Recommended Posts

I'd really like to know what's the exact source of this. I know of no business who hasn't begun deployment of Windows 7 based systems at the corporate level.

I hardly trust ZDNet anymore outside Ed Bott to deliver valid Microsoft news.

We've upgraded as many of our machines as we can (to Windows 7, not 8), but the fact remains that we have lots of devices which don't have drivers which work with anything beyond XP. There's more than the cost of the license/computer to consider. There's replacement devices, accessories/consumables for those devices, setup costs, costs incurred through lack of use during switchover downtime, staff re-training costs, etc. There's a lot of costs involved - which forces us to stick with XP on some machines.

 

That right there is all that really needs to said, period!

 

As far as regular, Joe Blow user goes, why fix it if it isn't broke?!

  • Like 1

Why?  We don't make it illegal to drive classic cars even though they don't have air bags, crumple zones, etc.  If somebody wants to run Windows XP, that's on them.  Who are you, or anybody else for that matter, to tell people what OS to run on their computer?

 

The lack of air bags, crumple zones, etc. don't put others at risk. But would you drive a car with bad brakes? XP is like bad brakes. It puts others at risk due to all the spam and DDoS attacks that originate from infected XP machines.

Yep, a lot of people really have no desire to change, even after I highly suggest it. I think part of the reason is they are just terrified at the thought of getting windows 8.

 

While the new operating systems are safer than XP, the consumer is clueless when it comes to security and Zero day vulnerabilities.

 

Just the other day a customer brought in her Windows 7 laptop after she factory reset it trying to get her wifi to work. The reset put the laptop back to Windows 7 pre Service pack 1. She would have had ZERO hesitation jumping straight on the internet without doing any updates.

What i've found is that it makes no difference if I patch a fresh system till i'm blue in the face, install AV/EMET and instruct them not to install JAVA because I still get that system back in a few weeks/months absolutely decimated with malware/adware. Same ###### everytime. Toolbars, junk programs piggybacked on installers, Fake AV scanners, etc. Do I still fully patch a system before giving it back, hell yes. Does it actually help me or the user in real life, doesn't look like it.

 

What I need Microsoft to do is design UAC so it will remote throw the authorization prompt to my phone/PC so I can make the decision for these people. They cannot be trusted. They also need to integrate IM functionality so I can send back a message. This message can be hard coded. It will never change. The message is "No Stupid!".

my work places has issues with its xp embedded systems. 

 

cant image the horrors if they upgrade to newer version.

 

our system used to dos software and about 4 years ago they switch to windows xp. but upgraded only the embedded system that relay information

 

and we have at lest 4 xp embedded systems that randomly reboot because they ran out of virtual memory. 

 

if wasnt for the fact we have two other systems that show the information. our work flow would completely shut down.

 

they would have to upgrade the hardware to run newer versions of windows.

 

but it takes years to approve anything.

 

sometimes I accidentally rip the cable loose that connected to a switch board. and it took 2 weeks to fix the cable..

We've upgraded as many of our machines as we can (to Windows 7, not 8), but the fact remains that we have lots of devices which don't have drivers which work with anything beyond XP. There's more than the cost of the license/computer to consider. There's replacement devices, accessories/consumables for those devices, setup costs, costs incurred through lack of use during switchover downtime, staff re-training costs, etc. There's a lot of costs involved - which forces us to stick with XP on some machines.

 

There is no good excuse for any company still being on XP. Not one.

There is no good excuse for any company still being on XP. Not one.

While there are a few cases where ancient machines just cannot be upgraded, many here speak as if all users - CEOs, Betty The Secretary, etc are still on XP, which simply isn't the case. Your boss is running Windows 7, and if they're not, they're not doing their job well.

Apart from cost,time constraints,lack of software/hardware support and lack of money you mean :D

"Lack of money" is such {CENSORED}. It's been 8 years since Windows Vista SP2, and it's been freakin 5 years since Windows 7 was released. What the hell are you doing in 5-7 years that you cannot upgrade in that time?

The lack of air bags, crumple zones, etc. don't put others at risk. But would you drive a car with bad brakes? XP is like bad brakes. It puts others at risk due to all the spam and DDoS attacks that originate from infected XP machines.

 

That's complete crap. I've been repairing computers for years and I've seen just as many badly infected Vista and Windows 7 computers as I have XP computers, if people are dumb enough to get viruses they will get them on almost any computer or OS, and if they're smart they will still manage to keep XP virus free.

I totally appreciate that many skipped Vista and i understand that more recently, people are uncomfortable with Windows 8 but it's beyond me why some didn't choose to jump to Windows 7 because it's somewhat familiar, has a great reputation and runs well on relatively low-end hardware (as in former XP workstations) providing they have enough ram and a semi-decent cpu.

 

Perhaps Windows 10 will get some to make the jump :/

Windows XP is actually much better patched that consumer windows 7 will be, that is of course assuming companies are paying for the dedicated extended XP support.

Suddenly not feeling as smug?

 

At $200 per PC per year, those companies must really love Windows XP.

"Lack of money" is such {CENSORED}. It's been 8 years since Windows Vista SP2, and it's been freakin 5 years since Windows 7 was released. What the hell are you doing in 5-7 years that you cannot upgrade in that time?

That is a little unfair dude, the corporations don't upgrade due to the possibility of not having a stable system, or other related problems, xp may be a devil that needs to burn in hell, but it's a capable workhorse, and upgrading costs corporations, therein lies the problen, not the guy using it, an employee is forced to use the tools provided, look at those automated checkout machines popping up in superstores, and some atm machines, I've seen them boot up, and I've yet to see one that doesn't boot up some sort of enterprise or workstation version of xp.

I'd thing the 'lack of money' is more likely the 'lack of willingness to spend money' by giant corporations due to it eating into their profits

Also with this trend of a new windows version every other year, how hard will it be for corporations to keep up, have relevant programs available and compatible, also drivers etc...

There is no good excuse for any company still being on XP. Not one.

 

Don't tell the medical sector that.  I currently have:

- Toshiba CT scanner which runs Windows 2K

- SwissRay DR room which runs XP

- GE Ultrasound machine which has an XP core

- Two GE rad rooms whose fluoro units are controlled by XP

 

Not one of these units can be upgraded to Windows 7 per their respective manufacture.  I'm having to replace all of these machines due to AFMOA mandating no XP units by 2016.  Even if it they are not on the network (like the two GE rad rooms)...they still have to be 1) upgraded or 2) replaced.

 

Mind you, these are perfectly fine machines with low maintenance, they produce diagnostic quality images and are fairly new (not one is older than 10 years).  However, I'm having to replace them at a cost of just under $2 million.  That is just at my small little department, such an insignificant slice of the pie...this mandate is going to be ridiculously expensive throughout the medical enterprise.

 

Point being, if I was in the civilian sector there is no way I would be replacing these units just because of the operating systems.  They would only be replaced when I needed additional capabilities/features or if they became unreliable.  So yea, some companies have a particularly good reason to not update.

Why change something that works and spend unnecessary money on new hardware when the old is still quite functional?

 

It's my life motto , I'm glad we share the same opinion .

 

Because trolls manipulate fonts on internet forums, if this isn't you, then the default font should be more than adequate for your posting needs

 

I didn't know it ... thanks again .

That is a little unfair dude, the corporations don't upgrade due to the possibility of not having a stable system, or other related problems, xp may be a devil that needs to burn in hell, but it's a capable workhorse

Except it's not. Productivity is almost non existent on XP, and is a relic of last decade.

  • Like 1

Except it's not. Productivity is almost non existent on XP

 

dean-what-gif.gif

 

Productivity is not non existent on XP ... I don't know what you are smoking ... Old yes, unproductive, no.

Productivity is not non existent on XP ... I don't know what you are smoking

How is anyone working on an OS, where it takes twice as long to do anything as it would on Windows 7 or Windows 8? I HATE remoting into an XP, and not finding where I need to go because it's buried in pop up box after pop up box, and there's no search. Don't even get me started on window management.

 

Windows XP only ever did one thing well, and that's this:

HowtoTroubleshootMSWindowsXPErrorCodesSc

 

and:

Stop%2BWindows%2BError%2BBlue%2BScreen.j

 How is anyone working on an OS, where it takes twice as long to do anything as it would on Windows 7 or Windows 8? I HATE remoting into an XP, and not finding where I need to go because it's buried in pop up box after pop up box, and there's no search. Don't even get me started on window management.

 

Windows XP only ever did one thing well, and that's this:

HowtoTroubleshootMSWindowsXPErrorCodesSc

 

Those are you're personal issues, not everyone elses. I remotely connect in and Help customer fix their XP machines all the time and frankly I find it easier to find stuff on XP than windows 8.

 

So what you are saying is you really don't know where anything is at, you just search for everything.

  • Like 3
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      579
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!