Microsoft isn't the only company denying equal online footing to Windows XP users. Apple will not give PC users access to iCloud – its great digital locker in the sky – if their machines are running Microsoft's aging but still popular Windows XP. Tucked at the bottom of the iCloud announcement, Apple says you'll need a PC …
There's not a thing wrong with WinXP on my machine. It does everything I need, its has no viruses and I've yet to find one single reason why I should upgrade. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
You'll have to prise my WinXP install disc out of my cold dead hands!
Same with my Amiga (n/t)
lack of security updates good enough for you?
Here's a reason
IE9 won't run on XP
IE9 won't ever ever run on my PC - Wooo Hooooooo!
Best news I've had all day.
Still in Extended Support
"lack of security updates good enough for you?"
Yup, come 8 April 2014 it will be a problem. Still has security updates until then.
IE9 won't run on XP
You say that like it's a bad thing...
Now if the latest versions of Firefox or Chrome stop working on XP, then I'd be a little concerned.
Punched cards never had viruses either.
Doomed to failure
I like to play Doom, and on XP ZDoom was perfect for this. But then I made the mistake of "upgrading" to Vista and then to 7, and ZDoom on my machine gives garbled graphics on both. Trying other Doom ports hasn't helped -- most of them won't run at all on my setup.
If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it, lest you break it.
You reporters need to coordinate
I'm getting confused with The Register.
In Matt Assay's article he was saying "We haven't banished operating system lock-in, in other words. We've just renamed it "cloud." 
But now this one is saying we can actually use iCloud on Windows Vista and 7? Just not on Windows XP... So where is the lock in?
Which one of you is not right? This is all very confusing.
Please agree on something and be consistent about it. I have enough fragmentation in my life.
no, No, NO.
We don't want them to agree and be consistent. We want original articles/rants/etc that contradict each other, but aren't self-contradictory. Or at least I do. I want them to make me think, not assume that I don't.
p.s. I want a weekly issue of BOFH too.
We like authors even more
if they contradict themselves within the same article.
Not really... (Forcing people to change to W7 being "right")
"Microsoft was the first to stick it to Windows XP users with Internet Explorer 9. The latest version of Microsoft's browser, released this year, does not – and will never – run on Windows XP. Microsoft is trying to steer people towards Windows 7. And rightfully so."
Really? So I should have to pay Microsoft for an overpriced OS, just to keep my otherwise fully functional dual core, 2 gigs of ram, runs like a champ XP pro box "up to date?" How about I do so when they refund me the full cost of XP, since it clearly was the least long lived component in my system? The box does everything I ask of it without breaking a sweat (another, newer machine was long since acquired to take over it's original task, so now it mostly does email, web, hulu, youtube, etc. - and all at the highest resolution/bitrate the service supports) - why on earth do you feel that it is "right" that I may be forced to leave XP in order to have simple compatibility?
No, either XP was fit for purpose, in which case I shouldn't /have/ to upgrade while my hardware can still compete with (or just simply beat) most of the low end "Made for Windows 7" boxes, or it wasn't, in which case the upgrade should be free. Of course, considering the age of my hardware, I /could/ just buy a new unit that comes with Windows 7, and send my old one off to some third world country to be "reprocessed." It would cost more, I'd have a slower computer, and I'd have the piece of mind of knowing that there was a not insignificant chance I helped poison a third world worker today, but I would (probably) send less money to Microsoft than a straight up upgrade, and have new, warrantied equipment. Oddly enough, in my own home where there is no business pressure to keep the machines as reliable as possible, I'm more interested in keeping my working gear going for as long as the hardware is both reliable and competitive.
I'm not going to overly complain about third party devs - most of them work within the framework that is provided to them. However, I am disappointed in both Microsoft and now Apple for their treatment of this rather popular platform.
Third Party like Apple?
Since you've got your OS from Microsoft, I assume Apple is some sort of third party.
At Daniel 4
Eh? You ramble makes no sense
"So I should have to pay Microsoft for an overpriced OS, just to keep my otherwise fully functional dual core, 2 gigs of ram, "
No, but should microsoft / Apple support a decade old bit of software?
No, either XP was fit for purpose, in which case I shouldn't /have/ to upgrade while my hardware can still compete with.....
This makes no sense.....
How is that decade old tv, picking up freeview without any add ons?
You decade old car have sat nav built in does it?
Your decade old boiler as good as new one?
It's obsolete, so get over it.
And yes I have several XP machines, but I don't DEMAND that everyone supports and develops for it.
Send to be recycle by third world?
Ebay? Charity? Freecycle?
The sparks are flying....
At least I think it is sparks because it seems you guys have one hell of an axe to grind against Apple righ now. I can respect if you guys don't agree with all of their decisions, but at the end of the day I can't escape the feeling you guys are being unrealistically hard of late. XP is three revisions back, and the better part of ten years old. If any company starts moving their newest features to a newer OS, I don't think any of us can blame them. Heck, Microsoft is the one who made xp and they are practically done with it. Lighten up the tone guys.
Apparently, your realistic outlook is unwelcome by 3 people here.
10 years old ?
I recently bought a new eMachines (Acer) netbook with XP installed on it. Why would I not expect a reasonable life from this without having to shell out for another OS that would be marginal on the hardware.
Actually it also has Ubuntu on it, with XFCE and definitely not Unity or Gnome 3.
errr... make that four.
iTunes on Windows 7 64 bit?
Now if only Apple can get iTunes 10 to work properly on the Windows 7 64 Bit version...
The installer incorrectly identifies the OS as being the 32 bit version, and installs the 32 bit version, which then refuses to run correctly, freezing, corrupting iOS devices, and other fun stuff. As a result the only machine that correctly syncs my family's iOS devices is my ageing XP desktop.
Software validation appears to be a thing of the past...
Installed in last night OH´s 64bit Win 7 PC and used MusicRescue to recover all tunes from iPod as my lappy had died. All went swimmingly.
It installs fine on Win7 64-bit, but does require you to read the downloads page - check the Windows software requirements.
Tried to sync an ipod shuffle ( 1st gen) lately? No? Thought so...
In my XPerience...
...these types of exclusions only tend to damage those doing the excluding.
Brilliant - so I'll continue with WinXP
.. it will make sure I won't lose data in a Cloud service..
I could care less about Internet Exploder, and i'll never buy anything from Apple...they can put their iCloud where the sun don't iShine...
I actually totally agree with your sentiment
But for crying out loud.... It's "COULDN'T CARE LESS"
What you said means the opposite of what you mean.
And please quit dragging the icons into the text field, all it does is add the URL.
"Microsoft is trying to steer people towards Windows 7. And rightfully so."
And rightfully so!
What? Do you have some sort of agenda here?
I think so, too
Windows 7 is the best Windows I ever had and I started with Windows 2!
The best Windows?
Isn't that like describing something as the best disco track ever? -- that is, hardly saying very much at all.
I'd upgrade to Fedora or Ubuntu, were it not for the fact that my craptop has a SiS graphics card, hence no Linux drivers are available...
Hmm, let me see
The vast majority of those are on a corporate PC where, if their local IT is any good, they won't be permitted access to such trivia anyway.
Most of the rest in all likelihood could not give a toss for a variety of reasons - i.e. they are Vista/W7 refusenik geeks (not exactly iCloud's target market), or they have another machine, or they live in the third world and have more pressing things to worry about than getting access to Jobs' new playpen for rich idiot westerners. Etc., etc.
I take it they are hoping it will prompt people to replace their pc hopefully getting an apple instead.
Problem is, XP users are more likely to upgrade to Win 7 instead.
I don't see how helping M$ sell copies of 7 will do Apple any favours?
>Microsoft is trying to steer people towards Windows 7. And rightfully so.
They can stuff off, XP runs on the hardware I use and runs all of the applications I need to use. I ran the 7 upgrade check and basically I would be up for updating my hardware with changes to most of my software and I would be chucking my film scanners out.
But when it comes to it, there is on way I'll put anything into a cloud outside of my control.
My Canon 2710 Slide Scanner had drivers for NT4 and could be made to work with Win2K and Adapatec drivers which could be made to work with XP with minor annoyances only.
Today I have Win7 in a virtual machine on OpenSuSE for my newer Win Only stuff and the good old Canon scanner on the host with VUEscan. Best of both worlds!
When I'm 64-bit
MobileMe Control Panel for Windows that currently syncs calendars etc with Outlook 2007 and 2010 has an annoying niggle ... It doesn't work with 64-bit Outlook 2010.
If Apple are dropping XP support because they are looking to "the future" then they need to make sure that iCloud works with 64-bit Office as well as old skool 32-bit versions.
Re: 64-bit Office
Microsoft's official advice to OEM resellers is that they should use the 32-bit version of Office even on a 64-bit OS, to avoid incompatibilities with the *many* third party plug-ins that exist in the Office marketplace. If you have a problem with 64-bit Office, then you've been mis-sold, or mis-bought.
Microsoft trying to steer people towards Windows 7 is "rightfully so" but Apple failing to support a 10 year old OS that's EOL in a couple years is a "dropped ball"?
Microsoft wants to push people off Windows XP because that forces people to upgrade, and most of them will end up with a newer Windows OS. More profit for Microsoft!
Apple doesn't have such a motive, though leaving behind half the potential PC users is an issue that potentially reduces profit, as you point out . However, iCloud is only beta, and who is it who plays around with beta software? Early adopters. Exactly the type who isn't still using Windows XP!
Maybe they'll support XP with the release version of iCloud, maybe not. But the fact Microsoft is trying so hard to get people off XP probably enters into their decision of whether it is worth the effort to support it with a brand new product.
There's always Linux
For you die-hard XP hands, who feel a royal screwing coming on, there is always Linux! Show 'em just how much you are ticked off at MicroSoft AND Apple, and take a walk on the wild side! I aven't used Windows since 3.1 and don't miss it at all. :) Ric
So this thing that's going to kill conventional disks wont even run on the worlds most used OS? Okk...
Small price to pay for a glorified FTP server
£24/yr, having to run what Steve wants, when he wants, upgrade whenever he wants and to never be able to leave.
Reading and comprehension for beginners
You don't pay £24 for the iCloud thing, it's free. the £24 is for iTunes Match. Not bothering to work out the intricacies of something you reflexively dislike is a classic symptom of fundamentalism. That or just stupidity. You pick.
I did always favour fundamentalism in Civ
It was great, it meant you never needed to worry about people rebelling and sure nobody was particularly happy and R&D got a bit behind schedule but you could replace all the cineplexes with tank factories
"The latest version of Microsoft's browser, released this year, does not – and will never – run on Windows XP. Microsoft is trying to steer people towards Windows 7. And rightfully so."
Win7 is a fix of Vista.
Vista and Win7 are mainly about eye candy. They offer no significant advantage to XP users, Win7 appears to be a marketing effort to compete with Mac OS.
MS has lost the plot. Also many high end computers even up to 9 years old are powerful enough to run Win7 apart from Graphics. The Graphics architecture is Stupidity. DirectX was bad, but at least it was really only to make migrating DOS like games easy (rather than Open GL or Win GDI based). Direct 3D is worse.
No-one needs IE 9, so that's not important.
Apple don't care about 40%+ of people running XP because they think people should run OS X. (which is priced cheap because it's only licensed for overpriced and Locked Apple Appliances).
"Vista and Win7 are mainly about eye candy."
To be fair, OS innovation died a long time ago.
XP covers 99% of what people want in an OS. Vista did a lovely job of shaking up the underlying hardware APIs, but the end user benefit was negligible.
MS (and others) make a lot of money from OS's, so they need to do something new.
However, I completely disagree that DirectX/3D are bad - maybe you're thinking back to the DX3 days when MS were catching up with the emerging 3D market? Nowadays, they're streets ahead of OpenGL (as painful as that is to admit), but they have the massive disadvantage of being platform-dependent.
OpenGL is a reasonable multi-platform solution, but it's been playing catch-up to D3D since about version 8. In terms of features and API, that is.
Personally, I like Win7, but the big things I like are simply usability improvements that *could* have been applied to WinXP if MS could have made the same margins from it.
I don't begrudge them a new OS, though; if I owned an OS I'm sure I'd want to constantly improve it as well - Linux and OS X do exactly the same.
"Vista and Win7 ... offer no significant advantage"
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Sticking to the APIs available in XP is hardly limiting for most software and if you are writing the interface to an internet-based service (like iCloud or IE9) then it takes *real* effort to arrange for the code not to work on XP.
In Microsoft's case there's a clear, if not terribly worthy, incentive for them to make that effort and (since IE9 brings in no revenue) no great downside if people ignore the product as a result.
In Apple's case it is harder to see the rationale. They've just turned their backs on precisely those Windows users who hadn't rushed to upgrade and who therefore might have been persuaded to try a non-MS platform.
"The latest version of Microsoft's browser, released this year, does not – and will never – run on Windows XP"
Didn't they say that about IE8 as well? (Before people started shifting to Firefox, Opera & ilk instead)
What about Apple users?
I know a few people who dual boot their MACs (or use VM) because they have to run a few windows programs. All but 1 use XP as their version of windows.
Do they now have to pay the MS tax to run Win7 on their MACs to access their iEverything when in windows mode?
Small fault in your reasoning
They use XP in a VM on OSX for some Windows software, why should they use XP for iTunes and iCloud? It works just fine with the OSX they have on their Macs.
Please stop saying MACs
It's Mac. not MAC. MAC is an Acronym, Mac is an abbreviation (or the actual name now). MAC is really irritating.
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...