backtop


Print 142 comment(s) - last by TakinYourPoint.. on Sep 26 at 2:15 AM


Get your affairs in order, Windows XP is not long for this world.

Microsoft COO Kevin Turner
"We're basically giving it a time of death stamp." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner

Windows 7 has been a big hit for Microsoft, although it wasn't too hard to improve upon the bad reputation that its Windows Vista predecessor received. On top of that, Microsoft has earned a lot of kudos for the preview builds of it next operating system, Windows 8.

So why are we still talking about Windows XP? Despite being released a decade ago, a lot of companies are still running the operating system. Many businesses were so soured on Windows Vista that they decided to stick with XP. Even Windows 7 wasn't enough to get many businesses to upgrade (be it the issue of cost, or the issue compatibility with legacy programs). 

It also didn't help that Microsoft decided to break its own rule of ending support for its operating systems after ten years for Windows XP -- the company extended support for the operating system until 2014. By that time, Garner expects that 75 percent of corporate PCs will be 64-bit capable

Now, Microsoft is telling businesses that the party is over and it's time to start working on a replacement plan. "So for all those companies that have the old products that haven't quite started the refresh, guess what? This has been a great product, XP has been a wonderful product; great TCO has been given," said Microsoft COO Kevin Turner. "It's now time for it to go." 

Windows XP won't be getting another stay of execution. "We're basically giving it a time of death stamp," Turner added.

Perhaps businesses still running XP should see about downloading a copy of the Windows 8 Developer Preview and prepare for the future. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The biggest problem?
By quiksilvr on 9/18/2011 12:38:55 AM , Rating: 5
IE6. Yes, believe it or not, there is still software out there woefully dependent on Windows Server 2003 and this version of the browser. Developers are either too lazy or too cheap to upgrade it because on their end, there is no real reason to. The servers they have are locked down to their own infrastructure and people are used to it, so why upgrade?

Windows 7 is quite different from XP and the learning curve is too much for businesses to put up with. Might as well stick with XP. Its cheap, it works and most of the world is still using it.




RE: The biggest problem?
By Samus on 9/18/2011 3:06:53 AM , Rating: 1
The only excuse not to upgrade is purely monetary. Windows 7 runs everything Windows XP runs if skillfully migrated too. In the rare event, you may be forced to use XP mode, but I've pulled off some doozy incompatibilities (most recent being Peachtree Accounting 2000 v5, a 16-bit program, therefore requiring Windows 7 32-bit if you want to run it natively.)

And that is still the real problem with 64-bit operating systems. They can execute 32-bit code, but not 16-bit code. 32-bit operating systems can.

But running Windows 7 32-bit is still magnitudes better than running XP when it comes to maintenance costs. Spyware infections alone attack XP at least twice as often among my companies.


RE: The biggest problem?
By jabber on 9/18/2011 8:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
I must admit if its for medium business or larger I still deploy Windows 7 32bit. Just to be on the safe side. I always go through the customers software inventory but I'd rather swap in a couple of 64bit machines for the number crunchers after deployment than find the rank and file cant run some old time management app in 64bit.

Other than big database use, the 3GB limit works fine.

If its a small startup business or just a small group of standard apps users then its 64bit all the way.


RE: The biggest problem?
By DJ Brandon on 9/18/2011 11:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
Dated or not XP is GREAT OS! If you take care of it properly it runs FASTER and more efficient than any other operating system out. Sadly, I have only one laptop left on XP, 1 on vista, and a few on 7 =(. Oh XP I miss you.


RE: The biggest problem?
By inighthawki on 9/19/2011 9:30:13 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting, because last I checked 7 was better optimized for things like multithreading than XP was. Sure 7 uses more memory, but for sure 7 runs smoother and faster on my machine than XP does.


RE: The biggest problem?
By Samus on 9/19/2011 5:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
Windows XP may appear faster than Windows 7, but thats really neither here or there. The performance is similar enough to justify the magnitudes of added technology (security, power-savings, capability.)


RE: The biggest problem?
By Darksurf on 9/19/2011 11:02:07 AM , Rating: 2
I beg to differ. I work on a college campus and there is a lot of important software that will not run on Win7 even in XP mode. Courseworks and Booklog, for example, do not work on Windows7. These are software the college bookstore uses to keep track of books sold and bought and books available.

The poorly written programs depends heavily on XP registry keys that are not included in Win7 and there is no telling when they plan to add support for Win7 as this was just recently I spoke with Technical support over the issue.

yes, most home and minor office software works fine on win7, but not all business geared specialized software works.


RE: The biggest problem?
By Rage187 on 9/19/2011 12:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
If and When you are forced to upgrade, pick a SaaS solution. Then you won't have to worry about it.


RE: The biggest problem?
By Taft12 on 9/19/2011 2:23:27 PM , Rating: 3
SaaS is not compliant with many regulations companies that use that software are required to follow.

It's also a bad idea for any mission-critical software to require always-on internet access.

XP and IE6 dependency sucks but it's still reality for almost every large business today.


RE: The biggest problem?
By FITCamaro on 9/18/2011 12:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm on a program for the VA though that is still using XP and IE7. So we have to develop for it. The problem is that everyone doing development is on Windows 7 or Mac. So we don't have a browser that is 100% compatible with IE7. IE8 developers tools has an IE7 rendering mode that is 95% accurate but not 100%. So our only recourse is to run a virtual machine with XP. An annoying thing to do.


RE: The biggest problem?
By stevekgoodwin on 9/18/2011 11:16:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Developers are either too lazy or too cheap to upgrade it because on their end, there is no real reason to.


Steady on! Developers get told what to do. :-) It's management that are lazy (AKA risk adverse). There are no developers on earth who like to maintain an IE6-compatible codebase.


RE: The biggest problem?
By tastyratz on 9/19/2011 10:52:03 AM , Rating: 3
Lazy? hardly... we are talking about a cost. Everything you do in business has a cost. It is hard from the IT side to see the business side of things, but as a cost justification making things work for new systems that provide no ROI that's a losing investment.

Granted the problem is with ie6 more than anything, but mostly because ie6 was so drastically skewed from web standards that when MS started making it draw the web more properly the code perversion required to look good in ie6 stopped looking good.

I love windows 7, but from a business perspective in an office environment at the end of the day you still have to buy new equipment to support the new os and program for the new i.e. version so the same old employee can perform the same old task and send the same old e-mail. This is the cost of doing business but a nightmare for justification.


RE: The biggest problem?
By Dr of crap on 9/19/2011 12:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, said very well.
The cost to upgrade to Win 7 is to high to justify the outcome.
I can say the same about my home PC.
The cost to me to get a new PC that is running Win 7 is to high to justify replacing what already works just fine! I have no programs that require me to upgrade.


RE: The biggest problem?
By JohnWPB on 9/19/2011 3:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
An excellent reply! Wish I had the authorization to give you a +, but the main thing is that you looked at it from a business view point.

If you are going to spend the money on new software, and probably on new hardware, and spend the money to teach your employees on how to run that new software, then you had better be able to show a profit from making that move.


RE: The biggest problem?
By BernardP on 9/19/2011 9:45:53 AM , Rating: 2
Agree 100%. At my work, we are still using XP Pro SP3, and it's only last month that we finally went from IE6 to IE8. For some reason, many web sites still don't work properly with IE 8, while they do so with an XP SP3 Home /IE8 config at my home. Something about Home vs Pro maybe?

It is my impression that the IT group in my organisation is spending a lot of resources to block access to non-work-related web sites. Heck, if I click on a Dell ad, I get redirected to a FORBIDDEN page...


RE: The biggest problem?
By Rinadien on 9/19/2011 1:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
You don't have to spend a lot of resources to block certain websites.

Firewalls today can take care of that with minutes of configuration...


RE: The biggest problem?
By Taft12 on 9/19/2011 2:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
You DO have to spend a lot of resources to try and block *all* the bad websites.

I'm sure their IT is blocking some or all flash, cookies, Activex, etc which explains why some stuff that works at home doesn't work at the office.


RE: The biggest problem?
By stimudent on 9/19/2011 12:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
In the Human Resource Dept. at work, there are still two computers used for misc. stuff that still use Windows 2000! It just goes to show that we will be seeing WinXP machines well into the next decade.


RE: The biggest problem?
By Taft12 on 9/19/2011 2:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
Win 98 and even OS/2 are floating around in a few places. Old OSes just don't go away.


RE: The biggest problem?
By NellyFromMA on 9/19/2011 3:16:16 PM , Rating: 2
Windows XP is the subject at hand,. not Server 2003. It's not likely they will abandon Server 2003... unless I missed this in the article?


Business Plan
By dark matter on 9/18/2011 7:21:47 AM , Rating: 2
Offering Windows XP support

Niche Market, but nice little earner for those who just can't upgrade.




RE: Business Plan
By Taft12 on 9/18/2011 12:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
Would you believe some people are still eeking out a living supporting OS/2?!


RE: Business Plan
By sviola on 9/19/2011 3:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
So, if a client finds a bug, will you write Windows XP code to fix it?


XP-Only Software
By rbuszka on 9/18/2011 11:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
In 2010 I bought a little Dell OptiPlex SFF on eBay for $150 specifically to run Windows XP software, to supplement my main machine which runs Win7. I use IronCAD 10 as a 3D modeling suite, and Vista was not supported at the time of its release, but I'm not prepared to upgrade, since IC 10 already does everything I need. I know Microsoft is still releasing updates, and that will cease, but Windows XP is already as rock-stable as I need it to be. Also, some of the other software I use (for design of loudspeaker systems) runs better on XP. There is still very much a place in the world for PCs running Windows XP.




RE: XP-Only Software
By BZDTemp on 9/19/2011 4:22:02 AM , Rating: 2
Valid points. I have friend that also keeps an XP machine in order to run some specific software. In this case it's SolidWorks because he has decided to save the cost of upgrading.

However I'm moving him to a virtual machine so he can do everything on just one machine and get the benefit of the new CPU's with the old software. It may something similar could work for you - look into VirtualBox.


Not trying to offend anyone, but LINUX FTW?
By Darksurf on 9/19/2011 11:13:48 AM , Rating: 2
Linux doesn't make me pay to update, upgrade, etc. Yes it requires a little more expertise, but it all depends on what your are doing. There are simpler ways of using linux now that even n00bs can handle.

Microsoft is trying to force the world to move forward, somewhat understandable. We all need to move forward in the world of technology, but it needs to be affordable and backward compatible with ALL software which isn't always the case.

Linux isn't immune to this issue either. There are times it just outgrows software and that software no longer works unless updated, but due to it being usually opensource, things can be fixed, updated, and maintained easier. Linux is getting better at meshing with windows networks quite well. When Samba4 is release things will be much better.
Its not really that Microsoft is a monopoly, but that it is most widely known and used. Linux is a viable option if someone wanted to give it a try. Just ask google ;)

just my 2cents worth.




By lyeoh on 9/22/2011 11:08:52 AM , Rating: 1
So what should office workers use for "office" work? OpenOffice/LibreOffice is a piece of shit. It has many bugs that indicate poor code/design quality. Example: http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=155...

It's not just the word processor - "Impress" is also a bug-ridden piece of crap. It keeps screwing up bullets, formatting and font sizes.

Microsoft Office has bugs but it's far better in quality than OpenOffice. Microsoft Outlook on the other hand... Ugh.

"Linux" is fine for server/embedded use (superior in many cases) but poor for typical home and office use.


Breaking!
By spread on 9/18/2011 12:36:06 AM , Rating: 2
Old software has an expiry date! News at 11.




Well...
By thisisaname on 9/18/11, Rating: 0
RE: Well...
By Johnmcl7 on 9/19/2011 1:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
There's a massive difference between using Linux on a single home use PC and widespread deployment across a large company. There's plenty of companies that are aware of Linux including my own, we have several small deployments of it for specialised use but there's no way it could ever be rolled out across the office as there isn't the commercial software support and it's hard enough with users on an operating system they've used for years both at work and at home never mind with the new OS entirely. The netbooks demonstrated that Linux couldn't work for widespread use as they were perfect for Linux as it was cheap and fast but a couple of years on and now most netbooks are sold with Windows after Linux based models did not sell well.

None of this is any specific criticism of Linux, it's just I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the only reasons companies wouldn't switch to Linux is due to them not being aware of the alternatives which simply isn't even remotely true.

John


Stuck with legacy programs for work
By chhimp on 9/20/2011 3:01:37 AM , Rating: 2
I'm stuck with a legacy program for work. I spent $500 on the Microsoft POS software that is only compatible with windows xp. In order for me to upgrade i have to spend a grand on the software and pay Microsoft an expensive annual fee. I;ll rather stick with windows xp then upgrade.




By johnsmith9875 on 9/20/2011 9:26:40 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft treated XP-64 like that of an unwanted bastard child, which was a darn shame. Now MS wants me to use big green tiles to swish around to organize my life with.




XP
By johnsmith9875 on 9/22/2011 3:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
It took 10 years for Windows XP to be stable, it will be 2020 before Windows 7 gets enough service packs to be stable, and they're already dumping it for that tiled pseudo-ipad mess of an operating system.




By Taurus229 on 9/20/2011 1:42:47 AM , Rating: 1
Most business or corporate, use Desktops. The Microsoft CEO recommended to try the Dev copy of Win 8 to business. Win 8 is fine for tablets and mobile, but not at all good in Desktops. He would have done better to recommend Win 7 to corporate.




MSjunk
By Shadowmaster625 on 9/19/11, Rating: 0
Moving on...
By drycrust3 on 9/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: Moving on...
By stm1185 on 9/18/2011 3:12:41 AM , Rating: 4
Ubuntu lol good joke. If businesses are worried about people going from xp to 7; then going from xp to Linux is a nightmare. Especially when you tack on a different Office suite. The drones would collapse and there would be a work stoppage as they bitch and moan about having to adapt to a new OS and new applications.

Then you'd have the IT department going ape shit due to anger over having to deal with all these drones and their stupid problems learning to do things in Linux. It really is that bad to get most office types to change software. Shit I still have people bitching about the Ribbon UI in Office, they want to go looking through a dozen drop down menus instead of just clicking the icon that is right there.


RE: Moving on...
By GreenEnvt on 9/18/2011 8:28:48 AM , Rating: 2
Plus the whole issue of training the IT staff.
In our organization, I'm the only IT staff who has any basic linux knowledge, and I'd consider myself a novice in that regard.

I installed Ubuntu 11.04 yesterday to see how things are going, and it's still a long way off from being ready for most businesses latops/desktops.


RE: Moving on...
By jabber on 9/18/2011 8:28:54 AM , Rating: 3
I have seen IT Linux evangelists arrive at my company many a time. They all turn up telling us that we wont be using MS products this time next year.

The reality - They are not around next year but Office etc. still is.

The problem (not just linux itself) lays at the top. You say Open Office may be classed as fine for the drones but the exec wont use it. They will demand and get to keep Office/Windows (we dont earn our money wasting time learning new software blah blah).

Because of that the Exec's PAs will then demand Office to be able to work with the Exec. Then the Head of's will demand it because Open Office doesnt do this and that...then the Managers.....

Within a few months you have chaos.


RE: Moving on...
By retrospooty on 9/18/2011 10:11:05 AM , Rating: 4
Yup, the enterprise sector is as securely entrenched in MS as possible. It would take a series of miracles to change that.

People love to bash MS, but the fact is no-one has ever done what they do. To create an open platform that anyone can make hardware and software for and put it on 90% of the worlds PC's and somehow it all gets done is actually quite amazing. Throw on top of that the enterprise sector, networking all these
PC's together with customized software. It would cost the industry 100's of billions to move away from windows and even if it were free, there isnt a single other option that would be capable of replacing it. Dont say Linux or Mac, but they simply cannot do what MS did. Like it or not.


RE: Moving on...
By hadrons on 9/18/2011 11:01:21 AM , Rating: 2
wow...so many happy windows blokes out here.
but people have been shoved with windows.

I dont want to argue anyone that one should use linux or say its the best.linux works for me, and in my company.

But I can feel some you obviously haven't tried linux much!


RE: Moving on...
By retrospooty on 9/18/2011 11:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
I have and I like it , but its nowhere near ready for primetime in the enterprise market. It's great for users that are technically inclined and visit nerdy websites like Anandtech/Dailytech. When you enter the enterprise market you need to think about proprietary software designed by a small team that may or may not exist 5 years later and also make sure its all simple and seemless so that Ethel, Edna, and Billy Joe bob on the 7th floor can deal with it without panicking, or requiring weeks of training, or a permanent tech support commitment.


RE: Moving on...
By jabber on 9/18/2011 11:34:26 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah I try it a couple of times a year to see how its coming along. I have a Acer Netbook that I put Ubuntu Netbook edition on. It works ok.

The problem I have with Linux is that there are too many distros. To get into the bigtime for domestic/enterprise desktops it needs to cut out 98% of them and concentrate on far fewer versions.

Simplify all this Gnome/KDE/Unity stuff. Really confusing for a newbie to drop in on such a discussion and workout what the hell is going on.

Also the biggest issue I have is the linux user group. I find them very hostile to be honest. Especially to the poor devil that dares to try linux and get "a bit hands on with it" (namely someone like me). Trying to find coherent linux user instructions for more technical aspects is very difficult. They either just roll their eyes if you ask or the instructions you find assume you know what you are doing anyway and leave out the first 5 crucial steps. Believe me I have tried. Linux fans keep telling folks they should use it but when they do all they get is contempt if they ask questions and using linux raises questions.

With Windows instructions at least they usually start with "Click on the Start button..." Yes it does help to start that basic to begin with.


RE: Moving on...
By FITCamaro on 9/18/2011 12:48:29 PM , Rating: 1
Yup. The only way Linux will ever make any headway is if it comes under a single distro and all work together to make it like Windows in terms of usability. Fedora is the closest. The raw truth is that you just can't have a lightweight OS if you hope to replace Windows. Windows survives because it does everything. It works with everything.

OSX and Linux can't say that. OSX works with whatever Apple allows. Linux works with whatever someone has bothered to write a driver for and often times that driver sucks anyway. Furthermore, Linux doesn't have good DRM support. And no company today will support that kind of platform.


RE: Moving on...
By retrospooty on 9/18/2011 1:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
"they either just roll their eyes if you ask or the instructions you find assume you know what you are doing anyway and leave out the first 5 crucial steps. Believe me I have tried. Linux fans keep telling folks they should use it but when they do all they get is contempt if they ask questions and using linux raises questions. "

Exactly... That is another good point and reason why it cannot take over. MS has literally thousands of support reps on the phones answering support calls. There are higher level3 guys supporting Enterprise/IT staff and lower level guys supporting end users both enterprise and consumer. In the Linux model who would absorb that cost?


RE: Moving on...
By Ammohunt on 9/18/11, Rating: 0
RE: Moving on...
By jabber on 9/18/2011 2:48:12 PM , Rating: 3
There you go, exactly what I mean. Makes me feel real welcome.

Right I need to 'educate' myself before I'm allowed to ask questions. Thats not how most 'normal' people learn.

I'm sure you appreciated your school teachers taking the time and effort to educate you. They didnt tell you to go away and learn before bothering them.

I know thats maybe not how you meant to imply it but thats how it comes across over and over again.

Linux needs to attend a charm school.


RE: Moving on...
By JKolstad on 9/18/2011 4:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
You have a valid point there, Jabber, but I would say that you can find forums that are very friendly towards new Linux users. I suspect you've inadvertently waded into, e.g., a college class and asked a question that's answered in middle school, and while it is poor that anyone would tend to mock or scorn you for this (I fully admit this does happen in the Linux world), the best response is just to ignore them and find the right 'classroom.'

This *does* happen in the Windows world as well -- go find a forum where, e.g., Windows device driver writers hang out, and you'll definitely see posts where someone asks a more "generic" Windows question and no doubt comes to regret it. The different, I think, is that the largest set of users in the Windows world have a far less in-depth/technical/geeky understanding of the OS than what you find in the Linux world, so you're that much more likely to be in the wrong classroom in the Linux world than in the Windows world.


RE: Moving on...
By Ammohunt on 9/19/2011 10:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
Since when are forum users required to be your teacher?(using your analogy) Linux is not a new thing its been around for 20 years few things are as well documented as that OS all i suggested is that you utilize it. I agree most Linux zealots are either Leftist College kids with little or no social skills or old Unix battle axe converts (if it isn’t CLI its not an OS!) ignore them and explore Linux for yourself..you can teach yourself right? Or do you require someone lecturing in a hall?


RE: Moving on...
By retrospooty on 9/20/2011 8:29:49 AM , Rating: 2
I think your making his point. Linux is great for techies, and/or people that are bright enough and can find their own support via the web and figure things out. That takes care of about 1% of the population. Now for the other 99% what do we do? That is why Linux cannot and will not ever take over the enterprise market. Like Mac, the OS is "capable" of doing the job, but the support and software sides are just about zero.


RE: Moving on...
By Ammohunt on 9/20/2011 9:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
Um Linux already has...ever heard of Andriod? Thanks for making my point ;-)


RE: Moving on...
By Helbore on 9/19/2011 6:28:26 AM , Rating: 5
...and THAT is exactly why Linux will get nowhere outside of the geek community. Your average computer user has no interest in leaning a CLI. A secretary in an office will never want to sit in front of a CLI. A mamager will call the IT department the moment a CLI appears on screen so they can get the "proper" interface up for them.

No-one wants to do that, other than people who are interested in the underlying workings of an operating system. Most people want their OS to make it easy for them to do the things they actually want to do with the computer.

Those who want a computer to be a magic box that does magic things when they move their mouse far outnumber those who are interested in which OS has the best memory management capabilites.


RE: Moving on...
By Taft12 on 9/19/2011 2:33:46 PM , Rating: 2
What you are saying does not align with reality. You can get along just fine in Ubuntu and Fedora without touching the command line and this has been the case for years.

You need to touch the CLI in Desktop Linux about as much as Regedit in Windows.

I'll also add that Powershell has shown us that developers and power users *WANT* a CLI in Windows because it's very valuable.


RE: Moving on...
By Helbore on 9/23/2011 7:32:49 AM , Rating: 2
Did you read what the poster I was replying to said?


RE: Moving on...
By Ammohunt on 9/19/2011 10:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
Those people need to stick to their Macs and quit whining that the mean old linux zealots were picking on them. A computer is just a tool used to get work done or for entertainment some tools are more powerful than others.


RE: Moving on...
By tecknurd on 9/19/2011 6:40:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah I try it a couple of times a year to see how its coming along. I have a Acer Netbook that I put Ubuntu Netbook edition on. It works ok.

I do this too, but Ubuntu always depresses me when people rave about it and fails on all my computers that tested with it. Ubuntu 11.04 just stinks or to be technically it crashes a lot. It could be a Gnome issue or could be what Ubuntu developers did to the kernel. I recently tried Linux Mint Debian Edition with Xfce as the desktop manager. It is well polished.

quote:
The problem I have with Linux is that there are too many distros. To get into the bigtime for domestic/enterprise desktops it needs to cut out 98% of them and concentrate on far fewer versions.

Enterprises or corporations have been using Redhat or SUSE. These distributions are far different to each other and this makes installing programs or drivers gets complicated. Luckily, there is certificate programs that enterprises and corporations can hope their IT to achieve to get.

quote:
Also the biggest issue I have is the linux user group. I find them very hostile to be honest. Especially to the poor devil that dares to try linux and get "a bit hands on with it" (namely someone like me). Trying to find coherent linux user instructions for more technical aspects is very difficult. They either just roll their eyes if you ask or the instructions you find assume you know what you are doing anyway and leave out the first 5 crucial steps. Believe me I have tried. Linux fans keep telling folks they should use it but when they do all they get is contempt if they ask questions and using linux raises questions.

There are people that can communicate in person and there is people that need some kind of buffer to communicate.

quote:
With Windows instructions at least they usually start with "Click on the Start button..." Yes it does help to start that basic to begin with.

Linux has similar basic steps is load up a virtual terminal or hit CTRL+ALT+F1 and typing the following commands. Steps for GUI in Linux is complicated because there are many kinds of window managers and desktop managers that makes it harder to write instructions. It is better to tell people to load a particular program preferably command line programs in Linux. Sure Linux experts can provide instructions for GUI, but they have to know Quagmire speak.


RE: Moving on...
By sprockkets on 9/18/2011 12:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the scariest thought is that some are going to ipad/Mac.

I feel sorry for those people, the IT section, when they find out how unprofessional Apple is.


RE: Moving on...
By retrospooty on 9/18/2011 1:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
Not really... It's easy. I have dealt with this plenty of times. I actually have a pre-written email script for it pasted below with company name removed. =). The same holds true for Linux.

Unfortunately you cannot use a Macintosh computer here, [insert company] is a business. It is extremely rare that a software company writes business software for Mac’s. It’s just not cost effective to rewrite and support software for a whole new operating system that isn’t used in the business community and is only used by a small fraction of the consumer community. There is no worthwhile benefit for the business community to support Mac since it cannot do anything that Windows doesn’t already do. On top of that, Apple makes it a closed platform locking all hardware vendors out. Very few software companies rewrite their applications to work on a Mac.

Apple/MAC is not a business ready platform. It is a nice toy, and is capable of doing almost everything a Windows PC can do, but [insert company] is an enterprise/business deployment. If Apple wants to work in the enterprise field they will have to start supporting 10’s of thousands of different hardware from hundreds of different manufacturers. It’s a large mountain for them to climb, they may try it someday but it does not appear to be in their current roadmaps.

It is an official [insert company] policy that all employees are provided with a PC to do their work on and that PC is what they need to be using for [insert company] related business.


RE: Moving on...
By franciumgoesboom on 9/18/2011 2:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
That only works until the CIO starts talking about using iPads in the business. Then they stop supporting blackberries and encourage iPhones over Android based phones. And then it doesn't take much of a stretch to start thinking about moving to Apple computers


RE: Moving on...
By jabber on 9/18/2011 2:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
The phrase that every IT manager/CTO hates to hear from his Exec/CEO -

"I was reading this computer magazine over the weekend and..."


RE: Moving on...
By retrospooty on 9/18/2011 4:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
Rediculous... Anyone that is at the rank of CIO does NOT and will NOT encourage moving to Mac. LOL.

Many would want to use a tablet, any type for mobile email and internet access but none of it will ever support enterprise software.


RE: Moving on...
By chemist1 on 9/20/2011 4:32:10 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't your assertion that Mac doesn't function is an enterprise environment invalidated by the fact that Google is moving away from Windows to Mac/Linux: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/d2f3f04e-6ccf-11df-... ?


RE: Moving on...
By chemist1 on 9/20/2011 4:33:24 AM , Rating: 2
typo correction: *in* an enterprise environment....


RE: Moving on...
By retrospooty on 9/20/2011 8:09:47 AM , Rating: 2
I didnt say it "doesnt work", I was asserting that it couldnt do what MS does. IF a particualr company decides to dump thier current software and move over to software that runs on another platform it can be done. It's just that it WONT be done. Google is a major MS competitor and is doing this for obvious reasons. 10's of thousands of companies use 10's of thousands of custom written enterprise apps that run on Windows are arent going anywhere.

99% of all business runs on MS software. Consider APple's manufacturing. Every step of the process with the exception of actual product testing is done on PC. The part procurement software, reverse logistics, accounting, HR, everything is done on PC, because that is where the business world exists.


RE: Moving on...
By chemist1 on 9/20/2011 3:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for your reply. So you're saying the issue is not the functionality of the Mac OS in an enterprise environment, but rather simply the cost of switching over, because of existing Windows-only software? But if this is the case, what about companies that need to switch from Windows XP to Windows 7/8, and thus need to have much of their custom software rewritten anyways?


