Fuck yeah, maybe this'll get the USN to finally upgrade to W7 or something.
[QUOTE=MIPS;40510809]I'm still using Windows 2000. There's no point to upgrade if the task you use it for does not require it.
Quit with the peer pressure. You know how sad it is to rate someone depending on the version of OS you they use?[/QUOTE]
Windows XP doesn't support DirectX 10, 11, or 11.1
Games are going to drop DX9 support sooner or later
AV vendors jumping ship isn't going to stop individuals and businesses from using Windows XP. There are still many businesses that use even older versions of Windows like 2000, NT4 or even Windows 98SE because whatever application they're using doesn't work on a newer OS and there are no viable alternatives that don't cost an arm and a leg.
Most of these places don't have problems with viruses though since the machines are on tightly secured networks, or aren't on a network at all, so there's no need to spend money on a problem that doesn't exist.
[QUOTE=MIPS;40510809]I'm still using Windows 2000. There's no point to upgrade if the task you use it for does not require it.
Quit with the peer pressure. You know how sad it is to rate someone depending on the version of OS you they use?[/QUOTE]
Windows 2000 was probably the best version of Windows. It was built to be a beast of burden and had a very light resource footprint, as well as having stability that rivaled Linux/Unix. I had a Windows 2000 server that would run for 8+ months at a time, with the only reason it going down was from environmental failures (power, cooling fans.)
WS2003 was an alright upgrade, but WS2008 and onward, christ the bloat and resource usage skyrocketed to the point of ridiculousness. It's like MS is trying to make useless servers that have most of their capacity tied up with the OS rather than the application.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;40511071]Either way, now is the time to plan/invest in a new system/new os and transfer everything over. 2014 will be coming sooner than you know it. Even if your system will last beyond that, and/or you are fantastic at DIY virus removal of your own system, get ready.[/QUOTE]
Waah, obsolescence! Not only are you not hip anymore, you're automatically going to get viruses the second support for it lapses!
Just stop.
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;40511163]Windows XP doesn't support DirectX 10, 11, or 11.1
Games are going to drop DX9 support sooner or later[/QUOTE]
I can assure you there are and will be thousands of computers running XP for years to come because they are doing things like running Microsoft Office, terminal emulation or embedded applications that do not require DirectX at all. This has already been said by others.
[quote]Most of these places don't have problems with viruses though since the machines are on tightly secured networks, or aren't on a network at all, so there's no need to spend money on a problem that doesn't exist.[/quote]
Or they are like me where they have never used an antivirus. Using discretion on everywhere you browse and everything you download online can be the most powerful antivirus available.
The only exception today of an OS I would not recommend using is NT 4 due to unpatchable exploits.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;40510663]There's still a sizable chunk of XP systems: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems[/url][/QUOTE]
It's worth noting that statistics like those can be wildly inaccurate due to how they're gathered. Basically they just say what % of each website is visited by each OS, and decide that's how many there is. Not in any way an accurate measure really and is only one step above useless. Note how iOS is listed as having a 59% market share to Android's 26%, despite in actuality being much less than Android phones.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;40510663]There's still a sizable chunk of XP systems: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems[/url][/QUOTE]
imma put this on EVERY one of their computers
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfiQYRn7fBg[/media]
Pay me for install your software! so you don't want pay, fine i build my own software.
btw I'm hope for nice open source future with some things like [URL="http://www.reactos.org/"]ReactOS[/URL]
[QUOTE=MIPS;40511210]Or they are like me where they have never used an antivirus. Using discretion on everywhere you browse and everything you download online can be the most powerful antivirus available.
The only exception today of an OS I would not recommend using is NT 4 due to unpatchable exploits.[/QUOTE]
I've not used an AV for over a decade and have yet to get any sort of virus/malware. Being anal with browser security, using sandboxes for unknown/untrusted binaries and having a powerful router with segmented networking, plus a dedicated DMZ port for untrusted machines makes it nearly impossible to get anything.
Even though NT4 has unpatched exploits, it still works fine if its not on a network connected to the internet. I know plenty of expensive older access control systems that are on NT4 chugging away on some server deep in the bowels of buildings.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40511223]imma put this on EVERY one of their computers
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfiQYRn7fBg[/media][/QUOTE]
NEWMAN.
[QUOTE=FluD;40511354]Pay me for install your software! so you don't want pay, fine i build my own software.
btw I'm hope for nice open source future with some things like [URL="http://www.reactos.org/"]ReactOS[/URL][/QUOTE]
ReactOS would be good if it didn't crash every 5 minutes on an empty desktop. I haven't used it in over a year, but I have no reason to think it has less problems than it did before.
[QUOTE=MIPS;40510809]There's no point to upgrade if the task you use it for does not require it.
?[/QUOTE]
Yeah great logic, thank goodness we are still using horse and cart to get from A to B, that works perfectly, why should we upgrade when we can stick with something old, and unstable!
If you're still running XP era hardware then fair enough, but really there's no excuse aside from a program not working in 7 not to upgrade now if the hardware can take it.
but how else will I play Diablo
if you compare a horse and car so window 8 look like this car
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9K80ADr.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=FluD;40511474]if you compare a horse and car so window 8 look like this car
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9K80ADr.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I didn't even say you should upgrade to 8.
8 is subjective and if you don't like it then fair enough, but there are no complaints to be had about 7 and no reason not to upgrade if your hardware is C2D or later.
[QUOTE=rhx123;40511446]Yeah great logic, thank goodness we are still using horse and cart to get from A to B, that works perfectly, why should we upgrade when we can stick with something old, and unstable![/QUOTE]
Your analogy is dumb and falls flat on its face.
Someone using MS Office XP/2003 is not going to see a productivity increase by spending nearly $200 on a new OS that also likely needs several hundred more spent on the computer it is to be run on in hardware upgrades. Not to mention re-buying MS Office again for the additional hundreds of dollars depending on the version.
So now they have this huge chunk of money invested in this new and unknown technology. Their productivity is going to drop sharpy for however long it takes them to re-learn all of the new UIs, and they may never completely learn it, not everyone can cope with the changes.
[QUOTE=rhx123;40511446]If you're still running XP era hardware then fair enough, but really there's no excuse aside from a program not working in 7 not to upgrade now if the hardware can take it.[/QUOTE]
Again with "you're not cool if you use an old OS"
Stop.
[editline]3rd May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=rhx123;40511494]I didn't even say you should upgrade to 8.
8 is subjective and if you don't like it then fair enough, but there are no complaints to be had about 7 and no reason not to upgrade if your hardware is C2D or later.[/QUOTE]
What happened to "if it isn't broke, don't fix it"?
There are plenty of reasons not to upgrade, starting with money.
Even my university has upgraded all their systems to windows 8. Every single one.
Though the POS (register pc) at work runs Windows 2000 :v:
[QUOTE=bohb;40511508]Your analogy is dumb and falls flat on its face.
Someone using MS Office XP/2003 is not going to see a productivity increase by spending nearly $200 on a new OS that also likely needs several hundred more spent on the computer it is to be run on in hardware upgrades. Not to mention re-buying MS Office again for the additional hundreds of dollars depending on the version.
So now they have this huge chunk of money invested in this new and unknown technology. Their productivity is going to drop sharpy for however long it takes them to re-learn all of the new UIs, and they may never completely learn it, not everyone can cope with the changes.
Again with "you're not cool if you use an old OS"
Stop.
[editline]3rd May 2013[/editline]
What happened to "if it isn't broke, don't fix it"?
There are plenty of reasons not to upgrade, starting with money.[/QUOTE]
You're taking my reply as if it was targeted at general consumers. It was not.
I'm not saying every consumer or business with a Windows XP machine should rush out and buy 7 or 8.
As you say there is no reason they should upgrade and I agree with you.
I am targeting this at supposedly computer-literate people who browse this forum and despite having both modern hardware still wish to stay in the past.
Using an old OS leaves you open to unpatched exploits which will never be fixed, especially if you don't use some sort of protective measures.
As for What happened to "if it isn't broke, don't fix it"?, whilst I know you as a person are capable of maintaining an old OS, a lot of the users on here who wish to stay XP for silly really reasons are not, and eventually they will start having problems (EG [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1252746"]MIPS and his S3 resume problem[/URL] that is XP Specific) at which point it will be broke. So might as well sort the problem before it happens.
[QUOTE=Adlertag1940;40510597]Uh, how many corporate system backbones are composed of Windows XP?[/QUOTE]
they're going to have to change sooner or later
guys, the true reason windows XP is that high, is due to usage on non-first world countries, you really think that someone with say 1GB ram and a celeron 2.2Ghz is gonna run windows seven?
[QUOTE=bohb;40511508]Your analogy is dumb and falls flat on its face.
Someone using MS Office XP/2003 is not going to see a productivity increase by spending nearly $200 on a new OS that also likely needs several hundred more spent on the computer it is to be run on in hardware upgrades. Not to mention re-buying MS Office again for the additional hundreds of dollars depending on the version.
So now they have this huge chunk of money invested in this new and unknown technology. Their productivity is going to drop sharpy for however long it takes them to re-learn all of the new UIs, and they may never completely learn it, not everyone can cope with the changes.
Again with "you're not cool if you use an old OS"
Stop.
[editline]3rd May 2013[/editline]
What happened to "if it isn't broke, don't fix it"?
There are plenty of reasons not to upgrade, starting with money.[/QUOTE]
Agreed,
the majority of businesses I go to on work, especially primary and secondary schools, still use XP. The programs they use arent particularly process hungry and therefore upgrading would be pointless and very expensive.
I'd switch to windows 7 in a heartbeat if I had the money for a better PC.
[QUOTE=Harry3;40511983]Agreed,
the majority of businesses I go to on work, especially primary and secondary schools, still use XP. The programs they use arent particularly process hungry and therefore upgrading would be pointless and very expensive.[/QUOTE]
But there is a security risk, they have to way the cost of securing the ageing system against the cost of changing it.
This is still sad to see, I mean this was the flagship operating system for the last 10 years. It's like saying goodbye to an old, sick friend.
[QUOTE=Barbarian887;40511452]but how else will I play Diablo[/QUOTE]
With Windows 8, which has far far far better support for old color modes than Vista or 7
My friend still uses XP for the sole reason of "It's faster than Windows 7, trust me."
Even if it was true, it wouldn't change anything because his computer is like a 9 year old laptop that hasn't been defragmented or formatted once in that time and runs terribly.
Windows XP is good for older computers (1 GB RAM, 2.16 Ghz), but if you install it on today's computers, that's just not right.
You could use any old Windows system today, if you would want to, even going as far as Windows 3.1 (with Internet Explorer 5) and Windows NT 3.51.
[QUOTE=danharibo;40511994]But there is a security risk, they have to way the cost of securing the ageing system against the cost of changing it.[/QUOTE]
There are two levels of security:
1) The local machine.
2) The network that the machine resides on.
You can have a group of machines that have more vulnerabilities than swiss cheese has holes, but if you have a strong network security policy and proper access control on the network perimeters to the WAN (firewalls, packet filters,web filters, email filters, etc.) then you'll be fine in most cases.
Securing the network around insecure machines is far cheaper than spending thousands of dollars on new software. And just because software is newer, doesn't mean that it's any more secure.
[QUOTE=krosos8;40512058]Windows XP is good for older computers (1 GB RAM, 2.16 Ghz), but if you install it on today's computers, that's just not right.
You could use any old Windows system today, if you would want to, even going as far as Windows 3.1 (with Internet Explorer 5) and Windows NT 3.51.[/QUOTE]
Except it isn't, it's riddled with security holes and it's only going to get worse after EOL. The only "place" for XP is part of some legacy system that's too costly to replace (which should be fucking never, but some people/companies just won't let go).
If you're installing something, Install a lightweight Linux distro, it will be a million times more secure than EOL Windows XP.
[editline]3rd May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=bohb;40512065]There are two levels of security:
1) The local machine.
2) The network that the machine resides on.
You can have a group of machines that have more vulnerabilities than swiss cheese has holes, but if you have a strong network security policy and proper access control on the network perimeters to the WAN (firewalls, packet filters,web filters, email filters, etc.) then you'll be fine in most cases.
Securing the network around insecure machines is far cheaper than spending thousands of dollars on new software. And just because software is newer, doesn't mean that it's any more secure.[/QUOTE]
Unless it would cost a fuckton to replace the system, having a woefully insecure system is not going to do you any favours in the long run.
Hopefully the combination of this + end of extended support for Windows XP next year will finally get my work to upgrade. I'm on Windows 7 for development tools, but the vast majority are on XP due to the crappy old legacy systems they use. To make matters worse, they use IE7 because the say upgrading to IE8 caused some data corruption in some shitty old system but I believe they're in progress of updating it.
If supporting legacy systems is really that vital can't they just use virtualisation?
[QUOTE=rikimaru6811;40510573]I don't use any anti-virus program anyway. Whenever I get infected I just use Combofix, but it only happened once when my brother borrowed my laptop.
But yeah, upgrading soon. Been using this shit for over 6 years and it really is getting old.[/QUOTE]
My mother warned me about people like you
[QUOTE=SteveUK;40512097]If supporting legacy systems is really that vital can't they just use virtualisation?[/QUOTE]
It really depends. If it's some application that doesn't rely on physical hardware (serial/parallel/dongles/direct hardware access/etc) then it would work. But you have to take into account the overhead of the hypervisor and the OS the hypervisor runs on (assuming you use something free like Linux with Vbox or QEMU.)
[editline]3rd May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=danharibo;40512067]Unless it would cost a fuckton to replace the system, having a woefully insecure system is not going to do you any favours in the long run.[/QUOTE]
Considering today's economy, dropping $500-$1000 for a shiny new workstation is already painful. Now multiply that by an entire building full of workstations and you have a multi-thousand dollar deal going on. Many places don't have that kind of liquidity to up and move that amount of cash at once.
[QUOTE=bohb;40512142]It really depends. If it's some application that doesn't rely on physical hardware (serial/parallel/dongles/direct hardware access/etc) then it would work. But you have to take into account the overhead of the hypervisor and the OS the hypervisor runs on (assuming you use something free like Linux with Vbox or QEMU.)[/QUOTE]
Well in our case, the computers most of us have are fairly modern (i5) Lenovo ThinkPad tablet/laptop hybrids. They even have a Windows 7 sticker on them but they chose to install Windows XP Tablet Edition instead.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.