Does anyone plan on dropping XP?

Ralph Bromley

Honorable Member
#21
1st of all, Windows OSs are on a 3 year life-cycle. XP hung around much longer than it was supposed to or should have. Vista was sluggish and 3rd party vendors were not ready w/ drivers or compatible software or hardware when it was released. So less than 3 years later Windows 7 arrived. Windows 8 was released on schedule exactly 3 years after 7. Windows 9 will be released 3 years after Windows 8.
Now I can shenanigans, firstly windoews lifespans are actually far longer, here is from the dragons mouth:

Desktop operating systems
Latest service pack
End of mainstream support
End of extended support
Windows XP

Service Pack 3

April 14, 2009

April 8, 2014

Windows Vista

Service Pack 2

April 10, 2012

April 11, 2017

Windows 7 *

Service Pack 1

January 13, 2015

January 14, 2020

Windows 8

Not yet available

January 9, 2018

January 10, 2023


Source:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/products/lifecycle


We early adopters of Windows 8 have listen to the rhetoric regarding the Win8 interface for many months. It was never deserving & still, isn't. There are decent tutorials for Windows 8 both in the OS itself, on the Net, @ Microsoft.com & in forums such as this one. As David mentioned, I have been telling people for all these any months one can easily use Win8 w/out leaving Desktop or bothering w/ Tiles or the unfamiliar style of display found on the ALL Applications screen. That fact is many people, actually like the APPs, Tiles and how all that can be use or even be of benefit to their computing needs, tasks and daily work or jobs. Most of the whining is either from a lack of willingness to go w/ something new & different. I, like many others, had no problem discovering Win8 & the 'adventure' was interesting & fun. There are so many positive attributes to Win8 that huge time over cosmetics really misses the boat. There are many cool enhancements w/ 8.1. There Win icon permanently on the Taskbar just means one can hit that instead of the Windows key. And yes one can set it to boot directly to Desktop... saves hitting ENTER on those rare times one needs to boot. And it can now be set to go to ALL Applications instead of Start. And, yet, I, still, use an Applications window on the Taskbar, never leave Desktop, never see Start or ALL Applications. Hard to validate making a fuss about something one can chose to not even use. Aside from that aspect Windows 8 is fast, smooth, and, truth, easy to use... takes less digging and steps than Windows 7 did for similar tasks.
Yeah like turning off the computer, that is so easy to do in the current windows 8.
No wait no its not, you have to open the charms bar then hit the power button and then hit the power button.
Windows 7 shutting down the computer is a one step process.
Granted here in linux we too have a three step process of shut down, most of it is opening up a menu of some kind then hitting the power down option and then the system asking if you want to shut down.
But at least in linux there is a viable reason, what if you forgot to save your document or something and all that is lost because you forgot to save before shutting down.
If an OS is going to add an extra step it has to give good reasons for it, windows 8 lacks such a reason, it dfoes it because it can.

We don't hear nearly as much complaining about this stuff anymore as time as passed. I have sold Windows 8 & Windows 8 machines to a number of clients. ALL like it a lot & w/ a couple of tips & a couple minutes of 'how tos' they have had no problem working w/ it.
Well if you are selling thin gs to people and telling them how it works, good, thats actually better then what Microsoft has done overall.
You certainly wont get that nonsense from those idiots at best buy or something.

I must be blind cus I don't see problems w/ Windows but, anyone can see problems IF they want to & IF they want to consider something a problem. Attitude & perception.
No you are blind, if you must only see your side of things.

Nor is it right to try to imply Microsoft to be so sort of bad guy in regard to mobility. Nor to suggest Win8 is crap on a regular PC or laptop. IT works just as well, just as nicely on a standard, non-Touch machine, as anything else. One of the major accomplished design goals of 8 was to function across various devices. As for mobility, that is not s Microsoft thing... that is a matter of our changing world. PEOPLE want or need mobility. From teens to adults that is the way things have gone & are going. Regarding business, that is (now) the way or things & that is only going to intensify. The workforce is changing, fewer stationary desk scenarios & more & more workers ARE mobile. Ergo manufacturers are responding to this.
No it is right to say Microsoft is the bad guy as they didnt think before they acted, it was more about the latest and greatest rather then what is practical.
I would expect that kind of behavior in linux as it too is an ever evolving platform, but heres the thing, I actually understand why things are the way they are in linux.
It doesnt support my x device?
That is not linuxes fault
It cant install my x program?
That is not linuxes fault
That part all goes down to people willing to develop for it.
True we in linux have had our share of UI changes, the most extreme is Gnome shell, something I would never have a windows user experience without proper guidance.
Ubuntu on the other hand with its unity interface?
Different story, sure some things are different but no OS is exactl;y like windows except windows.
The problem then comes when windows doesnt behave like windows which 8 is doing.
Its one thing to adapt to a new market but make sure when you do that you dont alienate your old customers.
It seems like Microsoft learned nothing from Vista, or ME.
When you push something that is unready you do more harm then good.
And yes I am saying windows 8 is unready, its for a market that is still emerging and you must balance it out.
Once again this is where i think Ubuntu is actually better, but like i mentioned in one of my posts i will make my assertions of where I feel Ubuntu shines where windows doesnt.

Most of the assets of Windows 8 are under the covers. Most of the assets of 8.1 are under the covers. One cool superficial thing is adding Shutdown options to the Power Users menu ( for the rare times shutdown or reboot is necessary saves going to Charms) and Search is improved. There are, also, a lot of things in 8.1 business will like, same as a lot of Windows 8 focused on & catered to business. Win8 is more streamlined & simplistic than 7 was. But, comparing it to XP is just ridiculous. XP's time has passed. Or did a while ago. Welcome to today & the future of computing.
Again i call shinanigans, windows 8 is hardly streamlined, its an OS that is confused on rather if it wants to be a tablet OS or a desktop OS.
Sure Windows 8.1 is an improvement but not by much.
There are a lot of things that I think can be done to make Windows 8 usable for all users

Sorry, but, some of us grow weary of this sorts of discussions cus they are just not deserving. Complain that the river flows a certain direction, swim against the current but, it will, still, flow & in the same direction. Trying to bash the river or blame its source won't matter. Computing will, still, continue along its course.
Not deserving?
Not deserving!
What a load a bull
 


Ralph Bromley

Honorable Member
#22
Hi Drew,

I think you have a point, but mine may make even more sense. For a total of $10 USD to Stardock, you can...
  • Get back the entire start menu with Start8
  • Run every Modern UI app from the desktop with ModernUI
Under this scenario, you are running an updated Windows 6.2 kernel and still, essentially, have all the features that you feel were deprecated in Windows 7. The only major loss for me has been FRAPS. It was quite possibly the best screen recorder software for Windows - period. Camtasia is sluggish in comparison. FRAPS simply gave the raw output of the video, uncompressed, as it was being tracked. This required a lot of disk space, even a slave drive, but I do the same for my VM's and it was lightning fast and superb quality.
Yes but $10 more bucks for something that should be default?
Nope not buying that nonsense either.
Plus there are a few actually free windows 8 replacement menus, StartW8 seems real popular.
As does classic shell.
 


Mike

Windows Forum Admin
Staff member
Premium Supporter
#23
Certainly I never said "rule out Classic Shell" or don't use it. But I know for a fact that Stardock worked with Microsoft on Windows XP and its theming system. I know that this is the most authentic recreation of the Start menu - period. There will be others, but this one does it.

Do I think it should be required to pay $10 extra? Absolutely not. People wanted the Start Menu back as an option for the desktop, and they added the button. If this isn't misinterpreting customer feedback, I don't know what is. I sincerely doubt the people who asked for the Start button back, the thousands of journalists and OpEd's, were trying to say, it would be nice if you gave us a graphic of the Start button with a limited, feature deprecated menu, that can be accessed using Windows Key + X anyway.

