[Reaction]Microsoft stops supports on XP

donavannj said:

I've known about the support phase-out for XP since they announced it, what 3 years ago? No, wait, maybe it was 4. I know it was at least 2 years ago, and I think they announced the phase-out plan shortly after Windows 7 was released.

It's about time. I mean, the last Service Pack (Service Pack 3) is already 5 years old and the core OS is 12 years old. Maybe it'll finally push everyone to stop using the buggy OS.

Click to expand...

Yup. Maybe its really time to upgrade. :)
The thing is XP is more user friendly and easier to use.

Nutsy_! said:

The thing is XP is more user friendly and easier to use.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just being really picky here, but I would really like to see some reasoning behind why you say that, even if it means comparisons. Because I find Windows Vista, 7 and even 8 to be just as user friendly, if not, more user friendly than XP.

I personally think 7 is more user friendly once you show people how to use the universal search bar in the start menu, but many less technologically literate people still find XP easier because it's what they learned to use for their first computer, and a lot of people see learning a new computer interface as rocket science.

donavannj said:

I personally think 7 is more user friendly once you show people how to use the universal search bar in the start menu, but many less technologically literate people still find XP easier because it's what they learned to use for their first computer, and a lot of people see learning a new computer interface as rocket science.

Click to expand...

Uh ha. Like the miss maleota said. ^^

Windows XP, so nostalgic. When it was first released I was sad it moved away from MS-DOS underneath yet escatic that it was so much more stable and didn't BSOD anywhere near as much as Windows 95/98.

It was also the bane of many web developers because the first version had Internet Explorer 6 bundled. xD

To answer your question Nutsy, my response is... it's about time! :D

perthskies said:

Windows XP, so nostalgic. When it was first released I was sad it moved away from MS-DOS underneath yet escatic that it was so much more stable and didn't BSOD anywhere near as much as Windows 95/98.

It was also the bane of many web developers because the first version had Internet Explorer 6 bundled. xD

To answer your question Nutsy, my response is... it's about time! :D

Click to expand...

Haha! ^^ Yeah, i really think its about time {:3}

ZachLMedia said:

Maybe I'm just being really picky here, but I would really like to see some reasoning behind why you say that, even if it means comparisons. Because I find Windows Vista, 7 and even 8 to be just as user friendly, if not, more user friendly than XP.

Click to expand...

I guess he meant because XP had so much simplicity in terms of access. There was a start button, the buttons were easier to read, as well as text. With 8, it took a long while for people like my computer-illiterate parents to get used to the new GUI. They're used to the start button at the corner and they keep asking if I got rid of it. -___-

7 serves as a better alternative to upgrade (Vista too, buuuuuut I would stay away if I were you lol).

Actually, I liked Vista better than XP.
I mean, at least it was easier to configure everything on Vista.

I'm of the opinion that for as long as intellectual property rights are held to a product, it should continue to be supported or those rights should be relinquished. A decent start would be for every one of Microsoft's operating systems to see a support life about as long as XP's. I'm not convinced that they need to release a new system every 2–3 years.

Cassino said:

I'm of the opinion that for as long as intellectual property rights are held to a product, it should continue to be supported or those rights should be relinquished.

Click to expand...

Rights should be relinquished to who? This one is actually a pretty good question when you think about it, but in the end, someone will have to put up the support burden. Remember that resources aren't infinite.

Cassino said:

A good start would be for every one of Microsoft's operating systems to see a support life as long as XP's. I'm not convinced that they need to make a new OS every 2–3 years.

Click to expand...

...um, they are? (Windows 8.0 does not count as 8.1 is effectively a Service Pack.)

And yet Windows 8.1 is widely considered as Windows 8's successor.
Also, there was no Windows 8.0, just Windows 8.

MKGirlism said:

And yet Windows 8.1 is widely considered as Windows 8's successor.
Also, there was no Windows 8.0, just Windows 8.

Click to expand...

I think I'm going to have a hard time trying to decide between 8 and 8.x for Windows 8 in general.

MKGirlism said:

And yet Windows 8.1 is widely considered as Windows 8's successor.
Also, there was no Windows 8.0, just Windows 8.

Click to expand...

BTW what's the difference between 8 or 8.1??
Is there any system change??

Guys, please try not to derail the conversation from the original topic please. Thanks.

I work in manufacturing and from experience I understand that providing support for outdated technology is a giant pain and does not end up netting a worthwhile profit. Providing updates and support for the three most recent operating systems seems fair to me, however unfortunate it may be for India.

From the industry side, security is a major factor and the older the operating system the easier it is to hack. Not even necessarily because of the operating system itself, but also because many users get comfortable with older versions of applications/software or (IE for example) cannot access updates, which in turn creates additional security risks. In a wireless world, I personally would prefer my bank have current technology to keep my money safe from unauthorized remote access.

I'm down with it!

I just realized that Microsoft is practically supporting 5 client operating systems (XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1) and 5 server operating systems (2003, 2008, 2008 R2, 2012, 2012 R2) at the same time right now (4/4 if you consolidate 8.x and 2012 R2 releases). That's commitment to ya!

Too bad nobody can really hold all that weight by themselves. Something's gonna give.

♪Twiggy♪ said:

Rights should be relinquished to who? This one is actually a pretty good question when you think about it, but in the end, someone will have to put up the support burden. Remember that resources aren't infinite.

Click to expand...

The public domain, I would like to think. If there is any particular reason not to do this, I would be interested to know.

♪Twiggy♪ said:

...um, they are? (Windows 8.0 does not count as 8.1 is effectively a Service Pack.)

Click to expand...

Well, even if we only look at the apparently major versions, listed below, their release years are less spread out than I care for. I don't feel computer technology has progressed enough between them that every single version would necessarily introduce meaningful novelty to the end-user.

1.0: 1985
2.0: 1987
3.0: 1990
4.0/95: 1995
5.0/2000: 2000
[significant gap only here]
6.0/Vista: 2007
7.0: 2009
8.0: 2012

You will be missed XP... Still gonna use you tho.. Crappy PC can't support 7... But seriously though I never used the automatic updates because I usually turn them off. Its really a pain to do so...

Cassino said:

1.0: 1985
2.0: 1987
3.0: 1990
4.0/95: 1995
5.0/2000: 2000
[significant gap only here]
6.0/Vista: 2007
7.0: 2009
8.0: 2012

Click to expand...

Let me correct you.

Windows 1.0 to Windows Me were based on Windows 9x, which was based on MS-DOS.
Windows NT used to be a Business Class Windows Kernel, but since Windows XP, it's been used by everyone.

Let's explain it a bit more clear.
Left = Home users.
Right = Business users.

Windows 1.0 <-> Windows NT 1
Windows 2.0 <-> Windows NT 2
Windows 3.x <-> Windows NT 3
Windows 95 <-> Windows NT 4
Windows 98(SE) <-> Windows NT 4
Windows Me <-> Windows 2000 (Windows NT 5.0)
Windows XP Home <-> Windows Professional (Windows NT 5.1)
Windows Vista HB/HP/Ulti <-> Windows Vista Pro/Ent/Ulti (Windows NT 6.0)
Windows 7 HP/Ulti <-> Windows 7 Pro/Ulti (Windows NT 6.1)
Windows 8/RT <-> Windows 8 Pro (Windows NT 6.2)
Windows 8.1/RT <-> Windows 8 Pro (Windows NT 6.3)

The Windows NT Kernel still hasn't got passed 6.x yet.
Eventually, since Windows XP was NT 5, while Windows Vista was NT 6, it caused a lot of Driver issues to the end users, and since anything after Vista is still NT 6, most Vista Drivers also work on 7, 8, and 8.1.

Also, aside from Windows NT and Windows 9x, there's a third Kernel: Windows CE.
Windows CE is for Smartphones.

XP EOL has been a long time coming. The biggest problem is that people are saving up their zero-day exploits and waiting to release them once it hits EOL. Since XP still has more than 30% marketshare in the consumer market, this is going to affect a significant number of consumers.

Then again, it's software that's over a decade old at this point. My only complaint is that Microsoft hasn't issued an update that simply displays a message that XP will be EOL in April and that consumers should upgrade, perhaps with links to a newer version of Windows compatible with their current computer.

As for me, I'm migrating off Windows where possible. Any new setups I do are going to be either GNU/Linux or hackintosh with, at most, a Windows virtual machine or dual boot. I will not be using Windows as my primary OS in the future.