Microsoft Worried About PCs Still Using Windows XP

[canadianvice]

I don't like it when people argue that Windows 8 "is not that bad" - maybe not but it is still a UI regression from 7

Apart from a handful of UI annoyances, there isn't much of a difference between 7 and 8.x... and some of 8.x's annoyances were introduced to 7 through patches - like the ability to make the taskbar NOT always on top.

Would that be the cause of the issue? I never seem to have encountered it on seven when I had it... but I also didn't test.

Still, it should be seen as a UI element to prevent the full-screening of apps (unless the taskbar is hidden, of course) but it's definitely a bad idea to make it so that if you leave an inactive titlebar under the taskbar it can't be closed via normal means.

I've encountered that a few times already with Chrome and it's really irking me.

 

[smeezekitty]

I don't like it when people argue that Windows 8 "is not that bad" - maybe not but it is still a UI regression from 7

Apart from a handful of UI annoyances, there isn't much of a difference between 7 and 8.x... and some of 8.x's annoyances were introduced to 7 through patches - like the [strike]ability[/strike] inability to make the taskbar NOT always on top.

The double negative is a bit confusing. Are you are saying you DO NOT want the task bar on top?

 

[InvalidError]

The double negative is a bit confusing. Are you are saying you DO NOT want the task bar on top?

I was hoping to clarify that with my edit... guess that didn't work.

Anyhow, in XP/Vista, I used to set the taskbar on Auto-Hide with "Taskbar Always on Top" disabled so the taskbar would always be BEHIND whatever I have open on top of it unless/until I brought it on top by pressing the Windows key to call the Start Menu.

With patched-up Win7 and Win8.x, any notifications automatically un-hide the taskbar and bring it back on top of whatever I am doing on all screens... and that annoys the heck out of me. It would not be so bad if notifications only affected the taskbar on the screen on which the window is open - at least then I could dump all the annoying windows on secondary displays so they wouldn't cause the taskbar to periodically nag me at least on my main display.

 

[smeezekitty]

Got it. For me the task bar will auto hide if I set it to on my 7 machine, but I personally like to have the task bar always there.

If I was using 800x600 it might be different 😉

Of all things, there are plenty more annoying things. The update restart nag is near the top of the list.

 

[InvalidError]

Of all things, there are plenty more annoying things. The update restart nag is near the top of the list.

I fixed that years ago in Vista by simply setting Windows Updates to manual. That way, I only need to worry about Windows rebooting on me when and where I choose.

Maybe not the safest practice but considering the amount of frustration those unwanted popups have caused me, I did not feel like taking chances with losing any more work to them. Most internet exploits still focus on Word, IE, Outlook, etc. so by running Firefox, Thunderbird, Chrome and OpenOffice, I have relatively little reason to worry about being a few days or weeks late on Windows updates.

 

[canadianvice]

Of all things, there are plenty more annoying things. The update restart nag is near the top of the list.

I fixed that years ago in Vista by simply setting Windows Updates to manual. That way, I only need to worry about Windows rebooting on me when and where I choose.

Maybe not the safest practice but considering the amount of frustration those unwanted popups have caused me, I did not feel like taking chances with losing any more work to them. Most internet exploits still focus on Word, IE, Outlook, etc. so by running Firefox, Thunderbird, Chrome and OpenOffice, I have relatively little reason to worry about being a few days or weeks late on Windows updates.

That's something I never totally understood - why would MS not just have a DB of updates you needed, offer the option to download all of the files to a temp dir, and then do the full update process? Instead it's this piecemeal mess...

 

[MidnightDistort]

For those of you who are "users" and not the technicians working on your outdated XP machines, you are out of date. Technology must move forward. If you don't like it, then stay with your XP machines. Eventually you won't be able to access your bank accounts or use printers. Because while the rest of us like the conveniences of things working better... you are welcome to stay exactly where you are in life. BEHIND. I personally love technology. Without upgrades you wouldn't have remote controls for your TV's, or better yet... you wouldn't have all those lovely channels you get on your Smart TV's. In order to make one thing better, others have to change. No company wants to make thousands of different versions of one product. Do you still drive a 1970 something automobile? Probably not. You people complaining need to go back to live in the woods without indoor plumbing.

The one thing i can never understand is the necessity to spend money on replacing something that works just fine. I've seen cars older than 20 years on the road despite the average part support for vehicles is 10 years.

Back to Windows XP, as the OS still functions, connect to the internet ect, users will continue to work with what they have. I remember buying my first PC and 3 years down the road i wanted a laptop plus with better specs because i made the mistake of not researching computers back in the day. To this day i have a single core processor (well not the laptop i bought) running W7 which is slightly having difficulty but manageable. I also have a gaming desktop i built that i plan on keeping for many many years. When something is no longer useful or too expensive to fix up is when i will replace it. Microsoft can holler all they want that they will be dropping support for it. If it does the job that's all that matters to me. Afterwards i will be using Linux for internet because 1 i'm not happy with the way MS has been handling Windows and 2 i could spend that upgrade money elsewhere or just save it for future needs.

I'm sure everyone knows that technology always advances and it doesn't matter if your still using your W95 machine or on the latest OS with all the bells and whistles your making a decision on what you deem necessary to upgrade and what to hold onto for another 5, 10 years. I still use the same CRT monitor i bought in '03 (replacement from my first PC's dead monitor). If it shows a screen and the OS then it's good enough for me. Don't really care about needing touch capabilities or extra space because of the flat screen architecture in newer monitors. By the time i need a new monitor they will have most likely have came out with something new and exciting by then. So i don't worry about it.

 

[iatemyelf]

The one thing i can never understand is the necessity to spend money on replacing something that works just fine. I've seen cars older than 20 years on the road despite the average part support for vehicles is 10 years.

there's a big difference between being able to find parts for a car and the car being serviced and updated by the manufacturer. that usually ends pretty quickly, and getting it updated is only if there's some kind of recall. sure, that 20 year old car can still run and do it's job of getting you around (my '79 trans am can attest to this), but is that car still getting updated? are they doing patches and updates to the car to improve the technology and efficiency? no, you'd have to buy a newer model for that or get aftermarket upgrades from a 3rd party.

 

[canadianvice]

Anytime I use a system with Win 8, I have this urge to go find my mini sledgehammer. I don't know what M$ was thinking, or wtf they were smoking, when they created Metro.

For those of you who are "users" and not the technicians working on your outdated XP machines, you are out of date. Technology must move forward. If you don't like it, then stay with your XP machines. Eventually you won't be able to access your bank accounts or use printers. Because while the rest of us like the conveniences of things working better... you are welcome to stay exactly where you are in life. BEHIND. I personally love technology. Without upgrades you wouldn't have remote controls for your TV's, or better yet... you wouldn't have all those lovely channels you get on your Smart TV's. In order to make one thing better, others have to change. No company wants to make thousands of different versions of one product. Do you still drive a 1970 something automobile? Probably not. You people complaining need to go back to live in the woods without indoor plumbing.

The one thing i can never understand is the necessity to spend money on replacing something that works just fine. I've seen cars older than 20 years on the road despite the average part support for vehicles is 10 years.

Back to Windows XP, as the OS still functions, connect to the internet ect, users will continue to work with what they have. I remember buying my first PC and 3 years down the road i wanted a laptop plus with better specs because i made the mistake of not researching computers back in the day. To this day i have a single core processor (well not the laptop i bought) running W7 which is slightly having difficulty but manageable. I also have a gaming desktop i built that i plan on keeping for many many years. When something is no longer useful or too expensive to fix up is when i will replace it. Microsoft can holler all they want that they will be dropping support for it. If it does the job that's all that matters to me. Afterwards i will be using Linux for internet because 1 i'm not happy with the way MS has been handling Windows and 2 i could spend that upgrade money elsewhere or just save it for future needs.

I'm sure everyone knows that technology always advances and it doesn't matter if your still using your W95 machine or on the latest OS with all the bells and whistles your making a decision on what you deem necessary to upgrade and what to hold onto for another 5, 10 years. I still use the same CRT monitor i bought in '03 (replacement from my first PC's dead monitor). If it shows a screen and the OS then it's good enough for me. Don't really care about needing touch capabilities or extra space because of the flat screen architecture in newer monitors. By the time i need a new monitor they will have most likely have came out with something new and exciting by then. So i don't worry about it.

In this case, there is a clear need to upgrade. XP will become a cesspit of malware before long. It's tech illiterate people that are ruining us - I had to struggle keeping my family's computer running for 3 years when it started to fail. It's painful.

This is not just one of those "you should upgrade for the latest and greatest" situations, it's a "you should upgrade if you love your poor family members who offer technical support".

I'm absolutely tired of hearing about people complaining that their software is not compatible with older systems or that they should continue supporting XP. They don't have that obligation. If you want something that'll work almost indefinitely, load Ubuntu or something and program all your apps for that.

 

[MidnightDistort]

^ and ^^ i am only speaking from experience that i never had any problems with using Windows 98 2 years past it's drop date until i started running into browser problems and i kept running out of RAM anyway before upgrading to XP. I never got technical support for it either other than i knew that when i wasn't getting the performance i needed is when i upgraded.

Though since W98/XP it seems that more malware and even ransomware now so i will agree that installing a current Linux system for security reasons. In my time of using the internet i only had my credit card (or actually my bank debit card) info swiped but that was because i got a fake Amazon email and wasn't aware of phishing yet lol. Again at that car analogy thing, i don't ever take my car to the dealer.. i got friends who help me out with that, though one told me to take my car and let it roll down a cliff or a lake and tell my insurance/call the police that my car was stolen lol.

Also problems with compatibility also lies within new OS's but if they got hardware good enough they could use virtual software. I however hate that i was able to use a program on Vista but it doesn't on W7 for some reason even with the automatic program compatibility settings. Though that's probably the manufacture's responsibility to release patches though some seem resistant to doing that..

 

[S Brideau]

Listen Microsoft, many of us XP-Users are very satisfied with the product you've built, but many of us just don't have the financial means to buy new Hardware to run your new shiny OS. And why should we change a perfectly fine running OS? Or do you now say that XP is no good? Do we have to remind you of your XP-Commercials when there was 'nothing else'?

They're not saying XP is bad now, they're just saying that starting in the month of April they'll stop making updates, making the OS vulnerable if new exploits are found.

 

[S Brideau]

I'm sure everyone knows that technology always advances and it doesn't matter if your still using your W95 machine or on the latest OS with all the bells and whistles your making a decision on what you deem necessary to upgrade and what to hold onto for another 5, 10 years. I still use the same CRT monitor i bought in '03 (replacement from my first PC's dead monitor). If it shows a screen and the OS then it's good enough for me. Don't really care about needing touch capabilities or extra space because of the flat screen architecture in newer monitors. By the time i need a new monitor they will have most likely have came out with something new and exciting by then. So i don't worry about it.

You do realize websites are made for larger resolutions than the one your CRT monitor can give you? If you go on the internet (which you obviously do) you probably see either distorted pages or can't see the full web page depending on the way it was programmed. I know of very few websites that still support 800x600.

 

[canadianvice]

^ and ^^ i am only speaking from experience that i never had any problems with using Windows 98 2 years past it's drop date until i started running into browser problems and i kept running out of RAM anyway before upgrading to XP. I never got technical support for it either other than i knew that when i wasn't getting the performance i needed is when i upgraded.

Though since W98/XP it seems that more malware and even ransomware now so i will agree that installing a current Linux system for security reasons. In my time of using the internet i only had my credit card (or actually my bank debit card) info swiped but that was because i got a fake Amazon email and wasn't aware of phishing yet lol. Again at that car analogy thing, i don't ever take my car to the dealer.. i got friends who help me out with that, though one told me to take my car and let it roll down a cliff or a lake and tell my insurance/call the police that my car was stolen lol.

Also problems with compatibility also lies within new OS's but if they got hardware good enough they could use virtual software. I however hate that i was able to use a program on Vista but it doesn't on W7 for some reason even with the automatic program compatibility settings. Though that's probably the manufacture's responsibility to release patches though some seem resistant to doing that..

It's about weighing costs. If my data isn't compromised due to that negligence, I don't care. It's just that many people are resistant to upgrading and often it's because their tech illiterate, which causes huge problems with viruses as well.

My sister didn't even have W7 for two weeks and she'd picked up Conduit. On an OS that isn't being updated, it's going to be nightmare for these people because they will be compromised and they will lose out for it.

Many don't understand why people urge caution with credit cards on these systems, why you don't download everything you see, and how to tell fake AV ads from legitimate ones.

You sort of wish you could smack these luddites in the face, because they rely on people like me to keep their cheapass fear of learning alive. Then again, they also keep me employed, so I guess it's a catch 22.

 

[InvalidError]

You do realize websites are made for larger resolutions than the one your CRT monitor can give you?

Most CRTs in the mid/late 90s supported resolutions at least up to 1280x1024. Slightly better models went up to 1600x1200. The CRT I had back in 2000 (Viewsonic p95f) could go up to 2048x1536, which is 52% higher than mainstream 1080p LCDs today. So, CRTs and high resolutions are definitely not mutually exclusive.

Even my crappy CRT from 1992 could handle at least 1024x768 so you probably need to dig further back than that to find CRTs that can only handle 800x600.

 

[logainofhades]

You do realize websites are made for larger resolutions than the one your CRT monitor can give you?

Most CRTs in the mid/late 90s supported resolutions at least up to 1280x1024. Slightly better models went up to 1600x1200. The CRT I had back in 2000 (Viewsonic p95f) could go up to 2048x1536, which is 52% higher than mainstream 1080p LCDs today. So, CRTs and high resolutions are definitely not mutually exclusive.

Even my crappy CRT from 1992 could handle at least 1024x768 so you probably need to dig further back than that to find CRTs that can only handle 800x600.

Yea 800x600 were really old 14-15 inch models normally. 1024x768 to 1280x1024 for the vast majority of CRT's.

 

[bochica]

Those must be some really old machines not to be able to handle win 7. I was able to run win 7 basic on a 2.0ghz P4 with 2gb of ddr2. :lol:

Majority of it is outdated internal software (probably 80% of the PCs use). It is developed in-house by the corporate office, and not really easy to migrate from one version to the next without deploying a whole new system. In our building, we are probably using 8 different versions of the same software in the different sections. The 4 or 5 oldest versions do not sit well with Windows 7.

 

[gopher1369]

You do realize websites are made for larger resolutions than the one your CRT monitor can give you?

Most CRTs in the mid/late 90s supported resolutions at least up to 1280x1024. Slightly better models went up to 1600x1200. The CRT I had back in 2000 (Viewsonic p95f) could go up to 2048x1536, which is 52% higher than mainstream 1080p LCDs today. So, CRTs and high resolutions are definitely not mutually exclusive.

Even my crappy CRT from 1992 could handle at least 1024x768 so you probably need to dig further back than that to find CRTs that can only handle 800x600.

My at least 10 years old 17" LG CRT monitor displayed 1600x1200 @ 85Hz. It died about 3 years ago. Moving to a 1980x1200 LCD @60Hz was a sidegrade rather than an upgrade - better resolution but bigger screen so worse DPI overall + the refresh rate was a whole lot worse. I miss my CRT!

Except for size, the CRT was deeper than it was wide, MASSIVE! I reclaimed a whole lot of desk space when I bought my LCD.

 

[ceh4702]

No reason why an operating system cant last 10 years. If a computer can last 10 years, then the operating system should last that long also.

 

[ceh4702]

Windows 8 does not support older hardware.

 

[canadianvice]

Windows 8 does not support older hardware.

Nor should it have to. This isn't a question of what people would like, it's what's practicable, and in the case of OS support, MS has to call it off at some point.

I'm fully in agreement that people should get the hell off of XP, support or none. There are far better options out there now.

 

[InvalidError]

I'm fully in agreement that people should get the hell off of XP, support or none. There are far better options out there now.

That depends on what the computer is being used for and the total cost of replacement. For people with expensive specialized software locked to specific hardware, the total upgrade cost can be several times higher than just a new PC and OS.

Much more cost-effective to have a new PC for new software and general use with the old PC on the side when access to the old locked software on it is required.

 

[logainofhades]

I'm fully in agreement that people should get the hell off of XP, support or none. There are far better options out there now.

That depends on what the computer is being used for and the total cost of replacement. For people with expensive specialized software locked to specific hardware, the total upgrade cost can be several times higher than just a new PC and OS.

Much more cost-effective to have a new PC for new software and general use with the old PC on the side when access to the old locked software on it is required.

Exactly. The company I work for is pushing for win 7. Problem is, going forward, that we have to switch our existing software to something totally different as there are no new versions of what we use now. The company was bought out by another and our software was discontinued. It can be made to work in 32bit win7, but it isn't perfect. We are looking at like $400k+ for upgrades. That isn't exactly chump change.

 

[canadianvice]

I'm fully in agreement that people should get the hell off of XP, support or none. There are far better options out there now.

That depends on what the computer is being used for and the total cost of replacement. For people with expensive specialized software locked to specific hardware, the total upgrade cost can be several times higher than just a new PC and OS.

Much more cost-effective to have a new PC for new software and general use with the old PC on the side when access to the old locked software on it is required.

Exactly. The company I work for is pushing for win 7. Problem is, going forward, that we have to switch our existing software to something totally different as there are no new versions of what we use now. The company was bought out by another and our software was discontinued. It can be made to work in 32bit win7, but it isn't perfect. We are looking at like $400k+ for upgrades. That isn't exactly chump change.

That said though, isn't that sort of software at about the age that it might function adequately in Wine?

Just wondering. I've never bothered to use linux long enough.

 

[InvalidError]

That said though, isn't that sort of software at about the age that it might function adequately in Wine?

Maybe, maybe not.

If some piece of specialized software is quirky enough that it cannot be moved to a new PC or OS either due to license checks, proprietary hardware or proprietary optimizations tailored to the original PC and OS, chances are it will be too quirky to run properly in an emulated environment.

 

[smeezekitty]

Wine is flakey and I definitely wouldn't recommend it in a production environment.