backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by Dorkyman.. on Apr 27 at 11:59 PM

China is looking at home grown patch solutions now

For many people in the corporate world, there is no real reason or need to upgrade from the 14-year-old Windows XP to a more modern version like Windows 7 or Windows 8. Some cite costs as a reason for not upgrading, while others point to the fact that their “mature” integrated systems simply don’t need anything new or fancy to operate properly.
 
One of the largest organizations that has no desire to move away from Windows XP is the Chinese government. China instead plans to patch XP on its own rather than upgrade to Windows 8, because upgrading would be too expensive (Windows 8 sells for 888 yuan in China, or roughly $142).

Just a little bit of Windows XP nostalgia... 

Chinese firms have reportedly released special protection patches to shore up XP’s defenses and the Chinese government says that it is now assessing those patches for its own use.
 
Estimates peg the number of Chinese computers using XP at nearly 70% compared to 18% in the U.S. As of early April, 25% of all PCs on the market were still running Windows XP.
 
Despite the reluctance for many to leave XP behind, Microsoft finally ended official support for Windows XP earlier this month. So many people weren't keen to move from XP in the business world that Microsoft offered to extend support for some companies for a hefty price. 

Source: Sky



Comments     Threshold


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

Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 10:04:19 AM , Rating: -1
quote:
For many people in the corporate world, there is no real reason or need to upgrade from the 14-year-old Windows XP to a more modern version like Windows 7 or Windows 8.


There's no "real" reason for *anyone* to move from XP to 7 or 8. Other than the fact that Microsoft has now EOLd it, making staying there simply insecure.

Newer versions of Windows provide nothing that the *vast* majority of PC users in the world actually need. Virtually no one outside of a tiny percentage, statistically speaking, is going to find anything in a later OS that's going to make their lives easier or better. And if you think that's not the case...you're wrong.

On the flipside, naturally it makes no sense for Microsoft to continue to invest resources into patching and supporting a product that it hasn't even produced for several years...and which is 4 generations old. Most end users can see that fundamental fact though, as they don't understand software as being different from, say, a toaster. Because to them it isn't. If Hamilton-Beach stops "supporting" my 15 year-old toaster, what do I care? I'll keep using it until it stops toasting things. Which may be never.

Users balk at the notion that they "have" to stop using XP, even though it is perfectly suited for it's task - and likely always would be - because Microsoft has stopped supporting it. They view it as profiteering on Microsoft's part - when what it really is is simply Microsoft stopping the bleeding...they've been pouring tons of money into supporting a product that stopped making them money years ago. No money in and lots of money out is a pretty poor business model.

There's where the confluence of software reality and product ownership reality causes heartburn. Consumers want to use a product they bought forever - or until it, in and of itself, no longer works. And companies exist to, you know, make money. Not lose it. And this is realistically the first time ever that such an example can be had...as people before really had no trouble leaving 95 or 98 to get to XP...and of course, the market grew a lot at the same time...and massive deployments and systems were built on XP that didn't exist before. So this is really a novel experience.

Anyway...I'm really surprised that China hasn't, and isn't, switched to Linux by now. Or some special fork of Linux developed by a government agency. Seems like that would be the obvious choice for them...expecially granted how paranoid they are about everything. They could make their own flavor of Linux, and say OpenOffice, and build in all their own spyware they want to ensure that their government employees aren't doing anything they aren't supposed to be doing. Like having independant thoughts, for example.




RE: Not for anyone
By SAN-Man on 4/23/2014 10:10:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's no "real" reason for *anyone* to move from XP to 7 or 8. Other than the fact that Microsoft has now EOLd it, making staying there simply insecure.


There was a reason for me, and I moved to Vista 64 as soon as I could (July Beta 2006). Resource management/availability was the primary reason. I'm a systems engineer and the productivity and management applications I use daily are not XP friendly, they are Vista 64 or better. These days I couldn't use XP if I wanted to - even the 64 bit variant.


RE: Not for anyone
By sorry dog on 4/23/2014 10:34:14 AM , Rating: 3
Well if anybody is in a position to fix security holes, it's the Chinese gov't. They probably hired many of the hackers who found the hacks to begin with.

I do wonder how they plan to fix the driver support problem. More than any other reason, lack of driver support for new hardware would force me to switch to something newer.


RE: Not for anyone
By therealnickdanger on 4/23/14, Rating: 0
RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 11:50:06 AM , Rating: 1
And you're a member of a tiny minority. I made it eminently clear that I was talking about the vast majority of users who have no such need or interests as you do.


RE: Not for anyone
By deathwombat on 4/23/2014 12:27:15 PM , Rating: 3
Years ago I bought a computer with 4 GB of RAM, of which I could use 3.5 GB. My first graphics card upgrade reduced that to 3 GB. Maybe I didn't need all 4 GB, but wanting access to everything I paid for is a valid reason to upgrade to a 64-bit OS. If you're really going to take the "want vs. need" argument the whole way, most people don't need more than Windows 98. Just use an older browser, an older copy of Office, and you can still Facebook and email to your heart's content. If, like most people, you want to use somewhat recent software and hardware, you have plenty of reasons to want to upgrade your OS, and that's reason enough to upgrade if you can afford to.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/14, Rating: -1
RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 12:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
Bah. "tiny minority" rather.


RE: Not for anyone
By BSMonitor on 4/23/2014 1:25:02 PM , Rating: 4
Web Browser? Careful with that. Try Adobe Flash on Windows XP or Windows with only 2GB of RAM.

Your impression of what a user needs is quite a bit dated.

Add to that some of the more colorful aspects of Microsoft Word, from the 3D objects being added, graphs, etc.. etc..

4GB is a minimum, unless you dumb down your web experience.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/14, Rating: 0
RE: Not for anyone
By Dorkyman on 4/23/2014 4:05:39 PM , Rating: 2
I suggest you install a ram-monitor utility such as RAMpage so you can see just how much ram is actually needed to run stuff. I think you'll find that a browser running flash takes up 200MB. Maybe.


RE: Not for anyone
By Solandri on 4/24/2014 5:39:09 AM , Rating: 2
I run multiple copies of Windows 7 in virtual machines (my way of isolating my financial and government data from my general web browsing).

For most purposes, Win 7 actually runs just fine with 2 GB of RAM. Pared down (unnecessary services turned off), it boots up with only about 700 MB used. I could run my hi-sec financial VM just fine in 1.5 GB. This includes Chrome which has Flash built in. I just leave it at 2 GB because that's what VMWare recommended and I have plenty of physical RAM to spare.

Windows XP actually runs fine in 256 MB. Just last week I prepped some of the old XP boxes I had for donation to Mexico. I bumped them up to 512 MB (actually redistributed RAM between the 256 MB and 1 GB systems), and installed Avast antivirus and Chrome, and they're as happy as a clam. Boot up and they're at about 150 MB used (half of that being the antivirus). The biggest bottleneck is actually the HDD. I'd forgotten how slow those old 33 MHz IDE drives were (about 25 MB/s). The one newer system with SATA ports is much more responsive.


RE: Not for anyone
By NellyFromMA on 4/24/2014 1:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
Chrome is so memory hungry, though (as is IE). You must need to keep web browsing down to a couple of sessions at best I would imagine with only 1.5 or 2GB of ram total.


RE: Not for anyone
By Flunk on 4/23/2014 10:13:03 AM , Rating: 2
Sure there is, Direct X 10+ support. Or WinRT if someone has a burning need for that for some reason.

Microsoft has added new features, even if you don't use them.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 11:40:36 AM , Rating: 1
The vast majority of PC users don't care about what version of DX they have. Only gamers do. And gamers are a tiny minority of all PC users.

quote:
Microsoft has added new features, even if you don't use them.


Hence my original comment. If you don't use them, you don't care.


RE: Not for anyone
By Flunk on 4/23/2014 1:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
That's my point, YOU don't use them. It doesn't mean other people don't. YOU are not the only person on earth.

Microsoft provided 14 years of support at no additional cost, they don't owe you or anyone else anything. They don't exist to give away patches forever. If you don't like their support policies move to a competitive OS, there are plenty of options seeing as you don't care about Direct X support.


RE: Not for anyone
By Flunk on 4/23/2014 1:55:45 PM , Rating: 2
As an aside, this is the same argument I had with a bunch of people when Windows XP came out. Why would I want to use a different OS, Windows 98 is good enough forever.

If you want to stay locked in place year after year go ahead, just don't try to enforce your gospel of denying all progress by yelling at us about it.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 1:57:00 PM , Rating: 1
You might try reading the posts you're replying to. You're so far off base it's sad.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 1:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even read my post? I pointed out quite clearly how no one has any right to complain about MS ending support.

As for:

quote:
YOU are not the only person on earth.


First of all, I *do* use them. Like you do. Unlike you, though, I'm perfectly cognizant of the fact that the both of us are firmly in a tiny minority, statistically speaking. The *vast* majority of the billion or so PC users in the world are not like us at all.

They need to access Facebook and send email. Pretty much it.


RE: Not for anyone
By Spuke on 4/23/2014 3:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They need to access Facebook and send email. Pretty much it.
No one uses their desktops for this anymore. This is all done by mobile devices now. Seriously a lot of people's desktops are collecting dust nowadays. My sis-in-law only uses hers for paying bills.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 5:41:53 PM , Rating: 3
Sure. And therefore, if Microsoft wasn't EOLing XP, XP would continue to be fine for her...

...and others like her.

BTW though, there's at least a whole generation that *does not* do such things on their phones. But they do still do them on their desktops. And probably will until they die.


RE: Not for anyone
By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 10:13:05 AM , Rating: 3
"Newer versions of Windows provide nothing that the *vast* majority of PC users in the world actually need. Virtually no one outside of a tiny percentage, statistically speaking, is going to find anything in a later OS that's going to make their lives easier or better. And if you think that's not the case...you're wrong."

I would add that XP is incredibly insecure and easily corruptible both through security holes (malware) or misconfiguration (user error)... That alone is reason to upgrade, but if XP is working fine and the user is careful, you are right, there is no compelling reason for most users to upgrade.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/14, Rating: 0
RE: Not for anyone
By Labotomizer on 4/23/2014 12:19:53 PM , Rating: 4
Wrong. XP runs everything at the user's access level. So if you're an admin ALL software you run is also an admin. UAC makes Vista and later substantially more secure. Add in things like SmartScreen at an OS level in Windows 8 and numerous other security technologies over the years and there is no question that modern versions of Windows are vastly more secure than XP.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/14, Rating: -1
RE: Not for anyone
By Labotomizer on 4/23/2014 12:40:33 PM , Rating: 5
Lots of people had issues with AV and fully patches machines. The TCO for SMB is FAR lower with Windows 7 than it was with Windows XP. That's a fact.

In a properly run corporate environment with security policies, GPOs, users not running with elevated permissions, AV, corporate firewalls, IDS and IPS systems then sure, XP is fine. But even in the right environment rarely is it run correctly. And at that point, with a layered security approach like you should have, Windows 7 is STILL more secure than XP because it is still a piece of the overall picture. It's just not nearly as big of a factor.

For a home user running with admin rights on their PC browsing FB and using email? Windows 7 is VASTLY more secure than XP. It's not even comparable. You saying "Well, then why did it work once upon a time?" is such an ignorant statement it makes me wonder why you're even posting. You clearly have NO idea how any of this works anyway.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/14, Rating: -1
RE: Not for anyone
By Labotomizer on 4/23/2014 12:48:30 PM , Rating: 4
Sure... I'm sure you've been doing this "since before I was born".

Not once I have I made an argument that XP doesn't work. Not once have I even made an argument that it won't run most software. I simply called out your complete and total fallacy that it is AS SECURE as Windows Vista and later. It is absolutely NOT. If you have a hint of the experience you claim to then you can't argue against that statement. At all.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/14, Rating: 0
RE: Not for anyone
By jimbo2779 on 4/23/2014 1:51:37 PM , Rating: 3
No you were arguing against it being less secure by saying that it is as usable. Nobody else is saying that XP is less usable, they are saying it is less secure which it absolutely is.

You do not win the argument by arguing a completely different point to everyone else.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/14, Rating: 0
RE: Not for anyone
By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 4:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
I am not arguing what you guys are arguing above, but Sorry Moto, it's not the same.

When you said "If you stay current with patches and antivirus/antimalware, you're fine." you may be correct, assuming the user is careful and diligent. The other 1/2 isn't even close to that...

Above you said (about it being insecure) "Not any more so than other OS's" which is completely incorrect. Win7 has alot of security features and 8 even more on top of that. Are they bulletproof? Hell no, but alot more so than XP ever was.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 5:44:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not any more so than other OSs, to be honest. And if you've been keeping current with patches and antivirus/antimalware, it's fine.


Don't try to cherry pick out of the rest of the statement. Does Win7/8 have more built-in security features? Sure. But if you stay current on XP, it's fine.

That is *all* I am saying.


RE: Not for anyone
By retrospooty on 4/24/2014 11:45:11 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, that can be said, but you have to give credence to the other point that most users aren't careful or educated enough to stay clean on XP and will eventually get infected and corrupt it if they are using the internet.

For the normal user, there are good reasons to upgrade. Come on, its 13 years old this Oct.


RE: Not for anyone
By compuser2010 on 4/25/2014 4:03:10 AM , Rating: 3
Thanks for posting. Vista was slow (pre-SP1) and a RAM-guzzler, but it indeed had massive improvements to security over XP. It brought Windows' security up-to-date in so many ways.

I believe the following is a useful article on the subject:

http://blogs.technet.com/b/security/archive/2013/0...

I have a friend who has been using a computer with Windows Vista on it since at least 2010. He has never had any complaints about slowdown, viruses or any other problems on it.

In December, 2012, I installed Windows 8 on a relative's computer. She's on the internet all the time, without anti-virus software, and regularly has long sessions at her computer (4-8 hours, daily). It still is just as fast and responsive as when I first installed it.

On her old computer with Windows XP (after fresh install, security updates, etc.), it would slow down after 3 months.

There's nothing wrong with XP. It's just a different operating system from a different era in computing. Windows Vista was truly a new operating system (NT 6.0 to XP's NT 5.1) and brought Windows into the 21st century with security and areas beyond the subject of security.


RE: Not for anyone
By NellyFromMA on 4/23/2014 1:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
Just for the sake of being a contrarian, what makes the debate any more relevant now than it was when 2000 was EOL'ed, or 98 before it (we'll ignore ME)?

It's the same argument, just further back in time. It was working, but tech has moved forward and so have OS native feature sets. 3rd parties can, and perhaps will for a time, augment those missing features and bring them to the older platform, but inevitably, the older software will degrade into minority usage state.

What can you do in XP that you just CAN'T do in 2000? When you sort that out, then ask yourself if you can apply that analogy to this discussion. It's just old news when you think about it really. You may as well be arguing this case for 2000 and its practically just as applicable, just as a couple years of history.

Microsoft isn't taking XP away from you any more than it has taken any software away from anyone, which is to directly state it has taken NO software from any paying consumer.

You can still use XP just as much as you can still use 95 if that's what you insist on. But, the majority of general-wishy-washy users are moving on. That's how its been and that's how it will be. Unless there's a crucial detail I'm missing here...

Make no mistake, you get WAY more value for your money in the licensing pricing model than you ever will on the subscription based model. Why do you think software vendors are going that route instead?

Nickel-and-diming works in America. See every single one of your bills for proof.

Netflix will raise their fees. MS will raise their fees. Everyone will, because nickel-and-diming works. You will pay more, but your perception will be that you get more, when you really won't because that's not what these guys are in the business for.

We all received a VERY steady stream of updates, both feature-wise and security-wise for a pretty small monthly price when divided over 10 years and then divided by 12 months. There's your XP subscription. You probably pay more for nearly ever other bill in your life.

/Contrarian


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 2:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest difference between XP and 2000 may be the market that happened concurrently with the OS.

The Win2k installed base at the time that XP came out was a tiny fraction of what the XP installed base was when Vista came out - or even now, for that matter. In the Win2k era, it was kind of seen as the "professional and server OS" wheras regular consumers were using 98 and Me.

Win2k was pretty stable, having been built on the NT kernel...and that enhanced stability moved into XP with it.

At any rate, the biggest difference is probably that not many regular consumers were using Win2k, and the market grew to dizzying heights during the reign of XP. The sheer force of the "weight" of the XP installed base is a differential of biblical proportions.


RE: Not for anyone
By sorry dog on 4/24/2014 9:15:37 AM , Rating: 2
When I look at from a basic sales point of view it seems to tie into what is going on.

If I'm trying to sell a 98 customer on XP then it's not too hard to find benefits that the customer will understand.

For an XP to Win8 transition, that sell is much harder to make.


RE: Not for anyone
By NellyFromMA on 4/24/2014 1:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's the same sell. The old platform is EOL and the successor platform has more native featuresets and is now the focus of the vendor. It's the same.


RE: Not for anyone
By NellyFromMA on 4/24/2014 1:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
That hardly creates an obligation on MS part to keep supporting it. Especially since there are 3 newer OSes since.

That's essentially saying because that product was so successful starting 10 years ago or more that they now must be punished for retiring it altogether when they make no money doing so.

Further, the upgrade cost to the latest OS is rather inexpensive. They give people the option to stay on XP or move up to the latest. They force no one to do anything in this situation as far as I can tell.


RE: Not for anyone
By dagamer34 on 4/23/2014 10:14:42 AM , Rating: 2
Why not just stick with Windows 3.1 at that point?


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 11:43:23 AM , Rating: 3
Because 3.1 was pretty unfriendly...and not overly stable. And can't manage much memory...etc. But you knew that.

A lot changed up until we got to XP. Then suddenly XP was literally good enough...forever. Honestly, if Microsoft continued to support XP indefinitely, it would be in use by large numbers of people until they all died themselves. And they wouldn't miss anything that the newer OSs had that came out during their lifetimes.


RE: Not for anyone
By amanojaku on 4/23/2014 12:32:45 PM , Rating: 4
XP SP3 was fairly friendly and very stable, but it wasn't perfect:

1) Explorer leaked memory when folders were left open
2) XP was noticeably slower than 7, and 7 is slower than 8
3) 64-bit support was difficult to include to XP (PAE is NOT acceptable)
4) XP's architecture made it difficult to secure

I'm not one to use every Windows release when it comes out. I skipped Vista and installed 7 two years ago. But I can't say I feel for anyone still using XP who's complaining that MS won't support it any more. The issue isn't that MS won't support XP; it's 14 year-old software! The problem is the people who think MS SHOULD. Keep using XP if you want, just don't bother MS about it.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 12:40:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
1) Explorer leaked memory when folders were left open


Maybe. The vast majority of users don't care.

quote:
2) XP was noticeably slower than 7, and 7 is slower than 8


No it's not. Especially not on hardware that originally came with XP.

quote:
3) 64-bit support was difficult to include to XP (PAE is NOT acceptable)


To you. The vast majority of users don't know what PAE is, and don't care, and also don't care what the bit-level of their OS is. They just want it to work.

quote:
4) XP's architecture made it difficult to secure


And yet it's fine if you stay current with patches and antivirus/antimalware - if it wasn't, there wouldn't be hundreds of millions of XP machines in use today.

quote:
But I can't say I feel for anyone still using XP who's complaining that MS won't support it any more.


I don't either. In fact, I spent a decent amount of time explaining why no one should complain.

I don't disagree that people need to leave XP now...in fact, I've been busy migrating a lot of people/businesses away from XP for the past few months. However, the point stands and is irrefutably valid that the *only* reason for the VAST majority of the world's PC owners to move away from XP is the fact that Microsoft finally EOLd it. If Microsoft would still support it, then the vast hordes of PC users could still happily use XP now...and probably essentially forever. At least until they themselves died, and the grandkids threw their antique computing devices in the trash.


RE: Not for anyone
By Murloc on 4/23/2014 10:16:31 AM , Rating: 2
when moving to windows 7 (vista not so much but it did have some new nice features) the new features made my use much faster and hassle free.
This applies to the vast majority of people.

Example: the new show desktop button, the search in the new start menu,no more software icons, that's a big shift from how it was in the 90s.
Also the fast install, fast startup, all that stuff has gotten much faster. And SSD support.

Of course nothing of this is critical so the companies and government entities who just need it for their office and have no issues with security and are running old computers aren't willing to shell out money to upgrade, which for them is much more difficult for a single home user.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 11:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
XP got a search bar at some point along the way. Works just like the one in Win7. It also had a show desktop button. No idea what you mean by "no software icons."

Fast install users don't care about. Fast startup...um, XP starts as fast as Win7 on the same hardware...if not faster. Win7 is *not* faster than XP on the same hardware, and in fact is likely to be significantly slower.

And the SSD support, again, the *vast* majority of users don't care about.

There are niches of PC users that care about things like that. But you have to understand you are a tiny minority compared to the billion other PC users in the world. The overwhelming majority of PC users never do anything more nifty than browsing the web and using AOL email. That's the market you're catering to.


RE: Not for anyone
By FaaR on 4/23/2014 10:54:03 AM , Rating: 1
Reasons to move from XP:

UEFI support
USB3 support
SSD support
DirectX 11 support
Better power management options
More modern driver model
Higher anti-malware security
...And so on.


RE: Not for anyone
By Dorkyman on 4/23/2014 11:31:11 AM , Rating: 2
USB3...Gee, can't I buy a cheap card that will handle that?

SSD support...Um, I'm using an SSD right now on my XPpro desktop. Works great, self-cleans.

DirectX 11...Feh.

Better power management...I don't understand. My XPpro sleeps, hibernates. Not sure what I'm missing.

I'm sure there are incremental benefits, but on the whole XP runs great and there is no compelling reason to rebuild from scratch. And I'm sure you are as shocked as I was when the deadline passed for official Microsoft support...and nothing happened.


RE: Not for anyone
By Guspaz on 4/23/2014 11:43:37 AM , Rating: 2
USB3 support: Windows XP officially does not support USB3, and while a limited number of manufacturers provide XP drivers for their controllers, the vast majority don't. Intel doesn't, and certainly no onboard USB3 ports will work unless downgraded to USB2 mode in the BIOS.

SSD support: XP works with SSDs, but has sub-optimal behaviour. There's the whole shouldn't-run-defrag-on-SSD thing, the partition offset thing, etc. Most of these issues can be manually worked around. You can disable defragmentation, or manually re-align your partitions, for example.

DirectX 11: Sure, but DX10 isn't supported either, and not all games still support DX9. There are ways to trick DX10 into installing on XP, but I wouldn't rely on that sort of thing.

Power management: you're missing lower power use. There's more to conserving power than just supporting sleep states. Newer versions of Windows provide longer battery life while performing the same tasks by supporting newer power saving features in processors. XP is pretty bad in this regard. It'll work just fine, it'll just use more power to do it.

The main issue with XP, of course, is that the lack of security updates going forward are going to be increasingly problematic. Everything is fine for the moment, but as soon as somebody finds a remote exploit and Microsoft doesn't fix it, the show is up.


RE: Not for anyone
By Dorkyman on 4/23/2014 12:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
I hear you, but still many (most?) people view this as MS desperately trying to milk additional revenue by forcing people off of a product that works really well already.

As for USB3, I did a quickie search, found a USB3 card on Amazon (first hit on Google) and it was compatible with everything from XP forward.

Regarding SSD, yes, I don't defrag any more and I had to realign the partition, which took a couple of minutes. I use a Plextor SSD and boot is about twice as fast as the 10,000 rpm Raptor I used before.

Anyway, I will switch to a different OS when there's an application that I need which won't run on XP. I use a LOT of applications and it hasn't happened yet, but we'll see.


RE: Not for anyone
By Labotomizer on 4/23/2014 12:24:27 PM , Rating: 5
Yes... Supporting a piece of software that you could have bought 14 years ago for all this time and finally ending support is "milking" the customer. Seriously, what are you people on? No other OS in history was supported as long as XP. No Linux distro, no Mac OS release, NOTHING. And people act like Microsoft is trying to screw them over for ending support on a 14 year old OS that, at most, you paid $200 for. Wow.


RE: Not for anyone
By Dorkyman on 4/23/2014 4:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it's just ridiculously old.

You know, to me the OS is just a tool. A tool to help me get work done. I've got a whole variety of tools that I use all the time. Some are quite sophisticated and yet maybe 40 years old. I haven't thrown them out to buy newer tools because they still work fine.


RE: Not for anyone
By itsfreebecauseiwantit on 4/23/2014 5:56:57 PM , Rating: 1
what a fucking retarded comparison.... Maybe your mommy should also keep holding your hand for the rest of your life?


RE: Not for anyone
By Dorkyman on 4/27/2014 11:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
?


RE: Not for anyone
By FaaR on 4/24/2014 3:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sure there are incremental benefits, but on the whole XP runs great and there is no compelling reason to rebuild from scratch.

I suppose you don't use any software that needs more than 2GB RAM then... Good for you, but your needs are hardly universal, especially going forwards when even games consoles have multiple times that amount of RAM installed.

quote:
And I'm sure you are as shocked as I was when the deadline passed for official Microsoft support...and nothing happened.

What, you expected your PC to just stop working overnight or something? Of course things will roll on business as usual...for a while.

Just you wait though until a couple 0day exploits have hit, see what your tune you'll be singing then. ;)


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 11:48:27 AM , Rating: 2
None of which matter to the VAST majority of the world's PC users.

Other than your last point, which really isn't an issue if you keep current with OS patches and antivirus/antimalware.

The rest of your list is less than worthless to the hundreds of millions of PC users that never do anything more sophisticated than Facebook and email.


RE: Not for anyone
By Labotomizer on 4/23/2014 12:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
If you're using your computer for Facebook and Email then you DEFINITELY need to get off XP. You're really showing serious ignorance here.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 12:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
Check the mirror pal. You're projecting.

If your position were even vaguely true, the world's XP computers would have all been unusable a long time ago. But there's still hundreds of millions of them in use...and they're working well. That right there proves you wrong.


RE: Not for anyone
By Labotomizer on 4/23/2014 12:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
HAHAHAHAHA

You're awesome. Yes, I'm showing my ignorance. I probably don't have a background in system architecture and design. I probably don't have a background in network security. Nope.

Saying XP is "as good as" Windows 7 in security is FACTUALLY wrong. It's not an opinion. It is a fact.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 12:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
Point out to me where I said XP is "as good as" Windows 7 in security.

Go on. I'll wait.

I said if you stay current on patches and antivirus/antimalware, you're fine.

Those two items are not the same. That is a fact.


RE: Not for anyone
By Labotomizer on 4/23/2014 12:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
Son of a b.....

This would be a hell of a lot more fun if we were at a bar. Plus, I doubt we'd be discussing the merits of XP. Good on you sir.

Although I still think home users are at far bigger risk running XP than corporate users.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 12:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
I would agree about being at a bar.

Home users are always at a bigger risk - because no one else is making sure their machines are patched and that their security utilities are up to date.

At any rate, I am happy to close this topic, and bid you good day.


RE: Not for anyone
By Labotomizer on 4/23/2014 12:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
That works out, I need to get back to my ESL classes. :)


RE: Not for anyone
By FaaR on 4/24/2014 3:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, so you're the authority on what the vast majority of the world's people need. Good to know!

Anyway, if you're using a windows xp computer to facebonk and email with you're better off with a tablet. XP computers in this day and age are hilariously slow, inefficient, old and obsolete.

In any case, it's not really enough just to be up to date with antivirus and security patches (what security patches one might say, going forward), as the OS is inherently insecure compared to more modern software. Like the Ford Pinto, winXP has the gas tank behind the rear axle, just waiting to get rear-ended. It's never going to be as secure, or heck, secure period, compared to windows8.

Damn, can't believe I sit here defending that POS win8, look what you made me do!!! ;)


RE: Not for anyone
By Dr of crap on 4/23/2014 12:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yet again missing the first point - a vast majority of user don't NEED what is on your list.

Grandpa and grandma looking at grandsons and granddaughters pictures on the facebook, or doing some email and checking for air fares DON'T need anything other than what XP offers - period.

Yes we ALL know that there are some that need to move on to Win7. And some have a need to move on for what XP does not have.

Lets try a number then - let's say 80% of PC users do not NEED anymore than what XP offers, IF security was NOT an issue. If all you do is facebook, email, vacation planning, recipes, ect XP is fine.

Please don't post WHY YOU need to move on we all get it, some need to.


RE: Not for anyone
By Griffinhart on 4/23/2014 4:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lets try a number then - let's say 80% of PC users do not NEED anymore than what XP offers, IF security was NOT an issue. If all you do is facebook, email, vacation planning, recipes, ect XP is fine


See, this is where the "vast majority" argument kind of breaks down for me.

I agree that the vast majority only use their computers for certain activities like you list, and even that those same users may not care about DX11, SSD, or USB 3 etc...

On the other hand, those are the same vast majority of users that randomly click on links sent to them, don't really watch their malware status, etc... People are citing points for the "vast majority" while making the assumption that they manage their system reasonably well. Anyone with Non-Tech friends and families that has been called time and time again to "fix" their computers knows exactly what I am talking about. These are the same people that never run windows update, let their "trial AV software" expire and let it sit for years...

It's for this reason alone, in my book, that the vast majority should move away from XP.

It just becomes more apparent to me when those same users buy off the shelf hardware (camera's, printers, etc) and software that may no longer run on XP. Photoshop (full) and Lightroom do not support XP, and Even Photoshop Elements has a more limited range of camera files it can support on XP.

If you only surf, email, etc and Keep up to date with patches, Malware updates, have reasonable security settings on your machine, don't run everything as admin then XP is probably perfectly fine. This person, however, IS NOT one of the "Vast majority" of windows users.


RE: Not for anyone
By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 4:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
"those are the same vast majority of users that randomly click on links sent to them, don't really watch their malware status, etc... People are citing points for the "vast majority" while making the assumption that they manage their system reasonably well. Anyone with Non-Tech friends and families that has been called time and time again to "fix" their computers knows exactly what I am talking about."

Yup... The "vast majority" of people aren't diligent enough to keep themselves from being infected, espectially in a post patch XP era. It was bad enough when getting the updates from MS. Now it isn't, so newly discovered exploits will spread much faster than before.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 5:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
...and the same stupid people are blowing up their Win7 and Win8 machines.

You can't fix PEBKAC. The statement is, and has been, "if you keep current on patches and antivirus/antimalware, you're fine."

Otherwise, a stupid user can blow up anything.


RE: Not for anyone
By Griffinhart on 4/23/2014 6:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, they are the same type of person, but at least the out of the box settings of 7 and 8 are far more safe than the default settings of XP, especially an out of life XP. So, no you can't fix PEBKAC but you can mitigate it. XP is just encouraging problems.


RE: Not for anyone
By Myrandex on 4/23/2014 1:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
I used XP64 for a large number of years. What ultimately got me to move away from there was the desire to integrate media center into my PC (wasn't compatible with XP64) and hardware acceleration for PhotoShop (not available for XP64).

Other features were nice and I enjoyed the graphical enhancements at the desktop level that Vista and 7 offered. Everything seemed smoother and quitter fast on a capable machine.

Jason


RE: Not for anyone
By Donkey2008 on 4/24/2014 2:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
I find 32-bit XP slow as molasses on most machines. The lack of pre-fetch and RAM caching really makes a HUGE difference to everyday use IMO, especially when multi-tasking with several large apps (even worse if you run out of memory and hit the page file). There isn't a lot of support for 64-bit XP so I doubt that is an option for users wanting the benefit of more RAM while retaining XP.

But you are correct that for most people it works fine and anything more than 2GB of RAM (with XP) is probably way overkill to most users. I don't know what the SSD support is like on XP (never installed XP on one) but I guess it would run pretty zippy.

That said, technology has to move forward. Without new products the market will become stagnant. 64-bit Windows 7 is a wonderful OS and a great successor to 32-bit XP. Migrated XP users still get to do what they allows did while power users get the benefits of 4GB+ of memory with a 64-bit OS (CAD, games, video editing). Plus, Microsoft can concentrate on supporting one less OS. Win Win, I can't say the same about Windows 8 though.


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














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