|
|
tl;dr
CPallini wrote: You cannot argue with agile people so just take the extreme approach and shoot him.
:Smile:
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the last time I upgraded a Windows version was from Windows For Workgroups to Windows 95. All the other changes to Windows have come when I bought a new computer. My last Win XP laptop was replaced a year or so ago, although I still have it around somewhere.
My other machines are 1 Vista desktop, 1 Vista laptop, 1 Win 7 desktop, 3 Win 7 laptops, 1 Win 8.1 desktop, 2 Win 8.1 tablets. If I were only browsing the web and writing Word documents, I'd just use an old machine and run Linux with OpenOffice.
I'm not sure why you have trouble using Win 8. It took me about 10 minutes to get used to it on my desktop and less time on my tablets.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Well my issue with Win8 probably is just because up to now there is nothing new and good on it to make me want it agains Win7...
I was able to personalize my laptop (were I can't install win7 due bios issues) to look and work almost the same as Win7 (great Star7 the best add on!!!) at that point I'm comfortable with the UI, except for that side menus at the right, I totally hate them, I'm sure there is a bug with the mouse drivers that menus spams all day whenever I'm scrolling, resizing or just moving the mouse, and no way to disable them... but well forgetting about the issue with that menus... all the other work the same as Win7... and I see no real difference, also to a point that I end using this Laptop as a media player, now is stick to the 42" tv, we love netflix now!!! o yes I have installed steam there so I play games... but still have not found a single reason to really upgrade from win7 to win8.
So I can say, you can have win7 or win8, there is no real difference if you disable Metro UI
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, Win 7 is much better all round, but the path to get there is just too much work.
IF MS had an auto upgrade where you keep all you aps, and Outlook express upgraded to Live mail
properly, and if the VM stil run properly on VMWAre server 2, and server 2, andyou didn'thave to upgrade your infrastructure, and if you could spare the time involved, and be ablto avoid th time and money
involved inre-education, and... the list goes on.
|
|
|
|
|
2 easy words :
planned obsolescence
Remember that hardware evolve, CPU are more efficient than ever (32/64 bit, pipeline, pre-fetching, multi-cores, ... ), HDD changed from rotating platters to solid state.
All of that need improvement to the operating systems; and people tend to create (and market) new versions instead of patching old existent ones.
It is true that for most usage (and most people) , an old XP machine is sufficient, but there are more and more domains where high performance computing is needed and a new OS offer better possibilities.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Member 4673202 wrote: this is my personal feeling
So, you're just guessing?
Member 4673202 wrote: and as much as I read I feel like those articles are just to scare and force people to buy new hardware and new software
A bitchy emotional reply right back; you can use XP for whatever you want, it's just no longer supported. Meaning that if you run a bank with Windows XP and something "breaks", then you're simply f***ed. As should be.
You won't find many people who can repair a betamax video these days. If you insist that it must be used, you do so at your own friggin' risk - don't come asking for help if something breaks.
Member 4673202 wrote: I'm wondering if someone is preparing a good Security Package to support all those old win XP pcs:
Firewalls, scanners will not help fix bugs in IE. It will not help make the kernel more secure.
Member 4673202 wrote: Don't update just because is the new Fashion, update because you need it!!!
I'd recommend against consulting "feelings" when talking about the security of your network. And yes, if the only company that holds the source-code tells you it's being retired, then you HAVE TO.
..and please drop the act that people are being forced to upgrade to "the latest"; there's Vista and Win7 between XP and Weight. It's not like they're forced to running the very latest.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Firewalls, scanners will not help fix bugs in IE. It will not help make the kernel more secure.
Sorry disagree with this, it can be done by a good and mature development company, but not sure if somebody can see a real marked here. You know, hacks, injection of code, that all works for kernels, as a virus, but this time you are fixing the kernel...
Quote: I'd recommend against consulting "feelings" when talking about the security of your network. And yes, if the only company that holds the source-code tells you it's being retired, then you HAVE TO.
I have been thinking on a better example of this... because I don't see the need to remove thinks just because support have ended, you will continue using them if they still work... then I recall the best example are Cars!!!
if you have and old car, that is not supported anymore, you cant get spare parts.... but the car at this moment is 100% functional, will you replace it just because there is no support anymore or will you wait until the car fail and you cant fix it because there is no support?... probably I will wait and I will change when I really need.
so remember that I'm concentrated in a business area that have not big impact around the technology they are using, cases were you can live years with a very old PCs, places where they will have the need to change only when as you point there is no people around to support them (no one knows how to install XP!!!)
oh something I forgot, I'm not telling we shouldn't upgrade... It's just that I believe there are 2 paths one where is good and were you can upgrade as much as you want and one where you just don't have the need to upgrade and you can live happy without that needs.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 4673202 wrote: Sorry disagree with this, it can be done by a good and mature development company
No, it can't; Microsoft owns the source code.
Member 4673202 wrote: one where you just don't have the need to upgrade and you can live happy without that needs.
Happy until it breaks, yes.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: No, it can't; Microsoft owns the source code.
My idea is to create DLLs or to inject code when the kernel is already in memory, it can also modify the binary files, but this requires a lot of patience and tremendous knowledge in injection and hacking... not sure if valuable... then you will never require the source code.
I have done that before to create small hacks to games but have never tried to create a virus, so not sure how hard is it for and old OS like XP, I'm sure you can apply the injection or hacks to fix the kernel issues, but still not sure if valuable, probably that is one of the reasons nobody is trying to get that market.
|
|
|
|
|
Finding a number in memory that represents something in-game and changing it isn't hard - and it's not hacking. Reading binary code, finding out what it does, and change it - is hard.
