MC and others agree to pay for extencded updates.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Mayayana

For what it's worth (you may already know this), it's
easy to check an executable. Just open it in a hex editor.
Somewhere near the front of the file will be "NE" if it's
16-bit. A 32-bit PE file always has PE00. ("PE" followed
by two 0 bytes.)

Presumably, if a hex editor rather than just viewer, _changing_ that
byte won't make it run ... (-:

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Tens upon tens of million of PC are still running on Windows XP.

Probably true.

In 2013, more than 320 million machines were bought. In 20 years or so,
perhaps 2 or more billions were fabricated, many of them working on XP. It s
therefore probable that XP is still running on some 200 million PCs, most
owned by poorest people, not by Morgan Chases and their equivalent.

Probably true, though you don't give a source for your figure of 10%
(nor for your figure of 2+ billion for that matter).

Cutting so many people from any security regarding their computers is
insane, **criminal**, dangerous, and but for big bankers and companies
that I don't care of since they can buy new machines, I consider that
Microsoft should be sued and sentenced dor FRAUD in organized gang.

(I think you mean care *for*.) On the other hand, MS is a business not a
charity (see below), and _they_ have no obligation to support an
(arguably) 13-year-old product for which they are getting no money for
doing so.

There is nothing to stop you trying (the suing) if you wish (-:.

Nowhere any clients having bought a new or an older pc running on XP has
been informed that his machine will become the prey of such a gang.

No-one has bought a new XP PC for some time. What people selling older
ones tell their purchasers is not under the control of MS.

Worse, only the poorest people who have no money to buy a new one or buy
a new system shall be the victims of the gang.

That has always been the case, and not exclusive to computers; "the
poor" usually can't afford the most economical (or safest) cars, can't
buy product (any - food, household ...) in the economical larger pack
sizes, and so on. I've never heard anyone seriously suggesting that the
responsibility for this situation lies with the manufacturers.

Still worse, XP was running more or less okay, while the three next ones
like Seven has neve been even able to install correctly, and now, Eight

Now, I fear, you're showing some ignorance/prejudice. Millions of Vista,
7, and 8 systems exist and are working fine.

(decried by many as an aberration for desk or laptops) is still worse, as
far as it seems.

Lots of people (especially those used to older systems) don't _like_ the
default user interface of 8 (including me, for that matter, though I've
not given it a fair run); that doesn't mean it doesn't install correctly
though.

And since Bill Gates, the richest man of the planet is supposed to have
large charities sums to give, stealing them the security of their machines
is doing the exact reverse of what he pretends to be.

Two points: 1. He's not "stealing": that implies taking away something
they have. (Rolls Royce are not stealing from me by not giving me a
car.) 2. I think the costs involved are in a significantly different
sphere than even Bill's millions (though I'm not sure about that). (Oh,
and 3. Bill no longer runs MS.)

It's a real shame.

If at least, MS was offering a symbolic low monthly sum to pay to keep the
pc's updates, it would still do lots of money of such an offer.

_Now_, I think you're talking - though not if only symbolic; it would
have to be sufficient to actually cover the costs. There is a suspicion
that the majority of those running XP wouldn't pay even just a nominal
amount, though, in many cases on principle. (Not sure how I'd feel about
it, though I might go for it.) There's also the matter of how they'd
ensure only those paying get the updates.

When we buy an automobile, of a house, it certainly can be repaired,
restored, etc, even later; buy here, MS proposes you to stop using any

In the case of a car, once certain critical parts are no longer
available, you're f*d, unless you have oodles of money - and not just
the mechanical parts (for which you need to find skilled engineering
manufacturers), but things like the engine management unit and ABS
controllers. (There's a small company behind where I work who will
reverse-engineer those - not just to provide support after the
manufacturers, they also claim that the ones they produce are actually
better; however, they don't come cheap!)

external link with an XP PC, otherwise you're at risk of seeing your PC
vandalized by crazy or dishonest whatever.

Remember that it's not the builder that's doing the attacking in this
case. If your car or house gets broken into, and it still only has the
security (locks, immobilisers, cameras, ...) it came with when it was
made/built, would you blame the original manufacturer/builder (unless
they gave a guarantee of the relevant number of years)?

That XP is older than the next systems, well, it's the same, but as long as
it has no big destruction of its HD, or screen, it should be updated, or
else, and all the private individual owners should receive these for free.

Paid for by whom? It costs _something_ to create them.Basically, _I_ wish they'd just fixed and enhanced XP (actually, 98) for
ever, but I can see why they work as they do, and don't consider it evil
as such. I only consider it evil when they cross the line into actively
working against older whatever, and even then only when it's done out of
spite: if some new feature just isn't programmed in such a way that it
will work on everything back to Windows 3.1, _that_ isn't evil as such.Acc. to "computing", Britain's NHS are paying some millions to keep some
aspects of XP supported too. This is not _necessarily_ a waste of public
money; it _may_ be a prudent measure as part of an overall upgrade
strategy. (Without knowing quite what aspects they're paying for the
maintenance of - IIRR, the article didn't say - I can't comment.)

 

[Mayayana]

| > For what it's worth (you may already know this), it's
| >easy to check an executable. Just open it in a hex editor.
| >Somewhere near the front of the file will be "NE" if it's
| >16-bit. A 32-bit PE file always has PE00. ("PE" followed
| >by two 0 bytes.)
| >
| >
| Presumably, if a hex editor rather than just viewer, _changing_ that
| byte won't make it run ... (-:
| --

Afraid not. The entire file structure is different.
A 16-bit executable will be using structures and
storage based on a norm of 2 bytes, while 32-bit
is based on a standard of 4 bytes. I don't know
anything about 16-bit EXE file structure, but I know
that 32-bit is very complex and deals with 32-bit
data. For instance, numeric pointers to data within
the file are stored as 4-byte values. If the system
tried to load a 16-bit executable as 32-bit those
values would end up being random. Even if the 16-bit
header were identical, Win32 would read it wrong
because where Win32 is using 4 bytes to store a
number, Win16 would be using 2.

A very simple example of the problems that would
arise: A BMP file starts with two marker bytes "BM".
After that the next four bytes record the file size.
A bit after that there are 4 bytes that tell where the
image data starts, 4 bytes that tell the image width,
4 bytes that tell the image height, etc. Those groups
of 4 bytes all represent 32-bit numbers.
If there were such a thing as a 16-bit BMP (maybe
there is?) it would have 2 bytes for file size, 2 bytes
for data offset pointer, 2 bytes for width, etc. So if
you tried to open that file on a 32-bit system the
32-bit values derived from the file header would be
nonsense, because the software reading it would be
looking for 4-byte numbers.

 

[Mayayana]

| >Tens upon tens of million of PC are still running on Windows XP.
|
| Probably true.
| >

The latest figures are about 40% of all PCs. But
that's a measure from popular online sites. It doesn't
count the vast number used in businesses, ATMs,
(https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247096/ATM_operators_eye_Linux_as_alternative_to_Windows_XP)
corporate PCs that don't go online, and people who
don't visit typical measuring locations. For instance,
I know a 91-y-o woman who does email and plays
a lot of solitaire. She's running XP on an HP. She
probably doesn't get counted. Then there's China,
where XP is still common. Probably most poorer countries
are running mostly Linux or XP. I think it's safe to say
that stat counters undercount XP systems, and that
in total XP is probably the most-used OS in the world
at this point.

On the bright side, MS will sell you support for a mere
$200 until 4/2015 and another $400 to get you to 4/2016.
No doubt the Peruvians, Bangladeshis and Chinese
rural villagers are breathing a sigh of relief at that news.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Mayayana

| Presumably, if a hex editor rather than just viewer, _changing_ that
| byte won't make it run ... (-:
| --

Afraid not. The entire file structure is different.

I didn't really think it would (-:!
[]

If there were such a thing as a 16-bit BMP (maybe
there is?) it would have 2 bytes for file size, 2 bytes

I think there must be - wasn't Windows 3.1 largely 16-bit, and that had
Paint (which only worked with .bmp, at least up to '9x if not XP). And
even if that _was_ 32b, I remember DOS images, which weren't all in some
compressed format (mostly .gif then).

Actually I'll look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP_file_format talks
about the header being 14 bytes, so I think that settles it.

 

[BillW50]

I think there must be - wasn't Windows 3.1 largely 16-bit, and that had
Paint (which only worked with .bmp, at least up to '9x if not XP). And
even if that _was_ 32b, I remember DOS images, which weren't all in some
compressed format (mostly .gif then).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF#History

 

[rogergonnet]

(mail copy of my answer to your observations)

===

Probably true.

Probably true, though you don't give a source for your figure of 10% (nor
for your figure of 2+ billion for that matter).

indeed, it's because it's impossible to determine; so, the best guess could
be circa...

(I think you mean care *for*.) On the other hand, MS is a business not a
charity (see below), and _they_ have no obligation to support an
(arguably) 13-year-old product for which they are getting no money for
doing so.

certainly, but then, they could offer a pay line and free services for poor
countries individuals.

There is nothing to stop you trying (the suing) if you wish (-:.

No-one has bought a new XP PC for some time. What people selling older
ones tell their purchasers is not under the control of MS.

That has always been the case, and not exclusive to computers; "the poor"
usually can't afford the most economical (or safest) cars, can't buy
product (any - food, household ...) in the economical larger pack sizes,
and so on. I've never heard anyone seriously suggesting that the
responsibility for this situation lies with the manufacturers.

It's quite different here, since MS can do that for little money, while say,
changing your old car motor or important parts costs a lot to the
manufacturer.

Now, I fear, you're showing some ignorance/prejudice. Millions of Vista,
7, and 8 systems exist and are working fine.

I don't felt so. Vista was so bad that MS got seven few times later, >

Lots of people (especially those used to older systems) don't _like_ the
default user interface of 8 (including me, for that matter, though I've
not given it a fair run); that doesn't mean it doesn't install correctly
though.

yes, it installs, but well, it is bad for older users, as you say --

Two points: 1. He's not "stealing": that implies taking away something
they have. (Rolls Royce are not stealing from me by not giving me a car.)
2. I think the costs involved are in a significantly different sphere than
even Bill's millions (though I'm not sure about that). (Oh, and 3. Bill no
longer runs MS.)

<<<you're right. I'm using it as I feel, since it was'nt possible some years
ago, to guess that MS would cut access when the machine was BOUGHT WITH IT
and that ir still runs okay!

_Now_, I think you're talking - though not if only symbolic; it would have
to be sufficient to actually cover the costs. There is a suspicion that
the majority of those running XP wouldn't pay even just a nominal amount,
though, in many cases on principle. (Not sure how I'd feel about it,
though I might go for it.) There's also the matter of how they'd ensure
only those paying get the updates.

indeed, so that's why I estimated that MS should keep on to give the updates
to everybody, partilularly poor people from poor countries.

In the case of a car, once certain critical parts are no longer available,
you're f*d, unless you have oodles of money - and not just the mechanical
parts (for which you need to find skilled engineering manufacturers), but
things like the engine management unit and ABS controllers. (There's a
small company behind where I work who will reverse-engineer those - not
just to provide support after the manufacturers, they also claim that the
ones they produce are actually better; however, they don't come cheap!)

<<<I had a very rare -cheap- car years ago, and though only 171 of this sort
were sold in France, it was still possible to get parts, sometimes not
"original ones"...

Remember that it's not the builder that's doing the attacking in this
case. If your car or house gets broken into, and it still only has the
security (locks, immobilisers, cameras, ...) it came with when it was
made/built, would you blame the original manufacturer/builder (unless they
gave a guarantee of the relevant number of years)?
Paid for by whom? It costs _something_ to create them.

yes? But MS is immensely rich. So it had to give what is needed and was
PAID, okay, when clients bought the machine, with MS included most of times.

Basically, _I_ wish they'd just fixed and enhanced XP (actually, 98) for
ever, but I can see why they work as they do, and don't consider it evil
as such. I only consider it evil when they cross the line into actively
working against older whatever, and even then only when it's done out of
spite: if some new feature just isn't programmed in such a way that it
will work on everything back to Windows 3.1, _that_ isn't evil as such.

I understand your vewpoint; it's not mine. I don't care, particularly , to
pay for a destestable system like 8, which seems to present large problems
to old timers... used to XP, seven or so. I'd prefer to pay a bit for the
updates till my machine with it cease to run.

 

[rogergonnet]

| >Tens upon tens of million of PC are still running on Windows XP.
|
| Probably true.
| >

The latest figures are about 40% of all PCs. But
that's a measure from popular online sites. It doesn't
count the vast number used in businesses, ATMs,
(https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247096/ATM_operators_eye_Linux_as_alternative_to_Windows_XP)
corporate PCs that don't go online, and people who
don't visit typical measuring locations. For instance,
I know a 91-y-o woman who does email and plays
a lot of solitaire. She's running XP on an HP. She
probably doesn't get counted. Then there's China,
where XP is still common. Probably most poorer countries
are running mostly Linux or XP. I think it's safe to say
that stat counters undercount XP systems, and that
in total XP is probably the most-used OS in the world
at this point.

On the bright side, MS will sell you support for a mere
$200 until 4/2015 and another $400 to get you to 4/2016.
No doubt the Peruvians, Bangladeshis and Chinese
rural villagers are breathing a sigh of relief at that news.
bwhahaha!!

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

(mail copy of my answer to your observations)

Thanks for putting that line in; some people who send both don't.
(Newsgroup copy is all I require though.)
[]

certainly, but then, they could offer a pay line and free services for poor
countries individuals.

I'm pretty sure they (and others) _do_ offer paid support. As for the
free service for poor countries, nice idea, but again, they're not a
charity, and (a) it would still cost them quite a bit (as it would be
general support, not the bespoke one like the paid-for one), (b) how
would they ensure only the deserving got it.
[]

It's quite different here, since MS can do that for little money, while say,
changing your old car motor or important parts costs a lot to the
manufacturer.

Well, they did it - for I suspect rather more than little money (cost to
themselves; there's never AFAIK been _any_ cost to users) - for 13
years.

I don't felt so. Vista was so bad that MS got seven few times later, >

I've still not heard any suggestion that in the majority of cases there
was any problem installing it, which is what you said. Whether people
liked how it runs is a different matter.

yes, it installs, but well, it is bad for older users, as you say --

OK - you're changing what your complaint is, though (-:
[]

<<<you're right. I'm using it as I feel, since it was'nt possible some years
ago, to guess that MS would cut access when the machine was BOUGHT WITH IT
and that ir still runs okay!

MS aren't stopping it running. (Which I suspect they perhaps could!)

indeed, so that's why I estimated that MS should keep on to give the updates
to everybody, partilularly poor people from poor countries.

For how long - for ever? How long do you think they _should_ support it?

<<<I had a very rare -cheap- car years ago, and though only 171 of this sort
were sold in France, it was still possible to get parts, sometimes not
"original ones"...

If someone else came along offering support for XP ... though, like your
spare part makers, I'm sure it wouldn't be for free ... (Are you in
France then?)
[]

Paid for by whom? It costs _something_ to create them.

yes? But MS is immensely rich. So it had to give what is needed and was
PAID, okay, when clients bought the machine, with MS included most of times.

Basically, _I_ wish they'd just fixed and enhanced XP (actually, 98) for
ever, but I can see why they work as they do, and don't consider it evil
as such. I only consider it evil when they cross the line into actively

[]
I understand your vewpoint; it's not mine. I don't care, particularly , to
pay for a destestable system like 8, which seems to present large problems

Your choice not to.

to old timers... used to XP, seven or so. I'd prefer to pay a bit for the
updates till my machine with it cease to run.

It's just a matter of how long they should provide this, paid or not,
for diminishing returns.
[]

"-- " denotes the start of a signature; normally that line and what
follows shouldn't be quoted. (Good software will trim it automatically
in replies and followups.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Saturday night telly is one big noisy party to which not only have I not been
invited, but I don't want to be. - Alison Graham in Radio Times, 18-24 June
2011.