MS to WinXP diehards: Just under 3 more years' support Microsoft continued its campaign yesterday to convince stuck-in-the-mud Windows XP customers to upgrade to Windows 7, the company's current operating system. Windows XP is now 10 years old, and for some, it's still going strong. So Microsoft has reminded those users that support for the OS that refuses to die will end in less …
At Peter 48 “I don't get why people still cling on to XP”
“If they can't be bothered (or afford to) to keep their IT up to scratch ” is just wrong. I can be bothered as you put it when there is a need, equally when there is a good business case I can also justify the cost. We also have very very few crashes and that is one particular application that would still crash under Win7.
At geekguy “A Couple of reasons actually...”
Although upgrading slowly does spread the cost over time, I'd contest that it costs you more. If you need the hardware for X point in time then why buy it a year ahead? £500 a month for six months or £3000 at the end is the same amount of money. Plus your machines will then be six months old when you need them, It may feel like you are paying less, but that's just an illusion.
be enough time for Canonical (or whoever) to get Linux up to a position where it can replace Windows completely even in the corporate environment?
Possibly.....
LibreOffice is almost there (and is already good enough for most).
Security, well, that's a given.
Backoffice, hmm, some work to do there
IE 6 compatibility, oh, damn.
I've got a five (ish) year old G5, running 10.4, it is out of support. Apple support their users for at most half the time as MS, less in most cases yet I rarely see people complaining about it.
Having said that, they'll have to do something pretty special if they want any further custom from me, it's Win/Lin pretty much all the way for me now.
... is that my TV tuner and scanner which worked happily with XP are no longer supported. Oh and you can see a sort of fuzzy shadow of the desktop through the top of the windows.
So, an expensive upgrade when you factor in the new peripherals for a bit of window dressing.
And if you happen to have a netbook, you'd be better off with XP than Windows 7 "starter".
Which makes it all the more surprising that Microsoft are providing any support for XP at all - there's little incentive to move to Windows 7 on a feature basis.
If you have a decent scanner that you'd rather hang on to. Get yourself a copy of Vuescan, it's not a lot of money and is a far better scanning experience than the manufacturers software anyway.
As for your TV tuner, that's a surprise, has the manufacturer gone bust? Did they stop making TV tuners? If you can find a BDA driver for Vista, install that and you will probably find it works fine under media centre.
Yes Windows 7 is a step in the right direction, but it depends on the PC, as many people have pointed out. My PC (primarily for gaming and folding) uses Windows 7 and as it goes like a rocket, I don't notice any degredation in speed from Windows bloat.
Meanwhile Windows XP is great for relatively underpowered netbook computers. We know its ins and outs so we can optimise it with less fuss, all of our normal Windows programs run on them (not games, obviously), there are fewer hardware compatibility issues compared with Linux/other alternatives and it runs snappily enough for most office and internet tasks.
I shudder when I think of trying to add Windows 7 to my little Samsung N-130, but more often than not, I wonder why I would bother reinventing the wheel when it suits this purpose.
Do an episode about this.
The number of stick-in-the-muds is astounding. Windows 7 has support for SSDs, better multi-threading support, acceptable "we have to save the users from themselves" security and a more responsive UI.
XP was nice for its time but its starting to show its age. I worked client phone support and I remember the "privilege" of Vundo, Virtumonde, Blaster and Conficker support calls.
This is the same whining that I heard when XP was released in relation to Windows 2000. I'm still hearing the same whining about the new Servers I support now not supporting Windows 2003 Server.
Face it, if you want a prepackaged solution that is not the best, is not the fastest or slimmest or the most secure but the one that almost any idiot can use, you go with Windows and this includes migrating to the version du jour when they tell you to. If you work with an advanced user base, you can use Linux or Unix or whatever you want.
We still have XP where I work and use about 3 different Java versions that hate each other. Why would someone do that, you ask? Because the ancient database that does all of our processing runs on a TANDEM server.
Mines the one with the vomit stains.
> support for SSDs, better multi-threading support
Are you kidding? I was using both of these in 2001.
Why is Microsoft so g*d d*mned primitive that basic features that have been in other operating systems since the 90s are treated like some great new ephiphany?
Microsoft loves to hold back features so that you have to buy the next OS in order to get them.
Windows 7 is abso-fraggin'-lutely unacceptable.
OK, so maybe they've got it working for typical office users to do their word processing and pr0n browsing.
But! Some of us need to talk to external devices. Like, over asynchronous serial ports.
One of my clients uses Windows machines in the lab. The ones running XP work fine. The new ones with Windows 7? There are various problems with COM port handling... ranging from the API being intermittently broken (can't always set the Baud rate) to a can't-be-disabled Feature randomly stealing characters on the assumption that any COM port simply must be used to connect a serial mouse.
