Friends don't do tech support for friends running Windows XP You're a Reg reader so chances are you're also informal, and unpaid, tech support for all manner of family members and friends. But with fewer than 60 days left until Microsoft more-or-less pulls the plug on Windows XP, Redmond wants you to stop sharing your expertise and just tell those you know and love to buy a new PC. …
Switched away from microsoft' development software about 10 years ago. They changed the code base for visual basic and rendered our 12 months of development, so much cruff. Sadly stopped off at Flash, before turning to open source C++ and javascript. Have 1 machine running XP ,will stick ubuntu on it. I think the biggest problem for Microsoft's Operating System Division is for most people the op sys is just something that launches the browser... During technical support calls, the initial answer to "what operating system are you using" has gone from "office" to the name of the browser. Apple have the style over substance crowd neatly tied up and all the other competitors operating systems are zero cost to buy. Microsoft appear to be at the point IBM where at just prior to breakup ..The effort of keeping an unwieldy behemoth moving in the same direction leaches profits and stifles innovation.
Apple have a much wider appeal than the so called 'style over substance' brigade.
I used to support a friends family XP system. Frigging nightmare if truthe be told.
They now run a OSX on a Mac Mini and my support calls have dropped fantastically. The whole family use it and wouldn't revert back to Windows.
I use OSX for my personal use. I get a lot less problems with general use than I ever did with Windows. I have to use Windows 7 for work and it is a PITA because of the corporate build we have to fight against on a daily basis. It is little wonder that once we got VMWare installed on it we only use Windows 7 as a launcher for our work system of choice, mine being CentOS 6.5.
I have a machine that I purchased 12 years ago, and it's still running XP!
Let me check. It's the same machine, although I've had to replace the motherboard/processor/memory twice, the disk more than once, the graphics card and the power supply. I also replaced the DVD drive with a DVD/CD combo.
It's still the same machine because the case, floppy disk drive and CD burner are original. I think it has one of the original keyboards attached to it at the moment as well!
In case you ask, it is running a retail copy of XP home, which allows me to change the machine as much as I like!
In reality, most machines purchased in the last 8 years will probably have been skipped a long time ago, because very few people are prepared to do the hardware surgery necessary to keep older systems capable of running XP with SP3 installed.
So we're really not talking about systems as old as 13 years, we're talking about machines that could be less than 5. And some businesses with volume licenses may well have still been building XP systems more recently than this.
My last 'work' laptop was delivered to me new in 2010 with an XP build. It's just been replaced, and I opted to have Linux on it. Yaaaay. I am now officially a Microsoft free worker, having a work Linux desktop and laptop (it's complex, I work for a vendor at an end-customer site), and use Linux exclusively at home.
Big companies with volume licences are not what MS are talking about, they're talking about home users so a lot of this thread is moot.
However if you want to talk about big business then be aware that the preferred licensing/support model pushed by MS for years means that those customers probably have a licence to install the latest version of Windows. The reason XP is still out there in the enterprise in such large numbers is that upgrading would be a pain.
The more XP templates these enterprises have rolled out over the years even after the superior 7 launched has made upgrading enterprise wide ever more complex and expensive.
... and crap like that (and things like no downgrade rights for consumer editions of Windows), is why I employ "licensing tools" with no remorse.
I'm still going to help people with Windows XP computers. They don't have to change their lives to suit Microsoft's agendas. Most people who are used to XP don't want a silly new version of Windows
In Windows PC terminology, the machine is only the same if it has the same motherboard, to prevent the confusion over whether a case counts as "the same machine".
If you replace the motherboard, Windows will want to re-activate, as it believes it is a different machine.
"So we're really not talking about systems as old as 13 years, we're talking about machines that could be less than 5. And some businesses with volume licenses may well have still been building XP systems more recently than this."
In a business environment perhaps, but in the home it's quite possible. Until this Christmas my parents were still using their 10 year old XP machine, and it's these types of people I think MS are targeting. In my parents case I got so fed up with having to support XP legacy that I bought them a new Windows 8 box instead. Bit of a learning curve for them admittedly, but after showing them how it works I think they've got the hang of it now.
Maybe, but most people don't have a f*****g clue about computers so this point is moot.
And wasn't Windows 7 recently lifted into "Best Windows Ever" status by punters when Windows 8 came along? Apparently it's not really considered of a failure then, is it?
"Expecting that products will be supported forever is stupid, especially in a fast moving sector like IT."
What is this support crap? If no one discovers a bug in x years the bug becomes the owners problem not the suppliers?
I expect suppliers to fix bugs forever and if they are not prepared to fix bugs in old products to offer free upgrades to products which have the bugs fixed.
You justify this by thinking that Microsoft would never pull the rug from under you and support your technology till infinity.
I haven't developed for Windows in a long time, but given the succession of development platform debacles Microsoft oversaw in the last ten-odd years (VB6, XAML, Silverlight, Windows Phone 7, etc etc) you'd have to be quite deluded to still believe that.
To be fair, most of the tech MS threw under the bus these past years was either bloated legacy or never any good to begin with. But of course that's beside the point – if they peddled those things to developers in the first place, they might as well provide some migration path to the next great thing, rather than just ditch support and leave their customers to scramble for a way out. And how about drawing up a sensible technology roadmap and sticking to it while they're at that?
Alas, to each one their lot. Me, I should be looking into a replacement notebook for the wife...
"Anyone who thinks Redmond (or Cupertino, for that matter!) gives a rat's ass about the end-user is deluded."
Got it in a nutshell there. What business does is make money for shareholders.
But you're going to get people saying "But MS are upsetting their customers, which will mean a drop in revenue and so less money for the shareholders." Those people are wrong. XP users are not customers, not any more. They were customers, but if they're still running XP they haven't spent any money with Redmond for a long time. Hardly anything MS sell now will run on XP. Actually I haven't checked in detail, do Redmond actually sell anything that runs on XP?
So why would Microsoft or their shareholders give a wet one about upsetting XP users exactly?
Oh and why don't we hear the same whinges about Apple ending support for much newer OS's? Simple really the majority of fanbois (and goirlz presumably) are the sort of suckers who have to have the latest hardware and so stopped using those versions of OSX years ago.
Microsoft's problem here is actually that, despite all the detractors banging on about how terrible Windows is, the simple fact is that Windows XP is too good. People still want to use it in their millions so it must be good. Which is of course a crock, the fact is that XP is good *enough* and that's all most folk need.
Yes but you only want to buy an OS once as a client, but Office is upgraded every 3 years and Microsoft has a range of Development Software, Digital Media Authoring Software and Internet Software such as Skype. Have you ever heard of Microsoft Premier Support ?. They are not just dropping the OS, but support for Microsoft the software packages on it if they can and people paid for that since 2001.
I'd rephrase that.
"Anyone who thinks Redmond (or Cupertino, for that matter!) gives a rat's ass about the end-user once they have got their money is deluded."
In other words, Redmond and Cupertino are only interested in money. They develop things as a way to get money. The only reason why Microsoft apologised for Windows ME and the only reason why they developed Windows 7 so close to Vista was because they were losing money. The only reason why they are rethinking the approach they will take for Windows 9 is because Windows 8 isn't making them the kind of money they were hoping for. Apple are no different. These are American corporates. That's their nature.
Windows XP 2.0?
www.reactos.org/node/772
I haven't actually tried this myself in a long time. Reportedly it's getting pretty good.
???
there's actually a benefit to MS dropping support for XP.. they will stop trying to make it incompatible with things like Wine, React, or OS/2.
Then they can be persuaded to switch to a Mac or the *Nix distribution of choice.
If you have to completely retrain yourself to use Windows because WinXP is *nothing* like Win8.x, then you've already accepted relearning a new operating system & might as well add Apple & *Nix to the mix.
Once you've done that, you'll realize you can either spend the funds on having your TechSupportPerson upgrade your current machine to *Nix for a pizza & a pint, and never pay another penny to Microsoft,
Or you can pay double the cost of a typical Windows machine to get a Mac towards the same end.
Since TechSupportPerson can quite easily theme the distro to look like XP & thus ease your culture shock, why not give *Nix a try?
Except for some very specific tasks, *Nix already does everything Windows can do, and gets the job done for free.
Email client and Word Processing Productivity suite?
Got it, and it's free instead of another ~$300 for "Office UberPremium MightActuallyWorkThisTime" edition.
Browser? Got so many choices you'll wonder why Windows is so limited.
Media players? Ditto, and they're free to boot.
Watching kitten videos on YouTube, Hulu, Vimeo, etc? Not a problem, as long as you don't mind it not being in YetAnotherInternetExplorerWindow.
Tax prep? Accounting? Hobby progress keeper? Mechanical Engineering? Advanced Desk Top Publishing? You name it, *Nix has got it, and all of it is *Free*.
So if you've got to help your friends upgrade up & away from Windows XP to something modern, why not do it with style & show them the way to freedom?
So people that complain that their OS is no longer supported after 13 years should switch to a walled garden platform with probably the shortest OS support cycles in the industry?
As all alternative browers are also available for Windows I'm not sure why you conclude Windows is 'limited' in this regard.
You also seem to believe that operating systems are a purpose in itself, but for most users it's the application that counts and which dictates which OS to run. If your apps are available for other platforms (or you can find good enough or better alternatives there) then fine, otherwise you're f****d. And there is no point in moving to Linux or Mac when you still Windows for some non-replaceable application, in which case you may as well save the hassle and stay Windows only.
BTW: OpenOffice is great but it barely can hold up with ancient Microsoft Office 2003, let alone 2007 or newer. LibreOffice is even worse, as it's essentially a features whore (why finally getting these annoying bugs fixed when we can have skins!). It's perfectly fine for simpler tasks, but if you do more than writing the occasional letter or doing a simple spreadsheet then there is nothing else than MS Office.
>Because every single alternative to Excel is crap.
Disagree, Lotus Improv contained some very good 3D spreadsheet handling capabilities in it's time. Excel is still stuck in the 2D+1 world.
But yes when knocking together 'interesting' models, I've stuck with Excel, inspite of the hassle of working across sheet layers.
would you be so kind as to be specific? What functionality do you require in a spreadsheet is not present in an FOSS tool (e.g. libreoffice), other than "works with M$ Office".
Perhaps you are a troll, but if you find a feature lacking, please be informative and perhaps a solution can be found...
P.
"would you be so kind as to be specific? What functionality do you require in a spreadsheet is not present in an FOSS tool (e.g. libreoffice), other than "works with M$ Office"."
I think you'll find that "works with MS Office" _is_ the killer feature required. A substantial subset of the world uses MS Office. You don't have to like this. I don't. However, I must deal with it. FOSS office suites simply have too much trouble with formatting Office files; such files quite often cannot be round-tripped, they become unreadably screwed during the process. (Some are merely unreadable.) And, yes, I'm quite sure that this is deliberate on the part of Microsoft; files from older versions of Office are often hard to round-trip, too. (Go on. Open a heavily formatted Powerpoint file, created in Office 2000 (Windows) or 2001 (Mac) in, say, Office 2013. Notice how elements are all over the place. Fix it, save it as a PPT (and not a PPTX) file so that in theory it can be read by the older version of Office. Watch the user's face when they try to access that file.) No, like it or not, many people not only have to have MS Office, they have to have multiple versions of MS Office so that they can actually get work done. I'm typing this on a Mac mini running OS X 10.9; it has Office 2011 and 2008 installed, and the only reason it doesn't have Office 2004 is 'cause 2004 won't bloody work on OS X 10.9. My laptop, sitting in my laptop bag, runs Win 7. It has Office 2003 (and a right pain it was to get that installed) and 2010 (the version I usually use) and 2013 (the version I have to use to deal with a certain customer's stuff). And, yes, I know, Microsoft discourages that kind of thing.
Yes, I do have LibreOffice on both the Mac and the laptop. No, I don't often use it, because LO usually screws up the formatting if the document was created with anything above the most basic level of formatting. Sorry to rain on your parade, man, but that's been my experience. YMMV.
"OpenOffice is great but it barely can hold up with ancient Microsoft Office 2003, let alone 2007 or newer. LibreOffice is even worse, as it's essentially a features whore (why finally getting these annoying bugs fixed when we can have skins!)."
Spoken like somebody who never uses OpenOffice or LibreOffice. In fact, OpenOffice and LibreOffice are horribly glitchy and slow. But they are legally free, and as long as you're aware of their limitations then you can avoid trouble.
The major difference between LibreOffice and OpenOffice is that LibreOffice actually has a community behind it, so it has bug fixes and new features. Apache OpenOffice is the result of Oracle throwing in the towel on any commercial ambitions for OpenOffice, but being unwilling to join a real open-source community. So, they're getting contributions from IBM, but that's about it.
Shortest Support Cycles ?
Ah, you must be one of those that think that Ubuntu=====Linux.
I have news for you, it is NOT the case.
There are other distros that don't throw all their toys out of the pram every 6 months.
A simple search will tell you what they are. I could tell you but it would be a waste of energy.
"Shortest Support Cycles ? Ah, you must be one of those that think that Ubuntu=====Linux. I have news for you, it is NOT the case. There are other distros that don't throw all their toys out of the pram every 6 months."
He said: "So people that complain that their OS is no longer supported after 13 years should switch to a walled garden platform with probably the shortest OS support cycles in the industry?"
Given that you would struggle to describe Linux as a walled garden, I suspect he was talking about MacOS, not Linux.
THANK YOU!!!
I forget now how many times I have said in these fora; Linux is not Ubuntu
As for upgrade cycles, yes. This can vary from distro to distro, though as an openSUSE user I normally expect the toys to be chucked about 18 months unless the version is earmarked for Evergreen support in which case it varies from 3 to 4 years (though the choice of version sometimes bugs the crap out of me!)
ISTR Ubuntu has a long term support setup for some versions too.
Well I've upgraded my Macs since pre OS X days, and brought all the data (and Applications, which worked great until Rosetta was dropped in Lion) with me each time. Usually program preferences too. So Microsoft's upgrade path from XP is a bit of a let down. (Do I have to go and find a copy of Vista to install?)
But it's not my friends who are needing my help, it's my Mum. How do I explain to her that all her files would have to be backed up and restored? To her, that would be a sign that she should have continued saving all her Word docs on floppies all these years... Oh well, she has an iPad now, the PC can be relegated to typewriter duties.
"You can't update-and-keep data from early versions of OSX like tiger to 10.9 without buying and installing intermediate OSs first."
Actually... you can. You do a clean install and then import the data (and apps) from your backup. Warning: a lot of the apps may have problems, thanks to Rosetta having been eaten by a Lion. A bunch more got flooded out by the waves of Mavericks. Your data, now, your data's good. And it's easily moved.
Yes, I have machines (two of them...) running Tiger right now. They're due to be retired shortly, as, well, they were never particularly fast (1.25 GHz eMacs) and now they're INCREDIBLY BLOODY SLOW. The data on them will be moved to either Mac minis or iMacs. Pity. I quite liked the eMac design, though apparently I was in a distinct minority.
Yes, but you can't upgrade without moving your data at all, the way you could by moving to the immediate next release.
Since Windows 7 wasn't that much different from Vista, not being able to do this when upgrading directly from XP to 7 was clearly a deliberate money grab by Microsoft. Whether or not there are valid technical reasons in the other cases, I don't know. But people should be free to skip releases - the operating systems should sell on their merits, and they're purchases, not rentals.
Davidoff: "if you do more than writing the occasional letter or doing a simple spreadsheet then there is nothing else than MS Office."
I use office exactly (and exclusively) for writing the occasional letter and for filling forms that arrive in my inbox in the wrong format. For serious work, there is Latex.
I also just migrated my better half from the stupid 'evaluation' MS office to libreoffice. That cut down my service calls greatly, the LO menu bloat seems to be much easier to navigate than the ribbons.
I commend you on the total disregard to your own safety!
Openly speaking such Heresy in these parts will get you bombed with down votes.
No, you must conform to the "fact" that anything MS, oops, I mean M$! is utter crap.
You know whats really odd though, all these people who have allegedly been converted by tech specialists to using Linux and LOVE it more than life its self, and there must be quite a few tech folk if the proportion of Windows haters / users here is anything to go by, all those family and friends now tapping away on a Linux based machine and yet none of them use the internet, its crazy!
Its a very odd situation, because basically the lack of internet usage of all those people means that Windows (as a whole) market share accounts for over 90% of the desktop market, give apple around ~7-8% and the remainder divided up in to others with Linux sitting in there between 1.5-2%
Instead of moaning about how crap windows is perhaps you should get all your friends and family to jump on the internet and become a statistic for Linux bolstering those market shares a bit.
As the commenter above more or less said, Linux has a place, it is useful in many ways, but its not for a huge proportion of people, forcing people in to it on principle is a complete abuse of your position and may bring the reputation down for the rest of us. As professionals you have to weigh up everything, you can not make decisions based on your opinion alone, what i see here on this website is open distaste for anything to do with MS, irrespective of anything else, I seriously hope you don't use such judgment in the real world or I pity your clients.
"You name it, *Nix has got it, and all of it is *Free*."
Two exceptions: games, and AutoCAD.
My single Redmond computing solution only exists to run AutoCAD2K on Win2K (I am not a gamer). That box is air-gapped, for what should be obvious reasons.
I'm a FOSS advocate, but I'm not blind to reality.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