Further, it'd be illegal; Windows not your property.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Once again, with the security agument reason for upgrading.
No one is secure anywhere, Infact it wont be long before XP will be more secure, as it will not be targeted anymore.
The only argument, I would use is that if you want to continue using IE, then you need to upgrade,
because MS have delibritly gone out of thier way to not allow modern IE on XP.
Just use CHrOme iinstead.
And don't listen o the secruity rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I've upgraded several systems from XP to Windows 7 and found that they all ran better with the latter.
I first ran XP on a system with 1GB of memory. It worked as long as I didn't do much of anything. By SP3, XP had become horrendously bloated and could barely run on a system with 2GB of memory (or even 2.5 GB for one of my systems.) By contrast, Windows 7 runs great on on systems with 2 GB of memory.
Member 4673202 wrote: Can you imagine billing 10USD annually by PC_, today the amount of XP machines are still over 30% that should be a huge income!!
Actually, no. People who won't upgrade their OS or computer aren't going to otherwise spend money on their installation. Most are using it as a second system and/or waiting for it to die so they have an excuse to buy something better. (I had such a system. Despite capacitors falling off the Asus motherboard and half a gig of memory not being recognized, it never did die on it's own, so I killed it. Made about $50 selling the CPU, memory, hard drive and video card on eBay.)
Finally, whatever UI issues exist with Windows 8.x, it's otherwise a kickass OS.
|
|
|
|
|
HTML5
... is the reason you need to drop XP.
HTML5 opens door wide open to your computer that antivirus software hasn't a hope to protect you against.
Well have fun with XP as the world changes to HTML5.
|
|
|
|
|
You are comparing an operating system with an HTML5 technology, are completely different things.
HTML5 works on XP, you can change or install your browser to chrome or firefox.
NKS
|
|
|
|
|
HTML5 introduces holes in operating systems
The fact that HTML5 runs on XP and XP has no protection against it is the reason.
modified 10-May-14 13:13pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You're only seeing users who have internet at home, but that users are a minority compared to companies.
In large and medium-sized businesses, the internet is controlled by a firewall and other software as sharepoint. In these cases all accesses are controlled. Computers in domain in these companies do not have access to install or run software unauthorized private applications. Everything is controlled.
Employees only have access to work sites and not to external sites such as facebook.
NKS
|
|
|
|
|
A firewall doesn't protect against HTML, it passes through it without a second thought
Everything is controlled said the major company that was about to be hacked.
A group policy computer in a controlled environment doesn't ensure 0 undesired software makes its way onto the machine.
XP is a walk in the park.
Also software doesn't even need to get directly on the machine to be an issue. If any resources over a intranet access updated code it opens the local machine up to a hacker like their connected via VPN
modified 12-May-14 7:16am.
|
|
|
|
|
For HTML5 I would require it in old machines only maybe for browsing the web, then the responsibility will be lead to the Internet browser you use...
If is an old machine probably you are not upgrading the software of that PC that means you will no install new word processors that uses HTML5 (probably the modern applications can't run in that old machines)
then HTML5 for desktop apps is not a problem, your desktop just doesn't support html5! and if it's for internet browser or web apps, all the responsibility is in the Internet Browsers you use, the I would better apply your idea to what about Java, M.Flash and Silverlight... that probably will not be supporting winXP in a couple of months.
|
|
|
|
|
Desktop apps can leverage HTML5
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, you should upgrade if you need otherwise is a waste of money.
NKS
|
|
|
|
|
If it is dead, no longer sold, no source-code, not supported- then you NEEDED to upgrade. Anyone who hasn't should not be allowed to administer a network. That includes the idiots in the government that also said that upgrading "wasn't required".
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I do not agree, there are many situations where this is not possible.
for example: companies that have machines dedicated to specific tasks with specific hardware windows xp and in these cases an upgrade involves changing the hardware of the machine, new drivers ... the price is too high to upgrade and certain machines can pass $ 100,000 or more per machine.
A real example set in the company where I work, we still have machines running Windows 98, they only communicate via RS232. They are fast and working smoothly, maintenance is minimal and inexpensive, an upgrade in this case is a waste of money since it costs almost as much as buying a new one. The company has the top technology but in certain situations it is not profitable.
I just agree to domestic users and even then there are still cases that this is a waste of money.
NKS
|
|
|
|
|
I would move to at least Win 7 personally. There are lots of nice little usability features that make Win 7 a bit easier to deal with than XP. For me personally the window snapping features in 7 and 8 are a must have anymore.
If your machines are not capable to run 7 there is a chance they may be able to run 8. The upcoming updates to 8 are *supposedly* going to make it nicer for desktop users.
|
|
|
|
|
If you are using "cost" as a reason not to upgrade, here's a small "fact".
It would not cost "$500" per PC to upgrade.
Just this week I was doing some research for a relative who was looking to "upgrade".
Without too much difficulty I found refurbished PC's: 2GB RAM; 80GB hard drive; 2.4 GHz processor; with Windows 7 installed; for $99. (I would just add the other PC's hard drive as drive "D" to save on "conversion costs" .... a 5 minute job).
(I personally own a "refurb" that I bought in 2004 and is still running .... XP ... that I use for version testing).
Now, if you just wanted a copy of Windows 7, the price is about the same!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
