Love XP-Pro--what to do next?

[Pfs...@aol.com]

I am a real fan of XP Pro. Butlooks like Windws is trying to be
I-Phone OS.
What are XP fans going to do?

[Stefan Patric]

Keep using XP until you die. At least, there's two more years of support
left. Hopefully by then, Microsoft will have seen the error of its ways,
and future Windows releases will have a GUI choice--desktop or tablet.
But don't count on it.

Of course, you could switch to Mac or Linux as more and more dissatisfied
Windows users (and businesses) have done and are doing.


Stef

[John Williamson]

Four choices. Wait until Windows 9 is released as soon as people leave
Windows 8 on the shelf, hoping for the good/ bad MS cycle to continue.
Buy Windows 7 and learn where they've hidden the various bits. Install
Linux and learn where *they've* hidden the bits, and learn how to use a
command line interface to change a lot of useful settings. Finally,
(inserts tongue in cheek) buy a Mac, and use it to run XP in a virtual
machine.

Or just carry on using XP behind a decent firewall until some new piece
of software or hardware refuses to play. That's what I plan to do.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Greegor]

On Oct 17, 8:48 am, Pfss...@aol.com wrote:
> I am a real fan of XP Pro. Butlooks like Windws is trying to be
> I-Phone OS.
> What are XP fans going to do?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.windows-xp/browse_frm/thread/a5798a319a6bfcb4?hl=en#

Crossposted thread


I understand there is still a HUGE installed
base of Windows XP around the world.
For most of us it's more of a love/hate relationship.
I WISH Linux really competed with Windows.

Lindows looked like a hopeful competitor but
even after they won the law suit, they didn't
seem to try very hard, became Linspire.

Do you think the worldwide economic
problems will pressure Microsoft to
keep XP support going for a few more years?

I'm at 3.4GHz single processor and newer
hardware won't even double my speed.
My last hardware upgrade was a SIX TIMES
speed increase at $ 125 per computer.

How many dollars per computer would
it cost just to TRIPLE my processing
power per computer?

6 processors, 64 bit architecture and
massive memory, right?

LOL

[Tim Slattery]

Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Do you think the worldwide economic
>problems will pressure Microsoft to
>keep XP support going for a few more years?

Nope. They've already dropped support for XP.

--
Tim Slattery
Slatt...@bls.gov

[philo]

On 10/17/2012 02:31 PM, Greegor wrote:
> On Oct 17, 8:48 am, Pfss...@aol.com wrote:
>> I am a real fan of XP Pro. Butlooks like Windws is trying to be
>> I-Phone OS.
>> What are XP fans going to do?
>
>

Keep using it.

Assuming you use browsers other than IE, the updates for them will keep
coming.

[SC Tom]

"Tim Slattery" <Slatt...@bls.gov> wrote in message
news:7n3u78h8qbsn49ld4...@4ax.com...

> Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Do you think the worldwide economic
>>problems will pressure Microsoft to
>>keep XP support going for a few more years?
>
> Nope. They've already dropped support for XP.
>

Nope, you have another 18 months or so:

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/endofsupport.aspx
--
SC Tom

[Bert]

In news:7n3u78h8qbsn49ld4...@4ax.com Tim Slattery

<Slatt...@bls.gov> wrote:

> Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Do you think the worldwide economic
>>problems will pressure Microsoft to
>>keep XP support going for a few more years?
>
> Nope. They've already dropped support for XP.

Important notice for users of Windows XP with Service Pack 3
(SP3): The support for this product ends April 8, 2014.

http://support.microsoft.com/ph/1173

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[GS]

> Important notice for users of Windows XP with Service Pack 3
> (SP3): The support for this product ends April 8, 2014.

..and so can I expect no more AutoUpdates after that date?

--
Garry

Free usenet access at http://www.eternal-september.org
ClassicVB Users Regroup!
comp.lang.basic.visual.misc
microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion

[Bob F]

GS wrote:
>> Important notice for users of Windows XP with Service Pack 3
>> (SP3): The support for this product ends April 8, 2014.
>
> ..and so can I expect no more AutoUpdates after that date?

At last!!

[JJ]

I'll stick to XP because:

- My work doesn't force me to uprade yet.
- I use an old PCI card I that has no Vista+ driver and its PCI Express
version is still too expensive.
- I use an old (but perfect) HIPS software that's incompatible with Vista+.
And I haven't found an alternative that's equal or better.
- Reinstalling and reconfiguration of softwares would take a long time.

[SC Tom]

"Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k5o0mm$vfb$1...@dont-email.me...

If you didn't want any, all you had to do was turn WUA off.
--
SC Tom

[GS]

SC Tom explained :

Yeah.., we know that but it's not the point. After XP updates I have to
reconfig various customizations and I don't want to have to do that any
more, but I do want the updates for as long as they're available.

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 17.10.2012 18:38, Stefan Patric wrote:
> Of course, you could switch to Mac or Linux as more and more dissatisfied
> Windows users (and businesses) have done and are doing.

...if you are dissatisfied with Microsoft's long-term support of their
OS, you will not be happy on a Mac. They have got an extremely long list
of broken programs with every OS upgrade and the list of the programs
that does not run on the previous versions anymore is even longer.
In the Linux world, the list of programs _that are not broken_ is small.
Is small beautiful?


--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)

[Ken Springer]

On 10/18/12 8:18 AM, GS wrote:
> SC Tom explained :
>>
>> "Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:k5o0mm$vfb$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> GS wrote:
>>>>> Important notice for users of Windows XP with Service Pack 3
>>>>> (SP3): The support for this product ends April 8, 2014.
>>>>
>>>> ..and so can I expect no more AutoUpdates after that date?
>>>
>>> At last!!
>>>
>>
>> If you didn't want any, all you had to do was turn WUA off.
>
> Yeah.., we know that but it's not the point. After XP updates I have to
> reconfig various customizations and I don't want to have to do that any
> more, but I do want the updates for as long as they're available.

FWIW, I had a Win98 machine running long after XP was out, and support
for Win98 was dropped. But every so often, I would get updates for Win98.

My suspicion is/was, these updates were to files that were common to
both OS's. And when a file for XP was updated, my Win98 machine got the
same updated file.

As I say, just a suspicion on my part.

Personally, I got tired of constant updating, and the virus issues, so
made the switch to a Mac as my main computer. Yes, cost a lot more
money, and there was/still is the learning curve. But, unless needed
for employment of some type, I'm never going back to Windows as my
primary computer. Even then a virtual machine environment may suffice.
I do have Windows machines, but they get, maybe, 10 hours total of
actual use a month.

If a person isn't thrilled with moving on from XP, and is willing to
explore alternatives, consider learning a little Linux. Lots of flavors
out there, but like both Windows and Macs, there will be issues.

I'm not pushing/recommending any particular path, to each his own.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 16.0.1
Thunderbird 16.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.6.2

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 16.0.1
Thunderbird 16.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.6.2

[Stefan Patric]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:44:32 +0200, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:

> On 17.10.2012 18:38, Stefan Patric wrote:
>> Of course, you could switch to Mac or Linux as more and more
>> dissatisfied Windows users (and businesses) have done and are doing.
>
> ...if you are dissatisfied with Microsoft's long-term support of their
> OS, you will not be happy on a Mac. They have got an extremely long list
> of broken programs with every OS upgrade and the list of the programs
> that does not run on the previous versions anymore is even longer. In
> the Linux world, the list of programs _that are not broken_ is small. Is
> small beautiful?

Windows is far from perfect as well.

As to not being happy with Macs, every dissatisfied Windows user I know
who switched to Macs loves it, and wished they had done so sooner.

Great improvements have been made in Linux in the past few years
particularly in the non-server, private user desktop market. You don't
have to be a technomage to make it work anymore. ;-)


Stef

[David Kaye]

"Stefan Patric" <n...@this.address.com> wrote

> Of course, you could switch to Mac or Linux as more and more dissatisfied
> Windows users (and businesses) have done and are doing.

What good would THAT do? Mac keeps changing its operating system and making
older software obsolete, requiring buying new updates. Windows, on the
other hand, runs legacy software with ease! I have a music program called
Band in A Box that was written for Windows 95 and works just fine on Vista
and Windows 7, as well as XP. I have even older Usenet news reader software
called News eXpress which was written for Windows 3.1, and even this
software runs fine on later Windows versions, even though it's about 20
years old!

Just try THAT with a Macintosh.

[Stefan Patric]

You do it on a Mac the same way it's done on Windows: virtual machines
and emulation. (You can even run Windows on a Mac this way. Linux,
too.) What do you think XP Mode on Windows 7 is? Running 16-bit legacy
apps natively ceased with Windows 2000, IIRC. Since then backward
compatibility is done through emulation even if it's not apparent.

As far as apps breaking after upgrades: Same thing happens with Windows
whether it's just a service pack or a totally new version. And FWIW,
that happens with ALL OSes even Linux. It's the nature of the beast.


Stef

[Char Jackson]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:04:30 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
<n...@this.address.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:57:11 -0700, David Kaye wrote:
>
>> "Stefan Patric" <n...@this.address.com> wrote
>>
>>> Of course, you could switch to Mac or Linux as more and more
>>> dissatisfied Windows users (and businesses) have done and are doing.
>>
>> What good would THAT do? Mac keeps changing its operating system and
>> making older software obsolete, requiring buying new updates. Windows,
>> on the other hand, runs legacy software with ease! I have a music
>> program called Band in A Box that was written for Windows 95 and works
>> just fine on Vista and Windows 7, as well as XP. I have even older
>> Usenet news reader software called News eXpress which was written for
>> Windows 3.1, and even this software runs fine on later Windows versions,
>> even though it's about 20 years old!
>>
>> Just try THAT with a Macintosh.
>
>You do it on a Mac the same way it's done on Windows: virtual machines
>and emulation. (You can even run Windows on a Mac this way. Linux,
>too.)

I think the difference is that the need is relatively rare in the
Windows world and much more common in the Mac world.

>What do you think XP Mode on Windows 7 is? Running 16-bit legacy
>apps natively ceased with Windows 2000, IIRC. Since then backward
>compatibility is done through emulation even if it's not apparent.

In the Windows world, a 32-bit OS can typically run 32- and 16-bit
software natively, while a 64-bit OS can typically run 64- and 32-bit
software natively. There is a 32-bit version of Windows 7, if people
want it, so that's one possible path still available to running 16-bit
software natively. Naturally, the 32-bit versions of Vista and XP
could do it, as well.

>As far as apps breaking after upgrades: Same thing happens with Windows
>whether it's just a service pack or a totally new version.

There have been reports of that, but I've personally found only one
program that stopped working when I upgraded to Win 7 64, which was an
old 16-bit Checkers game from 1995. (As mentioned above, 16-bit apps
don't run natively on a 64-bit Windows OS, and I'm not willing to use
an emulator for that one program.) Microsoft gets a lot of things
wrong, perhaps, but they do an excellent job of maintaining backward
compatibility, with the caveat given above.

[Stefan Patric]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:11:53 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:04:30 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
> <n...@this.address.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:57:11 -0700, David Kaye wrote:
>>
>>> "Stefan Patric" <n...@this.address.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Of course, you could switch to Mac or Linux as more and more
>>>> dissatisfied Windows users (and businesses) have done and are doing.
>>>
>>> What good would THAT do? Mac keeps changing its operating system and
>>> making older software obsolete, requiring buying new updates.
>>> Windows, on the other hand, runs legacy software with ease! I have a
>>> music program called Band in A Box that was written for Windows 95 and
>>> works just fine on Vista and Windows 7, as well as XP. I have even
>>> older Usenet news reader software called News eXpress which was
>>> written for Windows 3.1, and even this software runs fine on later
>>> Windows versions, even though it's about 20 years old!
>>>
>>> Just try THAT with a Macintosh.
>>
>>You do it on a Mac the same way it's done on Windows: virtual machines
>>and emulation. (You can even run Windows on a Mac this way. Linux,
>>too.)
>
> I think the difference is that the need is relatively rare in the
> Windows world and much more common in the Mac world.

Actually, it's the other way around: There's more emulating needed with
Windows to support all the Windows (and DOS) legacy apps than with the
Mac. The "legacy" with the Mac is those apps before OSX, where full
virtual machine emulation is required on an OSX machine to run them. OSX
is OSX, more or less. If your app ran on 10.X, it will run on 10.Y. Of
course, there are exceptions. Perfection is impossible, but almost
perfect is attainable.

>>What do you think XP Mode on Windows 7 is? Running 16-bit legacy apps
>>natively ceased with Windows 2000, IIRC. Since then backward
>>compatibility is done through emulation even if it's not apparent.
>
> In the Windows world, a 32-bit OS can typically run 32- and 16-bit
> software natively, while a 64-bit OS can typically run 64- and 32-bit
> software natively. There is a 32-bit version of Windows 7, if people
> want it, so that's one possible path still available to running 16-bit
> software natively. Naturally, the 32-bit versions of Vista and XP could
> do it, as well.

All very incorrect. 16-bit, 32-bit, and 64-bit code are totally
incompatible with one another. One won't run on the other without help,
that is, some type of emulation. This can be full emulation--target OS
running in a virtual machine--like XP Mode on W7, or a System Call
Translator and OS spoofer like Compatibility Mode where the target OS is
not needed.

Windows lost the ability to run 16-bit natively with Windows 2000 which
was totally 32-bit with no DOS elements at all. Only Windows 9X and ME
with their hybrid 16/32-bit kernels could do it. Since that time, legacy
compatibility can only be achieved through various types of emulation
which for the most part is totally transparent to the user. The
emulation is part of the OS, and runs automatically when needed. The
emulators go by various names: NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine),
Compatibility Mode, XP Mode, WOW64 (Windows 32-bit On Windows 64-bit),
etc.

Now, 32-bit on 64-bit is a special case. Both modern (the last 7 years
or so) AMD and Intel 64-bit CPUs have a built-in 32-bit execution mode.
That's how you can install and run a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit CPU, and have
it work. (Remember, 32-bit and 64-bit are totally incompatible.) The
added advantage is that if you're running a 64-bit OS, you can run a 32-
bit app without any software emulation. The CPU itself takes care of
it. So, virtually native execution as far as the OS is concerned. The
only thing required is the 32-bit OS libraries must be installed. (The
64-bit libraries are incompatible with 32-bit.) This is the way OSX and
Linux work. I've never checked how Windows does it, but I imagine it's
similar, but with software tweeks provided by WOW64.

Some links below, FYI:

http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netos/article.php/600311/
Running-16Bit-Applications-as-a-Separate-Process.htm

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/get-it-done-make-legacy-applications-
feel-at-home-in-windows-xp/1055657

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa384249(v=VS.85).aspx

http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/how-windows7-vista64-
support-32bit-applications.htm


Stef

[Char Jackson]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:50:52 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric

No, I think I had it right.

>>>What do you think XP Mode on Windows 7 is? Running 16-bit legacy apps
>>>natively ceased with Windows 2000, IIRC. Since then backward
>>>compatibility is done through emulation even if it's not apparent.
>>
>> In the Windows world, a 32-bit OS can typically run 32- and 16-bit
>> software natively, while a 64-bit OS can typically run 64- and 32-bit
>> software natively. There is a 32-bit version of Windows 7, if people
>> want it, so that's one possible path still available to running 16-bit
>> software natively. Naturally, the 32-bit versions of Vista and XP could
>> do it, as well.
>
>All very incorrect.

So you say. :) And then you go on to explain in detail that I was
essentially correct. Oh, well.

<snip>