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

[realjd]

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.

[vtk]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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, 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.

[vdeane]

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.

[Scott5114]

...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.

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.

[vtk]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[Bandon23]

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).

[formulanone]

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.

[on_wisconsin]

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.

[vtk]

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...

[on_wisconsin]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[ZLoth]

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.

[Stratuscaster]

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.

[NJRoadfan]

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.

[Thing 342]

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

Bad 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.

[vdeane]

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.

[SidS1045]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[SidS1045]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

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.

[algorerhythms]

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.

[Dr Frankenstein]

Eventually 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).

[Zeffy]

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.