Microsoft Worried About PCs Still Using Windows XP

Page 8 - 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.


I always forget those damn licenses. It's BS.
 

There is something we can agree on. Many pieces of software are licensed under truly unreasonable terms.

 

It depends on the definition of "unreasonable" - in niche software, it is quite common to have to pay over $10 000 for a "floating license" that can be transferred between PCs and since that price tag is often beyond many customers' budgets, those companies often offer "node-locked" licenses at a substantial discount in exchange for giving up on transferring software between PCs.

This is the same thing as Windows OEM vs Retail: you get a substantial discount in exchange of locking the key to a specific computer.
 


Sounds pretty unreasonable to me - I mean compared to other things that are purchased.
 
It's not difficult to give users a choice, you know. Yes, Windows 8 is counter-intuitive.

Simply put all the regular DESKTOP capabilities of win XP into Win 8.2 or may be 8.17, however long it might take, and may be you got something. However the obtuseness of Microsoft will likely mean that someone else will beat them to the punch on that.. and then it's buuh bye Microsoft, to 450 million XP users, and buuh bye to 600 million Win 7 users.

I speak from experience: Used Dos 3.3 to 6.22, Win 3.11, Win 95 (ill conceived=bad deal), Win 98 (better), Win XP (pretty good as of SP3), proudly skipped VISTA .
I bought a new Windows 8 laptop in Nov 2013, and after working and trying and testing (and wishing and hoping) I brought it back for a full refund. The Win 8.1 changes did not address the main problems. If you don't know what these problems are, then you must be fairly new to computing.

I will repeat again, ad infinitum: Put the reguilar Win XP Desktop capabilities back into Windows 8 version whatever, and may be it'll work again. The "better performance (speed, booting) and better security of Win 8.1" does not make it worthwhile, because
FIRST and FOREMOST, a computer has to be PRACTICAL for ALL USERS. Not just a small percentage of users such as gamers and smartipantphone users.

And even though I know that the argument is invalid, I just can't help saying that Bill Gates should not invent a new toilet, but fix Windows 8 first. Invalid arg, since he is
ONLY chairman of the board, and only owns most of Microsoft, and apparently that makes him unable to say a word of wisdom. Really, compare that to Carl Icahn, who buys 6 percent of a company and wrestles a whole board of directors to the floor and tells them what's what. But since this is a geek-board, you don't or understand what I am talking about.
 

Windows Vista's biggest problem with its horrid UAC as well as excessive hardware requirements at the time of release.
Win98 actually was heavy compared to 95 - too heavy in many cases
 
so let me get this straight... there are people here saying "i hate M$ because they will stop supporting my 12+ year old OS. how am i supposed to run my super old software?!"

i'm sure there are many reasons why that software has not been updated to run on a more current OS... but why do those publishers/programmers get a free pass for not supporting and updating old software, but microsoft gets all the hate for doing the same thing?
 


Because when Microsoft says support is ending on an OS, it lets the application developer off the hook for the support, also. Some of these applications were sold with "lifetime" licenses or tied to specific hardware and the setup is still working just fine. I will continue to use the XP machines at work, I will just be removing WAN access on them.
 


right, as i said, i'm sure there are many reasons why that software has not been updated, but... in regards to your first sentence... that's still just shifting the blame to fall squarely on microsoft, no? with that in mind, if they're selling a "lifetime" license, obviously if they stop support and don't follow up on that "lifetime" license, that's hardly microsoft's fault. as you said, your XP machines will still work so you can very much still use them, but people seem to be treating this as though XP is going to be unusable or disabled if they don't upgrade.
 

One distinction people often fail to make: lifetime license != lifetime support.

This is a bit like cars: you have a "lifetime license" to continue owning your car for however long you want but in most countries, manufacturers are not required to provide any support for it beyond the 10th year. For most people, their car is their second biggest purchase in life after a condo or house.
 


well, there are programs with "lifetime" licenses that do indeed include all future upgrades as well as "lifetime" support, so the two certainly aren't mutually exclusive. more correctly would probably be "lifetime license does not always equal lifetime support"
 


This is what I was saying early on. People know the bumper to bumper coverage on their car is usually done after 3 years or 30000 whichever comes first (which does not include items wearing through normal use like brakes or tires). The powertrain is covered for parts, but not necessarily labor for usually 5-8 years and 100,000 miles at most, whichever comes first.

People pay anywhere from $12K+ for a car that includes a warranty like this.

Windows XP may have cost anywhere from $200-$400/copy of Windows XP Pro when it was released and people expect more from a support standpoint than they do their car.

Some shareware types of software come with a lifetime of upgrades (the only one that comes to mind is FRAPS), but the companies that produce these products don't necessarily last all that long themselves (not saying the company producing FRAPS will go anywhere anytime soon).

I'm just not sure where the expectation that software should be infinitely supported comes from?

Also, a lot of software decisions in the business world solve an immediate problem based on quarterly or yearly goals of IT managers without much thought of what will need to be done in five or ten years when upgrades are required or other technological changes dictate changes to internal systems. It's the nature of the beast. And even when you try to plan for the future, something usually comes along and throws a turd in the punchbowl. Embrace the chaos. Lost support for Windows XP machines is a perfect argument for acquiring budget necessary for a system upgrade.
 


So are you saying that because software can be updated, companies should provide a lifetime of updates and a lifetime of support?

If that is the case, they would have to charge a heck of a lot more for the software in order to cover the costs involved with all future development. The average consumer could never afford that.

If that were the case, we'd all be on open source OSs and not running 3rd party implementations of any kind because of the costs involved. Most businesses couldn't afford the added cost of support or the added cost if they decided to develop everything in-house. How many people does it take to develop something like SQL server or Oracle? I'm not just talking front ends here.
 

Well, no. But when there is still a ton of users, they should keep supporting it with critical updates until the user base drops. (Win 8 didn't help it drop either)
If that were the case, we'd all be on open source OSs and not running 3rd party implementations of any kind because of the costs involved. Most businesses couldn't afford the added cost of support or the added cost if they decided to develop everything in-house. How many people does it take to develop something like SQL server or Oracle? I'm not just talking front ends here.[/quotemsg]
Open source FTW
Open source software is superior in a lot of ways and it would only be good if it took over the OS market.
Click to expand...
 

Even when the software comes with "lifetime support," this often refers only to the commercial lifespan of the product. Once the new re-skinned, re-branded version with more integrated/improved features comes out, support for the old versions under the old name usually dries up.

Companies can afford spending resources maintaining past versions that no longer generate any new revenue only for so long before the costs start severely outweighing benefits. If people want Microsoft to extend XP support any further, the only way this could be worth Microsoft's while would be if those people were willing to pick up the maintenance bills.
 


Exactly, my CRT monitor can handle 1280x1024, though it is a replacement from the previous one that shorted out which is a diff model but from the same company CRT monitors from '99 can handle the 1024x768 just fine. If you got a monitor that could only handle 800x600 you got a cheapo or that monitor was probably designed for DOS, not GUI's. You also have to remember that CRT monitors were inherently better than regular TV's back in the day.

Anyway i was just reading that Windows 7 is being discontinued within the next year (meaning you probably just can't get any new licenses) so if you still want to stay current but refuse to get W8 W7 is still an option though i would probably just go with Linux. From what i've been seeing it seems that users have a problem understanding that you can use both XP and Linux (not the same time) but for those that only just have an XP desktop get a laptop with W7 or find an older model that works with Linux. That way you can still connect to the internet without feeling so vulnerable. You don't need to spend a lot of money upgrading to even W7, there's plenty of used machines and even basic parts that'll run W7 fine so you won't be spending much more than $300. I am seeing a few individuals covering their bases, if they still need XP they got it but they got a brand new machine running W7 or W8. If you already got a desktop, get a laptop.. or if your laptop is outdated and want a desktop then go for it. You don't need to 'replace' the OS or the hardware.
 
Lol I find it hilarious how opposed people are to the new start button (note, new START BUTTON, not new interface, everything else is the damn same!!)

It is so much better and vastly, VASTLY superior to the old start button from both a usability and aesthetic perspective.
 


The function is improved, but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. The start button was iconic. One doesn't simply destroy icons. It doesn't look finished, it looks kludged. Right click to open it up? I know its nitpicking, but most people using a computer are pretty clueless. Asking them to change iconic behavior is too much for them.
 


I will agree they shouldn't have dropped the start button, but I didn't upgrade until 8.1 so it was always there for me.

Regarding right click... right click to open what up? I'm not sure what you're talking about, I've noticed no difference in right click/left click functionality.

The only change is visual, everything works exactly the same way it used to. The only real usability complaint I have is that there's no way of knowing you can search from the start menu (or page or whatever you want to call it now), you just have to start typing.

I think people just fear change, even when the change is only skin deep.
 


i think they're referring to right clicking the start area/button in windows 8/8.1, though it's phrased kinda weird by saying "right click to open it up".
 
To me Windows 8 is a UI regression. To be fair I didn't try it much but really, it shouldn't be harder to use
And using the argument that it is usable or not that bad is just plain stupid. Why have "tolerable" when you can have "good"?

And I have seen quite a few threads having GPU driver issues/low performance in 8
 


for me, it took longer to get used to OS X than it did Windows 8, hell i'm still not used to everything in OS X and I use it nearly every day. i hated windows 8 the first 15 minutes, it started to grow on me the next half hour, and by a few hours later, i loved it and can't ever imagine going back. i have yet to run into an issue that couldn't be solved within a few minutes, just as it would with 7. i do have a friend that his audio recording hardware wouldn't work... which is disappointing, but he can't wait to get back to running 8 because he feels it's a regression being back in 7. it runs noticeably faster, the interface feels so much cleaner, i just like pretty much everything about it. the only thing that was a fairly consistent issue for me was in 8, the "start area" was a little finicky because of my multi-monitor setup, sometimes i'd jump the next screen. but now that the start button is there in 8.1, it's a total non issue to right click the area to get the additional options. other than that, once you get past the start screen, which i've had zero issue with since the beginning, and into "desktop mode", it's virtually the same as windows 7. the people that have complained incessantly about the start screen are so ridiculous, it took one click to get past it and you'll pretty much never need to see it again. now even less so because you can boot directly to desktop mode. i've also heard "anyone who works in IT knows that windows 8 is garbage and blah blah blah", yeah, no. i work in IT, and i still love it, and every other technician that is a fan of windows does as well. the only ones that don't are mac people, so, there's no convincing them of anything windows whatsoever.

tl;dr can i understand why people "hate" it? sort of, but not really. i'd say give it another shot.
 
Yes, to be fair you didn't try it much. You judged it before you used it. You saw something different and decided change was bad, and ignored the fact that it indeed isn't any harder to use, it works and acts exactly as it did before, and nothing has changed except that it looks better.

I spend most of my time thinking about User Experience and from a pure human perspective, Windows 8 is strictly better than Windows 7. Anyone who uses Windows 8 first is going to vastly prefer it. The problems we have are the same problems we have any time anything ever improves in technology -- people resist change, without having a reason to.
 

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

But I have no trouble imagining that the average person will not dislike it in the same extreme proportions THG readers do... particularly if they end up using few if any desktop apps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom