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

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.


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














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