Of course that is a failure, but Windows 8 has cut corners to try to catch up with Google and Apple in the mobile/tablet market. They can do so because they have market leverage over the desktop PC market and when their customers complain, they know that their customers have very little recourse. It is the same with Google. They compete globally in other markets like mobile hardware because they have 90% of the market they started in cornered. In the 20th century this was called a trust and today these multinational corporations would be violating anti-trust laws. Instead, they settle these cases for fines and continue operating.

 


Ralph Bromley

Honorable Member
#24
Certainly I never said "rule out Classic Shell" or don't use it. But I know for a fact that Stardock worked with Microsoft on Windows XP and its theming system. I know that this is the most authentic recreation of the Start menu - period. There will be others, but this one does it.

Do I think it should be required to pay $10 extra? Absolutely not. People wanted the Start Menu back as an option for the desktop, and they added the button. If this isn't misinterpreting customer feedback, I don't know what is. I sincerely doubt the people who asked for the Start button back, the thousands of journalists and OpEd's, were trying to say, it would be nice if you gave us a graphic of the Start button with a limited, feature deprecated menu, that can be accessed using Windows Key + X anyway.

Of course that is a failure, but Windows 8 has cut corners to try to catch up with Google and Apple in the mobile/tablet market. They can do so because they have market leverage over the desktop PC market and when their customers complain, they know that their customers have very little recourse. It is the same with Google. They compete globally in other markets like mobile hardware because they have 90% of the market they started in cornered. In the 20th century this was called a trust and today these multinational corporations would be violating anti-trust laws. Instead, they settle these cases for fines and continue operating.

yeh but you ignore both Google and Microsoft are guilty of antitrust.
You might as well be the pot calling the kettle black.
Trust me I am a linux user and we can call shenanigans on both Google and MS, and Apple for that matter.
As for Stardock, feh I have had my share of issues with stardock.
Pay them or else get adware, I hated that nonsense.
 


Mike

Windows Forum Admin
Staff member
Premium Supporter
#25
How do I ignore it? There is anti-competitive behavior across the board. I stated that they pay fines for it and settle it out of court and continue. That doesn't mean I have ignored it or condone it. But the fact remains, this is a marketing strategy and its the only reason this menu is still absent in the system - the menu is probably deemed too shabby and too much of a reminder of a non-touchscreen interface. The ability to differentiate between a desktop system and a mobile system is too difficult for them to implement or they simply chose not to - they want the behavior to be the same to encourage a unified platform. They were caught with their pants down when Linux literally took off under Google with Android and Chrome OS. They have no recourse but to do this, in the mind of a business.

For example, I have seen many people state Internet Explorer 11 is an annoyance. And the entire line of Internet Explorer products has been inferior ever since it defeated Netscape years and years ago. Well, this is obvious. But Microsoft has the money to develop a completely inferior product, in the minds of many people, for years on end, and continue to push out updates to add features that are already prominent in other web browsers. Then, they release this product for free after untold millions are spent on its continued, unprofitable development.

They then bundle this with their overall operating system platform. This has been going on for years, but for any other business that was facing reasonable competition, they would never be able to do this. People simply would not accept it and it would be a waste of funds. If I am wrong, for instance, why then, is Eudora, the e-mail client developer, forgotten, with their product no longer used by anyone? What happened to HotDog, the most famous HTML editor of the 1990's? They could not continue to fund their project in the face of competition, which resulted in a superior product.
 


Ralph Bromley

Honorable Member
#26
How do I ignore it? There is anti-competitive behavior across the board. I stated that they pay fines for it and settle it out of court and continue. That doesn't mean I have ignored it or condone it. But the fact remains, this is a marketing strategy and its the only reason this menu is still absent in the system - the menu is probably deemed too shabby and too much of a reminder of a non-touchscreen interface. The ability to differentiate between a desktop system and a mobile system is too difficult for them to implement or they simply chose not to - they want the behavior to be the same to encourage a unified platform. They were caught with their pants down when Linux literally took off under Google with Android and Chrome OS. They have no recourse but to do this, in the mind of a business.

