URGENT If you operate Windows XP please read

[Greenman]

It could be the perfect chance to upgrade from XP to the next one around, and it may well make your machine run better than before. You could also get more memory added, the more the merrier and faster too so like me it would be the excuse to get a new one. For me it is not so clear cut because I like a proper keyboard to type on and I have my machine set up just so-however, I do need to change it to perhaps a faster one so I may well consider upgrading to Windows 8 - I just liked the simplicity of XP when it came out. I've seen loads of people complaining about no START button for one. Can't please everyone all the time.

[pharoahegypt]

Originally Posted by bigbobnobody

Also.........
I can't see as how a Windows XP computer, could possibly have the "cajones"
to even do an upgrade to a higher OS, other than maybe Vista.

I went direct from using XP on this Dell PC to 64Bit Win7..!!

But then working in a laptop repair shop I knew it would work. It's all about how good your actual processor and memory is, nothing more.... If you have a modern processor and more than 1Gb of Ram, then an upgrade to Vista should be okay,; 2Gb of Ram plus and Win& will sail along willingly; as mine does while writing this very message. (okay, i'm running 4Gb of Ram now, but i upgraded while only running 2Gb originally)

GM is right to suggest caution, and those magazines should know their onions; but so long as you use common sense you can outlast MS's threats most of the time....

[Pinkpapercut]

I'm running XP Pro sp2 on a PC made from cannibalised parts of old computers built for me by an acquaintance. The machine is getting tired and needs replacing but I'd carry on using XP sp2 if it wasn't. I carried on using Win 98 SE for several years after Microsoft stopped supporting it, with AVG, ZoneAlarm, NoScript, and SpyBot for protection, and only ever had one piece of adware, nevernind a virus or trojan, install itself, and SpyBot removed that easily.

My Techie acquaintance told me that using out of date Operating Systems isn't usually a problem where viruses and malware are concerned because the new viruses etc are built to take advantages of unpatched flaws in new and newish OS's, not inof heavily patched and obsolescent OS's.

So if XP is still meeting your needs next spring and you have some security software I wouldn't worry too much about upgrading right away unless you need to for compatibility reasons.

[gmcbee]

Excellent thread, good info from all posters. I'll keep using my XP until it craps and dies. Very stable. I do my scans and cleanups regularly, and also frequent and multiple backups on external media. I've got the service packs and all my utilities backed up also. Not too worried, if I get something serious, DBAN and reinstalls just take a weekend.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by a435843

XP has been out since 2002, and since the first service pack, has been quite stable. So, it has been running successfully for 11 years. That's a lot of time to build up a huge base of users. In fact, almost one-quarter of all computers on the Internet, according to StatCounter Global Stats, is still running XP.

Perhaps more importantly, XP has built up a huge base of corporate users who are no longer as happy to shell out huge amounts of money to replace an OS that isn't broken and that they've finally gotten everything to run on. They are the reason that Microsoft's first attempt to kill support for XP failed, too many very large corporate customers asking variations on "What the duck do you think you're doing pulling support for what works?!"

This is one of the factors in the huge advertising push we're all seeing towards tablets and smartphones which can't run XP, only Win8. MS is trying to push users into their "One OS to rule them all, one OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the microchip bind them" setup and give them an excuse to fire most of their programmers.

[a435843]

Originally Posted by DTravel

Perhaps more importantly, XP has built up a huge base of corporate users who are no longer as happy to shell out huge amounts of money to replace an OS that isn't broken and that they've finally gotten everything to run on. They are the reason that Microsoft's first attempt to kill support for XP failed, too many very large corporate customers asking variations on "What the duck do you think you're doing pulling support for what works?!"

Which is inexplicable, given the fact that M$'s name is crap now among consumers ("it's what I have to run, because I want to get work done at home", etc.). They're primarily an enterprise vendor, as most of their revenue is from corporate customers, not just Windows & Office, but Windows Server, database server products, etc. That's why they'll be mentioned with names like Dell, IBM, & HP, in five years, not Apple & Google (not really a positive).

Originally Posted by DTravel

This is one of the factors in the huge advertising push we're all seeing towards tablets and smartphones which can't run XP, only Win8. MS is trying to push users into their "One OS to rule them all, one OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the microchip bind them" setup and give them an excuse to fire most of their programmers.

Interesting point...here's my take on the Windows 8 debacle...they looked at Apple's iOS & Google's Android, and said, "we want a walled garden, where the suckers are locked into us forever, and where we can ream developers for the software they write, too". There's a bunch of problems, though.

1. Windows developers aren't a bunch of new graduates looking to make start-up bucks; they're hard-nosed veterans of the software wars, who want to make a living making corporate and high-end productivity tools, not the next Angry Birds.
2. Microsoft has never made a cool product in their history, so they forgot that their bread-and-butter is with the business customer who needs to get some work done, not play cat videos on a tablet.
3. They vastly overestimated what people are willing to pay for a "non-cool", commodity device. For example, their price point for their Surface line is crazy-high, because their margin on the software license is crazy-high. For the average computer user, for whom iOS & Android devices are cooler, Surface gives them sticker shock. And for those who just want something to do e-mail and browse the web, Windows 8 is too much trouble.
4. Tablets simply are toys for Twittering & Facebooking, so to speak. Those would wanted that already bought one, it's called an iPad. They're no longer in the market for something new, and sure as he!! not something from the Evil Empire. They were just too late to the party. And as smartphones go, three words...They Bought Nokia...enough said.
5. I've often wondered about the obsession that they had with "everyone wants the same interface on every device they use". Really? Over the course of a week, I work with at least half-a-dozen. But the part about getting rid of personnel, that makes more sense now. But it's also the sign of a desperate company, clearly on its last legs...Windows 8 was their "Hail Mary" pass that fell 10 yards short.

[buttsie]

Originally Posted by bazcom

Ubuntu it is then.

Not likely - the majority of users still see it as too much of an effort

Internet explorer still has 25+% of the market which should tell many
some folks dont give a toss

I was listening to a linux / windows 7 user yesterday and he labelled all too many linux distros as not a decent enough quality to replace Windows 7.

He was dual booting with Windows 7 & Ubuntu 12.04
He mentions 2 other linux OS as being worth looking into Zorin & Mint

His youtube video is quite useful even if its title screams dont leave Windows

It comes across as someone who is neutral and objective in the assessment
because he uses a dual booter (he uses linux more than windows).

It makes sense to keep your options open rather than choose one side of the other

Title of video - Why Windows Users Can't Switch To Linux
= (Too many linux distros arent quality)

Anonym zu www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_S4gwOBFO4

[Lurkio]

having retired my XP 32bit recently (nothing actually wrong with it after 8+ years) I switched to Mint 13 64bit to take advantage of lots of memory

yes, 1 or 2 hardware issues arose, but consider latest hardware and a 2 year old OS. especially in Linux's case - awaiting the next LTS in April '14 - but none were a showstopper, especially with virtual machines and Wine.

happy enough now

One idea - switch as many devices from usb to network .. tend to use more general protocols rather than propriety. And use older hardware - I blame the vendors, but it might change

[Greenman]

Yes, yes, yes, that is all fine and dandy for you technoheads but remember there are some of us that don't understand a lot of StarTrek-speak so please keep it as simple as you can otherwise we are just as much in the dark as everyone else.

[NIN]

If you admit yourself there is an upcoming situation, you will have to learn to learn a little GM

My own 32bit single processor machine (running XP. sp3), I now use as a stand-alone audio/video device in the bedroom (offline of the web, but it would still be online if I had the cable reach).
I still think it's a fine machine although built almost 10 years ago, it's silent until stressed by overwork - which isn't gonna happen in those circumstances.
Incidentaly, that unit was quite OK with updates turned off given that I mainly used it for here & a few other forums - a relatively safe environment
It's the modern web requirement that is forcing upgrades, these guys are just trying to offer advice & options, not all of the discussion is easy to grasp , but that's just the nature of discussion.

Use the machine as an offline workhorse when you feel a lack of upgrades is frustrating or dangerous, I have a friend who has one as a server, or as gmcbee said - perfectly good as a scanning machine

I have another PC (2.4 Ghz single processor) which I intend to make good with a 160Gb drive, I'm still inclined to use XP for it.