Continued support for Windows XP

[Alain Dekker]

I'm also running Windows XP, never use an anti-virus and have turned off the
Automatic Updates service. Runs fast and sweet and never had a problem...

Alain

 

[Alain Dekker]

Its also a professional question. We develop a complex image processing
application that gets provided to clients on an embedded Windows XP machine.
There is lots of complex automated machinery attached that needs to be
controlled from that embedded machine as well. We are currently providing
them with XP licenses and would like to continue providing them with Windows
XP licenses. We are able to continue to provide licenses till December 2016
on the "Embedded" support path, but security updates will nonetheless stop
in April 2014.

I'm kind of hoping that loyal XP users (who have moreover provided Microsoft
with a tonne of cash over the years!) will get security support till at
least Dec 2016. Frankly, outdated it might be, but why doesn't Microsoft
just continue to support Windows XP? Kill off Vista, though, no-one gives a
hoot! )

I'm not arguing with those calling Windows XP "out-dated" (it is) but I
personally see nothing in Windows 7 or 8 that makes me want to move! For
example, if you actually want to make phone calls and send/receive the odd
SMS message, old-style mobile phones are far superior to expensive
smartphones. Its the same with Windows XP AFAICS.

Thanks,
Alain

 

[Alain Dekker]

Office 2000 here as well. Tried Office 2003 and 2007 and both were vastly
inferior. Only thing I could see that *was* improved was the notes feature
(where you can share a document between multiple users).

Still use Office 97 in my work and its perfect!

 

[Alain Dekker]

Thanks for the answer, but I have to smile. Saying something is "12 years
old" doesn't seem like a terribly sophisticated argument! Not everything,
even technology, gets linearly better with time. Usually things go backwards
before taking a step forward again. It would be nice if Microsoft had an OS
genuinely better than XP before they shut XP down. Microsoft hit a
sweet-spot with Windows 98SE and then Windows XP. I doubt there is a sane
person out there who thinks Vista is an improvement over Windows XP or that
Windows Me was superior to 98SE! )

Having said that, I do acknowledge that Windows 7 is reasonable, but don't
accept it is "better" than XP.
Alain

 

[Alain Dekker]

Thats true, our machines are generally not connected to the internet, except
occasionally on dedicated connections for remote support (via TeamViewer).
The machines are, however, usually connected to the customer's internal LAN
/ WAN.

 

[philo]

My dream house is an OLDER house, NOT a newer one. I think (most) newer
homes are just stamped out (cookie cutters), and most have tiny lots.

Check out the *craftmanship* and charm that went into the older homes.
(but yes, I concede, their insulation sucked, and the floor plans weren't
quite as smart as we have now - but that's ALL

(BTW, some time ago, I lived in a small home with just 30 amp service for
the entire home (but also had gas service, of course). It was cute and
livable!


I'm being pretty watchful. I think.
Besides which, I imagine most of the virus writers are taloring their
"services" towards the newer OS's now, anyways! (i.e. "bigger market")

Yep, our house was built in 1898 and there is no way I'd have one of
today's "cardboard" mansions. Though if you have a /ton/ of money you
can still get good craftsmanship few can afford (or want) it.

Our house was electrified in 1932 which means it's actually got conduit
and BX rather than knob and tube. The service was originally 30A 115v
but I had that upgraded years ago. Of course I had to insulate the house
and get new windows...but no way do I consider newer to be better.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On 7/4/2013 4:28 PM PT, Ken Blake, MVP typed:

Yeah, if that is required. I am fine with my old stuff for now...

Yes, as I said, "could be," not "is." But you never know when a new
version of something (or an entirely new product) may come along with
features that you may want.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

It depends.

OS is like your house. Newer OS is like a bigger house with stronger walls,
more sophisticated alarm system, more professional security guards, and
anything you can think of, for a secure, hi-tech dream house.

Ideally, it would be preferable, but all of those won't matter if you leave
you door open when you leave your house, ward off the alarm because it's
annoying, or told the security guards not to disturb you because you brought
strangers to your house.

Yes, I agree, but let me add that security is only one issue when it
comes to evaluating a new operating system. Other issues are the
feature set, ease of use, etc.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Win8 is OK IFF you use Classic Shell.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/

ClassicShell is OK, but Start8 is even better.

 

[philo]

Ugh, that sounds like my old uncle. He refuses to get broadband to dump
AOL. Argh!

I am a bit stubborn myself and don't always like change, but I only need
to stay about "ten years behind the curve". In my situation, since I had
a 2nd phone line for my dial-up I actually saved money by going with
DSL. Recently I've gone one better and got cable and at a slightly lower
cost than DSL

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I am a bit stubborn myself and don't always like change, but I only need
to stay about "ten years behind the curve". In my situation, since I had
a 2nd phone line for my dial-up I actually saved money by going with
DSL. Recently I've gone one better and got cable and at a slightly lower
cost than DSL

Should you be interested, if you are in the USA, and have a router
connected to an internet connection, you can get a dial-up phone line
for free. Use GoogleVoice and buy an OBi100. The $38 cost of the
OBi100 is a one-time charge.

 

[philo]

Should you be interested, if you are in the USA, and have a router
connected to an internet connection, you can get a dial-up phone line
for free. Use GoogleVoice and buy an OBi100. The $38 cost of the
OBi100 is a one-time charge.

That's a good deal but I'd hate to change my phone number.
A lot of people know my land line number...but one of these days I may
change things. When I retired I turned in my company cell phone and have
gotten by OK for a year without one. My wife of course has a cell phone,
so we can still get calls when we aren't home...but usually don't want them!

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On 07/05/2013 03:35 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:


That's a good deal but I'd hate to change my phone number.
A lot of people know my land line number...but one of these days I may
change things.

I understand. I didn't want to change my number either. But
considering that I save about $20 a month...

When I retired I turned in my company cell phone and have
gotten by OK for a year without one. My wife of course has a cell phone,
so we can still get calls when we aren't home...but usually don't want them!

My wife and I each have a cell phone, but our service with T-Mobile
has no monthly charge. We each bought a total of 1000 minutes to be
used any time ($100 each), then buy another few minutes each year for
$10 each to keep the remaining minutes from expiring. So we pay total
of $10 a year each.

Considering that neither of us uses the cell phone much at all (it's
only for emergencies or for me to tell her something like I'll be home
late) that's fine. We can go a month or more with neither of using the
cell phone at all.

So our three phone lines (one home line and two cell phones) costs us
a total of $20 a year.

 

[philo]

I understand. I didn't want to change my number either. But
considering that I save about $20 a month...




My wife and I each have a cell phone, but our service with T-Mobile
has no monthly charge. We each bought a total of 1000 minutes to be
used any time ($100 each), then buy another few minutes each year for
$10 each to keep the remaining minutes from expiring. So we pay total
of $10 a year each.

Considering that neither of us uses the cell phone much at all (it's
only for emergencies or for me to tell her something like I'll be home
late) that's fine. We can go a month or more with neither of using the
cell phone at all.

So our three phone lines (one home line and two cell phones) costs us
a total of $20 a year.

That looks like an excellent price. More than likely I will have to
eventually give up my land-line. Considering that most of the calls I
get are from telemarketers it may be a relief to get rid of it.

 

[philo]

I'm also running Windows XP, never use an anti-virus and have turned off the
Automatic Updates service. Runs fast and sweet and never had a problem...

Alain

<snip>


I don't think I'd ever run a Windows machine without an anti-virus.

When I used to set up low end machines I'd always at least install
Clam-Win. It does not have real-time protection so it will not in any
way slow the machine down...but the user can manually scan any downloads
and perform full scans when desired.

I know that a virus can really take you by surprise.
I once did a data transfer from a machine that had never been on-line
and was surprised when the virus checker on my machine found a virus.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I don't run memory resident ones. I do manually scan often.

The problem with that approach is that you use an anti-virus to get
rid of an infection, not to prevent one. In my view, it's very
important to prevent infection, for two reasons:

1. Some infections can be very hard to get rid of

2. You may get rid of an infection only *after* it has already done
unrecoverable damage.

Unless you recognize that you may need to do a clean reinstallation of
Windows and are willing to do it, I think it's much better to have a
resident anti-virus and prevent, rather than remove, infections.

 

[Andy]

Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my opinion)

is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and continue

support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off date?



Regards,

Alain

I would not worry.

XP has got to be the most studied and used O.S. in history.

Most infections are due to opening files from unknown sources.

Andy

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

It depends.

OS is like your house. Newer OS is like a bigger house with stronger walls,
more sophisticated alarm system, more professional security guards, and
anything you can think of, for a secure, hi-tech dream house.

This new house, even if it has energy-saving features, will still turn
out to use more power, even when you're not doing anything (in fact
especially then), and cost you more in local taxes, than your old one.
(Processor power, RAM, disc space ...)

Ideally, it would be preferable, but all of those won't matter if you leave
you door open when you leave your house, ward off the alarm because it's
annoying, or told the security guards not to disturb you because you brought
strangers to your house.

Which may very well be the case if all the extra security features make
it more or less unusable. (If it takes me some minutes to undo all the
bolts when I _want_ to go out ...)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous"

I already am largely ambisinistral.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

(I forgot to say before that I've never suffered a home invasion via the
walls, even in older houses. [In fact here in UK where "older" probably
has different magnitude, older is likely to be thicker anyway.])
[]

Yes, I agree, but let me add that security is only one issue when it
comes to evaluating a new operating system. Other issues are the
feature set, ease of use, etc.

Indeed. So far, I've not heard of any feature that makes me want to go
to 7 - I was going to say "makes 7 a must-have", but thinking about it I
can't think of any that I've even desired at all. But I (see previous
posts) have nothing _against_ 7, other than extra resource requirements
(which more or less are satisfied anyway if you get a new computer).
(And "ease of use" would, initially at least, work _against_ it since
I'm so familiar with how to do things under XP - but that would apply to
_any_ new OS.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous"

I already am largely ambisinistral.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Ant

Yes, but not older Office opening these encrypted docx files. I can
share an example if you want.



YES! I hate the new GUI! I am forced to use it at work with its newer
Office versions. Argh! I just use 2000, OpenOffice, and LibreOffice at
home.

I have to use 2007 (or 2010, not sure) at work, and must say (they give
us reasonably big monitors) I don't find the "ribbon" that irritating. I
don't find it particularly an improvement, either. What I do find
irritating is not knowing where certain features are: I'm gradually
learning those. But for those in the same boat, I'd recommend an add-on
I found (which could be installed without the privileges I've not got!)
which gives me the old menu back: it doesn't replace the ribbon, it just
adds one more option (I think it's called Menu) to it, which when
selected gives the old menu. I _am_ learning where things are on the
ribbon, but still occasionally use this to find something. Note that if
you're so familiar with the old Office that you use keyboard shortcuts
rather than the mouse, the new one recognises a lot of them (though pops
up something like "old office key sequence", which you ignore).
I still have 98SElite on my other laptop, with its 128M of RAM - works
fine. And on my desktop, though I keep meaning to XP that, especially
since I broke the sound drivers (or something; it has no sound, anyway).
But I use it so rarely (this 12" netbook is my main PC).
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous"

I already am largely ambisinistral.