Microsoft Worried About PCs Still Using Windows XP

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
What MS fails to realize is that many XP computers will not be able to properly run Windows 7 or 8 because no drivers were ever written to support these OS’s on these older computers. I have a Laptop that easily exceeds the system requirements for Windows Vista & 7 (Win 8 is a no go because of the other CPU requirements) but because no drivers were ever written for Vista or 7 I cannot get all of the GPU’s functions to operate correctly under Windows 7.

MS work with your partners; convince them to write drivers for Win 7 for all hardware that was made in the last 10 years that is capable of running Win 7. If you do this you will likely see the majority of the remaining XP computers migrate to Win 7. MS accomplishing this task will show that your are truly concerned about the people still using windows XP.
 


Other commentators here are recommending to migrate to Linux. Why not that route?
 

LoL, one can always dream.

Most hardware products are discontinued 2-3 years after launch and rarely get continued support beyond the 1-3 years warranty period from the last-ship date. So in general, very little hardware gets manufacturer support beyond 4-5 years from initial product launch: all their warranty obligations and liabilities have expired by then; there is no profit or significant benefit in sinking any more money in supporting them.

Again though, those systems will not magically self-destruct due to Microsoft officially terminating future support. People and companies using XP systems will just need to be more careful not to break them.
 
I hate reading these articles about mega corporations 'Microsoft Worried About PCs Still Using Windows XP' .. if they're actually concerned how about providing patches to windows XP for critical security updates for it then? Just a thought; personally it sounds like some cheesy ploy to force people to buy more Microsoft software and 'upgrade' vs a genuine concern for security in corp. america. people aren't buying the new operating systems because there is little or no practical reason to, innovate and give people a new product. Personally I think they should encourage XP machines going out of date to install Linux.. why? because I'm concerned about american security.. right.. :)
 

What is the average active support lifespan of an average Linux distribution? Two years? Even Ubuntu LTS lasts only four years. And here, we have people and companies complaining about support termination for a 12 years old OS.

I doubt companies that have to continue running XP due to proprietary software they cannot move to a new PC or OS without major re-coding and possibly re-certification (ex.: industrial PCs running assembly lines, chemical processing and various other production plants) would be interested in going through porting their software to Linux and having to go through the whole re-migration and full re-testing thing every four years.
 


Open source software is generally more incremental with frequent releases which generally don't contain major change on their own.
That said it is a bit too fast paced for me hence why my laptop has Ubuntu 9.10 in it.

But yes software migration will be the biggest hindrance to dumping microsoft.
 
Worried? They are worried about how to pull more money out of computer user's wallets.
If windows XP is good enough for the tasks a person or a company need to get done they will not see the need to shell more money out. Upgrading hundreds or thousands of machines is more costly than not doing it - no matter how many false justifications MS come up with. They only care about their bottom line - and nothing else.
 
I don't blame people one bit for wanting to continue running XP. People shouldn't be forced to spend money to upgrade to Windows 7 or 8. MS should continue to support XP indefinitely or provide free upgrades. Some people aren't made of money.
 
IMO cut it off. don't support XP. Why? because for most people, they wonder why their pc is so slow when they try to run software that hogs their single core/maybe dual core cpu thats 13 years old running 1GB DDR RAM if lucky. The customers I can actually get to buy a new pc, even the cheapest notices a big performance jump too. Very good reason to upgrade. This is just my experience though working on computers for a living. It's like the saying goes, all good things must come to an end. Windows 8 is jacked up though, and is a learning curve.. So in that sense I understand too.. Plus add money into the picture. It sure does handle my hardware more efficiently and smoother though!
 
Every American should take a trip to a third-world country where people are blessed to have even an ancient computer by our privileged standards. Microsoft has a history of doing what they think is best for people which also conveniently lines their pockets in a sometimes less than noble way. Every geek knows that there are operating systems that don't require current technology. Microsoft just needs to admit that the way they did business is not the way they can continue to do business. If Microsoft can make an OS that works on a smartphone, by golly, they can make an OS that works great on a Pentium III with 512 memory. Come back to Earth thou high-minded patricians.
 


XP will not stop working. It will just stop receiving updates so it will be a higher security risk and software support will gradually decay.
 
Microsoft should really think twice before completely not supporting Windows XP. Leaving around 30% of computers around the world in risk... not a good idea. They should extend the date for Windows XP extended support when Windows 7 loses it's Mainstream support, or even yet, might have to extended all the way when Windows Vista dies as well. Microsoft needs to help these customers for a cheap upgrade.
 

IIRC, XP's support date has already been extended twice. At some point, Microsoft has to cut their losses on that since they have already supported it well beyond anything XP users were ever entitled to.
 
That's a good idea putting an expiry date on its OS's. The year before it expires it could give you warnings, and then finally when that time has passed, it should start limiting features, like how long you can be online. XP has to go for security reasons, PERIOD. But since their is no expiry date on the box, Microsoft needs to get creative in how to get users to stop using it.
 

That is a tremendously bad idea in so many ways.
Deliberately breaking something like that is absurd. Even when an operating system is supported, it should work as intended.

Your comment shows ignorance.

 
I`m amazed about some guys reactions to this, putting aside the guys who use proprietary software that only runs on XP (blame the software manufacturer for not rolling out updates for newer OS not MS for that) , there are guys who simply talk bullshit. Well if you are in the stone age era and have a 32-512 MB computer then do as you say.. switch to Linux or w/e nobody cares ... even current phones have better hardware than your computers, try to keep up with technology, normal people move on. Nokia 3310 was a great phone by any means but we moved on to better stuff (well not phones that you can kill with but still)... same with XP ... it was great for it`s period but it`s time to move on so stop bitching MS for no real reason.
 


You can boot straight to the desktop with Windows 8.1. The 'Start' button now operates a little differently, but close to the same way. The thing that's really irritating to me is using Acrobat forces you into 'Metro-mode'. Other than that, things operate pretty close to the same way if you boot to the desktop.
 

If you install the regular desktop version of Acrobat, you get the regular windowed desktop windows.

My two biggest pet peeves about Win8:
- taskbar always on top: notifications I do not care about un-hide the taskbar on a regular basis and that covers the status bar and bottom of whatever window I'm working in so I periodically have to set aside whatever I'm working on to dismiss all the notification spam before I can regain access to the bottom of my screen. If I want to check for notifications, I'll hit the Windows key to call the taskbar when I feel like it, which usually coincides with times I need to step away from my current task. That annoyance alone might be enough to make me try going back to Vista if I need to re-install the OS for whatever reason.

- messy configuration options: in XP/Vista/7, you could change every single network configuration option and edit each configuration from the network manager interface. With Win8, some of the functions have been moved to the charms bar so when you are trying to troubleshoot a connection, you end up bouncing between connection manager and charms bar for trivial things like enabling/disabling connections, some connection parameters like PPPoE login name and password appear to have become non-configurable beyond initial connection setup so you need to delete and re-create the connection to change them, etc.

So, what hate most about Win8 is how Microsoft is imposing their vision of things by removing or breaking features that used to feel right.
 
Reason why so many businesses still use XP is that some programs will not run in vista/7/8 give you an example one of my business customer runs a surveying company the software costs $80,000 to get the program updated that works in a current OS will cost them $75,000 more or they stay with windows XP what would you do?.
 
@techguy911 We have something like that where I work. Get Win 7 pro or above and run free Windows virtual PC and XP mode. Problem solved.

XP mode works wonders. You can even stay at IE 6 if need be. You can install the 32-bit VM on your 64-bit version of Win 7 and it behaves just as XP did prior.

Because of this, I would definitely upgrade a business to a Win 7 environment. I feel like Win 8 is one of those ugly in-between OS's like ME or Vista by which MS creates a subsequent OS that is really solid (ie Win 7). I wouldn't go Win 8 in a business.
 

Not if the application has realtime or other critical requirements as is often the case with industrial PCs used for process control. There is also the additional problem of proprietary IO controllers not having drivers for newer OSes.
 


take two seconds to think about what you said. if i expected people to find out what actually happened or fact check everything, would i be posting a correction and enlightening them with more accurate information?
 

This type of application should probably be running on a server OS and not a desktop OS. This is where thin clients are ideal and should be on a production line and a centralized server is doing the bulk of the work. If not this is a practice that should be changed. Some type of upgrade path should be considered with regard to these critical applications simply to get them off of a desktop environment independent of having to switch to a supported OS. In this case, an unsupported OS is the perfect reason to seek budget for a proper environment all the way around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom