly! I was referring to the end user's time and energy in finding and installing the correct update files without paying Microsoft to do it, but you make a good point. It takes a lot of time and energy to keep Windows safe and secure, and at some point Microsoft needs to get paid for it.

Considering how many security holes there are in the Windows OS, and how many companies do a better job of fixing these holes without charging for updates, I seriously think that this is just a cash grab.

Microsoft isn't a non-profit.

Apple charged $30, then nothing for updates to their comparable OS. Much less than Microsoft's $99+ for upgrades.

Quote from: Thing 342 on May 22, 2014, 10:46:25 AM

Quote from: realjd on May 22, 2014, 10:21:00 AM

Quote from: Thing 342 on May 22, 2014, 06:30:16 AM

Quote from: JREwing78 on May 21, 2014, 11:34:12 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 21, 2014, 10:34:02 PM
Presumably that's why the new updates are now enterprise-only and cost a lot of money.

Exactly! I was referring to the end user's time and energy in finding and installing the correct update files without paying Microsoft to do it, but you make a good point. It takes a lot of time and energy to keep Windows safe and secure, and at some point Microsoft needs to get paid for it.

Considering how many security holes there are in the Windows OS, and how many companies do a better job of fixing these holes without charging for updates, I seriously think that this is just a cash grab.

Microsoft isn't a non-profit.

Apple charged $30, then nothing for updates to their comparable OS. Much less than Microsoft's $99+ for upgrades.

Apple also restricts new versions of the operating system from running on older hardware forcing you to keep buying computers every few years if you want to keep current. And they tend to stop security updates for old OS X versions 3 or 4 years after they are released. Microsoft gave XP a good 13 year run before they stopped updates.

Apple's $30 updates also came out yearly, as opposed to Microsoft's updates which come out every 4 years or so.

What's the business case for Microsoft continuing to support XP for free?

Quote from: realjd on May 22, 2014, 10:21:00 AM
Microsoft isn't a non-profit.

Neither is GM, but it didn't stop them from recalling a bunch of cars recently.

Quote from: realjd on May 22, 2014, 12:28:45 PM
What's the business case for Microsoft continuing to support XP for free?

Everything isn't about money.

This is going to blow up in Microsoft's face (I'm surprised it hasn't already.)  It's going end up costing them billions in bad publicity and negative media attention.  I am just going to sit back and laugh when it happens.

Quote from: bugo on May 23, 2014, 12:29:17 AM
This is going to blow up in Microsoft's face (I'm surprised it hasn't already.)  It's going end up costing them billions in bad publicity and negative media attention.  I am just going to sit back and laugh when it happens.

I doubt it. Microsoft announced the end of support for several years. To quote something from early last month:

Quote from: ZLoth on April 06, 2014, 12:58:59 PM
:paranoid: Nobody said that Windows XP will quit working after April 8th. It will continue to boot up. However, for us regular people, it will no longer get regular updates. And, be aware that Microsoft announced end of support for XP back in 2007 and that support was originally going to end in 2010 before it got pushed back to 2014. In addition, end of sale for Windows XP was 2008/2009. That was a lot of warning.

And, yes, they found a new exploit in Internet Exploder 8 (all platforms) that will not be fixed in XP. And, the company that I work for has announced that we will no longer support Windows XP beginning January, 2015.

Of course, it would not surprise me in a few years if companies insist on users accessing software via a web browser rendering a OS mostly a moot point.

Quote from: bugo on May 23, 2014, 12:29:17 AM

Quote from: realjd on May 22, 2014, 12:28:45 PM
What's the business case for Microsoft continuing to support XP for free?

Everything isn't about money.

This is going to blow up in Microsoft's face (I'm surprised it hasn't already.)  It's going end up costing them billions in bad publicity and negative media attention.  I am just going to sit back and laugh when it happens.

They've been doing this "end of support" thing for decades. I don't see why their image would change with Windows XP. Plus, they extended the support for Windows XP way beyond the initially-planned date. They've been announcing and otherwise talking about it for, oh, five years now? Even Windows 3.1x was supported long enough for them to make a patch that added support for the Euro symbol, as well as Y2K fixes. But support ended in 2001, as planned.

We're not talking about Apple, who discontinues major OS versions after about five years and hardcodes a soft-check of the hardware in them because they don't want their fancy UI animations to run choppily on slightly old hardware. (Windows, on the other hand, degrades much more gracefully on old hardware and disables eye candy and other things that can't run; it'll only refuse to boot up if the system is missing a basic feature it really needs; Support for non-ACPI systems was dropped in Windows Vista, ten years after it was made a standard feature in every computer).

Patches in software are comparable to patches in signs or pavement: After a certain number of them, it turns to shit. Look at how many patches you have to apply on a fresh install of Windows XP (keep in mind that a Service Pack amounts to several dozens of patches), and how many things you have to install to cope for missing features. It's almost a miracle that the whole thing is holding together (and I've seen it just not hold at all).

It's not just a hassle for Microsoft. It's also a hassle for us developers, especially driver developers, who have to maintain many different versions of their code for different OS versions, including and especially the ancient Windows XP, which probably doesn't provide basic support for Blu-Ray drives or WiFi printers (which means they're on their own for implementing it).

I have to provide separate code paths to account for missing OS features, and dropping XP support is going to lighten that load a lot.

Quote from: JREwing78 on May 20, 2014, 08:36:04 PM
That's an awful lot of time and energy to keep slapping a creaky old operating system back together.

One registry key enables them in Windows Update.

Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on May 23, 2014, 03:53:01 PM
It's not just a hassle for Microsoft. It's also a hassle for us developers, especially driver developers, who have to maintain many different versions of their code for different OS versions, including and especially the ancient Windows XP, which probably doesn't provide basic support for Blu-Ray drives or WiFi printers (which means they're on their own for implementing it).

If driver developers decided to support their hardware when Vista came out, people wouldn't have kept XP around to keep their 2 year old scanner working. Any Wi-Fi printer that requires "special" treatment is likely garbage anyway. They should all print over the network using port 9100 (HP JetDirect/Appsocket), just like they do when connected via Ethernet. Hardly anyone has a BluRay drive in their PC to begin with. Besides, it should be supported by XP as a generic ATAPI device.

The difference between those discontinued OSs and XP is that XP still has a high market share.  95 and ME didn't when they quit supporting them.

Quote from: bugo on May 23, 2014, 12:26:43 AM

Quote from: realjd on May 22, 2014, 10:21:00 AM
Microsoft isn't a non-profit.

Neither is GM, but it didn't stop them from recalling a bunch of cars recently.

There's no equivalent of the National Highway Safety Board for desktop software. Nobody's going get hurt, injured, or killed by using old software, and there's even disclaimers in Windows announcing that the basic versions of the OS shouldn't be used for any mission-critical events, such as life-saving equipment, air traffic control, power plants, or defense systems.

"Oh God, there's an ICBM headed this way! Shoot it down!"

"I can't, sir! Windows is currently installing an update!"

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2014, 02:33:41 PM
"Oh God, there's an ICBM headed this way! Shoot it down!"

"I can't, sir! Windows is currently installing an update!"

My employer issued me a new computer with Windows 7 on it.  In many ways a big improvement.

But I kept the old computer with XP on it, and I am now glad I did, as an app I only use somewhat infrequently does not run on Win 7, but does work under XP.  The new version of the app is about $1,000.

So for now I am using the XP computer again - to run that old software.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 25, 2014, 07:20:07 PM
an app I only use somewhat infrequently does not run on Win 7, but does work under XP.

Not even on compatibility mode?

Quote from: sammi on May 25, 2014, 07:23:03 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 25, 2014, 07:20:07 PM
an app I only use somewhat infrequently does not run on Win 7, but does work under XP.

Not even on compatibility mode?

Probably a 16 bit app

Can you use XP mode?

Quote from: vdeane on May 25, 2014, 10:55:42 PM
Can you use XP mode?

Was not aware that there is an XP mode in Windows 7. 

I don't think 7 Home Premium has XP mode--I think you need to upgrade to Professional or Ultimate.  This issue came up when I was unable to get Microsoft Office 2000 Professional to install on 7 Home Premium using the compatibility mode that was available to me.

XP mode is essentially a free virtualized copy of XP that comes with professional and ultimate.  It's really a virtual machine, but with some special configurations to make it seamless.

If you still have your XP CD, install microsoft virtual PC, and run xp in it, you won't get the seamless running, but it will be avail

Personally, versus running an old OS in a virtual machine, I'd rather run it on a real machine if that option is available.

Quote from: vtk on May 26, 2014, 02:43:33 PM
Personally, versus running an old OS in a virtual machine, I'd rather run it on a real machine if that option is available.

Intel and AMD since 2007 have been selling processors optimized for virtulization. It allows the virtualized OS to run directly on the CPU instead of through another OS, or emulation

Registry key enables updates for Windows XP... (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/26/german_tinkerer_gets_around_xpocalypse/)

Quote from: vtk on May 26, 2014, 02:43:33 PM
Personally, versus running an old OS in a virtual machine, I'd rather run it on a real machine if that option is available.

This is ideal, but it the VM route can be more convenient in some ways (multitasking is easier, don't have to have a table set up with monitor/keyboard/mouse for the old computer, bootup is probably shorter since you don't have to wait for the BIOS or POST screen, etc...)

To me, I do beleive that XP is a bit of a sluggish hulk of an OS. The graphics were okay, but to do one task while going to open a new one almost simultaneously is nearly impossible for the CPU to handle. I've run into occurances of BSOD's on my work laptop.

I still have my Compaq desktop, but what it's doing is that when I have my Seagate 500 GB hard drive plugged in, on one occasion, when I take the tower off sleep mode, it will reboot without warning, meaning that since the device is USB 3.0 and the port is 2, it HATES it. Word to XP people: NEVER RUN A NEW USB DEVICE ON AN OLD XP COMPUTER!

So, in a nutshell, while it was good for a while, I believe XP's well beyond its shelf life, and soon Vista and 7 will be that way. Wait a few years and the same result will happen just like XP.