Is Windows XP Obselete?

[Dawn]

Inspired by this question being asked various times on various forums and a recent topic here at PC.

Is XP obsolete? Outdated? Dieing?
Maybe it's already dead?

I'll tell you what, I personally find that it's very obsolete, and if it isn't dead, needs to die soon less it hold back the rest of the tech world with it's inferiority.

True fact, XP is the reason Firefox is so insecure right now. =3
Mozilla builds Firefox to be aimed at XP users. Thus, they don't use newer security features. This will be changing in the future though, don't worry.

Opinions?

 

[xJordan360]

If it isn't dead yet, it's currently terminally ill.

 

[donavannj-]

It is still under support for most versions of it (specifically SP 3 or later for 32-bit versions and SP 2 or later for 64-bit versions) until sometime in 2011/2012. It is quite vulnerable even with the weekly Tuesday updates sent out by Microsoft, but that's to do with the fact that it's kernel was released 9 years ago.

 

[twocows]

It's not obsolete, but it is being phased out. It's still useful for older systems that can't handle newer operating systems, but better hardware should stick to Vista or 7.

 

[thepsynergist]

Still though, 16 bit programs that require good graphics can't be run on a XP Virtual Machine. What I recommend is to make a partition to your C: Drive and multi boot XP with either Vista or Win7, whichever you have.

 

[twocows]

Still though, 16 bit programs that require good graphics can't be run on a XP Virtual Machine. What I recommend is to make a partition to your C: Drive and multi boot XP with either Vista or Win7, whichever you have.

Uh, not sure you meant what you thought you meant. 16-bit programs are obsolete; most things are programmed in 32-bit or 64-bit. Windows 3.1 ran 16-bit programs, and while modern systems can still run them, they're very outdated.

However, I'm a big fan of dual-booting; I usually have a Windows partition and a GNU/Linux partition on my computers.

 

[Legobricks]

I still run 95.

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH


But no, XP isn't obsolete just yet. This here 95 on my laptops is, but it is still the opposite of useless; like how my MS Word 97 might pale in comparison to my college's Word 2007, but it is none the less still a valid tool for the creation of any good document; the 2007 edition is 'bigger and better' as they say, but that doesn't mean 97 is therefore bad, as many people seem to believe. Even past when XP goes vastly out of use, there's simply no point I see in keeping up with this redundantly grandiose computer race.

 

[Sneeze]

I still use XP on my gaming rig, partially out of laziness, partially because of compatibility issues. I have 7 on my laptop and it does run alot smoother but if i had 7 on my desktop I'd not be able to play half my games, even when I do upgrade I'll probably make a partition and have XP and 7.

 

[linkinpark187]

I have a Windows 98 desktop setup specifically for my older games. Any of the games that I've run when I had XP seem to run in 64-bit 7 with no issues. I love 7, though. As someone said earlier, XP isn't obsolete, but terminally ill. It's long overdue to be put out of it's misery, and as much as I love XP, I love 7 more. Be prepared for 2014:

"On April 8, 2014, all Windows XP support, including security updates and security-related hotfixes, will be terminated." (as quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP)

It's said to see it go, but...I'll give it my 21 gun salute. It was good while it lasted, but all good things must come to an end.

 

[Dawn]

I'd say it's very obsolete. o.O

Did you guys know that Internet Explorer no longer supports XP?
Internet Explorer 9 is dropping XP, not because it's being phased out, but because so many new technologies have been developed that XP can't handle.

Just because it's not useless doesn't mean it's not obselete.

When I switched to 7, only one game of mine refused to work, and that's because the developers, being punks, DELIBERATELY didn't add support for Vista or 7. A criminal offense if you ask me.

XP can't handle newer security features. It can't handle newer APIs. It can't handle a lot of things really.

What you guys are seeing is everyone cushioning their software for XP so that it can handle the old, obsolete operating system. Does anyone remember when Firefox started to suck for them? Yeah, that was probably XP's fault.

Even if you were using 7. It was XP's fault, because Mozilla wanted to make the browser for XP.

At the point at which an Operating System starts to hold back the tech world as a whole I think it's time to say it's obsolete.

Say you're walking down the street with an old man. You're young, but he can't keep up. Now you have to walk slower so that he can pretend to be able to do the same things you do.

The young man is 7.
The old man is XP.

Microsoft is tired of it, and frankly seeing as my Firefox has a tendency to break and crash consistently these days, I'm tired of it too. I want the software advantages of my new Operating System and this whole "XP is not obsolete" idea is denying me that.

(PS: If you are like me and Firefox is crippled after being attacked by things that were left vulnerable due to XP cushioning, try Chrome or IE8, both of which offer advanced security features on Vista / 7.

Also PS: Mozilla is finally fixing their mistakes. You can expect Firefox to be somewhat less vulnerable starting the very next versoin, 3.6.4)

 

[Zeffy]

The young man is 7.
The old man is XP.

Look who's talkin. :<

I'm laughing to all those who's saying XP is obsolete. :laugh:
7, Vista, XP, 95: its all windows operating systems! Someday, 7 will even be more obsolete than XP. Nothing's permanent y'know except change. So someday, Microsoft will stop selling older OSs, yes 7 is old very very old, and will make people buy their newly developed OS.

I'd stick with XP, as I can design it to look like something new. xD

tl;dr: Everything's gonna change, and 7 will become old very very old.

 

[donavannj-]

I don't know about you, PkMnTrainer Yellow, but I've only encountered FF issues with certain add-ons installed, or when the computer's been jostled, and other times just running hot. So it's been just as stable as Chrome for me.

EDIT: @Zeffy: 7 cannot logically ever be more obsolete than XP, simply because it was released nearly a decade after XP. From 1991 to 2001, Microsoft went from 3.1 to XP, and no one's saying XP is more obsolete than 3.1.

 

[Dawn]

Look who's talkin. :<

I'm laughing to all those who's saying XP is obsolete. :laugh:
7, Vista, XP, 95: its all windows operating systems! Someday, 7 will even be more obsolete than XP. Nothing's permanent y'know except change. So someday, Microsoft will stop selling older OSs, yes 7 is old very very old, and will make people buy their newly developed OS.

I'd stick with XP, as I can design it to look like something new. xD

tl;dr: Everything's gonna change, and 7 will become old very very old.

I'm sorry but... you make no sense Zeffy o.O And lack a point as well.
You also seem to be contradicting your stance. All you said SUPPORTS the fact that XP is obsolete and that you should change to 7.
Are you trolling? :\

Also, consider yourself lucky, Candy. Tests show Firefox is far more insecure than either IE8 or Chrome. While IE8 does have some very odd speed issues that I frankly don't understand, it is in fact more secure.

Firefox is WAY behind on utilizing new technology, something I expect them to fix very soon as I have been beta testing future Firefox versions and have personally seen a few major enhancements.

You know how Chrome has had this one feature where if a plugin like Flash or Quicktime breaks it just kills the flash element with a "This plugin has crashed" screen replacement?

Yeah, in Firefox? Your browser just crashes. But starting in 3.6.4, they'll be stealing that idea from Chrome.

Point and case, Firefox is insecure as it is now, and is in need of serious updates.

Oh, and my experience with Firefox going nuts has nothing to do with addons. It has to do with Firefox being exploited and permanently damaged to not be able to function under certain circumstances. For instance, the Firefox installation on my Desktop, crashes whenever Active X is on a page.

On my Laptop, Firefox can cause unbelievably horrible memory leaks that can lock my computer up and cause me to have to restart under certain circumstances.

Both are Windows 7 machines, and any other Browser runs flawlessly. IE8, Chrome, Opera, Safari. They all run without a hitch. (Actually, no, Opera does not, but that's off-topic as it is Opera's problem as a whole, not related to the OS discussion at hand.)




In fact, I believe strongly that once 3.6.4 comes out, I will no longer suffer the Active X crash on my Desktop.

I frankly don't know how I'm supposed to fix the installation on my laptop. Perhaps a purge and re-installation would yield results.

 

[Yusshin]

Firefox isn't insecure. It's when you load it with add-ons that it becomes slow, gaunky, and crash-worthy.

I have never had a virus surfing with FF. I don't have an anti-virus installed. I just have AdAware Plus + and Scriptlock. I have entered questionable streaming sites and random other places. I've never had a virus, just a few cookies.

IE gave me viruses lol and pop-ups, not to mention. In my experience, IE is the Dell of browsers - trash, crashy, and badly constructed.

IE can't even open certain HTML sites; it's ridiculous rofl

I don't believe XP is obsolete either; sure, it's not as pretty as 7, but you can change the interface to look like W7. It might not be as updated or secure, but it's the best laptop for games since it's simple. W7 moves **** around and has its own installation procedures that sometimes don't even work. It took me a reformat and a bunch of uninstall/reinstallations to make the Sims 2 work on my W7 laptop, whereas it took one install on XP and it worked like a charm.

I love XP. That's why I'm planning to dual-partition and put XP on my 64-bit system with 50GB to itself, for better gaming (since installations will always work lol)

 

[Dawn]

Firefox isn't insecure. It's when you load it with add-ons that it becomes slow, gaunky, and crash-worthy.

I have never had a virus surfing with FF. I don't have an anti-virus installed. I just have AdAware Plus + and Scriptlock. I have entered questionable streaming sites and random other places. I've never had a virus, just a few cookies.

IE gave me viruses lol and pop-ups, not to mention. In my experience, IE is the Dell of browsers - trash, crashy, and badly constructed.

IE can't even open certain HTML sites; it's ridiculous rofl

I don't believe XP is obsolete either; sure, it's not as pretty as 7, but you can change the interface to look like W7. It might not be as updated or secure, but it's the best laptop for games since it's simple. W7 moves **** around and has its own installation procedures that sometimes don't even work. It took me a reformat and a bunch of uninstall/reinstallations to make the Sims 2 work on my W7 laptop, whereas it took one install on XP and it worked like a charm.

I love XP. That's why I'm planning to dual-partition and put XP on my 64-bit system with 50GB to itself, for better gaming (since installations will always work lol)

Please read my previous post that contains a rebuttal to what you just repeated about Firefox and addons o.O;

That's rather odd because I have no problems with IE8 besides some small speed issues. Perhaps you are referring to the dead browser IE6? Or perhaps you're running IE8 on XP, which cannot use new security features built into newer Operating Systems?

And... here, read this. It's basically showing off how XP cannot under any circumstances go much farther due to limitations. Here, let me clip out a few sections of the article.

https://arstechnica.com/microsoft/n...id-the-right-thing-in-ditching-xp-for-ie9.ars

Now, it's true that software is not like physical goods; while the ravages of time may make hardware break down, Windows XP works as well today as it did when it was new. Better, if you consider the extensive capabilities added in Service Packs and free downloads. But the computing world does not stand still; working as well as it did when it was new means that Windows XP hasn't kept up with computing's advances. The next generation of hard disks (or indeed, current generation, for Western Digital users), for example, are at risk of suffering severe performance penalties on XP systems. To get the best from the technology that for many has replaced spinning disks—the solid state drive—requires support for the TRIM command, found natively only in Windows 7. XP similarly lacks any built-in support for Blu-ray discs.

IPv6 is—fingers crossed—a technology that will become far more prevalent in the coming years, as the IPv4 address space finally starts to run out. XP does support IPv6 in a limited way, but it can only be configured using arcane command-line syntax. Windows Vista added GUI configuration and made IPv6 a first-class citizen on the network, and Windows 7 rounds out IPv6 support by including support for ancilary technology such as DHCPv6. XP is simply ill-prepared for an IPv6 world.

Web browser security is a notorious problem, as the recent pwn2own event has once again demonstrated. Windows Vista and Windows 7 have much greater systematic protections against security flaws than Windows XP does. The Address Space Layout Randomization feature makes existing flaws harder to exploit by making systems less predictable to attackers. This protection is not perfect, and there are indeed techniques that allow its circumvention, but every obstacle makes would-be hackers' jobs harder. The protection ASLR offers is also boosted by the use of a 64-bit operating system, another area where XP falls behind (64-bit XP is a bastard hybrid of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, with the result that much 64-bit software that works properly on Vista and 7 fails to work properly or at all on XP 64).

More substantial protection is provided by the Mandatory Integrity Control feature of the two modern OSes. By marking a process as "Low Integrity," Windows prevents that process from being able to write to the majority of the hard disk and registry. The result is that even if the Web browser is compromised, the attacker is greatly restricted. Though an attacker can read most data (though this too can be restricted), he can't install rootkits, trojans, spyware, or anything else, because he cannot write to the parts of the file system required to do this.

Importantly, this protection has no real means of circumvention. Features like ASLR (and DEP, which is found in XP) are designed to make hackers' jobs harder, but do not erect any hard, kernel-enforced barriers, which is why, with skill, they can be bypassed. MIC erects a much harder barrier; to bypass MIC a hacker would have to find and use an exploit that allowed a process to elevate its privileges to strip itself of the "Low Integrity" label. If the attacker cannot do this, then he is forever trapped in the Low Integrity sandbox, unable to install his malicious software.

Privilege escalation vulnerabilities—software flaws that trick the kernel into giving a process more rights than it should have—do exist, so even MIC is no panacea. But they're substantially rarer than common browser flaws, and they are more likely to be fixed more quickly, because of their scope. Most important is that they can be fixed—they're a result of bugs in the kernel. DEP and ASLR can't be fixed as such; the circumvention mechanisms are to an extent inevitable.

Of the big five, only two browsers currently use this protection on Windows; Internet Explorer (7 and 8), and Chrome. For this reason alone, I'd be hesitant to use Safari, Opera, or Firefox. Their security track record isn't really any better than Microsoft's, and the consequent exploitability of these browsers is much greater.

This advantage is not one that is merely hypothetical, either. In common with other vendors, Microsoft assigns a risk rating to every security flaw, and Internet Explorer flaws on Windows Vista and Windows 7 have quite consistently had lower risk ratings than those same flaws on Windows XP. Why? Because the flaws are greatly restricted by the MIC barrier. Microsoft might be biased, but there are security researchers who concur; Charlie Miller, so successful at pwn2own, regards Chrome and IE 8 on Windows 7 as arguably the safest Web browsing platform. It's no coincidence that these are the browsers that use MIC sandboxing. The protection works.

Windows XP supports none of this protection, nor will it ever. Denying XP users access to its latest and greatest browser isn't a bad thing: Windows XP users should be strongly discouraged from using their machines in any hostile environment. Far from saying that IE9 should be supported on XP, we should be demanding that the other three browsers start supporting these security features and dropping XP support, too. These really are features that everybody should be using.

The biggest single reason for dropping XP is not, however, security; it's graphics. Internet Explorer 9 already boasts high-performance, hardware-accelerated graphical capabilities. In particular, Microsoft has shown off IE9's SVG capabilities. (SVG is a W3C standard that enables vector graphics to be embedded into webpages.) These graphics can be manipulated using JavaScript, opening up a whole new world of possibilities for standards-compliant webpages—widespread support for SVG might very well allow standard pages to start doing the kinds of tasks that hitherto have required plugins like Flash or Silverlight to accomplish.

The way that Microsoft has decided to achieve this is to use Direct2D for all of IE9's rendering. Direct2D is a 2D vector graphics API that's layed on top of Direct3D, and Direct3D is, of course, fully hardware accelerated. Direct2D is in many ways a pretty good match for HTML, CSS, and SVG rendering; unlike Windows' old graphics API, GDI, Direct2D is vector-based (so allows for easy, high-quality scaling and animation), but unlike OpenGL or Direct3D, it offers a simple programmatic interface that's tailored towards 2D graphics, without the complexity that 3D entails.

Similarly, for text, Microsoft is using DirectWrite. Again, the technology is high-performance, hardware-accelerated, and it integrates cleanly with Direct2D.

Sorry for the wall of text. I felt the need to provide factual evidence in a topic so full of opinions.

Oh, and I've personally installed Sims 2 on a Windows 7 laptop. Worked fine the first time. No idea what went wrong for you. o.O; Your laptop seems to have lots of problems with programs that are perfectly compatible and secure under Windows 7.

I run a 64 bit Windows 7 on my gaming Desktop, and have never had a more pleasing OS. o.O;

 

[.Seth]

I used to use XP on my IBM computer, and to be honest, I wasn't satisfied. Though, that was probably because of the hardware the IBM had.

That aside, it's aging, with most newer software not supporting XP (heck, even Microsoft stopped supporting it), and the fact it can't use some new software is kind of irritating.

It's okay if you're just doing something simple or need a quick operating system, but 7 is fast enough and it has aero.

Some people say they use XP for "compatibility purposes", but you're also going to run into compatibility issues within XP if you need newer, better software.

 

[Zeffy]

Are you trolling? :\

You've got a lot of nerve calling me a troll. :|

All I was saying was, someday we're all going to switch with Windows 7, because Microsoft will cut all connections to XP in the year 2014. Then someday, Microsoft will create another OS that they want to sell more than 7. Its just a repeating cycle, like when XP is dead 7 will be much active. Then Microsoft will create another OS and then sell it to us, then cut all connections to 7.

tl;dr: 7 is great, IMO, but calling another system obsolete is not a great attitude. Why are we arguing about this anyways, its just a machine. xD

^ Aero can make computers with 'bad' graphics cards run slow, and Vista had aero too, y'know. :\

 

[Silver]

C'mon now, don't be hating on my Windows XP. Mainly cause I'm a cheapass who won't pay for Windows 7 just for dualbooting.

 

[twocows]

You've got a lot of nerve calling me a troll. :|

All I was saying was, someday we're all going to switch with Windows 7, because Microsoft will cut all connections to XP in the year 2014. Then someday, Microsoft will create another OS that they want to sell more than 7. Its just a repeating cycle, like when XP is dead 7 will be much active. Then Microsoft will create another OS and then sell it to us, then cut all connections to 7.

tl;dr: 7 is great, IMO, but calling another system obsolete is not a great attitude. Why are we arguing about this anyways, its just a machine. xD

^ Aero can make computers with 'bad' graphics cards run slow, and Vista had aero too, y'know. :\

Uh, obviously Windows 7 will be obsolete someday, but it isn't right now; I fail to see how that has any bearing on the problem at hand. Perhaps you don't know what obsolete means; it means archaic or outdated, usually because something newer and better has come along. Windows XP is almost ten years old, and while it was a solid operating system for a long time, it's being phased out in favor of better things, like Windows Vista and Windows 7. It's still useful on older computers because of the support it receives from third parties and because it's so lightweight, but the better solution is to invest in new hardware and run stuff that isn't outdated. And the reason this matters is because the people clinging to outdated technology are holding back progress. Besides putting themselves at risk, you have developers being forced to support archaic systems, which means they won't be using advancements that help make their software faster and more secure. As Yellow pointed out, this means those of us that actually stay up to date don't get the stability or performance we should be getting.

 

[Spinor]

Did I seriously read "16 bit programs" somewhere in this thread?

And I really want to say XP is obsolete as hell. It's close to a decade since its release, it's not even funny. Schools only kept it because Vista failed epically in security. W7 is a different story.

In semi-ontopicness. My school recently upgraded to different computers this week. I'll be checking them out when I have Technology on Tuesday. They better be sexy and not have XP.

In fact, Linux will do good just to annoy the other kids who think that being an internet addict makes them a geek. Hell ****ing no, they are way off.