For example, I have seen many people state Internet Explorer 11 is an annoyance. And the entire line of Internet Explorer products has been inferior ever since it defeated Netscape years and years ago. Well, this is obvious. But Microsoft has the money to develop a completely inferior product, in the minds of many people, for years on end, and continue to push out updates to add features that are already prominent in other web browsers. Then, they release this product for free after untold millions are spent on its continued, unprofitable development.

They then bundle this with their overall operating system platform. This has been going on for years, but for any other business that was facing reasonable competition, they would never be able to do this. People simply would not accept it and it would be a waste of funds. If I am wrong, for instance, why then, is Eudora, the e-mail client developer, forgotten, with their product no longer used by anyone? What happened to HotDog, the most famous HTML editor of the 1990's? They could not continue to fund their project in the face of competition, which resulted in a superior product.
well there is nothing wrong with a unified approach, like I said that is something that i actually think ubuntu is actually doing right on.
Its how the approach is done, thats where it all counts.

And yeah overall the way Microsoft seems to be doing things, they certainly on a sinking ship model right now.
If they can get their heads out of the clouds they can save themselves.
And how they can do that is you know... listening to the consumer, like a company should do.
That right there though is the big issue with businesses like Microsoft, its more about Money then the consumer.
And when you do that instead of you know... having a brain and thinking for a flippin second you actually loose money instead of gain it.
As is what is happening with Microsoft.
 


Mike

Windows Forum Admin
Staff member
Premium Supporter
#27
I think that they would be best to do what they need to do to get in line with the times, for example Windows 8 and its support for ARM and mobile platforms and devices. I agree with that, but I do not agree with any decision that limits consumer choices, especially when it is a feature that most people would be happy to see in the operating system. Even if the option was hidden deep in the Control Panel, it would be foolish to simply eliminate it.
 


Ralph Bromley

Honorable Member
#28
I think that they would be best to do what they need to do to get in line with the times, for example Windows 8 and its support for ARM and mobile platforms and devices. I agree with that, but I do not agree with any decision that limits consumer choices, especially when it is a feature that most people would be happy to see in the operating system. Even if the option was hidden deep in the Control Panel, it would be foolish to simply eliminate it.
Well seeing support for ARM is a good thing, it is a good platform.
And its nice to see another archetecture take hold, after the dominace of x86 and amd64 respectively.
Though amd64 will be still a decent standard for times to come for those who dont want mobile.

Still though this is thin ice skating here, new markets can make or break a company and it looks like Mobile might be Microsofts Achilles heel.
 


#29
Why anyone stays or wants to stay w/ XP is a real mystery. It was good in its day. But, you could not pay many of us to use XP, again; not when there is an OS so much better. Things are not made for XP anymore, things don't run on or don't work on XP (now), support is disappearing. It was ok, in its time, but, pales compared to contemporary Operating systems.

Just the humble opinion of an IT Pro.

Cheers,
Drew
These are the things people say that I don't get.

Why isn't it still good?
What OS is there that it is "so much better"?
Why is that OS "so much better"?
What isn't made for XP anymore?
What things don't run or work on XP anymore?
Why does it pale in comparison to "contemporary" OS's?

And don't try to go on that there's no support rubbish. If you're relying on M$'s firewall and antivirus, then security is the LAST thing you should be talking about. And try to give specific answers to the questions. You said it, you should have answers.
 


#30
Two comes familiarity, some people just dont like change, there are people who are used to one setup are adverse to change.
Heck there are some people who are scared off by the simplest of changes.
Why do people always fall back on the "change" argument. It has nothing to do with being afraid of change. It has more to do with not wanting to go from something that works to something that doesn't just because it's new.

I used to drive a Jeep Wrangler. As soon as George Bush was declared King of america, the first thing he and President Halliburton did was double the price of gasoline. I got rid of my 15mpg Jeep and got a 40mpg Scion xD. This is an example of a "good" change an one I wasn't opposed to. Three years later I traded in my 40mpg Scion xD for a Scion xB, which as it turned out, only got 28mpg. This is an example of "bad" change. It was one I was opposed to.

