1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Windows XP's Days are Really Numbered Now

Discussion in 'Tech Talk - Gadgets, Gizmos and Technology' started by Mark Holtz, Feb 8, 2009.

  1. Feb 8, 2009 #1 of 44
    Mark Holtz

    Mark Holtz Day Sleeper DBSTalk Club

    10,440
    77
    Mar 23, 2002
    Sacramento, CA
    From PC World:

    Windows XP's Days are Really Numbered Now
    FULL ARTICLE HERE

    Microsoft still doesn't get it.
     
  2. Feb 8, 2009 #2 of 44
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    Planned obsolecence....they get it...and plan to get it (your money). :D
     
  3. Feb 8, 2009 #3 of 44
    Grentz

    Grentz New Member

    5,916
    1
    Jan 10, 2007
    Its their typical process, everyone has known it is coming, and the fact remains they have extended XP's life much longer than any of the other OSes they have put out. Just because they took a bit longer with the successor everyone got too comfortable with XP, in the past it was never such a big problem when people moved to the latest OS (95 --> 98 --> 98se --> 2000 --> XP).

    This kinda is like the argument how Vista came out so fast and why are they trying to replace XP...XP is way old compared to how they used to release OSes! It is also showing its age spots in many places even though most IT departments have found work arounds and addons that help with it and dont even think about it.

    The biggest problem moving from XP this whole time IMO has not been Microsoft, but third party software. They are all sitting their lazily trying to get people to stick with XP. I have some clients with multi-thousand dollar suites of software that the devs are just saying stick with XP as we dont want to support Vista...this is why MS dropping support for XP is required, to jump start the devs to actually get their stuff up to the times.

    O well, it was bound to happen sometime, its not like XP is going to be magically wiped off everyones drives on D-Day.
     
  4. Feb 8, 2009 #4 of 44
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,839
    186
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Yawn!

    'Reports of the impending death of XP are greatly exaggerated.'

    :rolleyes:
     
  5. Feb 8, 2009 #5 of 44
    BattleZone

    BattleZone Hall Of Fame

    8,969
    1
    Nov 13, 2007
    I continue to be amazed at how tightly so many people are holding on to such an old OS.

    I would feel sorry for these folks if they were Mac users; Macs have radically changed systems twice, killing all backward-compatibility. For the most part, Microsoft has done an amazing job at keeping most things backward-compatible.

    But at some point, you have to move forward. XP already barely supports modern hardware, given that virtually every XP install is 32-bit.

    Look forward (Win7), not back (XP)!
     
  6. Feb 8, 2009 #6 of 44
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    WIN XP works, Vista has issues, WIN7 is beta....

    Can't come up with a single reason to switch....and I have 2 fully certified copies of Vista Ultimate sitting here in their original sleeves to upgrade whenever I want.

    I can come up with a list of reasons why NOT to leave XP, and so can my company's IT department.

    Change for the sake of change is foolish.
     
  7. Feb 8, 2009 #7 of 44
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    376
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I used to be one of those first-in-line for upgrade folks... but I learned over the years to hedge a bit.

    Windows 95 was a great upgrade over Windows 3.1, and it worked. Windows 98 didn't add a whole lot, but it worked.

    Windows ME, however, was crash prone and I regretted ever trying it... so I stayed on '98 until switching over to Windows 2000. Would have switched to Windows NT 4.0 but it didn't do as well on the gaming front as I wanted.

    Windows 2000 was stable and solid for a long time... so much so that I didn't switch to XP until a year ago or less. In fact, it was just in the last couple of years that companies started supporting only XP and dropping versions that ran in 2000... so that is telling.

    As for Vista, some early stability issues and need for major hardware overhaul will keep me away from that. I'd have to buy a new PC (decided to go with an iMac instead) to run Vista.

    Also, I continue to be disappointed on the 64-bit front. Not much application support yet (even major players like Adobe barely support 64-bit anything) despite 64-bit architecture being around for many years now.

    So, ultimately, I learned "if it ain't broke, don't upgrade it" from experience... and it has served me well.

    I wouldn't mind at all upgrading to newest/latest/greatest from Microsoft if it was in fact always "greatest"... but all too often it is not, at least until the first Service Pack gets issued.
     
  8. Feb 8, 2009 #8 of 44
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    There's that unwritten law that many I know follow....

    Never install an OS until Service Pack 2 is out at least 90 days...:D
     
  9. Feb 8, 2009 #9 of 44
    Grentz

    Grentz New Member

    5,916
    1
    Jan 10, 2007
    Great, this thread will turn into Vista bashing again :rolleyes:

    EDIT: Removed my comments, I dont feel like getting into it.

    That law keeps changing. It used to be SP1, then SP2, then SP3, then SP4, then SP1 again, now SP2 :rolleyes:

    Seems no matter what the past is always better then the future, but when a new future comes out the past future looks great :p
     
  10. Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,041
    148
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    I'm an XP holdout. That said, I'm running 7 beta on an old laptop, and it's terrific. It's running like a champ in 1 gig of memory, and impresses me as feeling a bit snappier than XP SP3, though comparison tests I've seen don't bear that out.

    I can't find a driver for my HP PSC2510 printer, however (the Vista driver for it doesn't seem to work on 7). And since all the programs I use run just as fast in XP, I'm not sure what I"m going to do when the 7 beta expires. I've got one desktop and 2 laptops at home I'd need to upgrade, and I'm not sure what bang for the buck I'll get for the $$$ it will cost. I'm assuming around $150 per computer.

    The two things built into 7 that I like a lot (SEARCH and DEFENDER) can each be separately installed in XP SP3. The rest of it is mainly GUI enhancements, which I can live without or duplicate with 3d party shareware.

    /steve
     
  11. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    376
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I hope not. I'm not a Vista basher myself... it just doesn't meet my needs. It will not run on my older computer, and when the time came to upgrade to newer/faster hardware I found an iMac that suited my needs better since I wanted to explore programming on the iPhone in addition to my usual stuff.
     
  12. Grentz

    Grentz New Member

    5,916
    1
    Jan 10, 2007
    I was not directing my comment directly at you, this is just how those type of threads tend to start. I hope it does not turn into one of those either ;)
     
  13. Jhon69

    Jhon69 Hall Of Fame

    4,714
    5
    Mar 27, 2006
    Central San...
    We need to complain to Congress so they can start issuing"Computer Coupons"!.;):D
     
  14. Draconis

    Draconis New Member

    4,433
    4
    Mar 16, 2007
    Las Vegas, NV
    I'm pretty much in the same boat. I have a fully licensed copy of Vista Ultimate but see to reason to install it. The WinXP MCE I have been running for years still works quite well.

    If it works, don't fix it.
     
  15. Mark Holtz

    Mark Holtz Day Sleeper DBSTalk Club

    10,440
    77
    Mar 23, 2002
    Sacramento, CA
    The $200 upgrade isn't really a $200 upgrade. You also have to upgrade the software because the previous version of the software may not work in the new operating system. So, you end up spending several hundred dollars on the upgrade.

    This was in 1995, and Windows 95 was launched. And that was a succesful launch of a new operating system over MS-DOS 3.1 and Windows 3.1. So successful was that launch that, on December 31st, 1999 at 11:59 PM, we discontinued all support for Windows 3.1 at the ISP I worked for.

    So, what's the difference? There are more installed machines of XP than they were of Win 3.1. XP has been integrated into office environments, while Windows 3.1, 95, 98, and Me were primarily home OS. Windows NT4, 2000, and XP were deisgned for networked office environments.

    And, there have been occasions where the install of a patch, hot-fix, or a service pack broke an application. XP SP2 was a very stable fix, but it, too, broke stuff.

    Vista broke a lot of stuff when it came out, and it's UAC is much reviled. When I purchase equipment, my hope is that it lasts at least 5 years. We had people who had equipment which was less than 3 years old that did NOT work with Vista, and were told to purchase new equipment for the support. It gets harder when you are interfacing with equipment that costs several thousands of dollars. (Yes, the same type of equipment that only talks with IE6)

    Lets also not forget.... locked down environments. Some companies are so paranoid that they lock up the enviroments so that you cannot install any software or make any changes to your desktop. Any software updates or bug patches must be blessed by IT. Getting these companies to move to a newer version is a painful experience.

    And, last time I checked, we are in a sour economy. Businesses are cutting expenses everywhere, and IT is an expense that needs to be cut. The MBA will ask how many otherwise perfectly good machines will have to be junked to run Vista because they cannot be upgraded. They will ask how much more a machine will cost that will run Vista effective (including 2-4 GB of RAM) verses lower hardware requirements of sticking with XP even with a downgrade license. And, they will ask how much it costs to replace existing infrastructure to support the new OS.

    And that is in a CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT. Do you know how many people I have encountered where the words of their mouths is not, "Vista is so much better than XP", but rather, "I wish I had XP installed instead of this POS"? A friend of mine even asked where he could get a computer (preferably a laptop) which had XP, not Vista, installed.

    I have previously posted an article from Steve Ballmer where he states, "You are stupid for sticking with XP." I can only interpret his statements, combined with this action, as a way to get more money into Microsoft's coffers with very little improvement. Am I very suspicious of Microsoft's actions? Yes. I am very surprised when both Intel and AMD issue processors that are 64-bit compatible, and would benefit from a 64-bit operating system, however, Microsoft still insists on releasing both a 32-bit and 64-bit version of the OS. You can bet that people will have a 32-bit operating system, with the inherent limitations, and barely support 64-bit.
     
  16. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    45
    Mar 18, 2008
    Once video games start being made for 64 bit you'll start to see a lot more 64 bit support. Gaming industry drives the technology and therefor software companies will react sooner. Corporate programs though will always be the last to convert due to the cost.
     
  17. B Newt

    B Newt Icon

    783
    9
    Aug 12, 2007
    I miss OS/2! It worked great. I use XP now and its been pretty reliable. I will never upgrade to vista.
     
  18. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    182
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Given the pain and suffering involved in most of Microsoft's "next great OS" upgrades, it is no wonder people are not particularly excited about upgrading.

    It looks at this point like Windows 7 may be an exception to the "rule" that Microsoft makes successive versions worse instead of better. Then again, by the time they hang on the rest of the feeble "bundled" tools and the gigabytes of service packs and Genuine Advantage claptrap, Windows 7 may just be another Mac OS wannabe without the useful bundled software.

    Linux is looking pretty hot at this point. I'm impressed with the variety of options and of course, the price is right.
     
  19. Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,041
    148
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    Maybe for some us more technical folks. For the average user, it can still be a bewildering O/S to maintain, IMHO.

    One of the distribution developers need to pull an "Apple" and completely hide the Linux plumbing from the end-user. The company that does that and succeeds could make a fortune. I thought it would be Red Hat, but it hasn't happened yet. If I ran Microsoft, I'd have a team of engineers working on such a thing as a "plan B". Who knows, maybe they are? :lol:

    /steve
     
  20. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    182
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    You need to investigate what is available today. The Ubuntu distribution is pretty hands-off.

    One of the high points of Linux is the ability, like the Amiga of yore, to drop down to a command line when a GUI would only get in the way.
     

Share This Page