RE: Moving on...
By retrospooty on 9/20/2011 3:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
It already works in 99% of cases, and the others there are options and enterprise support engineers standing by at MS to help. Apple has zero enterprise presence, its a consumer business model (a very VERY profitable one). Enterprise is a totally different baby and Apple and Linux are just not ready as a platform , not the OS per say, but the whole package. Its never going to happen.


RE: Moving on...
By Dug on 9/20/2011 12:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
You would be surprised.

Ours has and it is working very well. We have access to Outlook, CRM, and SAP. We also use all of the Adobe apps. So unless you are tied down to a specific app there's no reason not too.

The Macbook Air has become the preferred device for mobility and speed.


RE: Moving on...
By Dug on 9/20/2011 12:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
Also there are so many businesses that require Word and Excel for legal reasons. Until Microsoft comes out with Office for Linux then it will leave out 80% of businesses. Internet Explorer or Safari are needed for 80% of access to web apps such as payroll, banking, etc. Firefox and Chrome just don't work in a lot of these scenarios.

A Linux admin costs a lot more than a MS admin. Everyone that goes into the work place is expected to know Windows and Office. So there is no training needed.


RE: Moving on...
By JKolstad on 9/18/2011 5:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, so the would-be Mac users just have to run a Mac VM on Windows rather than a Windows VM on their Macs, eh?

:-)

I'm all for business owners running their companies however they feel best, but I'd be quite hesitant to work somewhere that took that narrow of a view of Macs vs. PCs. Virtual machines are ubiquitous, many apps today are web-based anyway, Office runs natively on both, etc., etc. -- sure, there are definitely situations where a Mac clearly can't be made to work without extraordinary means, but in many cases we're talking more about "I like red, he likes blue" for why Macs are outlawed than any real technical obstacles. E.g., I suspect a company like that would also mandate a single web browser rather than letting users have their choice of Firefox, Opera, Chromium, Safari, or IE.

(I've actually known of a *web design company* that was run by folks who felt that if the page rendered correctly in IE, no further testing was needed in other browsers and, indeed, prohibited their employees from doing so! Happily this was years ago and this place is long out of business, but I expect such places might still exist today.

One thing I've observed over the years is that typically the less accepting a company is of "slight variations on the theme" -- and I strongly consider Macs, Windows, and Linux all to be just slight variations, as skilled users on one OS typically have little problem adpating to the stores -- the more it tends to have a run-of-the mill, unexceptional workforce. After all, if you're out to hire an IT guy, who are you going to pick? -- The one who only has a Windows background, or the one who's supported all of Windows, Macs, Linux, maybe OS/2 or Solaris or something really kinda exotic, etc.? There's no question in my mind!)


RE: Moving on...
By retrospooty on 9/18/2011 7:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
You are right about web-apps, they should work on anything, but most companies use at least one or more installed apps that are only made for Windows... The general way it works in hte real world IT dept's is "its not supported" . If it works (as is hte case with most web based apps) then fine, you cfan use it. Dont call us for support, dont call us for help, and dont tell us about hte problems you have with it unless you are using your windows PC.

Like it or not, that is the way it is.


RE: Moving on...
By Helbore on 9/19/2011 6:48:12 AM , Rating: 2
I guess you've never worked in an enterprise environment if you don't understand the importance of stanardisation. Its not to do with "preferring blue to red," its about keeping things consistent, so support taks can be streamlined.

If you're supporting hundreds or thousands of users, you don't want to be dealing with a different configuration each time a support call comes in. That isn't because you are unable to troubleshoot different configurations, but because you don't have a lot of time available. You need to deal with it quickly and get on to the next incident.

That's why you get IT departments limiting things like what browser you are allowed to use. End-users think that is the IT guys just being difficult, but that's because they only see IT support as IT supporting a single user - ie. them - instead of having to support everyone else, too.

It's not about being rigid, inflexible or difficult. It's about reducing the time-to-resolution of incidents. At the end of the day, THAT is the number one concern of corporate IT.


RE: Moving on...
By retrospooty on 9/20/2011 9:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly... If an IT dept had extra manpower to handle things like this they would have laid someone off long ago. It just cotsts too much. All these people making cases for Mac and Linux in a professional environment have clearly never had a job in IT. They just don't get how the real business world runs.

Hey can you show me that reverse logistics software that runs on Mac and Linux? Oh, wait. It doesnt exist. How about the parts procurement software. Oops, same result. How about our customers data requirement. Well, to do this on aMAc or Linux we will ahve to hire a software developer to create a whole new export. And if they DID have that team, where is MAc/Linux software support engineering team to help them along? Oh, they dont have have any available and have to be scheduled in for 3 months from next week and it will cost us WHAT?


RE: Moving on...
By Neil Anderson on 9/18/2011 7:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
My toy runs Unix. :)

ps My work environment is all Windows. In June we got iPads. :)


RE: Moving on...
By JKolstad on 9/18/2011 4:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
While I wouldn't suggest Ubuntu is really appropriate in most businesses today, I'd have to say that if you think people dislike the ribbon UI and prefer the drop-down menus because they want to go "looking through them," I think you need to change your attitude and go ask your users for more details: I'd wager a far amount preferred the traditional menus in that they'd learned the keyboard shortcuts and, at least in Office 2007, it was significantly more difficult for power-users to modify the ribbon UI than the traditional menus, requiring customization of XML files rather than just "drag and drop" editing. (This has been addressed in Office 2010, though.)


RE: Moving on...
By kitonne on 9/19/2011 1:29:05 PM , Rating: 1
Re ribbon interface - assume you did spend $2,500 / user for training in Office 1997; you had no need for additional user interface training when office 2000, XP, and 2003 came along. They all used the same menus, similar icons, and you could move your user base to each new version with a 2 hour refresher. Excel into, Excel advanced, Word intro, Word advanced, Powerpoint, and Outlook classes where about $500 and took a day each, so $2.5K / user is very low number compared to what most companies spent on Office training. I am not including here Access or Excel Macros which are typ separate classes.

Fast forward to Office 2007, and you need to send EACH of your people for another $2,500 training class because some IDIOT at Microsoft thought to change the user interface to the point where people productive with Office 2003 are starring at the screens and looking for clues on how to do their jobs with Office 2007. Add to this the removal of the built-in help (web help is not an alternative, as it does not work without internet connection, and many worker bees do not have internet access, so they cannot waste company time by surfing the web), and you have a f...g nightmare.

If you know how to do it, there is a BIG MARKET out there for a UI customization program/shell, to make Office 2007/2010 look and feel like Office 1997/2000/2003 (none of which run any longer on Win 7x64). Price it at $50 per seat for corporate use (w support) and $15 per seat with no support, and you will be a very wealthy individual :)


RE: Moving on...
By kitonne on 9/19/2011 1:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
And before somebody else suggests it, LibreOffice / OpenOffice / IBM Symphony are not acceptable as they do not read / write Office 2007 / 2010 documents with no format alterations 100% of the time for 100% of all word, powerpoint and excel files out there. 99% of documents 99% of the time is NOT an option; what is needed is the real Office 2007/2010 office with a user interface shell on top. I have 3 line word documents which do not display, much less print, in anything else but MS Office....


and businesses tell MS
By mindless1 on 9/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: and businesses tell MS
By JohnWPB on 9/18/2011 6:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
Very well put. I stopped getting updates for my XP a long long time ago. Never could figure out why I should, as long as i keep my OS clean, the registry nice and compact and clean, and a top of the line Anti Virus Suite to protect it.

I clean and defrag my system religiously every week or two, and keep a mirror image of it on another drive.

I'm sure that Vista, Win 7, and probably Win 8 will have their good points, but they are NOT going to make my XP obsolete. I'm sure there are MS fans who might think it, but you know what? To each their own!


RE: and businesses tell MS
By sigmatau on 9/19/2011 11:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I stopped getting updates for my XP a long long time ago. Never could figure out why I should, as long as i keep my OS clean, the registry nice and compact and clean, and a top of the line Anti Virus Suite to protect it.


Do you use the internet on your magic machine? Unlike Windows 7, XP has way more security issues. For all malware, it really depends on the user, but Windows 7 and Vista made it much easier for the user not to make bad choices.

You can't use IE9 with your XP machine. IE9 a huge step from IE8.

But hey, I have a DOS machine somewhere. Quick, someone start a thread about DOS not being supported so I can whine and cry and tell people to leave me alone.


RE: and businesses tell MS
By JohnWPB on 9/19/2011 3:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
WOW, do I use the internet on my "magic" machine?

I'm 71 yrs young, and of course retired, so I spend a lot of time browsing the internet. I built this "magic" machine, as you put it, and it wasn't hard at all to build.

You said I can't use IE9 on my machine, and you are so correct. In fact I do not use any of MS's browsers. I am VERY happy using Google's Chrome, and if per chance I run across a website that Chrome can't handle ( VERY FEW ), out comes IE7.

""Quick, someone start a thread about DOS not being supported so I can whine and cry and tell people to leave me alone."" hmmm, I thought these kind of replies were frowned upon at DailyTech?


RE: and businesses tell MS
By sigmatau on 9/19/2011 4:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
Just saying since you don't know why updates are useful, I thought you may not know what is the Internet.

There are always critical security holes that need to be patched for any OS. It is beyond lazy to not update XP religiously with these updates as you never know what you may get from a website. And thinking that going to "safe" websites will save you is actually the opposite. More of the most visited websites are getting sneaky malware installed than the less visited ones.

Do you update your antivirus? One could ask the same question as to why do you do that?

Also, my sentence on DOS is not really a joke. I mean, if you want to cling to your 10 year old OS, why can't I cling to my 20 year old OS? Same difference right? I guess we can also talk about people that cling to their CRTs over buying an HD LCD too.

Windows XP was nice, but Windows 7 kills it just in terms of ease to use and fewer security holes (by a long shot). Running the newer hardware helps too.

In summary, we don't care that you are clinging to your antiquated machine. Don't act like you are better than someone that bought Windows 7 or that there are no or few reasons to do so. The software is 10 years old dude, try Apple since they stop supporting their crap after 2-3 years.

Basically, all this whining and crying is about MS not supporting you. Really? You are acting like MS is going to pull the plug on you.

Oh, and by the way, Vista was good. Anyone that claims otherwise, like yourself, has no idea what they are talking about.


RE: and businesses tell MS
By JohnWPB on 9/19/2011 4:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
Okay "sigmatau", I've been trying to be reserved in my comments, but it seems that you want to attack mine.

Fine, let's look at a few of your comments:

""There are always critical security holes that need to be patched for any OS."" And this is relevent in what way? You don't think that there are going to be updates for Win 7 and 8 for many years to come? But guess what, those don't bother me. My anti virus program protects me there.

""Do you update your antivirus?"" My anti virus gets updated automatically probably on the order of 10 times a day. I don't need to go to MS's site to get updates, my anti virus programs do that better, and MUCH faster. MS is not so worried about new things out there that can hurt my OS, as much as a good anti virus company would be!

""Windows XP was nice, but Windows 7 kills it just in terms of ease to use and fewer security holes (by a long shot). Running the newer hardware helps too."" My hardware is just as new as yours, that was a you know what statement on your part! Ease of use is better with Win 7? Wow, maybe if you have spent a lot of time using that OS, but guess what, still using XP and not HAVING to learn a new OS, has made running XP wayyyy easier to use, than learning all the new names, and locations of those programs in Win 7.

""Basically, all this whining and crying is about MS not supporting you. Really? You are acting like MS is going to pull the plug on you."" Go back through my posts and point out to me how is cried about MS not supporting me. Put up or shut up! I never did. I said I like XP cause I understand it, and cause I am not willing to shell out more money for an OS that doesn't do anything more for what I do with my computer, than XP. DON'T generalize my comments what some other posters may have said.

""Oh, and by the way, Vista was good. Anyone that claims otherwise, like yourself, has no idea what they are talking about."" Your reading skills really are the pits "sigmatau"!!!! I said I did not like Vista, I didn't say it wasn't any good. Geez, trying to defend myself against people like you, make me happy I won't be here another 10 or 15 years, to read drivel like what you are serving up.

My apologies to other readers or posters here, but I will not sit back and read stuff like what this poster put up, without addressing it.


RE: and businesses tell MS
By sigmatau on 9/19/2011 11:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
LOL is all I can say to you buddy. Where is my DOS thread so I can whine and shake about big bad MS doing nothing to me, but I still should say something?

I see my points elude you.

1. XP and any OS has security holes that need to be plugged every so often, by you stating you have no idea of the purpose of these updates, then you have illustrated to us that you have no idea what you are talking about.

2. I asked if you update your antivirus because it is just as important to do so as your OS. Did I ever say you need to go to a MS site? Please point that out idiot.

3. LOL your hardware is no where near as new as mine buddy. Keep dreaming.

4. So what the hell was the point of your post in relation to this article? XP works for well for older computers just fine? EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. Is water wet too?

5. Apparently you are in the minority. Sorry that change is so hard for you. We really don't care how happy you are with your old stuff that has NOTHING to do with the article.


RE: and businesses tell MS
By JohnWPB on 9/20/2011 11:18:42 AM , Rating: 2
Sigmatau, you truely must be a very smart person. I notice that everything you think your saying is important.

Well guess what, I could care less about your IDIOTIC comments.

You seem to feel threatened cause the MAJORITY still use Win 7. Get a life dip, you know what. Go look up how many machines are estimated to be still running XP, and how many they think are now running Win 7. It is just SOME of you, who believe that all the new garbage that MS puts out in their newer OS's, are just "gotta have it improvements".

It's easy to see the wool gets covered over your rose colored glasses, you fool!

Do us both a favor and ignore my posts from now on, and I will afford you the same consideration.

Oh, and lumping yourself in with all the others who are running Win 7, is a stupid move on your part.

Most of the replies I see here point out that if a person wants to use XP, it's no big deal, yet it just irks you that I do. I sure hope you don't lose any sleep over all this.

Mods, again my apology for replying like this to that fool sigmatau. I don't know what his agenda is, but surely it's not to have a coherent discussion about Operating Systems.



RE: and businesses tell MS
By Helbore on 9/19/2011 5:38:23 AM , Rating: 4
Microsoft aren't going to activate a killswitch in the OS that stops it from working. You can still use Windows XP if you want to. It's just that Microsoft are going to end all support for the product.

But that's not some evil monopolisic attitude by a big, evil corporation. They all do it eventually - and rightly so, to be honest. No-one can expect a company to support retired, legacy products for eternity. They wouldn't have the resources (even Microsoft) to remain in business if they did.

Just think, Microsoft still having to support MS-DOS and Windows 1 to this day. It would be a huge resource drain. It could never happen.

People should really be happy that Microsoft have been continuing to support regular bug fixes for a decade-old OS, not angry with them because they won't continue it for another decade.


RE: and businesses tell MS
By Dr of crap on 9/19/11, Rating: 0
RE: and businesses tell MS
By sigmatau on 9/19/2011 11:20:11 AM , Rating: 2
OMG! Who is forcing you to do anything including making up stuff on forums? What the hell are you talking about?


RE: and businesses tell MS
By erikstarcher on 9/19/2011 1:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you understand what this is about. Microsoft is telling you XPers that you are on your own. Just what you want, to be left alone. What is your problem with that. If you want to use an outdated OS with your outdated hardware, go right ahead. No one is stopping you, not even Microsoft. Quit your complaining, you are getting what you want.


RE: and businesses tell MS
By Dr of crap on 9/19/2011 3:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
If that's true, why all these posts?

Yes leave us alone to use the "outdated" XP software.

But guess what - it still works for me!
And it still works at my work as well!


RE: and businesses tell MS
By JohnWPB on 9/19/2011 3:39:37 PM , Rating: 1
They seem to think if you continue using XP, that your not with the "hip" group anymore. Don't know any other reason for some of their remarks.

By the way, I thank MS for all the upgrades they have given me through the years for my XP, but you know what, as of a couple of years ago, I stopped getting the upgrades. I don't need them! As long as I use a top notch anti virus program, like Kaspersky, their going to have a hard time accessing my machine.

And for those hackers who say that is hogwash, it has been proven it's not any harder to hack Win 7.


RE: and businesses tell MS
By erikstarcher on 9/19/2011 4:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
That is true and I don't know why all of these posts. Most people that want to stick with XP seem to keep talking about how mean Microsoft is for making them ditch XP. I was commenting on the fact that Microsoft is not forcing anyone, and giving the O.P. exactly what he was crying about wanting.

And just so you understand, I have 2 machines at home that are not fast enough for 7, and XP is installed and working just fine. I'm not laughing at people for using XP. Just laughing at them for blowing their top over nothing (or the wrong thing).


RE: and businesses tell MS
By JohnWPB on 9/19/2011 10:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
Erik, not sure you and I are reading these posts the same way.

Granted there have probably been way more posts on this subject than need be, but the way I read it, is that the XP users are stating that they are happy with their OS, but the Win 7 boys are the ones complaining that we live in the dark ages, and THEY think that we should be using Win 7 or 8, for this reason or that reason.

The only reason that "I blow my top", is for the stupid remarks they make. If they want to use Win 7, more power to them. I have no reason to change their mind for doing that. YET, they sure want to change our minds to convert over to Win 7.

This horse has been beat to death already, in a lot of other blogs. What would really make me happy, is if some people stopped trying to tell others what is best to do, when they don't even understand the situation of others.

Is that called growing up? Not sure, as I am over 70. But I sure get the feeling that there are some here who act like they aren't even 18.


RE: and businesses tell MS
By erikstarcher on 9/20/2011 10:48:34 AM , Rating: 2
I just get tired of hearing people cry that Microsoft is taking away their XP and forcing them to Windows 7. As if there is a switch that MS just turned off and their computer doesn't work anymore until they pay up and move to 7. I understand that some people like XP, and don't want to switch, but no one is taking it away, just not selling or supporting it anymore.


RE: and businesses tell MS
By JohnWPB on 9/20/2011 11:22:34 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, I totally agree.

I AM NOT ONE OF THE ONES WHO IS COMPLAINING ABOUT MS STOPPING THE UPDATES.

I hate caps, but hopefully this will put an end to the thoughts that I or for that matter the other XP posters feel affronted by MS, because they are going to stop support for XP.

It is a monetary move on their part, that totally makes sense.


RE: and businesses tell MS
By TakinYourPoints on 9/19/11, Rating: 0
RE: and businesses tell MS
By JohnWPB on 9/19/2011 7:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
Nice post. I don't know why you will be happy to see XP finally go away, unless you own stock in Win 7.

For no reasons that you have mentioned do I see a need to "upgrade" to Win 7, when my XP with my fast machine will do just as much if not more, cause of some of the "outdated" programs that I run.

Using your analogy, I will be happy to see Win 7 finally go away..... although that is not really true. I don't want to stoop down to your level!


RE: and businesses tell MS
By TakinYourPoints on 9/26/2011 2:15:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know why you will be happy to see XP finally go away, unless you own stock in Win 7.


It is stable without any effort on the part of the user and very secure. XP is the primary vector for malware on the planet. Like Unix operating systems, 7 is inherently much more secure since everyone isn't elevated to root/admin by default like they are in XP.

Unless old software is truly holding you back (that is an actual legit excuse), it is sad that you are running XP on modern hardware when 7 and Vista are so much better, but I guess there is no accounting for low standards.


RE: and businesses tell MS
By mindless1 on 9/20/2011 9:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
It is funny how someone might have an unstable computer, or buggy app or driver, and blame the OS.

XP is VERY stable. To use the word "ancient" has no meaning. Food is "ancient", do you not eat? I'm sure science could blend together something like Purina People Chow which would be more healthy for you, but do you shun real food then?

If you will truly be happy (instead of just being full of BS), then rejoice because all you have to do to have XP go away is to not use it.

On the other hand, experienced computer users because adept at using XP, did not leave gaping security holes, and ran stable systems - in fact a large % of the world's computers still do run XP.

If you have problems doing what others do without the problems, you are the weak link, not an OS.


RE: and businesses tell MS
By TakinYourPoints on 9/26/2011 2:10:28 AM , Rating: 2
Windows XP is absolute garbage compared to Windows 7. I ran very stable and secure Windows XP machines, but that was through work on my own to make up for the deficiencies of an outdated product with inherent flaws that Microsoft has since addressed with Vista (which contrary to FUD was superior to XP shortly before SP1) and 7.

I don't understand why people defend bad products here. XP is not good by modern standards, period


Love XP
By JohnWPB on 9/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: Love XP
By JohnWPB on 9/18/2011 12:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, I have posted a few times here on DailyTech, and still haven't found out how to raise or lower the rating on a post. Any chance someone can show me how it's done?


RE: Love XP
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/18/2011 12:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
Once you post for a while, I don't know the number off hand, likely near 100 posts in total, you will find that at the bottom of each post is a button bar that says "Reply, Worth Reading, Not Worth Reading". The up/down rating is attached to the latter two.


RE: Love XP
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/18/2011 12:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and I did forget, if you actually post a response in an article, you can't rate anything in that same article.


RE: Love XP
By JohnWPB on 9/18/2011 1:48:11 PM , Rating: 1
THANK YOU, so very much for the explanation. One hundred posts seems like a lot, but I'm sure the learning curve is a reason to set it so high.


RE: Love XP
By DanNeely on 9/19/2011 7:00:30 AM , Rating: 3
Preventing people from creating sock puppet accounts to votespam is probably a bigger factor.


RE: Love XP
By Flunk on 9/18/2011 12:43:03 PM , Rating: 3
If you post on a topic you can't rate. Otherwise hit the conspicuous text links below every post.

As for your main topic, being stuck in a rut us hurting no one but you. Life is a learning experience, give it a try.


RE: Love XP
By jabber on 9/18/2011 12:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
You cant rate posts for a topic you have posted in.

Any ratings you give also go if you post in it later.


RE: Love XP
By FITCamaro on 9/18/2011 12:42:39 PM , Rating: 3
Actually being able to properly use all the resources of modern hardware?

Unless you're running XP 64-bit which is woefully under-supported, you're still limited to a max of 32 bit of address space. Which means you can't even run 4GB of RAM and a 256MB (much less 512MB or 1GB) graphics card without losing some RAM capacity.


RE: Love XP
By jabber on 9/18/2011 12:46:50 PM , Rating: 5
Not to mention DX10 and so on.

Not being able to run ancient DOS apps in not really MS's fault.

It's a good thing that MS is moving on and changing stuff.

Called progress.

I use a XP machine for my work but am surrounded by Win7 machines which I use the rest of the time. To me now, XP feels as clunky as using Win98SE did back in 2002.


RE: Love XP
By mcnabney on 9/19/2011 1:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
And just how many typical office machines that run Outlook, Office, IE, and a few custom apps actually need all of those abilities.

They don't play games.
They need little more than 2GB of space

None of the features provided by Vista/7 are even needed.

Why spend a ton of money upgrading 100s or even tens of thousands of machines

/my work laptop run XP - flawlessly I might add


RE: Love XP
By SandmanWN on 9/19/2011 11:57:25 PM , Rating: 3
Because any decent IT department/company is on a computer rotation program to begin with so they don't have a bunch of old hardware waiting to fail. Then it really becomes stupid not to get whats available to you.

I mean really, who wants to send their outside sales reps off with a OS full of security holes and tons of critical business data all over it? Who needs data security anyway...

We use programs like ACT and AutoCAD and Visual Studio and we have demonstration programs showing our capabilities and a ton of other applications that use SQL databases and a lot of other programs. Maybe your office environment refuses to grow and get new and better tools. I keep my office cutting edge and the big guys at the top thank us for it as our company blows through this recession with record growth and all the tools we can get our hands on.


RE: Love XP
By kitonne on 9/21/2011 7:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
My prior employer ($30+B/yr in sales, 140K employees world-wide, high-tech electronics supplier) took pride in keeping its employees using CRT displays until 2006 and only moved to Lotus notes 8.x (from v 6.5) last year. As far as I know, they are still imaging all new laptops with XP Pro. They claim they saved many $M of USD by staying behind the bleeding edge, and the fact that they are VERY profitable in the middle of the economic downturn tells me that they may be doing something right....

It all depends on what you are doing with your computers - if your windows client is not happy with Win 7 (maybe because your back-end is 3 revs out of date), you will stay with XP, and try to batch your updates so you minimize the impact to the business. I think they may get to Win 7 next year, IF the work on the back ends systems is complete by then.

It is way cheaper to upgrade the hardware and keep the software which works in place then upgrade the software to the latest and greatest, specially when the latest and greatest is not fully backwards compatible. It costs real money to re-train people to use ribbon interfaces for example, and each new Oracle update I've seen required some code tweaking in spite of the compatibility claims. Oracle Business Suite or SAP is much worse... It is simply NOT POSSIBLE to redo all the testing each time there is an update somewhere, from a software supplier - you have to batch the updates, and cut on the number of testing cycles as much as possible.

Anybody who worked for a large company doing EDI transactions with multiple suppliers and customers knows that each time there is ANY CHANGE you have to do a full regression test for all your code (read many highly paid people working for weeks or even month). Hardware upgrades are by far the easiest ones to deal with; the problem is with software, and any large company has a lot of custom code which is critical for business operations.

For the front-end PCs, Win7 is a big issue - many machines on the manufacturing floor are controlled by PCs, running Win 2000 and XP and talking to custom hardware (industrial robots, pick and place machines, conveyor belts, bar code readers integrated into the shop control system, etc.). There may still be some label printers running happily under DOS :) Even today (Sept 2011) it is a challenge to get Win 7 compatible drivers for expensive test equipment with USB ports for control (R&S receivers, Yokogawa A/Ds, Agilent and Tek scopes not even 5 years old, etc.). GPIB is still widely used for control in real life, and many control programs were developed in a 16 bit environment. Upgrade is not an option for most of them, due to the (re)validation requirements - when you control a $300K machine, you do not want to say "ooops! forgot a # in my code".

You can only keep your company on the "bleeding edge" if you are a small company, which does not need to worry about CAD systems integrated with the manufacturing environment, or EDI transactions with hundreds of suppliers and customers....


RE: Love XP
By Bad-Karma on 9/20/2011 12:25:35 AM , Rating: 2
Every time I here the debate about holding on to a lingering OS or an older PC architecture, I'm always reminded that no matter how hard you look, you just don't see many model "T"s on the road anymore.

Eventually the technology will surpass it to the point that you just can't find parts and support to keep it going.


RE: Love XP
By Bad-Karma on 9/20/2011 12:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
And to add to that,

When you finally do have to make take the plunge and invest in new systems and OSs, the layout costs can be enormous.

small jumps from time to time can be less costly than giant leaps.


RE: Love XP
By Alexvrb on 9/18/2011 4:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I run WinXP 64-bit on one of my machines and I have no issues. I'm sure it had a lot of support issues at launch, but I bought it a bit later when Vista was new and problematic, and I didn't want a memory-limited 32-bit WinXP install. So maybe I missed the biggest issues. I've been running it for years, same install. It's basically Server 2003 64-bit, so it's really solid. Anyway, my other boxes are all either Vista or Win7, and yes, Win7 64-bit is superior. But I don't know why people always malign WinXP 64-bit. It gets decent support from MS and even drivers for it are no problem. It runs 32-bit software the same way Win7 64-bit does, using WoW64.

With that said, if my WinXP64 box was using newer hardware, I would certainly upgrade it to Win7. Especially if I was using vanilla XP - the GPU alone has a dedicated 1GB of memory. XP is ancient, and Win7 is proven to run faster on modern hardware. It's just plain better. There's no reason to run WinXP anymore if you're not a business, and even if you ARE a business, you can use Win7 Professional's XP Mode (or use other virtualization software and the XP license that comes WITH Win7 Pro).

DOS? Well I guess if you REALLY need to run DOS software, just get DOSBox! It's completely awesome and allows you to simulate a complete DOS machine, right down to setting number of CPU cycles so that old software won't freak out or that old game doesn't run at a million times normal speed.


RE: Love XP
By ElderTech on 9/18/2011 6:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever works for you is what you should use. There is NO best OS for everyone, or for that matter anyone. For some XP gets the job done easily, without additional cost. For others, it's another OS whether MS or Apple or Linux based, or even proprietary.

Years ago when we started using Burroughs computers with state of the art 12-18" hard drive disk platters, we had to write all of our own probrams from scratch since there were none for our industry, and had to have in-house programmers to do it. After a couple of years, once the basic programs were established, we simply modified these programs to accommodate any necessary changes in the business.

After about 10 years, software technology started to evolve sufficiently that we were able to purchase pre-packages software that ran on upgraded equipment. But even this needed to be customized for our business. It wasn't until the 1990's that standardized accounting packages were available that covered some of our needs, but even then it took customized software to handle the proprietary aspects. And that's still the case with many businesses today. While a standardized server OS from microsoft may allow for implementation of various necessary functions utilizing packaged software, there are still many functions that can only be accomplished with specialized programs, and some of these may only run on specialized OS's that are also proprietary.

So again, it's what works that's important, not what any company wants you to purchase. That's the point of this article, as Microsoft is feeling the pressure from declining PC sales and realizing how much they are missing by the business community not upgrading from XP. This is just another marketing ploy to try to convince those running XP to do so. Simple as that.

As for me personally, I'm running XP, Vista, and Win7, as well as Linux on a variety of desktops and laptops utilizing hard drives, SSD drives and even flash drives for the boot drive, all with a variety of CPUs ranging from Pentium 4 to i7. Each one accomplishes it's intended purpose exceptionally well, and with no OS or recent mechanical problems at all. In fact, the last mechanical problem was 2 years ago when I had a defective ethernet port on a Lenovo laptop that required the replacement of the motherboard. Fortunately it was still under the standard 3 year warranty and was shipped, repaired and returned in a total of 4 days. Excellent service by IBM for Lenovo. Prior to that was 7 years ago with a faulty PSU in the Pentium desktop. It was replaced with a Zalman "silent" PSU and has operated flawlessly ever since then. This unit and all subsequent desktops purchased/built are "silent" systems. If you would like more information about this, visit the following link to SilentPCReview:

http://www.silentpcreview.com/


RE: Love XP
By Alexvrb on 9/20/2011 12:04:24 AM , Rating: 2
That wasn't my point, really. I'll reiterate.

WinXP Pro 64-bit isn't that bad. The only 32-bit software that I personally noted wouldn't run was a 32-bit-only firewall. I found a 64-bit one that works fine. All other 32-bit software works great, I have drivers for everything from my old Samsung multifunction laser to my Audigy 2. Very stable and solid, just like Server 2003 64-bit.

There is no real advantage to WinXP today over Win7, except the rare software compatibility cases, which can typically be resolved using compatibility, XP Mode or similar. DOSBox runs DOS programs so well, that even on a WinXP box I use DOSBox for certain programs instead of CMD. Regardless, on a machine as recent and fast as the OP's, Win7 was the clear choice, especially compared to vanilla XP.

Keep your old OS for your old machines. It's paid for. But if you have to buy a new OS license for a new machine (see above, he bought XP despite better options available) Win7 is just better. It's faster (especially on modern hardware), more reliable, has support for features XP lacks or is weak on, and the popular 64-bit flavors address quite a bit more memory.


RE: Love XP
By tayb on 9/18/2011 1:24:45 PM , Rating: 1
No one is going to force you to use a new OS. If you want to be stuck in 2001 that is certainly your right to do so. Windows Vista was poorly received and a resource hog but it was not as bad as it was made out to be. Windows 7 was a true successor to Windows 7 and a vastly superior OS for anything you would want to do.

If you own programs that only run on XP those programs are probably garbage and haven't been updated in 5+ years.

Besides, Microsoft doesn't care about you. Business drives Microsoft. In the beginning Apple went after consumers and children, Microsoft went after the corporations.


RE: Love XP
By Dorkyman on 9/18/2011 1:42:00 PM , Rating: 1
I guess I need to be educated about how vastly superior W7 is compared to XP. And I don't care AT ALL about Eye Candy and translucent windows. "Windows on a desktop" metaphor is fine with me.

As for old apps, I'll turn the statement around: All that will get me to move from an utterly-rock-stable OS to W7 is when a critical application REQUIRES that I do so. Don't suspect that'll happen for a while.

Let's face it, XP was the first bulletproof OS from Microsoft, and as such there is little reason to leave it. As for market penetration, just how well would W7 have done if MS had made it optional rather than mandatory on new hardware for the masses? I can see exactly why businesses are extremely reluctant to change. Chairs don't change much. Pencils don't change much.


RE: Love XP
By Ammohunt on 9/18/2011 2:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 base is the best OS Microsoft has ever produced. Even with the aero interface shut off it makes XP feel like Windows 95 did when XP was released in all the right areas Stability/Features/performance. 2008 R2(Win 7 Code base) uses about the same meory on a fresh install as Server 2003(xp code base) and is faster and less glitchy.


RE: Love XP
By JohnWPB on 9/18/11, Rating: 0
RE: Love XP
By retrospooty on 9/19/2011 8:29:14 PM , Rating: 2
point>click... Training done. =)

Its not any different than XP for your average user at a company. Not a whole lot of people would create a folder, put 100's of files and then not like the default ways to arrange them (defaults by name, but type, date, size all work great, as well as other that can be added)

What you described is extremely unique and non-productive. You would be far better off making more logical use of folders and shortcuts.

If you like XP, then by all means stick with it, but your needs are very unique and not well thought through at all.


RE: Love XP
By JohnWPB on 9/21/2011 4:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
My goodness, did you ever put more than a few files in a folder, using Win 7 ????

Why don't you try doing an "auto arrange" in Win 7 and see how it works. It will give you over 100 different ways to set the "auto arrange". Now afterwards, move one of your favorite files to the very front, and then close that folder.

When you open it again, guess what....... the "auto arrange" has put it back the way MS thinks you should arrange things.

How is that for arrogance on their part?

Some one had to write a registry fix, so that the "auto arrange" could be bypassed.

As I said before, in all of the previous OS's, even those in Apple, they allowed you to arrange things in those folders the way you wanted it. But of course with Win 7, MS changed that.

Just Google "auto arrange Win 7", and see what you come up with. Thousands of people complained about it!


RE: Love XP
By Omega215D on 9/18/2011 7:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
There was a lot of work done aside from aesthetics, so yes you do need to be educated.


RE: Love XP
By JohnWPB on 9/18/2011 1:42:02 PM , Rating: 1
""If you own programs that only run on XP those programs are probably garbage and haven't been updated in 5+ years.""

Well you are right on one part of that statement. My data base program that I wrote myself hasn't been updated in 5+ years. But guess what? It displays the data, the way I want to see it, PLUS, if I want to view it a different way, I just change the program to do that. My overclocked i7-860 displays the info just as fast as any 64bit program could, so tell me again why I want to use Win 7 or Win 8.

Just because a program is 5+ years old, doesn't mean it's not a good program. I know it inside and out, and can make modifications the way I see fit.

Try doing that with your MS ready made programs that you bought.

I'm not trying to start a flame war here, just saying that XP more than serves my needs, and if that puts me in the dark ages, well gee, so what?


RE: Love XP
By B3an on 9/18/2011 2:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
If you even remotely care about security you would upgrade to Win7 or especially Win8. They are vastly more secure. A business especially should not be using XP for this reason alone.

You mention you have an I7 yet a handful of features for that CPU are not even supported on XP. If you ever get an SSD good luck trying to get the most out of that on XP. Not gunna happen. If you ever get more than 3GB, again you wont be able to use it properly.

Then theres no UEFI support which all motherboards will eventually use instead of BIOS, no 3TB+ hard drive support, but also no USB3 or SATA3 support (atleast not natively). Theres also software you cant run on XP anymore, and it's only going to get worse. You cant even make use of your GPU properly on XP, browser hardware acceleration or any software GPU acceleration is very limited.

Whats stupid though is that it's probably not even hard to get the software you wrote running on Win7 or 8.

But with Win8 and it's Hyper-V feature it can now run ANY Windows software from the past, including your database software. So why wouldn't you upgrade??


RE: Love XP
By JohnWPB on 9/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: Love XP
By JohnWPB on 9/19/11, Rating: 0
RE: Love XP
By rcc on 9/19/2011 6:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
the latter.


RE: Love XP
By JohnWPB on 9/19/2011 7:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks RCC........ I kind of figured that was the reason. Not sure that shows much maturity on their part.


RE: Love XP
By retrospooty on 9/19/2011 8:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
Anandtech reader process.

1. Read (possibly not thoroghly depending on the user)
2. Crack knuckles.
3. Angrily flame away!!!!


RE: Love XP
By Ammohunt on 9/18/2011 1:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
Tell you whats so great about changing software? Good example my machine at work is Fedora 15 Xfce on which i run 64-Bit Windows 7 in a VM with 4GB of ram (Vmware player) i get the best of both worlds. Configurations like this were slow and almost unuseable a few years ago. as win 7 being XP? apples and oranges they are not even in the same ballpark. Win vista was light years ahead of XP and win 7 is what vista should have been. Once Microsoft takes the next leap from win 7 like they did from xp to vista is when i will upgrade.. Windows 10?


RE: Love XP
By TSS on 9/18/2011 1:46:24 PM , Rating: 3
The advantages of vista over XP? well for one, it's much more stable.

Yes i've had FAR more crashes in XP32 then in vista64. The new ctrl+alt+del is awesome, overriding just about every program that crashed. It's even better in windows 7, if a program crashes now i can close the program instead of having to reboot the PC because i can't get to the task manager. Been a real long time since i've seen a BSOD as well.

Not to mention the improved memory manager. Gawd XP was awefull at releasing memory.

And vista runs just as responsive as XP did. Yes you do need a more powerfull machine, but have you ever tried booting XP on a 400mhz with 128mb ram, then doing the same with windows 98SE?

Oh and all my DOS programs run just fine in windows 7. It's called "Dos box". Wanna know how i found that one? Because XP broke my DOS games that still worked under windows98, so i've been using dosbox for quite a while.

quote:
Tell me again, what is so great about changing software every couple of years.


Not turning into an old fart saying old ways are better, even when they wheren't?


RE: Love XP
By JohnWPB on 9/18/2011 2:09:22 PM , Rating: 1
I see the remarks about Vista and Win 7 so much more stable.

I really don't understand that statement, as with my OLD XP, on this new machine, I have NEVER had ONE BSOD. Not a one!

As long as you understand your OS, and continually keep it clean, and do the same to the registry, there should never be BSOD showing up.

It all depends upon how you set your system up.

I'm trying to think of a graceful way of saying this, but the words escape me. What I will say, is if Win 7 or Win 8 for that matter work for you, that is great, and I am happy for you.

But don't give me that stuff that people who still use XP are in the dark ages. That is just irresponsible writing!


RE: Love XP
By Ramtech on 9/18/2011 3:12:53 PM , Rating: 5
If you want to live in Dark Ages fine by me...

But dont spread these things which arent true
- LIE: XP is more stable than Vista or 7
- LIE: If you clean your OS you will prevent the slowdown effect
- LIE: XP is far more safer than Vista/7

I have Vista x64 on my non overclocked Q9400 4GB RAM and so... i had crashes yes but age of installed OS is over 3 years and it is not slow as 3 year old XP plus with really old XP install you will run into problems which will force you to reinstall OS

PC with Vista is far more responsive than PC with XP
I make big use of windows search UI is much more user friendly
Vistas explorer is big upgrade from XP explorer

btw i used XP for 5 years...


RE: Love XP
By harshbarj on 9/18/2011 5:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
He never said Xp is more stable or more secure, just that it can be AS stable and AS secure as Vista/win 7, and I agree with that. Sure my primary rig runs 64-bit windows 7, but everything else runs windows XP 32 as it's rock solid, as in no BSOD, and it is much faster on the slightly older hardware (mostly Athlon 64's and Pentium 4's in my case, but some Athlon xp's and Pentium 3's).

Also it's not 'the dark ages' if it's what's needed to actually run programs. Many games and applications I use are for dos or win16, and as they still do what I want why should I be forced, and it is being force, to upgrade an os AND applications on a computer that really dose not need it? I'm not against upgrading, as my core I5 box got windows 7 the day I could get my hands on it, it's just that the older os's still have their use, even if you can't see that.


RE: Love XP
By Ramtech on 9/19/2011 4:42:06 AM , Rating: 3
Windows XP is anything but secure

Im my previous company we had 100PCs with Windows XP Many PCs there had to be cleaned because we had tons of virus related problems or reinstalled
btw i didnt have any virus infections on Vista unlike on XP

Stability is not just BSOD issues its
- freezing
- old install XP slowness
- old XP installs are really troublesome only solution is reinstall

For old PCs i would rather choose Linux depending what purpose they will serve but if backward compatibility is required i would choose XP
Why would someone buy Win 7 for old PCs anyway theres no logic in this

btw. why did you answered to my post when you didnt addressed most of my points


RE: Love XP
By Mitch101 on 9/18/2011 3:44:23 PM , Rating: 5
XP never crashed after SP2 and since Im forced to us XP in the office still let me tell you what I miss working with XP when Im not in front of my Windows 7 machine.

I will add that The XP VIRTUAL MACHINE does and excellent job if you still have a need for XP although I havent found an application that I couldn't get working in Windows 7. Just turn off auto wallpaper changes and set XP mode and those ancient DX 4,5 games work in Windows 7.

In a month try running Windows XP on a 8 Core bulldozer

Taskbar/Jumplists is much better than quick launch its much more organized than stacked bars and has quick preview making it quick for me to get to the right app. Takes up less space I have never filled the bottom bar on 7 and wever all opened too many apps in XP. Each item pinned to the taskbar has a most recent frequent documents/webpages etc just right click on word/firefox and quickly access you most frequent items (Jumplists).

Snap, peek, shake - Im constantly finding myself trying to snap stuff side by side on XP. I get so annoyed I cant. Tile/Cascade do not compare.

Windows Live Essentials 2011 - Great free stuff especially the movie maker with easy conversion/upload to youtube or DVD not that I would use it at work but I have kids and the parental controls are a nice perk.

Search is better than START - RUN it does what run does but allows me to quickly search for items by name.

All Included Windows Apps Paint - Much better gui, Wordpad - Looks more like word, Calculator - Has built in formulas and calculators, Snipping tool - Great for screen/area capture. Some of these you can find freeware apps for on XP but its nice they are built in especially when your on a corporate PC where they frown upon you installing anything outside corporate standard.

I also like the START MENU Navigation its cleaner than running across the screen in XP.

The VIEWS in explorer - Tiles, Extra Large Icons, Mouse roll away does a much better and cleaner job its much easier for my wife to find pictures in there that might be photo gallery a Windows Live Essentials again. Hands down Windows 7 is much faster at file transfers than XP.

Homegroups - Hated them at first but learned you can change your settings so shares can be used just like XP but I like homegroups now its much more secure especially since I have a home server that backs up all my PC's.

Windows 7 shuts down much faster than XP. In 64 Bit I can have more apps running on Windows 7 because I can address more than 4 gigs of ram and its much less cluttered because of the way it groups.

Thats off the top of my head. I get where your coming from though we all loved XP and by all means keep going if thats what works for you. Its just a small learning curve to find out how to get file shares back and a few other minor things otherwise I love Windows 7 over XP now.

Windows 7 Recovery Tool - I had the unfortunate event of disk corruption and Windows 7 recover worked amazingly well I was back in no time.

OH almost forgot Windows 7 Migration tool - Ive migrated one from XP to Windows 7 and From Windows 7 to a Beefier Windows 7 machine it was excellent it even took over auto completes, cookies, favorites, etc it was like I was working on the original machine it didnt need to learn website passwords it was so darn good.

Id mention ready boost but really buy some ram.

Most important Windows 7 is Rock Solid like finely tuned XP machine. Windows 8 is even more efficient than Windows 7 which will certainly close any gap between the old and new.


RE: Love XP
By kitonne on 9/19/2011 12:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
Win 7 has garbage Solitaire and Freecell compared to XP - glad the old XP versions work well under Win7x64 :)

Some of my programs which do not work under Win 7:

1/ IVEX schematic capture and PCB layout CAD package - out of business, functional replacement is around $500-700

2/ EMP-20 chip programmer from Needhams Electronics - out of business, functional replacement $500-800

3/ Multiple ICE and IDE for Moto 8 bit micros - replacement equivalents are north of $500 mark each.

4/ many 16 bit utils required to convert S19 and HEX records, etc. - day to day stuff if you develop for embedded systems

In other words, unless and until I come up with $2-3K for replacement hardware and software for my development tools alone, I will stay with XP.

Add to that a high end film scanner (Minolta, $1K replacement value), flat bad scanner ($500 replacement value), and over $5K in bits and pieces of hardware which are no longer supported due to incompatible drivers and control programs under Win 7.

The issue is not "lazy programmers" or "idiot customers" or "safer, more stable environment" - it is simply down to dollars and sense and the decisions MS made in regards to backwards software compatibility for Win 7.

True, some of the challenges with Win 7 can be mitigated due to VMWare and their excellent USB and driver support inside the VMs (including accelerated graphics), but not all. Still need to keep a couple of old machines and a KVM up and running until the old hardware and software gets replaced....


RE: Love XP
By lyeoh on 9/22/2011 10:53:36 AM , Rating: 2
On windows 7 searching for stuff inside files doesn't work well (or at all) in many scenarios. Seems to be dependent on filetype- in contrast Windows XP if asked, would just go search inside the file without caring.

So on Windows 7 you have to resort to stuff like grep or baregrep.

Windows 7 does have some good points, but after so much money and time spent by Microsoft, it's quite a disappointing and mediocre operating system.


RE: Love XP
By jkostans on 9/18/2011 3:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
I made the switch to Windows 7 and haven't looked back. About the only thing I have had issues with is the inability to run 16-bit programs (DOSBox/XP Mode get around this), and the DEP causing older 32-bit programs to crash (can be disabled to allow these programs to run). Everything else has improved from XP. There is a SMALL learning curve, but it's well worth the effort.


RE: Love XP
By JohnWPB on 9/19/11, Rating: 0
"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki