rogergonnet said:
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.)