The people who use the "afraid of change" argument don't see why I didn't like the xB. The people who think that just because something is new it must be better and anyone who doesn't see why must be an idiot don't see why I didn't like the xB.

Windows XP is the Scion xD, and Windows 7/8 is the Scion xB. It's as simple as that.
 


Ralph Bromley

Honorable Member
#31
These are the things people say that I don't get.

Why isn't it still good?
What OS is there that it is "so much better"?
Why is that OS "so much better"?
What isn't made for XP anymore?
What things don't run or work on XP anymore?
Why does it pale in comparison to "contemporary" OS's?

And don't try to go on that there's no support rubbish. If you're relying on M$'s firewall and antivirus, then security is the LAST thing you should be talking about. And try to give specific answers to the questions. You said it, you should have answers.
You know those are very valid questions, I will try to answer them to the best of my abilities:

Why isn't it still good?
Answer: XP is showing its age, and has been doing so for some time now.
Firstly is its lack of 64bit support, XP was made in the era of 32bit processors and was intended for that market.
Sure XP has a64bit version but its sub par compared to later versions of windows and linux respectively.
This goes beyond fanncy glassy windows and effects, its more or less about how XP is clearly a product of its time.

What OS is there that it is "so much better"?
Answer: Well the term "better" is subjective, but there are a few OS out there that in most respects are "better then XP in my opinion.
Such as Windows 7, Ubuntu Linux 12.04 , Mac OSX Snow Leopard

Why is that OS "so much better"?
Answer: For Windows 7 I say its security and stability, XP is a security nightmare very vulnerable to all the nasty stuff. Plus I never found XP all that reliable, often it would bluescreen for no reason.
For Ubuntu I say security as well, sure it lacks stability but Ubuntus sort of cutting edge.
Snow leopard is a fine crafted OS, secure, very stable and reliable, if its one good thing I can say about Apple is that they know how to code an OS

What isn't made for XP anymore?
What things don't run or work on XP anymore?
Answer: Hardware mainly, though quite a lot of software doesnt support it like some modern games.
This answer can be for both these two qustions

Why does it pale in comparison to "contemporary" OS's?
This can be summed up by all the above answers really.

Why do people always fall back on the "change" argument. It has nothing to do with being afraid of change. It has more to do with not wanting to go from something that works to something that doesn't just because it's new.

I used to drive a Jeep Wrangler. As soon as George Bush was declared King of america, the first thing he and President Halliburton did was double the price of gasoline. I got rid of my 15mpg Jeep and got a 40mpg Scion xD. This is an example of a "good" change an one I wasn't opposed to. Three years later I traded in my 40mpg Scion xD for a Scion xB, which as it turned out, only got 28mpg. This is an example of "bad" change. It was one I was opposed to.

The people who use the "afraid of change" argument don't see why I didn't like the xB. The people who think that just because something is new it must be better and anyone who doesn't see why must be an idiot don't see why I didn't like the xB.

Windows XP is the Scion xD, and Windows 7/8 is the Scion xB. It's as simple as that.
Well fear of change can still be a factor no matter how you cut it.
And w are not talking about cars here, cars overall are about the same.
OS's however are another matter, a lot of differences can appear between version a of an OS and version x of an OS
 


#32
There are a million reasons to get off XP & have been for years & long before Windows 8 arrived.

Cheers,
Drew
I hope your ready to start listing, because I'll be counting. Remember... security doesn't count.
 


#34
Why isn't it still good?
Answer: XP is showing its age, and has been doing so for some time now.
Firstly is its lack of 64bit support, XP was made in the era of 32bit processors and was intended for that market.
Sure XP has a64bit version but its sub par compared to later versions of windows and linux respectively.
This goes beyond fanncy glassy windows and effects, its more or less about how XP is clearly a product of its time.


Considering that most software today is made for 32bit systems, this isn't really a problem. Also, although you would have no way of knowing this, I use my computers for only a few specific things. I have software that I've had for years and it all still works. I guess there's some software that's made just for 64bit, and I guess you could name a few if you looked into it, but do you use them? I don't.

What OS is there that it is "so much better"?
Answer: Well the term "better" is subjective, but there are a few OS out there that in most respects are "better then XP in my opinion.
Such as Windows 7, Ubuntu Linux 12.04 , Mac OSX Snow Leopard


You're right, it is subjective. It's amazing how many people use "I think it's better, so it is" as an argument.

Why is that OS "so much better"?
Answer: For Windows 7 I say its security and stability, XP is a security nightmare very vulnerable to all the nasty stuff. Plus I never found XP all that reliable, often it would bluescreen for no reason.
For Ubuntu I say security as well, sure it lacks stability but Ubuntus sort of cutting edge.
Snow leopard is a fine crafted OS, secure, very stable and reliable, if its one good thing I can say about Apple is that they know how to code an OS


I just don't get why people use stability as a reason. I have XP on all of my computers and they NEVER crash. I mean NEVER. When I'm done with them I hit the "Sleep" key on my keyboard. When I want to use them I hit a key to wake them up. I turn them off every 2 weeks or so. Windows 7 crashed way more often and way harder than XP ever does. And I don't know how many times Windows 7 would "wake up" to nothing but problems forcing me to reboot. Many times I would have to reboot more than once because the problems wouldn't be fixed the first time. And as I said in my original post, I don't get viruses. What security nightmares are you talking about? Maybe you shouldn't be using M$'s firewall and antivirus. Maybe that's your problem.

What isn't made for XP anymore?
What things don't run or work on XP anymore?
Answer: Hardware mainly, though quite a lot of software doesnt support it like some modern games.
This answer can be for both these two qustions


If you re-read my original post you'll see I'm using modern hardware. I've just added a 1TB sata 6 hdd recently as well. What hardware are you talking about. I should also point out that I don't play games, so that means nothing to me.

Why does it pale in comparison to "contemporary" OS's?
This can be summed up by all the above answers really.


Those answers didn't sum up anything.


Well fear of change can still be a factor no matter how you cut it.
And w are not talking about cars here, cars overall are about the same.
OS's however are another matter, a lot of differences can appear between version a of an OS and version x of an OS


A lot of differences CAN appear between OS's, but not wanting to move from a fast and resource friendly OS (Scion xD) to a bloated resource hog that does less OS (Scion xB) has nothing to do with being afraid of change.

Actually security does count, especially where XP is concerned.

Like I said, I don't get viruses. I have a good antivirus, a 2-way software and a hardware firewall. I've gone into my router and setup an IP Range that only allows enough IP Addresses for my computers. I'm think pretty secure, but I'm no pro by any means.
 


Last edited:

Ralph Bromley

Honorable Member
#35
Considering that most software today is made for 32bit systems, this isn't really a problem. Also, although you would have no way of knowing this, I use my computers for only a few specific things. I have software that I've had for years and it all still works. I guess there's some software that's made just for 64bit, and I guess you could name a few if you looked into it, but do you use them? I don't.
Well I dint say that 32bit was totally obsolete as many apps actually do soley run on 32bit (such as flash, its a good thing its dying)
There isnt any software I can name that really only works in 64bit as most apps do run on both.
Especially with 64bit being backwards compatible with 32bit apps.
No the advantage that 64bit really has inst the amount of apps it can run but how well it can preform and how high it can go.
The windows 32bit limit on RAM for example is 3GB, no more.
This would be a universal limit but 32bit linux can run over 3GB of RAM due to some workarounds.
I am unaware of such workarounds for windows that are not free or easily obtainable but then again its not my primary OS so if someone can fill in the blanks here please go ahead.
This can be a huge issue if you have apps that take up memory, and windows runs memory at a premium (one of my gripes with windows in general)

You're right, it is subjective. It's amazing how many people use "I think it's better, so it is" as an argument.
Yeah its an argument I really roll my eyes at, its pretension at its worst

I just don't get why people use stability as a reason. I have XP on all of my computers and they NEVER crash. I mean NEVER. When I'm done with them I hit the "Sleep" key on my keyboard. When I want to use them I hit a key to wake them up. I turn them off every 2 weeks or so. Windows 7 crashed way more often and way harder than XP ever does. And I don't know how many times Windows 7 would "wake up" to nothing but problems forcing me to reboot. Many times I would have to reboot more than once because the problems wouldn't be fixed the first time. And as I said in my original post, I don't get viruses. What security nightmares are you talking about? Maybe you shouldn't be using M$'s firewall and antivirus. Maybe that's your problem.
Well yes end user experience will vary, but in general I still think XP is a real mess no matter how you stick it.
I have had a very nasty relationship with XP, often time sit would crash, freeze, bluescreen.
Now this could be the hardware I used with it, after all I dint self build back when I used XP.
But if you had a good relationship with XP, well kudos I wont dispute your claims.
But next year you are going to be in deep water when Microsoft cuts you into the sea without a paddle.
Its dangerous running an OS that will no longer be updated, you might not have had problems so far but the tide can change if you are not careful.
And soon all your apps wont get updates, its up to you to prevent a fate like this by using a newer OS.
I wont force you as its your choice, but in my opinion its a horrible choice to stick with XP after its support is cut.

If you re-read my original post you'll see I'm using modern hardware. I've just added a 1TB sata 6 hdd recently as well. What hardware are you talking about. I should also point out that I don't play games, so that means nothing to me.
Well a lot of modern motherboards are not supporting XP, graphics cards, and all that fancy stuff.
Not saying all hardware will fail on XP, but there will come a time when you plug a device into your XP machine and it simply wont work.

Those answers didn't sum up anything.
Well if you insist, at least I was willing to go up to the plate.

A lot of differences CAN appear between OS's, but not wanting to move from a fast and resource friendly OS (Scion xB) to a bloated resource hog that does less OS (Scion xD) has nothing to do with being afraid of change.
Indeed it doesnt

Like I said, I don't get viruses. I have good antivirus, a software and a hardware firewall. I'm pretty secure.
Yes but it wont be for much longer, pretty soon your antivirus will not support XP, your firewall wont support it, your browser wont support it, you would be all alone and when your system breaks it would be your fault.

Again I put in the offer that maybe you should maybe consider another OS soon.
Rather you be willing to give W7 or linux another shot is up to you in the end.
Though if you try linux again, well tell me and i may be able to help.
 


#36
Well I dint say that 32bit was totally obsolete as many apps actually do soley run on 32bit (such as flash, its a good thing its dying)
There isnt any software I can name that really only works in 64bit as most apps do run on both.
Especially with 64bit being backwards compatible with 32bit apps.
No the advantage that 64bit really has inst the amount of apps it can run but how well it can preform and how high it can go.
The windows 32bit limit on RAM for example is 3GB, no more.


The limit of memory is 4GB physical. Minus graphics cards and such 4GB of ram will leave, like in my case, 3.2GB available ram. The most memory intensive program I use only uses around 650-700 megs, so I think I'm good.

But next year you are going to be in deep water when Microsoft cuts you into the sea without a paddle.
Its dangerous running an OS that will no longer be updated, you might not have had problems so far but the tide can change if you are not careful.


Did you even read my original post, or have you just been responding to what her people have said? Read the original post.

And soon all your apps wont get updates, its up to you to prevent a fate like this by using a newer OS.

By "app" you mean software? I said I've been using the same software for years. I have software that won't even run on Windows 7. Don't you read what people write before you respond?


Well a lot of modern motherboards are not supporting XP, graphics cards, and all that fancy stuff.
Not saying all hardware will fail on XP, but there will come a time when you plug a device into your XP machine and it simply wont work.


I just built this computer a few months ago. I had no problem finding what I wanted that would work with XP. Hell, I had some old parts hanging around, but needed a new socket 775 mother board and had no problem finding one. Also, saying things like "some day" as an argument is pointless. "Some day" that thing you just bought yesterday will be obsolete, so why did you buy it? How do you know when "some day" will get here. Companies aren't in any rush to force people into Windows 8, that's for sure. Even Ballmer will tell you that.


Yes but it wont be for much longer, pretty soon your antivirus will not support XP, your firewall wont support it, your browser wont support it, you would be all alone and when your system breaks it would be your fault.

You have NO WAY of knowing this. How do you know how long Firefox will work with XP? I use an older version of Zone Alarm, because they, like M$ thought nobody would notice how bad their new software was if they just made it look neat-o. If the version I'm using now works today it will work 1000 years from now. Read the original post.
 


Last edited:

Ralph Bromley

Honorable Member
#37
The limit of memory is 4GB physical. Minus graphics cards and such 4GB of ram will leave, like in my case, 3.2GB available ram. The most memory intensive program I use only uses around 650-700 megs, so I think I'm good.
Well you see that is your major issue overall not just this, you think you are good sticking to an OS that will be unsupported next year

By "app" you mean software? I said I've been using the same software for years. I have software that won't even run on Windows 7. Don't you read what people write before you respond?
Yes by app I mean software, calling software apps isnt only an Apple buzzword as you claimed in your original post.
Its short for Application, and often we in the Linux world call our programs applications too so the word "app" is out of habit on our end as well, and you said I didnt read your first post here.
No I did, and me calling this out is proof of that as you seemed annoyed that the word "app" has become commonplace and seemed to think it was just some fancy buzzword apple made up.
No its not, not in the slightest.
Its just shorthand for application which is another word for program, thats all.

I just built this computer a few months ago. I had no problem finding what I wanted that would work with XP. Hell, I had some old parts hanging around, but needed a new socket 775 mother board and had no problem finding one. Also, saying things like "some day" as an argument is pointless. "Some day" that thing you just bought yesterday will be obsolete, so why did you buy it? How do you know when "some day" will get here. Companies aren't in any rush to force people into Windows 8, that's for sure. Even Ballmer will tell you that.
Well yes everything has planned obsolescence, its how it is.
Again I am just pointing out where you may have trouble, not where you will have trouble.

You have NO WAY of knowing this. How do you know how long Firefox will work with XP? I use an older version of Zone Alarm, because they, like M$ thought nobody would notice how bad their new software was if they just made it look neat-o. If the version I'm using now works today it will work 1000 years from now. Read the original post.
Err just because the version you are using works today dosnt mean it will work 1000 year from now as it would become long out of date, unsupported, insecure and you would be using it on your own risk.
Look I understand if you are attached to XP, but really its time is going and you may still want to look into a newer OS that will take you into the next decade.
XP's time has come, its time to move on.
The rest of the world has moved on with XP so i dont see why you cant too.
 


Trouble

Noob Whisperer
#38
The rest of the world has moved on with XP so i dont see why you cant too.
Again you seem to be having a problem separating actual "fact" from opinion (yours).
As of last month Windows XP still enjoyed a 37.17% market share so apparently "the rest of the world" hasn't moved on.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0
 


Ralph Bromley

Honorable Member
#39
Again you seem to be having a problem separating actual "fact" from opinion (yours).
As of last month Windows XP still enjoyed a 37.17% market share so apparently "the rest of the world" hasn't moved on.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0
Well 37% is a huge number yes but XP's market share has been dropping for some time and will do so for some time.
It will certainly loose a lot of that market share once its out of support.
 


Trouble

Noob Whisperer
#40
It will certainly loose a lot of that market share once its out of support.
Those figures are likely based on studies done associated with internet connections, the XP numbers are likely far higher if there was a means or method to factor in un-connected machines. But that is just my opinion and has no actual basis in fact as there is no supporting data.
And yes, I suppose those numbers will likely continue to decline even if you don't factor in http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/endofsupport.aspx as I would suspect that a lot of those machines are as old or older than the OS installed and physically falling apart. Again, pure conjecture and I have no supporting evidence that, that is actually the case.
 


This website is not affiliated, owned, or endorsed by Microsoft Corporation. It is a member of the Microsoft Partner Program.