Windows XP support ends in 90 days, Microsoft remains firm on deadline

Microsoft has been extremely vocal for the past few years that it will cut off all support for Windows XP on April 8th, 2014. That's just three months, or 90 days, from today. Despite calls from some analysts to extend the support deadline, Microsoft seems to be firm in sticking with its plans to no longer provide updates for its over 12 year old operating system

In a statement sent to Neowin today when we asked about the three month deadline for the OS and its status, a Microsoft spokesperson said:

Yes, Windows XP support is ending on April 8. After April 8, 2014, Windows XP users will no longer receive new security updates, non-security hotfixes, free or paid assisted support options, or online technical content updates from Microsoft. Third parties may provide ongoing support, but it’s important to recognize that support will not address fixes and security patches in the core Windows kernel.

Windows XP and Office 2003 were great software releases more than a decade ago, but technology has evolved along with the needs and expectations of your customers and partners that have already adopted modern platforms and devices. Companies still on Windows XP are also missing out on tangible benefits of modernizing their IT investments from dramatically enhanced security, broad device choice to meet the needs of a mobile workforce, higher user productivity, and lower total cost of ownership by future-proofing their IT investments. A 12-year-old operating system can no longer address today’s business and technology needs nor security threats.

In the most recent numbers from research firm Net Applications, Windows XP was still the second most used PC operating system worldwide, with a market share of over 27 percent. While there is evidence that more people and businesses are upgrading to Windows 7 and 8/8.1, the fact is that 90 days from today a considerable fraction of PCs will still be running Windows XP.

Microsoft has already warned about the dangers of continuing to use the OS, stating that after April 8th hackers could discover zero-day exploits in Windows XP that will never be patched by Microsoft.

Wes Miller, who works as the Research VP for the independent firm Directions on Microsoft, told Neowin in a chat today that sticking to the April 8th support cut-off date for Windows XP is for the best. Miller told us:

I think Microsoft is making the right decision from the point of view that this is a long-communicated timeframe. This isn't a surprise. While businesses and consumers would surely love to have their software be supported indefinitely, it doesn't work like that. As a result, if businesses and consumers want to stay secure and up to date after April, they really need to update to a newer OS.

While Microsoft has said it will no longer provide updates to the OS, Google and Mozilla have announced they will continue to support and update the Windows XP versions of their Chrome and Firefox browsers, respectively, after April 8th for at least one more year.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Report: Bill Gates to be 'much more involved' in Microsoft with new CEO

Next Story

Leaked Verizon web page seems to confirm Nokia Lumia Icon [Update]

159 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The problem is the XP die hards who have many excuses and say with pride how they are sticking with XP and these goons set the IT budgets. To get an idea of the mindset check out the comments in this wired article link below?

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/04/windows-xp-2/

They are downright hostile and angry after 13 year of free support that the mean old MS is making them throw out the best OS ever made! Sigh. Slashdot.org and zdnet.com have many XP prononets too calling Windows 7 bloated and a toy OS and how everything afterwards is all change for the sake of change.

These my friends are the holdouts and they are many and not just corporations behind on their upgrading.

In some situations it is not possible to ever leave at work too. Here is an example that will make neowin readers on the floor laughing or angry pulling their hair out but is so atypical of working I.T. Lets say 1999 roles about and Megacorp realizes it is time to pull their mainframe apps in Cobol to be Y2K compliant at a very very expensive price tag! After finding El-Cheapo outsourcing Sh*tware CRM for IE 5.5 which does 25 unique business functions the company is sold. All is good. Down the line the following happens:
1. The 2001 recession starts and Megacorp needs to eliminate workers so the CEO can keep his bonus after a stock price slide. He fires the accountant who does billing as sh*tware CRM does much of this (but does not use GAAP for this process as it was done cheaply). This is a no no for anyone without an accounting for finance background.
2. Hires a quick VBA programmer to automate the laid off book keepers to pull data from sh*tware in a non GAAP way and stores it in a 16-bit Fox pro database
3. Xp comes around in 2004 and because Sh*tware is made for IE 5.5 they decide to standardize on IE 6 in quirks mode as 2001 browser is just soo cutting edge.
4. Some cost accountant discovered he can use sh*twareCRM for ERP processes and now has core manufacturing with its costs added in a way no one understands (remember they left in 2001..)and puts these Win 3.1 FoxPro databases and IE 6 bookmarks and VBA macros for Excel 2000 to all sites North America wide!
5. 2007 The makers of Sh*twareCRM/ERP have a no update that works with vista and therefore Windows 7 freely available.
6. IT is a cost center and XP and IE 6 work fine so lets not upgrade. If it aint broke do not fix it! Change for the sake of change is expensive and gets in the way of the CEO bonuses.
7. 2009 great recession hits and Sh*tware is out of business and so is 70% of all IT staff at megacorp as guys oversee come in with a few geeksquad consulants for local issues like pc repair etc.

Upgrade to Windows 7 you say? Hmm we can't do that. Sh*twareCRM business processes are now aligned with the company and no one left knows how to take an order, pay a bill, or function without IE 6 and sh*tware 1999 edition!

Oh just buy another one? ... I just mentioned 2 out of 25 other functions this poorly written intranet app does. Fact is if it fails megacorp goes out of business. Customers can't call in as the data is stored in a XP only database (fox pro). Oh just put that in a VM. Now accounting is freaking out as what they have already works and each user (out of 75) needs his or her own set of fox pro data. This means a custom image for each of the 75 users etc ...

Add to fines and losing Hippa certication and throwing out very expensive good working MRI scanners and you can see why hospitals are staying with XP and just paying MS the $250,000 a year contract for custom updates.

This is different than the move to Xp or Windows 95 as so many of these systems do so much and are tied to other departments and so tailored. It is not like just upgrading office for those who do not like change. I think virtualization is the answer as these can never die but many what a pain.

Spot on. All these incompetent, shouldn't-have-a-job IT "Pros" still on here whining about how its too hard to upgrade all their systems with new software need to be dragged out into the street and beaten to death with their PS/2 mechanical ball mice.

Lord Method Man said,
Spot on. All these incompetent, shouldn't-have-a-job IT "Pros" still on here whining about how its too hard to upgrade all their systems with new software need to be dragged out into the street and beaten to death with their PS/2 mechanical ball mice.

My issue above was freaking management. They lay off all the workers who can function without that one poor app. They buy the bad software that only works with 10 year old browsers as late as 2009 and later just tells IT support it or you are fired!

The techs say we need to upgrade. The MBA IT director says ... but it already works and we replaced people with that bad software program so why fix what aint broken?

Later it is OMG HOW COULD YOU LET THIS HAPPEN... sigh. The joys of being a cost center in the eyes of accounting and management. When I contract with such employers I tend not to renew my contract. Those that treat computers and IT like cr*p tend to treat their people the same as well and do not want to be fired when it breaks or when something needs to upgraded. I make tons of money off them consulting :-)

Interesting the following statement from the article:
A 12-year-old operating system can no longer address today's business and technology needs nor security threats.
On the contrary. It seems very capable of handling almost all of business' needs. (Just look as the huge number of large financial and medical institutions using XP quite well.) As for security threats, updates could have probably handled those.

Riva (et al) say "And all I am saying is that they had 12 years to update the software". That is not a true statement because between 2001 and 2006 XP was THE operating system. There is a 5 year period before Vista came out in 2006 so there was no '12 years to update".

You should always be planning. If it takes businesses THIS long to upgrade, they should always be planning the next release. That is why this is an issue, they get in the "good enough" mood and now it will be EVEN MORE expensive since they have to rush this process. If you budget every year for when you eventually can upgrade, this will be less of an issue.

I know some places have to use up all their budget, or they lose it. That was an example of companies that do not have to use up everything.

Funny comments here and its obvious some people never worked in an IT department before. It would be nice to just be able to push out an image and call it a day. But lots of companies cannot do this.

XP needs to go and it will in a few months. This will light a fire under businesses to start being more proactive with their upgrades. But to say that a company deserve what it gets for still having XP, or that they are stupid for still having XP...silly to say considering that not everyone knows all the challenges companies are facing.

If you do not know what my company does, or what others who are taking a while to upgrade, then you cannot really comment on negligence.

Well, I've been working in an IT department and we rolled out Windows 8 as soon as it was available. We've tested everything on both the Developer Preview, Consumer Preview, Release Preview and RTM (TechNet). We've spend some time on the matter. But Windows 8 was rolled out at the end of November. We're now working on updating to Windows 8.1. Constum software we use is also a subscription so we can use always the latest version that are compatible with the Windows we use. It's a long road, but if you start early, it works fine too. Instead of weating to the last day.

I have been in this job for a 1.5 years so really I am addressing things the previous person didnt do or wasnt concerned about. It is indeed a long road and frustrating at times but will be very satisfying once XP is gone.

Some small businesses don't have the money to upgrade readily, so putting off upgrades isn't surprising. Still risky, but understandable.

Mr. Hand said,
No, I would say it's pretty much negligence. It's just like companies that don't do proper offsite backup rotations.

backup rotations? sounds like you're still using tape

we use san replication between sites, two cheaper san disk backups, and have three hyper-v platforms (one replicating to azure). HATED the days i had to use tape media.

Studio384 said,
Well, I've been working in an IT department and we rolled out Windows 8 as soon as it was available. We've tested everything on both the Developer Preview, Consumer Preview, Release Preview and RTM (TechNet). We've spend some time on the matter. But Windows 8 was rolled out at the end of November. We're now working on updating to Windows 8.1. Constum software we use is also a subscription so we can use always the latest version that are compatible with the Windows we use. It's a long road, but if you start early, it works fine too. Instead of weating to the last day.

what does the business do? and how many machines are we talking about

techbeck said,
Funny comments here and its obvious some people never worked in an IT department before. It would be nice to just be able to push out an image and call it a day. But lots of companies cannot do this.

XP needs to go and it will in a few months. This will light a fire under businesses to start being more proactive with their upgrades. But to say that a company deserve what it gets for still having XP, or that they are stupid for still having XP...silly to say considering that not everyone knows all the challenges companies are facing.

I have to agree that there a lot of variables and quirks in various installations and peripherals and custom software.

However, this has been announced and planned for several years now. These companies should have started migration in 2010 at the latest, which has been four years.

Even for hard installations, these companies should at least have plans for a VM based transition to get the main OS beyond XP. With Windows 7, and XP Mode, Microsoft made this type of transition insanely easy. Old hardware retains supports, and software runs seamlessly on the main OS desktop. This gets the users secure and using IE10 and the newer OS and still retains access to the hard to migrate software and specialized devices.

I realize there are always exceptions, especially in field devices.

However, in the end, some blame has to fall back to the companies/users, as migration plans should have been started or considered back in 2006 when Vista released, which is why a lot of companies were able to slide to WIn7 in 2010, even though they choose to skip Vista.

glen8 said,

backup rotations? sounds like you're still using tape

we use san replication between sites, two cheaper san disk backups, and have three hyper-v platforms (one replicating to azure). HATED the days i had to use tape media.

SAN replication is NOT a backup. Data on one gets scrambled it happily overwrites the other copy before you know it. If that's your strategy, you need to fix it quickly. That's only a crash recovery solution. Tape is not required.

techbeck said,
If you do not know what my company does, or what others who are taking a while to upgrade, then you cannot really comment on negligence.

Why not? Does not maintaining your infrastructure suddenly change by the type of product?

Again, you guys miss the point. Since when are we saying upgrade from Windows XP will take days, weeks, or even months? There has been PLENTY of time to upgrade past Windows XP. If companies could NOT have upgraded by now, how long should we give them? Does it take 20 years to upgrade to a new OS? Does it take a business 20 years to save up for new hardware?

We are not saying upgrading is an easy task, but come on now how many years has it been? Are they even TRYING?

Studio384 said,
Well, I've been working in an IT department and we rolled out Windows 8 as soon as it was available. We've tested everything on both the Developer Preview, Consumer Preview, Release Preview and RTM (TechNet). We've spend some time on the matter. But Windows 8 was rolled out at the end of November. We're now working on updating to Windows 8.1. Constum software we use is also a subscription so we can use always the latest version that are compatible with the Windows we use. It's a long road, but if you start early, it works fine too. Instead of weating to the last day.

We're getting there. We just launched a trial program with 8.1

glen8 said,

what does the business do? and how many machines are we talking about

Not sure about the other poster, but where I work it is a F50 Multinational with over 10k employees, the Win XP killoff date is soon approaching, there area few holdouts from merged companies about, just about all others are on Win 7 and internal testing of 8.1 is ongoing as we speak, on top of all that we also maintain over 4k different applications and the few that are not compatible with 7/8 are in the proces of being discontinued, no one has any excuse for not being ready

The company I work for (major canadian Internet, VoIP, TV provider) will maybe decide to FINALLY update our Windows XP workstations... I can dream...

Good!
About time. NO TURNING BACK THIS TIME PLEASE Microsoft!

People and companies that are stuck on XP deserve what's coming to them.
GET WITH THE TIMES! It's 13 years since XP was official! Geez!
It deserves to die.

Don't worry, it's already to late to turn back now. Beside, Microsoft made it clear that they aren't going to change their point of view on the matter.

Man, when XP first came out, I loved how it looked graphically. Now, I can't stand it. Heck, after getting used to Windows 8, even Windows 7 seems too glossy and shiny. But then again, I started really liking Token-style icons before Windows 8 came out. I loved the minimalistic look of them.

I actually never liked the Luna theme, I know the joke has been done to death but it really did look like those Fisher Price toys. I always used an unattended winnt.sif file to install XP with all my favorite settings and tweaks in it, one of them being to completely disable the themes service.

I really like how Windows 7 looks though, but Windows 8 just looks ugly, cheap and unfinished to me; reminds me of the third world Starter Edition of Windows. Everyone has their own opinions on what looks nice I guess.

Win Classic for me too, never liked Luna (and back in the day without GPU support turning off eye-candy did help with performance). Win7 is ok but the contrast between active and inactive apps in the titlebar and taskbar is so slight that it sucks. Also try pinpointing which file is highlighted amongst a set of selected ones. I know there are uxtheme patches or something but I don't want to hack system files to fix it. Bad UI decisions by Microsoft.

Romero said,
Win Classic for me too, never liked Luna (and back in the day without GPU support turning off eye-candy did help with performance). Win7 is ok but the contrast between active and inactive apps in the titlebar and taskbar is so slight that it sucks. Also try pinpointing which file is highlighted amongst a set of selected ones. I know there are uxtheme patches or something but I don't want to hack system files to fix it. Bad UI decisions by Microsoft.

You might want to calibrate your display if selections are not contrasted enough to be easily visible. (I have seen some bad monitors that are poorly calibrated and seeing the difference between 'white' and 'light gray' and 'light blue' is nearly impossible. However, this is not normal.)

PS You also have full control over the colors used for title bars and selected items. - Use the 'outdated looking' color selection dialog for Window's UI elements.

Mobius Enigma said,
You might want to calibrate your display if selections are not contrasted enough to be easily visible. (I have seen some bad monitors that are poorly calibrated and seeing the difference between 'white' and 'light gray' and 'light blue' is nearly impossible. However, this is not normal.)

I'll try recalibrating but on this laptop I don't expect see a big difference.

Mobius Enigma said,
PS You also have full control over the colors used for title bars and selected items. - Use the 'outdated looking' color selection dialog for Window's UI elements.

Does that even work with Aero themes? I thought the msstyle colors had to be edited and a uxtheme patcher used to allow Windows to use unsigned third-party themes?

Of course in Windows 8 you cannot even change the Inactive Title Bar color any longer. More of those awesome metrics at work no doubt - since "no-one" apparently modifies it why not create more work and remove the useful feature and extensively test the changes rather than just leaving the code in?

Edited by Romero, Jan 9 2014, 6:27pm :

Romero said,

I'll try recalibrating but on this laptop I don't expect see a big difference.


Does that even work with Aero themes? I thought the msstyle colors had to be edited and a uxtheme patcher used to allow Windows to use unsigned third-party themes?

Of course in Windows 8 you cannot even change the Inactive Title Bar color any longer. More of those awesome metrics at work no doubt - since "no-one" apparently modifies it why not create more work and remove the useful feature and extensively test the changes rather than just leaving the code in?

If the built in Calibration of Win7/Win8 doesn't make the contrasting colors more evident then use the Color settings from your GPU control panel.

In the GPU 'control panel' Intel/AMD/NVidia, find the 'saturation' or 'vibrance' setting for the laptop screen, and shove it up about 20-40%. This will also bring the color more in line with LCD TVs, at the cost of a bit of color fidelity that you won't miss. Also adjust the contrast/brightness settings to get the 'light gray' 'light blue' 'white' to be easily noticeable.

There is a significant 'contrast' in selected items and title bars in Win7/Win8, and if it isn't visible on your screen, you need to adjust it.


PS

In Win7, you can still adjust the 'selection' colors even though you don't get control over the title bars. (The DWM 'chrome' of the Window borders are not as adjustable.)

In Win 8, they removed the color selection settings, as they no longer apply to the DWM managed drawing in Windows 8, that runs all 100% of the time.

This stuff can still be changed in Win8, but is not as easy, and all you really need is to get your display to contrast the colors better


Good luck...

(Like I mentioned, I have seen some bad displays/bad calibration combinations and it makes everything harder to discern when dealing with lighter colors. It doesn't even mean your LCD is bad/crap, as it could be OEM settings of the color settings or a bad controller/LCD combination that was used.)

So... I guess they are not going to fully fix the Windows Update taking 3-forevers issue? If that is the case, big F-U to Microsoft.

The fix would be to get the last batch of updates, and then make an image of your hard drive or back up your VM. Then you can just restore the backup and have the most up-to-date version of XP possible.

Lord Method Man said,
"fix" what? The fact that a 13 year old OS takes a lot of updating? They aren't going to re-release an OS with new updates included.

Issuing a rollup package of updates on the last Patch Tuesday before support ends would be a good idea. It would be a farewell gesture: "Here you go, here's everything after the last Service Pack. Thanks for your custom; you're on your own now."

DConnell said,
The fix would be to get the last batch of updates, and then make an image of your hard drive or back up your VM. Then you can just restore the backup and have the most up-to-date version of XP possible.

Which doesn't fix my issue of re-loading systems for customers... Microsoft tried over the last few months to fix the issue with it pegging out CPU usage @ 100% and taking hours and hours to do the updates. They have been trying to fix it but have not totally fixed it. They never said 100% if they could or would fix it before the drop dead date.

Lord Method Man said,
"fix" what? The fact that a 13 year old OS takes a lot of updating? They aren't going to re-release an OS with new updates included.
It's the 100% CPU usage spike problem what I am talking about them fixing...

mrbester said,

Issuing a rollup package of updates on the last Patch Tuesday before support ends would be a good idea. It would be a farewell gesture: "Here you go, here's everything after the last Service Pack. Thanks for your custom; you're on your own now."
No, that would be a bad idea. There is a reason Service Packs have betas and it takes a year before they are forced updates.

ir0nw0lf said,
It's the 100% CPU usage spike problem what I am talking about them fixing...

That's caused by sorting through 13 years of update dependencies. There's no point in fixing it as updates will stop and not dependency analysis will be required.

ir0nw0lf said,

Which doesn't fix my issue of re-loading systems for customers...

I'm sure you've heard about slipstreaming and silent installation of hotfixes/patches. Just roll your own final release and use it after April.

ir0nw0lf said,

Which doesn't fix my issue of re-loading systems for customers... Microsoft tried over the last few months to fix the issue with it pegging out CPU usage @ 100% and taking hours and hours to do the updates. They have been trying to fix it but have not totally fixed it. They never said 100% if they could or would fix it before the drop dead date.

If people need to reload XP, they should consider upgrading, or take the computer to a shop/geek to help them. 99% of XP systems can run Windows 8.

(If you work with 'customers' yourself, you should have an image with all the updates in the install image.)

Or at least take a snapshot of the thing after the bajillion updates are installed. I have zero desire to ever install XP again, but if I did that'd be the first thing I do, once is enough thanks.

ir0nw0lf said,
It's the 100% CPU usage spike problem what I am talking about them fixing...
Is windows not capable of adjusting process priority or something? Why would 100% CPU usage be a big deal if you have a decent scheduler?

Geezy said,
Is windows not capable of adjusting process priority or something? Why would 100% CPU usage be a big deal if you have a decent scheduler?

He's talking about the 100% CPU usage svchost/Windows Update issue. Search for and read about why it happens, and why it won't be a problem after XP support ends and no more updates are available. There's even a lengthy thread about this started by warwagon in the forum.

Yes, I realize that the problem is that svchost is locking up the system by using 100% CPU time, but modern operating systems can set process priorities, so that even if one process is using 100% CPU, if another process requires the CPU, the system scheduler will grant CPU time to this other process depending on process priority settings. So why can you not give svchost a lower priority, allowing normal programs to have CPU time requests fulfilled and still perform normally?

Studio384 said,
No, that would be a bad idea. There is a reason Service Packs have betas and it takes a year before they are forced updates.

Then it should already have happened. It's not like Microsoft didn't know support was ending...

Geezy said,
Yes, I realize that the problem is that svchost is locking up the system by using 100% CPU time, but modern operating systems can set process priorities, so that even if one process is using 100% CPU, if another process requires the CPU, the system scheduler will grant CPU time to this other process depending on process priority settings. So why can you not give svchost a lower priority, allowing normal programs to have CPU time requests fulfilled and still perform normally?

I don't know about the OS' process queue and scheduler innards but if it was so easy I'm sure all XP users would be doing so already.

Geezy said,
Yes, I realize that the problem is that svchost is locking up the system by using 100% CPU time, but modern operating systems can set process priorities, so that even if one process is using 100% CPU, if another process requires the CPU, the system scheduler will grant CPU time to this other process depending on process priority settings. So why can you not give svchost a lower priority, allowing normal programs to have CPU time requests fulfilled and still perform normally?

Windows has a robust scheduler, a bit beyond what exists in most other OSes.

As you might guess, of course the priority can be set to 'low'.

However, this doesn't stop the process from slamming the CPU during idle times.

But this prevents the problem of pegging the CPU and hogging it even when other apps request time slices. Shouldn't this be a decent work around until a fix comes out? Besides, my understanding is that the problem is caused by crunching through an excessively large update history in order to figure out what updates have been applied and what you still need to get, if this still needs to be done, then what fix could there possibly be? If it has to do this, then it might as well be using all the idle time it can. Then again they must be able to optimize it, stuff like 'apt' is blazing fast in comparison considering how many packages and dependencies it has to identify.

Edited by Geezy, Jan 9 2014, 10:34pm :

The issue is the bad guys are stock piling XP Exploits only to release them once support runs out. They don't want to use them now and give Microsoft time to fix them.

warwagon said,
The issue is the bad guys are stock piling XP Exploits only to release them once support runs out. They don't want to use them now and give Microsoft time to fix them.

and this is bad? cyber-obliteration for xp users is the only way to get them off it. I'm cheering the bad guys in this case.

neonspark said,

and this is bad? cyber-obliteration for xp users is the only way to get them off it. I'm cheering the bad guys in this case.

Its bad because outside of our / this little tech bubble nobody has any kind of clue. After support ends in 90 days their computer will keep working just fine. Thus they will keep using it.

runningnak3d said,
I'd keep XP around for the simple fact that it looks better than Win 8.x (If Win 7, or even Vista, wasn't an option).

yeah a lot of people kept windows 3.1 backups. go join them.

runningnak3d said,
I'd keep XP around for the simple fact that it looks better than Win 8.x (If Win 7, or even Vista, wasn't an option).
I agree that it looks better. Windows XP theme on Windows 7 equals a blissful Windows experience.

Windows 3.1 DOES look better than Win 8.x, so I guess I should add that to my list. However, Windows 7 *is* available, so I have no reason to step down the list.

To each his own, but that bubblegum candy look has disgusted me from the second I saw the pre-launch builds. The original Whistler look was a lot better.

Zagadka said,
To each his own, but that bubblegum candy look has disgusted me from the second I saw the pre-launch builds. The original Whistler look was a lot better.

The great thing about Windows XP -- you could THEME IT! Yes, you would have to use a hacked DLL, but you could at least DO IT. I would be all over Win 8.x if I could theme it and remove all traces of Metro. I can come close, but close isn't good enough. Not to mention that I do not want to give MS any metrics. They need to grow the **** up and fix that **** so I am *happy* to run it.

runningnak3d said,
The great thing about Windows XP -- you could THEME IT! Yes, you would have to use a hacked DLL, but you could at least DO IT.

You can do that in 8.x too...

Max Norris said,

You can do that in 8.x too...

I guess you missed the "and remove all traces of Metro". It isn't that I just can't stand Metro, it makes me physically nauseous.

JHBrown said,
Except the hideous Start Screen throws everything off.

So disable it. I hear you have a bunch of options to do that. If you're going to go through the effort of tweaking the looks, why stop without a simple start menu replacement? Can even lose the Metro stuff entirely. Even easier than changing the theme. If you're going to go with an older look, may as well do it right yea?

JHBrown said,
Except the hideous Start Screen throws everything off.

The start screen is a 100 time better than the old horrible mess of a start menu. Why do people have such a hard time with change even if it's much better?

Mr. Hand said,

The start screen is a 100 time better than the old horrible mess of a start menu. Why do people have such a hard time with change even if it's much better?


Why do people have such a hard time understanding that the start screen is 1000x less productive? PLUS is is ugly as ****! I would actually take a little less productivity if it wasn't so ****ING ugly.

Max Norris said,
And again, disable it. Lots of ways to do so.

As soon as that option is IN THE OS, then I will upgrade to Win 8.x / 9.x / 10.x. If MS is so stupid as to never realize that there are users like myself that want nothing to do with their **** poor attempt at an online store, then I guess I will switch to something else when support for Win 7 runs out.

Mr. Hand said,

The start screen is a 100 time better than the old horrible mess of a start menu. Why do people have such a hard time with change even if it's much better?

Mr.. Hand, I'm sorry to say that people who like the Start Screen are a minority. The option to bypass the Start Screen in Windows 8.1 has actually made more people consider Windows 8. I had an interesting discussion with my brother who is the GM at two Best Buys. According to him, the number 1 request people make when they have Geek Squad setup their computers after a purchase, is to have Windows 8 skip the Start Screen. I have co-workers who never touch the Modern UI. One lady had over 30 updates to install in the Modern UI. Reason? She never uses the a Start Screen or Modern UI.

runningnak3d said,
As soon as that option is IN THE OS, then I will upgrade to Win 8.x / 9.x / 10.x.

Wait.. it's perfectly fine to have to hack a DLL so you can use custom themes... but you're bitching about having to use a third party option to change the menus? Click click done too hard for you or something? If you want to customize your OS, you have the option to do so... just don't expect whatever company to read your mind and tailor the OS specifically to how you want it. Out of the box defaults doesn't mean set in stone you know. Change it. You're allowed to do that.

runningnak3d said,
I'd keep XP around for the simple fact that it looks better than Win 8.x (If Win 7, or even Vista, wasn't an option).

Everyone has a different idea of 'beauty'.

However, when people choose less functionality and features to retain a retro look, it becomes a bit silly when dealing with 'technology'.

I have a stunning Victrola, but I don't use it as my main sound system, nor stuff it in my car to play music.


Mr. Hand said,

The start screen is a 100 time better than the old horrible mess of a start menu. Why do people have such a hard time with change even if it's much better?

better for who? are we talking personal users or enterprise users?

the problem with the start screen is that it takes up 100% of the screen. The start menu was just a tiny thing in the bottom left hand corner. Therefore you can still see whats on the desktop when messing about with the start menu. There are lots of other productivity issues as well. You tried creating a vpn connection on windows 8 / 8.1 with a notepad file open with all the ip details in?

in windows 7 it takes less than a minute, in windows 8 it takes forever and you get sick and tired of going through multiple steps each time you flick from desktop to start screen.

Windows 8 was the first operating system which actually mad me move to a macbook (at home obviously).

desktop for a desktop, and tablet for a tablet.

glen8 said,

better for who? are we talking personal users or enterprise users?

the problem with the start screen is that it takes up 100% of the screen. The start menu was just a tiny thing in the bottom left hand corner. Therefore you can still see whats on the desktop when messing about with the start menu. There are lots of other productivity issues as well. You tried creating a vpn connection on windows 8 / 8.1 with a notepad file open with all the ip details in?

in windows 7 it takes less than a minute, in windows 8 it takes forever and you get sick and tired of going through multiple steps each time you flick from desktop to start screen.

Windows 8 was the first operating system which actually mad me move to a macbook (at home obviously).

desktop for a desktop, and tablet for a tablet.

I would say that the Start Screen would make life better for Enterprise users and personal, it's realistically more customizable than the start menu and can be setup exaclty as a person or enterprise wants and not have the users digging through 10 layers of menus to find an application, people are just blindly hating on it without trying as per some of the comments here are proving

runningnak3d said,
I'd keep XP around for the simple fact that it looks better than Win 8.x (If Win 7, or even Vista, wasn't an option).
You like the fisher price look? Personally the I thought the best look was the Whistler theme. Now I like Plastik.

runningnak3d said,
The great thing about Windows XP -- you could THEME IT! Yes, you would have to use a hacked DLL,

Making Win 8.1 look exactly like Win7 is insanely easy, I have no idea why people are so balked by it. It takes less than a minute to switch it to desktop mode by default. And you can do the same mods to Win 8 with some dll changes, or just use Windowblinds or something

runningnak3d said,

I guess you missed the "and remove all traces of Metro". It isn't that I just can't stand Metro, it makes me physically nauseous.

Physically? How does your Metro nausea exhibit itself? You get dizzy? Stomach cramps? Diarrhea? From how long after viewing Metro does your physical symptom(s) show themselves? Are you sure this is due to Metro, and not other reasons -- did you isolate the cause? It wouldn't hurt to pay a visit to a doctor, but in my opinion, it is more likely your problems are of the psychological kind, and if they do show up physically, maybe you need cognitive behavior therapy. Godspeed!

Northgrove said,

Physically? How does your Metro nausea exhibit itself? You get dizzy? Stomach cramps? Diarrhea? From how long after viewing Metro does your physical symptom(s) show themselves? Are you sure this is due to Metro, and not other reasons -- did you isolate the cause? It wouldn't hurt to pay a visit to a doctor, but in my opinion, it is more likely your problems are of the psychological kind, and if they do show up physically, maybe you need cognitive behavior therapy. Godspeed!
See, with your reply to this member, you tried to be comedic and it failed. I've actually heard people say that the Metro UI made them dizzy with its flat, tile look. Some designs have different affects on people. It has nothing to with his cognitive behavior or whatever psychological problem you think he may have. I've been around enough graphic designers to know that a design can have adverse affects on different users/readers.

So that's why the biggest bank and some government branch, where i live anyways, are currently migrating to Win 7, way to wait until the last minute...

not to be a smartass but if those machines have network connection and sensitive data of any kind i would brake contract with them long before that win95 boots up

I know what youre saying, MS-DOS programs running fullscreen on Windows 95 computers, registering data wich is moved/backed up/replicated/modified in separate and secure computers. Cash register programs perhaps, no internet connectivity.

morden said,
not to be a smartass but if those machines have network connection and sensitive data of any kind i would brake contract with them long before that win95 boots up

We have networks of DOS machines here in the Air Force. They contain flight data for aircraft, Callsigns, time of departure and arrival, destinations etc.

The Eurofighter Typhoons run NT 4 as their OS.

McKay said,

We have networks of DOS machines here in the Air Force. They contain flight data for aircraft, Callsigns, time of departure and arrival, destinations etc.

The Eurofighter Typhoons run NT 4 as their OS.

If they're not on the internet I see nothing wrong with it. Even a 486 can still run useful software.

McKay said,

We have networks of DOS machines here in the Air Force. They contain flight data for aircraft, Callsigns, time of departure and arrival, destinations etc.

The Eurofighter Typhoons run NT 4 as their OS.

the typhoon isn't connected to the internet and as far as i know does not store my banking account
i'm not questioning the capability of the software, i question the security of it in an exposed environment

Vlad Dudau said,
I kid you not, my bank ( ING ) uses Windows 95 on their machines, I saw one booting a few days ago.

This could be scary.

There are ways to isolate and protect Win95 installations, especially if they are using server side applications and it is just a glorified terminal.

However securing them requires a lot more work than migrating, and just one system with an accessible USB port can compromise the entire system.

Vlad Dudau said,
I kid you not, my bank ( ING ) uses Windows 95 on their machines, I saw one booting a few days ago.

To be fair that system is so old how many of the exploits would even work on 95?

Vlad Dudau said,
I kid you not, my bank ( ING ) uses Windows 95 on their machines, I saw one booting a few days ago.

I think you need to change banks...

Dot Matrix said,
Good riddance! DIE!

I can just picture you along with Win7 and 8 stabbing at XP with a pitchfork as it writhes in pain and in its final throes reaches out with a trembling hand...

XP: Win7, I am your grand-father.

Win7: Noooooooooooooooooo!

On the bright side of life: more time for Microsoft to send out patches for Windows Vista and onwards, as Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1 are way more common to each other than to XP. I think Windows XP has hold back Microsoft alreay way to long. Also, not only support for Office 2003 and Windows XP is ending over 3 months. Support for Internet Explorer 6 is too!

It really is time for it to go. XP had a good run and will be considered one of the best Windows OS. Tho, I am sure many will still use it after it is officially killed by MS...businesses or individuals.

0nyX said,
I've been hearing "Windows XP support ends in x days" for years now.
It just never gonna happen.
Except x has always been getting closer to 0. Therefore your logic is illogical.

I like how these articles are always titled "Microsoft remains firm on deadline". The author too desperately seems to be waiting and wishing for MS to recant.

Lord Method Man said,
Yeah "You can't expect us to just update 800 machines overnight!"

The sad reality is IT is often the most overlooked part of a business. If it runs smoothly, it's invisible. Managers won't want to upgrade because the current setup "works" in their eyes.

When support ends and crippling exploits become rife, suddenly I imagine they'll find money to finance an IT upgrade.

Lord Method Man said,
Yeah "You can't expect us to just update 800 machines overnight!"

we've done 3,000 over night..... automated image deployment via SCCM

Lord Method Man said,
Yeah "You can't expect us to just update 800 machines overnight!"

We have a couple dozen systems that cannot be on any network at all. That and we probably have another couple dozen machines that are attached to equipment and not on the network. These are the PITA systems that will take a while to upgrade if they can be upgraded at all. Some of our equipment has controller cards that require a specific interface. In order to support a newer system/OS...we need to upgrade the controllers which could cost millions. Not to mention down time and testing which all need to be planned.

So its not as easy in a lot of cases to push out an OS update. Luckily I will be hiring a temp to knock out all of the other basic XP upgrade we have, while I look in to upgrading controllers/software so we can update the remaining ones.

Companies and small bussiness wich "are not able" to upgrade their ancient **** OS, do not deserve the "company" title. Computers are a vital part of an organisation/company today, upgrading is a must and there are several ways to resolve compatibility issues. XP users... keep moaning and please warm up your caves.

Decebalvs Rex said,
Companies and small bussiness wich "are not able" to upgrade their ancient **** OS, do not deserve the "company" title. C

Do you realize that it isnt as easy as upgrading a system and calling it a day. Upgrading Windows/PCs has a lot of effects on other aspects of a lot of businesses. If all systems ran the same software and didnt connect to proprietary equipment, then it would be as easy as pushing out an update. Unfortunately, that is not the case for lots.

techbeck said,

Do you realize that it isnt as easy as upgrading a system and calling it a day. Upgrading Windows/PCs has a lot of effects on other aspects of a lot of businesses. If all systems ran the same software and didnt connect to proprietary equipment, then it would be as easy as pushing out an update. Unfortunately, that is not the case for lots.

Yes it's a lot of effort, but they've had 8 years to move past XP and patience is running a little thin on excuses.

McKay said,

Yes it's a lot of effort, but they've had 8 years to move past XP and patience is running a little thin on excuses.

Excuses? These are facts. Can you yo go and talk to the US military and have them recall all their ships so we can upgrade the controllers in the equipment we provide for them to support newer tech?

For the most part, companies should be able to upgrade. But as with everything, there is always an exception to the rule.

techbeck said,

Excuses? These are facts. Can you yo go and talk to the US military and have them recall all their ships so we can upgrade the controllers in the equipment we provide for them to support newer tech?

For the most part, companies should be able to upgrade. But as with everything, there is always an exception to the rule.

You're suggesting at no point during the last 8 years, there are American Naval ships who have never come been docked at a major US naval base?

McKay said,

You're suggesting at no point during the last 8 years, there are American Naval ships who have never come been docked at a major US naval base?

They have been docked, yes. But a lot of work/testing needs to be done when the equipment is upgrade so its not as easy a slapping in a new controller and calling it day. In some cases, the equipment will need to be removed. Some instances, the equipment could be down for a few weeks or more.

My point was that there are exceptions and perfectly valid reasons why many cannot upgrade, or upgrade and quickly as some are commenting. I cannot go in to what we provide for the military, NDA, but it will be a little while before we are 00 percent off of XP. Sucks, but thats how things go sometimes.

And some ships are not docked for a year or so and are out on missions. So that will delay things a lot as well.

Lord Method Man said,
Typical attitude. Act like Microsoft just announced this morning out of the blue that it was cutting off support for XP in 90 days.

Typical comment from people who think they know everything every business does and thinks it is just as simple as pushing out an image.

For those who do not have an barriers stopping them from upgrading, they should and if they dont...then that isnt smart and I am not giving any sympathy for security issues. If this was my last job, then yea...all systems would of been upgraded over a year ago. But different job, different requirements, and different hurdles to overcome.

They've had 5 years (and that's being generous, its more like 7 or 8 really) to get ready for this. Deal with it.

Thankfully my company hasn't ran XP in anything other than a test environment VM for years. Competence is a great thing.

techbeck said,

.

I was referring to people who complain "companies haven't had enough time to upgrade" anyway.

Many Military's will likely pay for fixes instead of upgrading.

McKay said,

I was referring to people who complain "companies haven't had enough time to upgrade" anyway.

Many Military's will likely pay for fixes instead of upgrading.

Ahh, ok. I am not complaining and want XP gone. If it was my choice, it would be gone a long time ago. And the fix for us is a new controller in the equipment. Military is paying for it, but we have to do things on their time.

Lord Method Man said,
They've had 5 years (and that's being generous, its more like 7 or 8 really) to get ready for this. Deal with it.

Thankfully my company hasn't ran XP in anything other than a test environment VM for years. Competence is a great thing.

I am dealing with it, not complaining, and i want XP gone. But it isnt as cut and dry as lots think.

neufuse said,

we've done 3,000 over night..... automated image deployment via SCCM

Yeah, we did the same. The problem is you just gotta make sure SCCM has all the drivers. We found some of our hp models had different network cards in them. Same model number, just different nics in some of them. Last place i contracted at had a right miss mash of makes and models. Plus they also wanted random ones turning into thin client terminals. Managed to do the entire enterprise from a single task sequence and 2 wim images. Worked quite well, but spent a good two weeks writing vbscripts to run off an mdt boot image. God that was hard work!

It is. Military is one thing, there are safety measures and important functions related to the OS but companies? There are administrators wich upgraded thousands of thousands of PC in a company without too much hassle. If a company needs 5000 computers working it means its a large company and should afford upgrading them all. XP has to go man , companies should learn that a vital component needs upgrading or forget that title if unable.

Lord Method Man said,
They've had 5 years (and that's being generous, its more like 7 or 8 really) to get ready for this. Deal with it.

Thankfully my company hasn't ran XP in anything other than a test environment VM for years. Competence is a great thing.

Where I work at it seems like the few remaining XP systems are from acquired companies, there has been a huge push to get everyone one 7 and any application not compatible replaced, IT got fed up with dealing and trying to fix them, we should have a better program that works in 7 by now, not like we don't have entirely too many applications as it is

Yes, updating is a "must," provided there is a compelling need to do so. Yet, Windows-8 provides a perfect reason to upgrade to Windows-7. While Windows-8 may have operating and security enhancements over Windows-7, its UI mess is a huge deterrent (which Microsoft fails to realize and chooses to not fix).

"A 12-year-old operating system can no longer address today's business and technology needs nor security threats."

That pretty much sums it up right there.

Except all the legacy programs that need XP to run/function properly. One of my "fun" jobs is to ID all the legacy programs, and go back to the manufacturer to get upgrades and or different software. Some of our software will need to be reversed engineered since the company/people who made it are no longer around and no one creates software for what we do. A lot of custom. So another "fun" thing for me to do.

Riva said,
After 12 years that is a lame excuse.

Not an excuse, its a fact. I am not saying MS should keep supporting it. I said below that it is time for it to go. I am just saying that lots will still need to use it after support ends.

techbeck said,
Except all the legacy programs that need XP to run/function properly. One of my "fun" jobs is to ID all the legacy programs, and go back to the manufacturer to get upgrades and or different software. Some of our software will need to be reversed engineered since the company/people who made it are no longer around and no one creates software for what we do. A lot of custom. So another "fun" thing for me to do.

Same, but also a lot of our software was written for 16bit so lately I've had the fun of re-writing all the old code to work with 64bit installs.

firey said,

Same, but also a lot of our software was written for 16bit so lately I've had the fun of re-writing all the old code to work with 64bit installs.

Ouch. Luckily I dont have to rewrite anything, I am not a programmer. I just needt to find who can do it.

And all I am saying is that they had 12 years to update the software and the OS and the hardware. If you are in this situation today then you need to give your IT manager the sack.

Riva said,
And all I am saying is that they had 12 years to update the software and the OS and the hardware. If you are in this situation today then you need to give your IT manager the sack.

Its not that easy and the IT manager really has no control over this. We have military contracts and equipment the military has been using for years and is in use all day every day. Equipment is out in the field and we cannot recall it to update the equipment to support a newer system or versions of Windows. Going forward we can make the equipment support newer tech, but XP will not be disappearing from my organization for a while. Thankfully the majority of these systems are off network so they really dont post a big security risk. They are just a PITA to support at times.

techbeck said,

We have military contracts and equipment the military has been using for years and is in use all day every day.

Does that fact frighten anyone else? I mean, I don't expect the military to be on the cutting edge, but to be so behind does nothing but open security holes in what should be our most secure systems.

The problem with most businesses (and the government) was that the IT budget was always the last to improve and the first to cut. The motto was "if its not currently broke, don't touch it". Then, when those security holes got exploited and customer data/sensitive info/etc is stolen, "oops".

The world needs to learn that IT is just an important part of your business as anything else. The days of running years old custom software, out of date systems, etc need to stop. I see the hard cutoff of XP in 90 days as the first step to making businesses move into this century.

LightEco said,

Does that fact frighten anyone else? I mean, I don't expect the military to be on the cutting edge, but to be so behind does nothing but open security holes in what should be our most secure systems.

We have software that we use on XP systems that attach to a controller on the equipment so we can test the equipment. The equipment has no OS installed and there is no security implications with the equipment. So there is nothing to be frightened about.

And companies make their own software because no one else does. Custom software is here to stay. It is not going anywhere.

LightEco said,

Does that fact frighten anyone else? I mean, I don't expect the military to be on the cutting edge, but to be so behind does nothing but open security holes in what should be our most secure systems.

The problem with most businesses (and the government) was that the IT budget was always the last to improve and the first to cut. The motto was "if its not currently broke, don't touch it". Then, when those security holes got exploited and customer data/sensitive info/etc is stolen, "oops".

The world needs to learn that IT is just an important part of your business as anything else. The days of running years old custom software, out of date systems, etc need to stop. I see the hard cutoff of XP in 90 days as the first step to making businesses move into this century.

There is a lot more going on to frighten someone that just this.

I remember finding out that a few Naval ships where deploying OS X servers about 7 years ago, to 'enhance' their security. Of course they were hacked within six months of installation, but they 'thought' they were making the network more secure.

Even though it was not a critical network, the way the servers were installed, the hacker could have obtained access to systems on the ship that is beyond scary.

Mobius Enigma said,
There is a lot more going on to frighten someone that just this

Zero to worry about where I work. Just a controller that needs to be updated on the equipment with a different interface connection. No software install, no OS, no network/internet connectivity. Unless someone is physically in front of the equipment, there is nothing they can do.

LightEco said,

Does that fact frighten anyone else? I mean, I don't expect the military to be on the cutting edge, but to be so behind does nothing but open security holes in what should be our most secure systems.

The problem with most businesses (and the government) was that the IT budget was always the last to improve and the first to cut. The motto was "if its not currently broke, don't touch it". Then, when those security holes got exploited and customer data/sensitive info/etc is stolen, "oops".

The world needs to learn that IT is just an important part of your business as anything else. The days of running years old custom software, out of date systems, etc need to stop. I see the hard cutoff of XP in 90 days as the first step to making businesses move into this century.

I used to image computers for hte Navy and Marine Corps back in 07, I was apaled at how many guidance applications were still 8/16 bit DOS programs, so badly coded it would render most laptops semi useless while running, of course were also removing 2gb or RAM to bring them down to 2gb total because any more would cause issues with programs, possibly said guidance systems, it was not uncommon for a newly imaged laptop to take 5-10 mins to load Windows, anything else could take another 5-10, hopefully it has gotten better, they were testing Vista at the time

techbeck said,
Some of our software will need to be reversed engineered since the company/people who made it are no longer around and no one creates software for what we do. A lot of custom. So another "fun" thing for me to do.
Ah, the fun of relying on software you can't control...

techbeck said,

Not an excuse, its a fact. I am not saying MS should keep supporting it. I said below that it is time for it to go. I am just saying that lots will still need to use it after support ends.

If developers have done their job then no. There is absolutely no excuse for anyone to still need XP. Incompetence or carelessness on the part of hardware and software designers/developers is not an excuse here. There has been more than enough time for anyone to prepare and move on.

Either that or a developer that does not find their software profitable and does not wish to add support for other OSes and basically terminates development, or the software developer goes under. You could say "find a more reputable developer", but what if nobody else makes that software, or the file format is proprietary, or it's tied to specific external hardware that no longer receives driver updates? It could be any number of things.

Always make sure you can control the fate of a mission critical piece of software. Make sure if it is niche enough that it is built on open standards that can guarantee interoperability if the proprietary developer goes under. Make sure you can have a contingency plan. If you can't guarantee that, then you need to come up with an in house solution or pay someone to develop it to your standards. Don't rely on proprietary solutions exclusively.

paulheu said,

If developers have done their job then no.

People who made the software is no longer here or the company is no longer around.

People here are obviously talking about their own experiences and what they deal with. No everyone, or every company, is the same. Different things to consider and different obstacles to get by. XP will go away...it will just take time.

Geezy said,
Either that or a developer that does not find their software profitable and does not wish to add support for other OSes and basically terminates development, or the software developer goes under. You could say "find a more reputable developer", but what if nobody else makes that software, or the file format is proprietary, or it's tied to specific external hardware that no longer receives driver updates? It could be any number of things.

Always make sure you can control the fate of a mission critical piece of software. Make sure if it is niche enough that it is built on open standards that can guarantee interoperability if the proprietary developer goes under. Make sure you can have a contingency plan. If you can't guarantee that, then you need to come up with an in house solution or pay someone to develop it to your standards. Don't rely on proprietary solutions exclusively.

This is not a proprietary versus open argument.

There are more reference, generic, and unified drivers for Windows than you can find 'open' versions of drivers in the OSS world.

Even if chipset XYZ hasn't seen an update since 2000, there are better odds of finding a Microsoft produced driver or find the original driver is still compatible. For example: I can name a list of Promise controllers that were last updated for Win2k that still work on Windows 8.1, yet getting them running properly on FreeBSD or Linux is a nightmare.

Just because a driver is 'open' doesn't mean you can find it still supported in the developer community, and for companies that don't have the resources to hire driver developers, it makes the 'open' alternative worthless.

People like to fall in love with 'open' based on the base ideals, but in reality it doesn't work as well as the ideals purport it should. Windows software/drivers is a highly proprietary solution, yet with 'standards' it fairs better than 'open' solutions.

Open solutions not upholding standards make things harder, as they are ever changing and there needs to be points when things stay the same and remain compatible.

People should push for pure 'standards', instead of getting stuck in the proprietary versus open arguments.

It is a like video codecs, the 'standards' are widely supported and easily available, and yet the 'open' codecs are harder to support, in part because they are a moving target.

Standards are what is important.

Yes, I mentioned open standards. I said to guarantee interoperability. I didn't say open source anywhere. I said don't bet mission critical on something locked up by someone who could go away or drop you without some guarantee you can take over, or alternatives you can control. To do otherwise is stupid. Man, you really have an OSS vendetta or something!

As for finding drivers, no. Look at the Vista nightmare and the Creative Labs issue for an example. Meanwhile on Linux/BSD, every OSS driver that has been available is still available.

Edited by Geezy, Jan 10 2014, 3:14am :

Ugh, can't believe I got roped into another one of your open source rants. Wish I could delete the part of my comment that addresses it. You're like some MS-bot or something. Now you see the point of that image I posted before?

Geezy said,
Yes, I mentioned open standards. I said to guarantee interoperability. I didn't say open source anywhere. I said don't bet mission critical on something locked up by someone who could go away or drop you without some guarantee you can take over, or alternatives you can control. To do otherwise is stupid. Man, you really have an OSS vendetta or something!

As for finding drivers, no. Look at the Vista nightmare and the Creative Labs issue for an example. Meanwhile on Linux/BSD, every OSS driver that has been available is still available.

I don't have an OSS vendetta. I fully support it for what it is.

I tend to support the non-traditional licensing, as GPL and Berkley have too many restrictions. Their licensing is a social contract of giving back, when truly 'open' models are based upon unfettered use and cooperation. (There is a place for the more restrictive models, but they aren't as magical as people assume.)

Too often people see 'open' and think it brings full access and community driven standards, and this is seldom true. If you look at VP8 at Google, it is technically 'open', but in reality, they have MORE control over it with no standards oversight. This makes it more 'closed' technically than VC1/WMV from Microsoft that has to answer to a third party standards group that would prevent Microsoft from breaking the codec or leaving older devices that use it left behind.


As for the Vista/Creative drive 'example'. You missed something. There were generic drivers that worked, it was the drivers trying to offload processing to the sound card's DSP and use EAX in games that was problematic. (Which Creative dropped the ball on, as they had plenty of time to provide alternatives, even the stub for games that wanted to keep EAX features working.) Creative was using an outdated model, and just like 1992 and Windows 3.1, Creative threw a fit and didn't do the work, and then complained when the WSS driver model took them over.

If you created a new sound stack that was written from the ground up for FreeBSD/Linux, the current creative lab drivers would fail without a major rewrite, although the 'generic form' of the drivers might still work.

Note the 'generic form' of the drivers, as this is what is often used on Linux/FreeBSD anyway, with hit an miss support of hosted features on the Creative sound cards.

And the 'generic form' of the drivers for Creative worked on Vista as well.

Also consider this about the 'Vista/Creative' argument. If there are 'open' drivers for Creative products, this code can be used to create new drivers for Windows as well. The DDK on Windows is not rocket science, and an open Linux driver would provide the necessary information to write a fully functional Windows driver.

Standards are good. Open standards are good.

Open without standards sucks, as the main publisher gets final say, especially if they control the products that implement it. (ie Google VP8)

I just don't like the, oh stuff is open, so it is better. It just doesn't work out that way, even though the ideals behind it suggest it should.

(Not sure what the MS-bot comment is about, I can mix up companies to use as references. I know Microsoft and I know NT inside and out, so it is an easy point of reference when replying off the top of my head. If they screw up the good things they are doing, I will blast them, and if they break NT, I will talk about it very loudly and push the OSS to create a comparable OS that gets away from the aged Unix crap.)

lol Berkley has too many restrictions? You hate putting credits in your software/documentation? GPL only require you to give back if you modify GPL software. You can build on top/around it as proprietary as you like, look at Steam on Steam OS. LGPL even lets you use the code as a library in your own project and build proprietary stuff around it. It's very permissive.

Re: Creative, I didn't miss that, it was specifically part of my point. Just like how what was built for Linux/BSD is still available. Maybe the Creative stack isn't the same but what's there works and will still work later on. Nothing a little research before you buy can't help with if what you want is features.

Re: MS-bot cause you're stuffing in an OSS argument when one didn't even come up until you brought it in. I had made points that had nothing to do with that and you inferred the OSS stuff. My original points still stand.

Edited by Geezy, Jan 10 2014, 4:44am :

You're also bringing up arguments nobody is making

Too often people see 'open' and think it brings full access and community driven standards, and this is seldom true
Why do you feel like you constantly have to clear the air like that? You're some anti-OSS warrior. I'm the last one to suggest "go open cuz open", everything I say is backed up with reason and I have never said anything like that. Your extra wide reach to control the message seems overly unnecessary and fanboyish.

Support is ending, but existing installations will continue to function as normal. It's not as if all computers running XP will explode once April 8th rolls around.

zhangm said,
Support is ending, but existing installations will continue to function as normal. It's not as if all computers running XP will explode once April 8th rolls around.
You NEVER know.

*Evil laugh*

John Callaham said,
They won't explode but they will be exposed to future exploits that won't be fixed by patches

I get the feeling a lot of people still using XP probably don't care about patches.

John Callaham said,
They won't explode but they will be exposed to future exploits that won't be fixed by patches

As if people still running XP even bother to install patches that are released.

".A 12-year-old operating system can no longer address today's business and technology needs nor security threats."

Well security threats yes (problems MS could/should have fixed already), but I see nothing better for business and technology "needs" in Win8.1 for most businesses using XP.

justmike said,
(problems MS could/should have fixed already)

As the post above says, the did. For the ones that are yet to be found... same is true for Windows 95 or older OSX versions.

zhangm said,
Support is ending, but existing installations will continue to function as normal. It's not as if all computers running XP will explode once April 8th rolls around.

If only they would.

ive been using XP less than a two months ago as my main and only OS, because i still had my 80gb hdd from 2005, and windows 7 was taking way too much, but recently i bought a new one and now im with windows 7 x64... some old games like heroes 3, age of empires 2 and diablo 2 are causing tiny problems, but overall, windows 7 is much better, with the classic skin to look like windows 98 its perfect

when i used XP i didnt install updates - i used it till it breaks down (2-3months) and reinstall, whats the point of updates, if they are slow to install and barely change a thing, i dont use an antivirus either - not before, not now

antivirus should be used only in corporations, for home users it should be called "antiidiot program" since its functions to prevent people with not much knowledge from the execution of the stuff they click on without even thinking

so in other words antivirus is useless, if one reinstalls windows every couple of months

and it will be nice if XP dies.. but it wont - my mom recently bought a new PC with XP installed, she will probably be notified trough updates that the support will soon end and ask me what to do, ill just tell her to keep using it

Some of the dumbest logic I've ever heard!
How many re-installs and how much wasted time, does that equate to in 12 years?

What do you think was most likely causing you have those break downs every 2-3 months? How about exploits, malware, virus' etc.......

I some what agree about the AV, but even at that, what little protection it might add to the average dumb Joe Blow, a little is better than nothing!