Windows XP retirement

[BoberFett]

I did switch from XP to 7 quite a while back, mainly for DirectX 11 & 64-bit support + lots of little things, eg, native UDF 2.5, EX-FAT (64GB flash drives) & tilt-wheel support, Disk Management correctly aligns 4k drives when creating new partitions, SSD TRIM, M4A tags now natively read in Explorer, etc,

I know my grandma complains about the lack of those things in Windows XP all the time...

Edit: By the way, I agree with the rest of your post, I was just making a funny...

 

[Revolution 11]

I have to agree with BoberFett here. The only benefit Lonyo mentioned that people like BoberFett's grandma would care about is the improved UI features such as Windows Explorer.

And to be fair, the Win2000/XP explorer UI feels less clunky than the Windows 7 one. And that is after Classic Shell. So for many users, there is not much compelling reasons to upgrade besides the sheer lack of old OS software raising the cost of not upgrading.

This guarantees a slow gradual trickle of near-death of XP marketshare instead of the rapid enlightened transformations forum-siders keep advocating and preaching for, all to no avail.

 

[escrow4]

Modern gaming on XP? *vomits* Ghosts doesn't support it, AC4 and I think AC3 doesn't, Watch Dogs, and I suspect all upcoming next gen ports won't. Its a relic. Those who are stuck on it will eventually upgrade anyway as their 6yr+ old PSU and mobo gives out and anything new has moved on form XP support.

 

[thedosbox]

I have to agree with BoberFett here. The only benefit Lonyo mentioned that people like BoberFett's grandma would care about is the improved UI features such as Windows Explorer.

Most grandmothers don't care about PC gaming, but that's not the point of kicking XP to the curb - security is. They will care about the lack of security when (not if) their internet connected computers get hijacked.

 

[Revolution 11]

Most grandmothers don't care about PC gaming, but that's not the point of kicking XP to the curb - security is. They will care about the lack of security when (not if) their internet connected computers get hijacked.

Hyperbole nonsense.

What will happen is that Grandma will notice one day that her computer feels slow. She will ask her grandson to fix the computer. If the guy is not tech-oriented, he will either sell it or go to a "repair shop". He might pay money to "upgrade" the PC or just buy a new one. Grandma will be happy for the new computer. He might also just reinstall the OS or do a number of other steps. The point is that Grandma has no clue why it went wrong nor does she know how to fix it.

Until that day arrives, she will keep using it, unaware of the hive of viruses on her drive. Not any smarter that it was XP that doomed her.

 

[MentalIlness]

 

[thedosbox]

Hyperbole nonsense.

What will happen is that Grandma will notice one day that her computer feels slow. She will ask her grandson to fix the computer. If the guy is not tech-oriented, he will either sell it or go to a "repair shop". He might pay money to "upgrade" the PC or just buy a new one. Grandma will be happy for the new computer. He might also just reinstall the OS or do a number of other steps. The point is that Grandma has no clue why it went wrong nor does she know how to fix it.

Until that day arrives, she will keep using it, unaware of the hive of viruses on her drive. Not any smarter that it was XP that doomed her.

Simplistic generalization.

The impact of malware isn't restricted to performance - hence the use of the word "security". Keyloggers and other nasty tools will have a bigger impact on someone than a slower computer. Grandma may not understand why someone managed to steal her identity, but she will certainly care.

 

[BladeVenom]

Old computers should be either disconnected from the internet, or upgraded to Linux.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I still cannot believe any non-corporate users are still on XP. I kicked XP to the curb after five minutes with Vista. VISTA. XP is so preposterously outdated on all fronts. It feels like using Windows 3.11 at this point.

I think you have a narrow idea of exactly how many different ways people use computers. For instance, my recording studio is on XP and won't be changing any time soon. Why? Because that sh!t is expensive and it works great as it is now, as well as newer versions not being compatible with older versions. It just won't be connected to the internet (not that it really is now).

For the millions who only use computers to shop on ebay and look at facebook, do they really need windows 8? It isn't any more secure, that's an illusion based on low usage and newness. It will be as insecure as everything else with time. All a new OS does is introduce new holes in security, along with patches for the older holes (which can just as easily be patched on the old ones -- ok so maybe sometimes not "just as easily" but hopefully you get the point). Everyone crying that XP is insecure is..well fooling themselves if they think the newer ones are any better.

 

[thedosbox]

For the millions who only use computers to shop on ebay and look at facebook, do they really need windows 8? It isn't any more secure, that's an illusion based on low usage and newness. It will be as insecure as everything else with time. All a new OS does is introduce new holes in security, along with patches for the older holes (which can just as easily be patched on the old ones -- ok so maybe sometimes not "just as easily" but hopefully you get the point). Everyone crying that XP is insecure is..well fooling themselves if they think the newer ones are any better.

So you're basically advocating sticking with a known insecure OS rather than switching to a newer one where the known holes have been plugged?

/facepalm

 

[ImpulsE69]

So you're basically advocating sticking with a known insecure OS rather than switching to a newer one where the known holes have been plugged?

/facepalm

Your misunderstanding comment really steps right into what I was getting at. You don't get it. It's called MS just trying to sell more. Insecurities don't go away. Every time one is patched, another is found. It doesn't matter what version you are on. Getting rid of XP isn't about security, it's about money.

It's like people saying Apple is more secure, it's not because it's inherently more secure, it's the overall lack of interest.

 

[thedosbox]

Your misunderstanding comment really steps right into what I was getting at. You don't get it. It's called MS just trying to sell more. Insecurities don't go away. Every time one is patched, another is found. It doesn't matter what version you are on. Getting rid of XP isn't about security, it's about money.

Let's put this in perspective. Windows 7 was released four years ago, Windows XP was released 12 years ago. Depending on which version you got, the cost was $100 - $220.

Assuming you used XP every single day for four years, that works out to a daily cost of $0.13. Don't know about you, but I spend more than that on coffee every day.

Now that the cheapskate argument has been addressed, let's remember that an insecure computer doesn't just affect the owner, it affects everyone else on the net if it becomes part of a botnet.

I can understand old dogs not wanting to learn new tricks, but am surprised people who should know better (i.e. participants in a tech forum) advocating for the retention of XP.

 

[Revolution 11]

While ImpulsE69 is not correct about the security part, he has a point. For him, the XP systems are offline. So what difference does it make that he is not on Windows 7/8/8.1? No difference at all.

I am all for ditching a older OS if its online. I like Windows 7 a lot but I dislike all the holier-than-thou attitudes surrounding OS upgrading. There are legitimate use cases for using outdated OSes. And even if there weren't, are you actually going to go door to door and force them to upgrade? I mean, those who are going to listen have already done so because of the metric tons of complaints and nagging about upgrading. Those who haven't upgraded are not going to, either because they don't want to or it is costly or they don't know that they should.

A million more posts about leaving XP and moving to modern software is not going to reach the latter (hint, most people don't read tech forums) and the former don't care anyway.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Let's put this in perspective. Windows 7 was released four years ago, Windows XP was released 12 years ago. Depending on which version you got, the cost was $100 - $220.

Assuming you used XP every single day for four years, that works out to a daily cost of $0.13. Don't know about you, but I spend more than that on coffee every day.

Now that the cheapskate argument has been addressed, let's remember that an insecure computer doesn't just affect the owner, it affects everyone else on the net if it becomes part of a botnet.

I can understand old dogs not wanting to learn new tricks, but am surprised people who should know better (i.e. participants in a tech forum) advocating for the retention of XP.

Well one, I'm not advocating retention of XP, and two, the reason you don't get it is because you are looking at it strictly from a "i'm technical and why wouldn't you?" standpoint.

Since you went on the cost path, I will point out that you've completely left out the hardware considerations. Something I am surprised to see by a person on a tech forum. This is not a small part when there is hardware out there that simply isn't supported in newer versions. Yes yes, I know, we're technical, why would you use anything that is old, blah blah. That is not at all the point when you are talking about businesses and grandmas.

If you aren't using 64-bit, what exactly does 7 or 8 offer that can't be put into XP? Are people that are using 32-bit Win 7 less secure? Sure there are newer versions of protocols, but all of that can be put into XP.
I know people are going to sit here and argue that they are indeed more secure, but the reality is, they are just full of holes waiting to be found. Those are fixes that can be pushed out that DO NOT require a completely new OS jump.

The # of things that require that kind of jump are few and far between.

Most of the "7 and 8 are more secure than XP" comments are simply because of holes that have been patched. Holes that can be also be patched into XP if MS actually wanted to. Anyone who has worked with MS (and yes, I have directly worked with MS on these things) knows how difficult it can be to get them to address security issues.

Of course I know this discussion is a lost cause just by the couple of responses already, but just to clarify, I am an advocate of Windows 7, not so much 8. However, my reasons are for functionality and stability, not security. Obviously we should all patch security holes....but as usual I have to spell that out because people can't seem to read between the lines around here.

Let's put it this way. Talking about businesses and grandmas are almost identical. They both go with the "if it's not broke don't fix it" stand. In many cases, it's not just pay for an upgrade. There's way more involved than that and usually breaks something else that used to work just fine.

The only REAL reason for newer OS upgrades is for the features. ALA Gaming.

 

[thedosbox]

While ImpulsE69 is not correct about the security part, he has a point. For him, the XP systems are offline. So what difference does it make that he is not on Windows 7/8/8.1? No difference at all.

I am all for ditching a older OS if its online. I like Windows 7 a lot but I dislike all the holier-than-thou attitudes surrounding OS upgrading. There are legitimate use cases for using outdated OSes. And even if there weren't, are you actually going to go door to door and force them to upgrade? I mean, those who are going to listen have already done so because of the metric tons of complaints and nagging about upgrading. Those who haven't upgraded are not going to, either because they don't want to or it is costly or they don't know that they should.

A million more posts about leaving XP and moving to modern software is not going to reach the latter (hint, most people don't read tech forums) and the former don't care anyway.

When we're discussing machines surfing the web, it's pretty safe to assume they're online.

Well one, I'm not advocating retention of XP, and two, the reason you don't get it is because you are looking at it strictly from a "i'm technical and why wouldn't you?" standpoint.

I certainly get that you think change is bad and that businesses should continue supporting old products until they go bust. After all, they're charitable organizations.

In the real world, you have choices. Stick with the old and damn the consequences to the rest of us - or upgrade to an OS that will continue to receive security updates (including various flavours of *ix ).

Since you went on the cost path, I will point out that you've completely left out the hardware considerations. Something I am surprised to see by a person on a tech forum. This is not a small part when there is hardware out there that simply isn't supported in newer versions. Yes yes, I know, we're technical, why would you use anything that is old, blah blah. That is not at all the point when you are talking about businesses and grandmas.

In the real world, organizations that care about security are upgrading to 7 or are paying for support.

And yes, I ignored the hardware cost because the vast majorify of hardware capable of running XP is capable of running 7. How well it will do so is another matter of course.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I certainly get that you think change is bad and that businesses should continue supporting old products until they go bust. After all, they're charitable organizations.

Not what I implied at all. You didn't answer me as to what security wise is in 7 that can't be put into XP. I realize that Win 7 has additional features and "upgrades", but MS is in the business to make money. Security is not the basis for that. That's what patches are for. Consider what I'm saying as playing devils advocate. We as a consumer have been put into a role of constant "buy buy buy". A company can't be profitable if they aren't always selling us something. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it's the reality of XP vs 7 (or 8). Grandma doesn't care about DirectX11, just that the internet works when she wants it to. Windows 7 and 8 do in no way guarantee that you won't get hit with a bad bug, and that's the crux of it all. People screaming that XP is outdated and full of holes are just adding to the "fear" when the reality is that the same can and will happen in 7 or 8. The same people use the "it's so old" when in reality, there is nothing other than gaming features and more horsepower that have been added. Security wise, it's pretty much the same old thing as it's always been. You want to stop the threat on the internet? Get rid of flash and java.


And yes, they are paying for support. I'm not suggesting they don't and think that is exactly what needs to happen...which also proves most of my points in my other posts.

 

[thedosbox]

Not what I implied at all.

Seems pretty clear:

Sure there are newer versions of protocols, but all of that can be put into XP.
...
Those are fixes that can be pushed out that DO NOT require a completely new OS jump.
...
Holes that can be also be patched into XP if MS actually wanted to..

While it would be nice if companies could continue supporting products for free forever, we don't live in such a world.

I see a ninja edit:

You didn't answer me as to what security wise is in 7 that can't be put into XP.

I suggest your read up on the Windows security model:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb385791.aspx

 

[ImpulsE69]

my turn to /facepalm

 

[Skel]

Seriously.. how many of these stupid Windows XP is retiring threads does this forum need? I think there's been one in just about every sub forum now. All this round of round doesn't change anything.

 

[blankslate]

My 18 year old Toyota T-100 truck runs just fine. I see no reason to kick it to the curb for a Tundra. Sure the Tundra has new features, may get a little better gas milage, but I see no reason to get rid of my tired and true.

A truck is not something that can be attacked remotely to try and get personal banking info or to turn into a zombie PC to be used as part of a bot-net.

That analogy doesn't work.

As for people using xp past the support patches if they're aware of the risks and don't do online banking with XP machines then that's cool.

But how many people who aren't fully aware of the risks will find their personal info stolen or their computer resources used for illegal purposes?

even hardware released 8 years ago can support win 7 and 8 with perhaps just a memory upgrade.

People who knows someone still hanging onto an xp machine with hardware that is not too ancient should help them out.

Anyone with who is posting in a tech forums is probably unaffected by the XP EoL in any case.



....

 

[ImpulsE69]

A truck is not something that can be attacked remotely to try and get personal banking info or to turn into a zombie PC to be used as part of a bot-net.

That analogy doesn't work.

As for people using xp past the support patches if they're aware of the risks and don't do online banking with XP machines then that's cool.

But how many people who aren't fully aware of the risks will find their personal info stolen or their computer resources used for illegal purposes?

even hardware released 8 years ago can support win 7 and 8 with perhaps just a memory upgrade.

People who knows someone still hanging onto an xp machine with hardware that is not too ancient should help them out.

Anyone with who is posting in a tech forums is probably unaffected by the XP EoL in any case.



....

Who needs to worry about XP when you got OpenSSL and the plethora of other holes? That was my point overall. People keep eluding that somehow XP is the bane of all the security problems in the world when it just isn't true. It's as secure as someone is going to make it, those same folks aren't going to make 7 or 8 any more secure on their own.

 

[blankslate]

Who needs to worry about XP when you got OpenSSL and the plethora of other holes? That was my point overall. People keep eluding that somehow XP is the bane of all the security problems in the world when it just isn't true. It's as secure as someone is going to make it, those same folks aren't going to make 7 or 8 any more secure on their own.

Staying on XP means never getting any more patches for newly discovered flaws in XP. Windows 8 and 7 while not perfect will get security patches for some years to come.

the flaw in OpenSSL while certainly a concern isn't really something that the average user can do much about aside from making a new password as companies patch the software on their servers so it's not really much more than a nice distraction from the XP issue which informed users can do something about.

Where did I say XP is the bane of all security? I mentioned possible risks for people who are unaware of XPs EoL and still use it on the internet without any AV or without a router between the modem and the computer.

As for your point unless you are in fact Texashiker I wasn't even addressing your point at all.

*e2a*

Some AV companies will at least over some protection to XP past its EoL

http://www.av-test.org/en/news/news...e-products-will-continue-to-protect-xp-after/




....

 

[Regz]

I think if Microsoft had implemented a "Classic" Look into Windows 8 while still retaining the features of the new OS the majority of people would be happy. I think that would make my transition to 8 a lot easier.

 

[Morbus]

Your misunderstanding comment really steps right into what I was getting at. You don't get it. It's called MS just trying to sell more. Insecurities don't go away. Every time one is patched, another is found. It doesn't matter what version you are on.

You obviously don't know how things work, so, as layman, get this into your head: yes, insecurities go away, and yes, new insecurities come into play, and yes, you need to keep your software up to day if you use the internet.

If you don't, you'll get in trouble, sooner or later. And it be our bad, it will be yours.

 

[thedosbox]

Who needs to worry about XP when you got OpenSSL and the plethora of other holes? That was my point overall. People keep eluding that somehow XP is the bane of all the security problems in the world when it just isn't true. It's as secure as someone is going to make it, those same folks aren't going to make 7 or 8 any more secure on their own.

So you're basically saying that attempting to improve security is pointless, and we should all stop worrying about it.

The wilful ignorance behind this "advice" is breathtaking.