Print 60 comment(s) - last by bodar.. on Apr 21 at 7:22 AM

Windows XP served Microsoft well for over 7 years. Now the first phase of its retirement is being set into action, with the end of mainstream support. Security fixes for the OS will continue until 2014.  (Source: Microsoft)
A venerable OS is laid to rest -- sorta

Windows XP in its early years started off ambitious and enterprising.  However, in those early years (2001 and 2002), it also gave many a headache and received ample criticism.  With time (and Service Packs) it matured into what is today regarded as one of Microsoft's best operating system efforts of all time.

Now the time has come at last to take the first steps towards laying the OS to rest.  While sales of XP-downgraded computers will continue after July in the case of HP, and XP will still be installed on some netbooks until 2010, Microsoft is ending mainstream support for the OS on April 14, 2009.  The first phase of the retirement comes over seven years after the first Windows XP shipped.

The fact that it will still be selling XP machines after this discontinuation is a testament to the OS's strong public image, but it also puts Microsoft in a strange position.  Aside from new sales, an estimated 63 percent of internet-connect computers have Windows XP installed (as of March 2009), versus a mere 24 percent with Windows Vista.  In short, Microsoft is in the curious position of ending support for its most widely used product.

Laurence Painell, Windows marketing manager at Microsoft UK reassures customers that while the majority of product-related (i.e. mainstream) support will be ended, key security updates will not.  He states, "We will provide critical security fixes via Windows Update for all editions of XP until 2014."

However, Microsoft will no longer have the burden of answering any non-security issues, except for those users with an
extended support contract with Microsoft or one of its channel partners.  Microsoft says that the familiarity in the tech community with XP, should limit this becoming a problem.  It argues that customers have plenty of support resources to turn to online.

Gartner analyst
Michael Silver praises the move.  He states, "The only thing extended support buys you is creation of new non-security fixes, at a hefty fee for each one. After all these years, most people figure that most of the functional bugs [in XP] are already worked out."

Microsoft is encouraging XP customers to switch to its upcoming OS, Windows 7, particularly those who skipped Vista.  One curious aspect of Windows 7 is that it comes with an offer for an XP downgrade, again throwing a bit of a wrench in Microsoft's retirement plans.  The downgrade is a quick process, but ironically an upgrade from XP to Windows 7 requires a full install. 

Describes a Windows Team blog post, "There are simply too many changes in how PCs have been configured (applets, hardware support, driver model etc) that having all of that support carry forth to Windows 7 would not be nearly as high quality as a clean install." 

Microsoft encourages XP customers to download the Windows 7 beta to ease the transition.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: They do not want to admit
By EasyC on 4/8/2009 12:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
64 bit OS's offer almost identical performance to their 32 bit counterparts when running 32 bit applications.

For example, Vista x64 offers pretty honorable execution for x86 software. At the beginning of its inception, Vista was highly criticized for its performance hit over its predecessor XP. With that said, I've done comparable benchmarks in performance between a Pre-SP1 Vista x64 and XP SP3 x86 on the same machine. The results were nearly identical. Of course with the release of Vista's SP1 (and its kernel enhancements), the performance exceeded that of XP by a small margin.

The only x64 architecture that required properly coded applications was Itanium, but for all intensive purposes, a huge portion of the market is AMD64/EM64T. This is nothing more than an extension of the x86 architecture to handle 64 bit CPU registers in addition to adding more of them. The amount of addressable memory has nothing to do with x64/x86 CPU performance, since you are using 4GB in your point.

To use your own analogy, 4GB is becoming less and less of a cookie jar. I run 12GB's on both my work and home machine and find myself utilizing an average of 4-5 GB's with a normal amount of windows open. I've hit peaks when diving into obscure projects of up to 7 GB's of ram usage. Even with all that memory usage, none of my programs used more than what a 32 bit OS could address on their own.

I've veered off track a bit. My point is unless you're running Itanium hardware (which a completely different 64 bit architecture), you don't need specially designed applications within the current market. Also, with 4GBs becoming a minimum for an average workstation, having the x64 bit version of an OS to handle addressing ALL of your memory should be standard IMO.

RE: They do not want to admit
By TomZ on 4/8/2009 1:32:31 PM , Rating: 3
The problem with 64-bit Windows IMO is that it doesn't support 32-bit device drivers. I have a number of devices (engineering-related) that don't have 64-bit drivers available. I have 64-bit Win7 on my desktop and 32-bit Win7 on my laptop, and consequently, I end up doing much of my work on my laptop because I've had to plug in hardware that only has 32-bit drivers. Now I have to decide whether to downgrade my desktop to 32-bit...yuck.

I wish Microsoft had found a way to support 32-bit device drivers within 64-bit Windows.

RE: They do not want to admit
By Master Kenobi on 4/8/2009 3:42:22 PM , Rating: 1
That would not be possible given the driver models.

RE: They do not want to admit
By TomZ on 4/8/2009 9:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's software - anything's possible - the only question is, what are the tradeoffs and costs?

RE: They do not want to admit
By Pirks on 4/8/2009 9:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
It's possible on Mac OS X tho :P Kernel (and drivers) is 32 bit and apps are 64 bit when necessary, i.e. when developer decides to compile them for x64. Definitely much more user friendly model. I wish MS would do the same.

RE: They do not want to admit
By tastyratz on 4/9/2009 1:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yes a 64 bit os running a 32 bit application is not faster than a 32 bit os running a 32 bit application... but that was not my point and invalid here. Its arguing legacy when I talk about pushing forward. a 32 bit program on a 64 bit os is "legacy"
a 64 bit application on a 64 bit os runs faster than a 32 bit application on a 32 bit os (all things being designed properly).

The switch 64 bit is important - not to run your 32 bit apps faster, but to stop running your 32 bit apps and going 64 altogether.

The 32 bit limitation is total addressable memory, not addressable memory per application (which I believe is what you are implying in your post)

“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki