Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Microsoft Operating Systems Software

Meet the Diehards Who Refuse To Move On From Windows XP 641

Posted by timothy
from the come-the-revolution dept.
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Nearly every longtime Windows user looks back on Windows XP with a certain fondness, but the party's over according to Microsoft. 'It's time to move on,' says Tom Murphy, Microsoft's director of communications for Windows. 'XP was designed for a different era.' But Ian Paul writes in PC World that many people around the world refuse to give up on XP. But why? What's so great about an operating system that was invented before the age of Dropbox and Facebook, an OS that's almost as old as the original Google search engine? Bob Appel, a retiree based in Toronto, says he uses 12 PCs in a personal Dropbox-like network—10 of which are running XP. 'I use a third-party firewall, a free virus checker, and run Housecall periodically,' says Appel. 'My Firefox browser uses Keyscrambler, HTTPS Anywhere, Ghostery, and Disconnect. I also have a VPN account (PIA) when traveling. For suspicious email attachments, I deploy private proprietary bioware (me!) to analyze before opening. All the "experts" say I am crazy. Thing is, I stopped the security updates in XP years ago after a bad update trashed my system, and yet I have never been infected, although online for hours each day. So, crazy though I be, I am sticking with XP.'" (Read more, below.)
More from Pickens: "Mike Merritt uses an XP PC to run his online business in rural Ontario and cites Outlook Express as one of his major reasons for sticking with XP. The once-popular email client isn't available with Windows 7 or 8.1, and for Merritt, alternatives such as Thunderbird or webmail clients like Outlook.com are a non-starter. 'Webmails have a slower load time than a desktop app like Outlook Express and they would have their own learning curve and modification to my current workflow,' says Merritt. 'The upgrade path for me would require replacing a bunch of things that work just fine as far as I'm concerned.'

The same day that Windows XP reaches its end of support on April 8, Microsoft will roll out a major update to Windows 8.1 that will make it easier for traditional desktop users and the company recently announced that the Start menu will return to Windows sometime in the coming months. Mike Eldridge says that since his computer is currently on its last legs, he's going to cross his fingers and hope for the best until it finally dies. 'I am worried about security threats, but I'd rather have my identity stolen than put up with Windows 8.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Meet the Diehards Who Refuse To Move On From Windows XP

Comments Filter:
  • VirtualBox (Score:5, Interesting)

    by taiwanjohn (103839) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @08:47AM (#46692791)

    I still have an XP installation running in a vbox, just because it's easier than trying to get SlingBox to run under wine.

    • by rvw (755107)

      I still have an XP installation running in a vbox, just because it's easier than trying to get SlingBox to run under wine.

      Me as well. I have the internet connection disabled however, only run Photoshop in it with a shared local folder. I revert to the snapshot everytime - no updates, no AV, a lot faster, works for me!

    • by Joce640k (829181)

      I still have an XP installation running in a vbox,

      My XP laptops (two of them) get used every day and do their job perfectly but they don't have enough disk space for Windows 7/8. Should they become landfill? I don't have an extra $1200 lying around for a couple of new laptops (and even if I did, they don't make them as small as my EeePC 900 any more - it's the size that makes that one useful).

  • Good for you. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by richy freeway (623503) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @08:49AM (#46692799)
    But 99% of Windows users can't/won't go to those lengths to stay secure. But congratulations on making life hard for yourself.
    • Re:Good for you. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dougmc (70836) <dougmc+slashdot@frenzied.us> on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @08:52AM (#46692825) Homepage

      ... and yet his efforts will probably stop 99.9% of the crap that affects "modern" Windows versions with their clueless users.

      Installing Windows 7 or 8 wouldn't make his job much easier or make his computer much more secure.

      • Installing Windows 7 or 8 wouldn't make his job much easier or make his computer much more secure.

        Yea, it sort of would. For one, he wouldnt be stuck with IE8. For another, hed have UAC which solves most of the rootkit threat that XP had to deal with. For a third, hed actually be getting security patches.

        I have to wonder whether the folks touting how great XP is have done customer-facing IT support. Actually, I dont really wonder, because if they had theyd know well enough how much of the malware threat is mitigated just by upgrading to Win7 and updating your software.

        • by danlip (737336)

          Stuck with IE8? How about Firefox or Chrome, both of which still support XP. Why would you be using IE anyway?

    • Re:Good for you. (Score:4, Informative)

      by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @09:15AM (#46693017)
      *Real* security is *always* inconvenient. That almost seems to be a law of nature. As in, whenever something supposedly secure feels too convenient, question your assumptions.
      • by N1AK (864906)
        Possibly true (certainly true in all examples I can think of), however inconvenience doesn't automatically mean security. An informed user can likely run a secure Win7/8 enviroment with considerably less inconvenience than running an equally secure Win XP enviroment especially once MS drop security updates.
    • Re:Good for you. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @09:18AM (#46693047) Homepage

      Agreed.

      'I use a third-party firewall, a free virus checker, and run Housecall periodically,' says Appel. 'My Firefox browser uses Keyscrambler, HTTPS Anywhere, Ghostery, and Disconnect. I also have a VPN account (PIA) when traveling. For suspicious email attachments, I deploy private proprietary bioware (me!) to analyze before opening. All the "experts" say I am crazy. Thing is, I stopped the security updates in XP years ago after a bad update trashed my system, and yet I have never been infected, although online for hours each day...

      Thing is, that does sound crazy to me. It sounds compulsive and anal retentive. I wouldn't be surprised if he also only operates his computers while wearing a tinfoil hat inside a Faraday cage that he built in his basement.

      You know what I do? I install a modern operating system and pretty much leave it alone. I have never been infected, simply by keeping up to date and not engaging in high-risk behavior. I'd rather spend a few dollars now and then than sit around re-running security checks, but I guess I'm not retired and I don't have the time to be a kooky security nut. I know, someone is going to bash this post because Slashdot has a lot of kooky security nuts, as well as a strong contingent of people who like to hack together weird solutions for what may be non-existent problems. And that's fine as long as you're doing that because you like doing it. Just don't go pushing it as a good idea. You're making everything more difficult for those of us who have to support these things for a living.

      The best strategy for most people, especially in terms of doing work for your business, is to stay relatively up-to-date with supported hardware and software.

      • For suspicious email attachments, I deploy private proprietary bioware (me!) to analyze before opening.

        IOW, "im smart enough to ignore common IT wisdom".

        Run out of date software, pay the price. Ask the Debian guys whether using "private proprietary bioware" protected their OpenSSL keys-- clearly those updates dont matter THAT much, right?

      • Re:Good for you. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MikeBabcock (65886) <mtb-slashdot@mikebabcock.ca> on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @03:24PM (#46697337) Homepage Journal

        I see dozens of computers a year running modern operating systems with up-to-date anti-virus software and firewalls installed that are full of viruses and other malware. User behaviour is the major problem here and his paranoia and your wisdom are probably what protect you the most, not the version of Windows you do or do not run.

        • I deal with the same thing, but the reality is that it is very often a result of (A) user behavior; and (B) outdated software. That outdated software isn't always the OS, but often it's Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash Player, or the Java plugin. If I can make sure all the software on your system is completely patched and up-to-date, I will drastically cut your chances of infection. Don't even try to claim that having the latest patches for Flash/Java don't help your security. And how long will Adobe/Oracle su

    • Re:Good for you. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Wycliffe (116160) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @09:31AM (#46693187) Homepage

      My father in law runs windows 98SE. He says he doesn't have problems with viruses anymore
      as all the viruses are written for the newer systems. It's not worth people's time to infect an OS
      with a small userbase.

    • by towermac (752159)

      You got that right. I do absolutely nothing to stay secure; I fool with computers enough on the job.

      I've got XP SP3 installed with no updates, and only Avast protecting it. It finally occurred to me that my home computer is really just a Chrome & Warcraft display appliance. I bet the same is true for a lot of folks.

      • Re:Good for you. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jythie (914043) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @10:09AM (#46693623)
        I think part of this cuts to the heart of why many people do not upgrade. For fetishists, an OS is an OS and has value unto itself. For many users, an OS is a file manager and application launcher, and thus fancy new features do not actually add any new functionality for them. Many users do not care what services and protocols are now 'built in' or how seamless the 'media experience' is, they just want their web browser, a working media player, or whatever other major application they tend to use the machine for. And for that use pattern, as long as the app runs and the hardware drivers are supported, XP is functionally equivalent to Win7 or Win8, with the major advantage of them already having it and already knowing where all the settings are that they do not want to fiddle with unless they need to.
  • That's just wasteful. At least while doing things in the Cloud, there are efficiencies of shared resources.
    • That's just wasteful. At least while doing things in the Cloud, there are efficiencies of shared resources.

      I have my own cloud. My home network of machines have had Wake On Lan support since the 90's. When I get updates, I download the data ONCE than mirrors it to the others internally.

      You can run a computer efficiently or not, just as you can run a cloud efficiently or not.

      IMO, that we do not have OSs inherently focused on decentralization and interoperability is the primary reason both "upgrades" and management of our multi-device lives is needlessly painful.

  • by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @08:51AM (#46692815) Homepage
    Software doesn't wear out. I'm still running XP on an old desktop in my basement. It works fine for what I need it for. Upgrading to a new version of Windows would cost more than what the machine is worth, and I'm reasonably sure that all the hardware wouldn't have proper drivers because the machine is so old. I have no problem getting Windows 8.1 (or whatever the current version is) when I replace the computer, but there's nothing wrong with the machine right now. It's behind a router with NAT turned on, so there's little chance of attack from the outside, and I can still use updated versions of Firefox or Chrome for browsing the web, so there's not many security problems there.
    • by sandytaru (1158959) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @09:07AM (#46692951) Journal
      The hardware eventually will, though. As long as you've taken reasonable backup precautions you'll be fine, but the average user out there isn't running a good antivirus, let alone a weekly backup of personal files.

      I'm not worried about the folks on Slashdot. I'm worried about the Maaco shop up the road, which had an XP computer the last I checked. I'm worried about my husband's aunt and the photos of her grandkids. I'm worried about the ATM in the gas station.
      • by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @09:19AM (#46693057) Homepage
        But that's true regardless of the operating system being run. I could be running the newest version of Windows, and still be, even on a relatively new computer, and a hard drive dying still isn't that unlikely. You can get a 1 TB drive for $60. I don't know why you don't see more machines coming with 2 drives in RAID 1 for reliability reasons. At least a somewhat common hardware failure won't cause grandma to lose all here photos.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      and I can still use updated versions of Firefox or Chrome for browsing the web

      For now. Many open source projects are starting to drop XP support. For example XBMC just dropped it for their next version. I expect vista is up next. It is 8 less combinations to test for as XP had a few flavors out there. Most acted the same but some had a quirk or two.

      Look its ok you run an old OS. No really it is. But do not plan on the open source guys to have your back. They will get bored or will not be able to fin

    • by Luckyo (1726890)

      Pretty much this. And frankly, even without NAT, you're still safe as long as your software firewall is functional.

      Functionally, you need two things to infect a machine. A weakness you can exploit on target machine and a vector through which infection goes in. If you lock up the latter, having former doesn't matter.

  • by NotDrWho (3543773) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @08:53AM (#46692839)

    And I ain't leavin'!!! Ya hear that gubmint?!?

  • by geogob (569250) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @08:56AM (#46692867)

    Everyone running old specfialized hardware which is not compatible with windows 7 or later feel the pain of the XP end of life.
    Its not about refusing or not. Some simply don't have the choice and must stick with XP.

    We migrated 100% of our windows-based computers used for typical applications (office work, CAD, data analysis, etc.) to windows 7 or 8. But some machines working with specialized hardware, that is either too expensive to replace or for which simply no replacement exist, can't be migrated. They must remain with XP.

    This actually creates a lot of frustration and administrative problems, as after the end of the XP support, those computers are not allowed to remain on the institution network anymore. A clear solution has still to be found (hint: ghostery and co. are not part of the solution).

    • by SJHillman (1966756) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @08:59AM (#46692891)

      This isn't a new problem. We still have Windows 95 and OS/2 boxes that can't be upgraded. The only difference with the XP end of life is that XP is easier to continue to support yourself.

      • by jbeaupre (752124)

        I've got a DOS machine behind me that we use frequently. Need it to run special software that runs ISA boards. Couldn't be easier to maintain. My only fear is the motherboard dying and having to find a PC with ISA bus.

        • by NJRoadfan (1254248) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @12:14PM (#46695015)
          I keep hearing about how people need ISA slots to run these irreplaceable industrial control ISA cards. Have they considered what they are going to do when the ISA card decides to die?
          • by buysse (5473)

            That's why (if they're smart) there are three spare ISA cards on the shelf, or more, preferably already installed in identical machines.

            I work with a group that has ISA-based cards for research data acquisition (EEG variant, if I remember correctly) with a study that's been running for 20+ years on the same subjects. They can't swap the hardware, because the output data wouldn't be directly comparable -- newer equipment is "better", but in terms of continuity for the research, they need the same, not bette

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by VortexCortex (1117377)

      Everyone running old specfialized hardware which is not compatible with windows 7 or later feel the pain of the XP end of life.

      That is not the pain of XP EoL, it is the self inflicted torture by those who refuse to use free and open source software.

      It is a shame, but I have no sympathy for those who embrace planned obsolescence. [archive.org]

      • by geogob (569250) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @09:31AM (#46693173)

        Yes! I'll make sure to pass on the message to that company that closed down 3 years ago and to the guy who retired 8 years ago.
        Its a shame indeed, all the self inflicted toture they are causing me.

        But I'll bet they answer that themselves find it a shame that non of the companies producing the hardware respecting the requirements for the sub-components themselves only supported windows. In that sence, I guess on could say it's a second level indirectly self inflicted toture.

        Or they will remind me how there is a real world, with real problems, real limations and where you do not have the control on everything.

      • by ComputerGeek01 (1182793) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @10:09AM (#46693613)

        That is not the pain of XP EoL, it is the self inflicted torture by those who refuse to use free and open source software.

        It is a shame, but I have no sympathy for those who embrace planned obsolescence. [archive.org]

        Alright wiseguy, then tell me what the "open source" solution is to my companies key fob system that periodically runs a hash against itself to protect against code injections, checks against VM's by dialing out of the system to an external client and only runs on XP? Is someone handing these systems out? Are we going to organize a flash-mob to come in and rip apart our walls and rerun the cabling to and from the locks on all of the doors on two separate floors and through concrete flooring while replacing the proprietary locking mechanisms? Who is it that is going to be so generous with their time and reprogram this thing for our 200+ employees? There are in fact some things that your precious open source community does not provide and that are necessary for businesses to meet certain industry standards

      • Everyone running old specfialized hardware which is not compatible with windows 7 or later feel the pain of the XP end of life.

        That is not the pain of XP EoL, it is the self inflicted torture by those who refuse to use free and open source software.

        Bullshit. The free and open source software frequently simply doesn't exist for specialized hardware. Period. Not to mention, I find it very unlikely that free and open source will long continue to support XP - Firefox, for example, has already dropped support

      • Wow. Way to embrace ideology rather than reality.

        What do you say to the business that has a $1M+ printing press, which has software that only runs on Windows 2000 Server, and interfaces through a physical PCI card? Fuck you, replace your $1M perfectly functional hardware because GPL?

        Good luck with that. I'd personally tell them to get a $50 NIC and plug it into the box they use for imposition and stripping, and put that RIP server on a second private network with no routing whatsoever.

    • by Deadstick (535032)

      Everyone running old specfialized hardware which is not compatible with windows 7 or later feel the pain of the XP end of life.

      Or high-priced software they got through warez channels which won't run on 7, and which they can't "renew" because DRM got better...

    • Everyone running old specfialized hardware which is not compatible with windows 7 or later feel the pain of the XP end of life. Its not about refusing or not. Some simply don't have the choice and must stick with XP... A clear solution has still to be found...

      I think this is actually a good argument as to why those people shouldn't be using Windows in the first place. There may be other arguments, e.g. "On a practical level, they had no choice," but I just want to point out that this is exactly the kind of thing FOSS advocates are talking about for years, while most of the world dismissed them as being paranoid.

      If you're dependent on specialized hardware, and you will need ongoing support over years or decades, you might want to look for a system that uses an

  • Outlook Express? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you are so in love with Outlook Express and your "workflow" that you cannot upgrade your operating system to something from this century then you have bigger problems then having XP on your desktop. If that kind of minor change is too upsetting for you then you will probably have difficulty if your toaster gives out, and you have to get a new one with a different dial for setting how done your bagel is. Breakfast is a bitch, baby.
    • by rossdee (243626)

      I use Thunderbird for Email, I have never used Outlook, Express or otherwise

      Email, online banking, and some games that won't run on 7 are mainly all I use my XP box for these days.

  • Difference (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SJHillman (1966756) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @08:57AM (#46692879)

    "and yet I have never been infected, although online for hours each day."

    There is a great, big difference between "have never been infected" and "have never been infected that I know of"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @08:58AM (#46692887)

    This topic has been beaten to death but if Hugh Pickens wants us to talk about it, I guess we have to.

    The XP machines that are still around aren't here because they are great. They are still used because their life cycle has not expired. We tend to keep computers for about five years. So when we were buying computers 4.5 years ago, our choice was XP or Vista. Obviously, we weren't going with Vista.

    So now Microsoft is punishing us for their fuck-up. They are trying to force us to buy a new version of Windows before the current equipment is due for replacement.

    I expect to have the same issue in a few years because I'm still buying Windows 7 and they think I should be buying 8.

    • Sounds more like your fuckup. Windows 7 was released ~4.5 years ago, and you didn't see it on the horizon? Not only that, Windows Vista was on SP2 in 2009 and the issues which earned its reputation were largely fixed. The biggest problems with Vista were poor performance on low-spec machines and over-zealous UAC. New hardware with enough RAM fixed issue 1, and UAC was appropriately adjusted with SP1. When Windows 7 was released, many pointed out that the differences between Vista and 7 were mostly cosmetic,
      • by unimacs (597299) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @10:38AM (#46693953)
        Lots of companies aren't going to put off buying new computers just because a new OS is going to be released in 6 months. Many are going to hold off on the new OS anyway to make sure they aren't bitten by any incompatibilities. That's not a a fuck up. That's smart.

        We have a custom app that won't work right under 7 or 8 and we're kind of stuck with it. It's been a thorn in my side for years. We had an opportunity to migrate it to a more modern technology years ago but the guy in charge wasn't comfortable with the idea and I didn't have the clout to push it. Now it's not worth the expense.

        Anyway, after much trial and error we've decided the best thing to do is just run it under a virtual machine. It's a pain but it's workable.
  • "Normal" People (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VorpalRodent (964940) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @09:02AM (#46692911)

    The person quoted in the summary appears to have a relatively solid grasp on how to go about being safe on the internet. By that same metric, a large percentage of Slashdot could also be just fine using XP. The problem is that everyone _else_ keeps using XP, and they _don't_ have that same skillset.

    I'm happy that Microsoft finally pulled the plug. My goal is that things get bad enough for the small office that I provide support to on a volunteer basis requires them to upgrade. I've had to re-image a bunch of computers already this year because people click things, and companies are taking XP drivers away. Soon enough, I'll be able to say "Too bad, you have to upgrade this time".

  • Personally (Score:4, Informative)

    by jez9999 (618189) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @09:02AM (#46692917) Homepage Journal

    I stick with XP for one of my desktops because I put my own hardware together (no OS preinstalled), and I don't want to pay horrific sums of money [dabs.com] (£135) for a new operating system - Windows 8 is even more expensive to buy a worthwhile edition of. It's behind my free Debian install which acts as a router+firewall. Works for me.

    • If you consider that a horrific sum of money, I'd hate to see what you think of my monthly grocery bill, or gas for two weeks. I paid $35 for a Windows 8 license when it first came out... I still use Windows 7 for now, but I have the license to upgrade to once I'm convinced 8.1 has the bugs shaken out.

    • Windows 8 is even more expensive to buy a worthwhile edition of.

      Windows 8 Pro costs less in fact (£110 [dabs.com]), and if you can live without Hyper-V or Bitlocker (which you obviously are living in XP world) you can go with normal Windows 8 for (£72.99 [dabs.com]). This is all besides the point that calling ~£100 for an OS that will last ~10 years [microsoft.com] "horrific" is a pretty gross exaggeration.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @09:05AM (#46692937)

    I am the IT guy in our family, and currently have 8 family members on a waiting list, who wants to upgrade to windows 7 or 8, but since there is no upgrade tool, I have to make full reinstalls and find all the software that was installed over the years etc.. which means that each machine takes days to upgrade..

    If MS truly want us to move to a new OS, they should have made it easy, it it was just an hour or twos work, there would be 8 xp boxes less in the world already ;-)

  • While Microsoft has unquestionably slowed XP down over the years, it still runs on machines which compensate for the software's lack of performance.

    When there is software which "only runs on Windows 7" then people might give additional pause. But right now, there just isn't that much incentive. And Microsft has clearly painted itself into a corner by supporting legacy code for extremely aged software.

    Microsoft should have done what Apple did when moving from OS9 to OSX. Provide some flakey compatibility

    • by Spad (470073)

      Anything that requires a 64-bit OS and, by extension, anything that needs more than ~3.5Gb of RAM to run (well) as well as anything that needs DX10+ and any new hardware that doesn't ship with XP drivers. This might not be that much now, but it will start to increase dramatically from today onwards.

      And no, XP 64-bit does not count, it's a bastard hybrid of XP & 2003 Server and nothing really supports it properly.

      If forced into it today, business just might adopt Linux and WINE to run their apps and find out they are safer and more stable because of it

      No, they won't, at least not in statistically significant numbers. The cost and hassle of an

  • by HnT (306652) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @09:07AM (#46692949)

    I prefer to use my computer for actually DOING something else than spending all that effort on just keeping it running.

  • Offer a free upgrade and a reliable compatibility layer for stuff that won't work on NT6.x and XP will be gone within the year.

  • None of those steps are good enough and he's going to get absolutely destroyed.
  • Everything in this is bullshit. Webmail loads slower? You've never been infected? Really? If you're running XP you could have all sorts of malware and not have a clue. Notice linux clients aren't even mentioned.

  • by Whammy666 (589169) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @09:41AM (#46693307) Homepage
    I'm still on XP and probably will be for some time. The fact is there is no reason to change. It works and it's stable. Plus, all my software works with it, not to mention that replacing the OS is a major pain in the ass. And finally, here's a clue for Micro$oft: ** A DESKTOP WORKSTATION IS NOT A GODDAMN SMARTPHONE! QUIT TRYING TO TURN IT INTO ONE! **"
  • by wolfguru (913659) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @09:48AM (#46693387)
    There are systems and processes that we run on a 24x7 basis on equipment that was built when NT was current, for which XP has been the final upgrade. The company is unlikely to replace a 25 million dollar machine so that its controllers can be front-ended with Windows 7 or anything of the kind, given that it still does half a million dollars worth of work for us a day. Some of the specialized software to drive the components and controllers is still 16 bit, and nothing beyond XP supports it. I've heard all the well meaning advice, and the folks that betray their lack of experience and understanding by declaring that we should have made these changes ages ago - the costs of designing new controllers for systems that were designed and built in the late 80's is prohibitive and the expertise and understanding of the processes necessary to replicate is for the most part lost to the ravages of time. Maintaining the most stable alternative is the only choice many companies have. I don't see the exceptions as to running desktop configurations like the one described as essential- there are current alternatives and it is only personal preference that keep people using systems like that; the desktop environment has progressed and there is little reason to stay behind. The control and process environment however, will probably keep XP running well into the 30's just because there are no solid, universally supported alternatives to running 16 bit systems for essential processes.
  • by Capt.Albatross (1301561) on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @09:56AM (#46693467)

    Pointing out the age of XP merely emphasizes the lack of significant improvement since. When this happens to a technology, it is called maturity.

    XP was the first Microsoft PC OS to be what all its predecessors aspired to be.

HEAD CRASH!! FILES LOST!! Details at 11.

Working...