And the latest development: one guy there got a shiny new Core i7 machine. Windows 7 consistently recognizes the built-in COM port, and could be persuaded to install the drivers for a USB serial converter... but, depending on its mood when it boots up, it may (around 10% probability) or may not actually deign to send and receive data on those ports. So, he's stuck with having an old XP laptop alongside the new machine, just to communicate with the embedded systems he's working on.
What you describe is typical when the wrong USB driver is installed for your OS. Try something like FTDI with up to date drivers for WIN7 32/64 bit instead of that cheap no-name stuff you get at the store/internet. I have 4 USB/serial adapters on my Win7/64bit system that run different applications with not a hiccup in years.
Point 1: the USB serial converter had a perfectly normal chip, and the IT guy grabbed the latest, supposedly-correct driver for it. We also tried some different brands, including expensive industrial models snaffled from the lab. Same results.
Point 2: it exhibits the same behavior with the *built-in*, non-USB, COM port, using the standard driver that came pre-installed. This is why we were trying the USB adapters in the first place: the built-in port wasn't being handled correctly.
Everyone knows Vista was a disaster and win7 is VistaSE. A semi interesting GUI hung over a bloated, Rube Goldberg system. For 96% of my clients you could run 98SE with a XP /Vista/ Win7 like theme and they would never know the difference. I'll keep running XP and if I have to box it into Linux for security I will.
I have dual-boot Win7 and WinXP on my computers. I use WinXP almost exclusively, except when I really have to run something on Win7, because:
a) XP is faster
b) It's more familiar - I hate the arbitrary changes in Win7 just to be different
c) I have way more licensed software on WinXP that I would have to re-buy or replace for Win7
d) There's almost nothing I need or want in Win7
The fact is that everyone is forced to take Win7 with new computers, so eventually I'll have to reluctantly change over. But it's clear that Microsoft has switched from innovating to milking their user base for revenue. That's the beginning of the end.
I have 2 apps that won't run on Win7: Nero Recode 2 and AEM EMS software. Actually the problem with AEM EMS is the USB to RS232 adaptor driver won't work in Win7 and I can't find one that works with the EMS and Win7.
What I have done with Recode is to install WinXP in a VMware VM. Does anyone know of a replacement for Recode that does as good a job creating MP4s?
Ok so I am an end user and not an admin, so no doubt this does not count for much, but here are the real-world issues I face with our XP/Office 2003 setup:
1. All our clients are using Office 2007/2010 - continual file format conversions, checking that nothing is lost in translation by taking the files home to check on my own PC etc (one really strange conversion error affected a financial bid - if I had not spotted it we would have lost as much money as paying for the whole firm to have new IT every year until 2020)
2. I regularly have to review hundreds or thousands of photos. Dear IT guys won't let me install a better viewer, so I have to open them one at a time. Hours and hours of work, about once per month on average. Vista and Win 7 both have a large size preview that (most of the time) would avoid the need for an individual preview. I would save at least half a day a month just with that one feature (and before you say it, filmstrip view takes in excess of 30 seconds per file to preview on this hardware - not a lot of help with 1000 files to view!)
3. Most users here have Vista or Win7 and Office 2007 or 2010 at home. Sadly they can't use the skills they have spent their own time and effort learning when in the office. There is a regular background hum along the lines of "why can't this POS do this when my machine at home can?"
4. I am so sick of doing presentations using Office 2003 templates - they look so stale now.
5. Video in Powerpoint 2003 is a dog
Oh, and to the comments about speed etc, at home I have a 2007 mid range HP desktop, a 2011 home assembled desktop, a 2010 netbook and a 2005 laptop. All are running Win7HP and Office 2010 Pro Plus (except the netbook - W7 Basic / Office 2010 Starter). Even with a few documents open, the only time the older machines noticably slow down is when auto saving.
Just my thoughts....
If previewing that many photos that often is a core part of your job, then you/your line manager/someone with authority needs to give your IT guys a damn good kicking until they agree to let you install something that will make this part of your job easier. Hell, even just tweaking the XP registry to increase the thumbnail size might help you out...
However, whilst the ability to change the thumbnail sizes in 7 without delving into the registry is a useful addition, what Microsoft giveth with one hand they taketh away with the other. In XP, if I wanted to review images full-size I could simply leave the image viewer window open and drag-drop images onto it from Explorer. So why the floody buck have MS taken away the drag-drop functionality from the 7 viewer? Now if I want to do full-size reviews I have to keep doing the right-click, select preview, make sure I'm not about to accidentally "set as background image" mouse shuffle, and then remember to keep closing down the preview windows to avoid them stacking up like a tall stacky thing, because unlike XP, 7 doesn't reuse the existing preview window if you've left it open when you preview another image via the right-click menu.
As much as I like a lot of the behind the scenes changes in 7 over XP, Microsoft really seem to have fumbled with the UI side of things, and don't get me started on the hideous appearance of the Aero theme - first thing I do on any 7 PC under my control is to switch to the classic theme and then install Classic Shell to add back in those useful bits of the classic theme MS decided (incorrectly) we could live without.
I work for a small shop. One of our in-house applications was developed on Access using Visual Basic. Windows 7 changed many of the API that this application uses, so we're stuck on XP until our ONE VB programmer has time to either migrate to a real database or at least a newer version of Access.
The only reason 7 is overtaking XP is because they are forcing people to use it. All new PC's are preinstalled with it. Vista and 7 are flawed Operating systems from a user standpoint. They are too restrictive, annoying, and change too much of the GUI that has been standard since 95. You are forced to evolve or your PC eventually dies because of lack of security updates. Just because you buy shiny new things the moment they show up doesn't mean everything old is worse.
It's marketing in action. They sell "set of features" now, not innovations, as one may expect. Some features are added, while others are purposely removed. So, in the next version of Windows OS they could offer you them back and loudly pitch about that, while silently removing others, preserving them for future versions of that OS. Remember, Windows OS is made as a product to bring revenue, not as an OS, that brings the latest and the greatest technology to its users. That explains why they remove all those useful features.
Windows 7 is just like Vista. Tons of features removed and broken. Poor usability. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_7 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_Vista . Unnecessary GUI changes. It would be much more intelligent (and probably much harder to do) innovation to improve Windows without changing the GUI. But changing the cosmetics has mainly one purpose: to conceal, that nothing really new happened. Vista was innonative but horrible and removed things. Windows 7 is Vista with two or three features and again tons removed.
Windows 7 is Vista Second edition while the upcoming Windows 8=Vista third edition. Full of gimmicks and fancy tricks. Aero Snap? There's a far better version in XP called Tile Horizontally or Tile Vertically that isn't limited to arranging just two windows but any number you select. XP was THE BEST because it did not change the GUI and move everything around just for sake of change.
Microsoft made a classic blunder with the GUI for Windows 7. They made it completely different from XP and buried, eliminated or dumbed down most of the truly useful features. Better OS or not, they alienated all their XP customers.
Yes XP was first released about 10 years ago but the service packs changed it to a much greater extent than the difference between Vista and 7. Microsoft just can't make the paridigm shift to understand that business is NOT about telling the customers what they need... it's about supporting what the customer wants. IMHO, they richly deserve to go down into the dust bin of history. The designers are clueless about what user interface backward compatibility and usability means. They just constantly fiddle and mess up the UI with every version and break things for the fun of it or keeping us in a continual upgrade loop. Since when did upgrades mean losing features? Since Windows Vista. Given that Vista was more or less a write-off, to be chalked up as a lesson learned and nothing more (or at best a Windows 7 pre-release), XP is really only one generation older than Windows 7. Windows 7 did nothing to address the interface and usability screwups that Vista commited. In fact, it eliminated the classic Start menu and number of classic features. The fact that XP is the most widely used OS in the world speaks for itself.
Bill Gates and Microsoft (and other software makers) know how to make money, over and over, from the public, by selling you THE SAME THING over and over and effectively charging you 10 times for one product. That is how Vista and Windows 7 came about.
Here is how it works. When designing any software, they purposefully put some new defects and/or leave basic essential features out. Then a couple of years later, they come up with a "new version" in which some of those left out features are put back in. This "upgrade" or new version is, however, secretly damaged in other ways and, in reality, is really a degrade. A few years later, another "new version" comes out claiming to fix those problems--and it does, but destroys something else in the previous version that was working.
Vista and Windows 7 were, as if, built by a madman who takes a normal car (XP), smashes the dashboard and puts a shiny plate to cover it up, puts the brake pedal in the trunk and the gas pedal under the back seat and the steering behind. This "upgrade" racket makes you go round and round in circles, spending money thinking it is a real "upgrade", when, in fact, each "upgrade" is really a circular downgrade. It is a shame that Bill Gates, already so rich, would resort to such fraud and racketeering. Microsoft needs to be sued.
Tip to Microsuck, sack your 'Explore shell' team or the idiots in your board rooms in charge of designing and dumbing the OS down for the noob market, as they are part of biggest reason Vis7a fails (other than to noobs who get confused and frightened by features/options and customization and like the dumbing down). Many crap changes and half assed efforts, zero real improvement. Better fucking free extensions and apps that offer more features and improvements of existing Windows/XP stuff , than the shitty effort done by MS and all the thousands of employees it has, after years of what I can only assume is twiddling there thumbs and doing pretty much fuck all for all those years it was in development.
Truth be told I also think that Windows 7 is a good replacement for Windows XP and that MS has shown great commitment by keeping XP supported for so many years. Heck; my main reason to use Windows instead of Linux or other open source solutions as my main desktop environment is just that; knowing that I can continue using it for many years to come.
Still one has to wonder.. I bought the Windows 7 professional version and this ships with MS Virtual PC which allows you to utilize the "XP mode". Basically running a version of Windows XP in a virtual environment which seemingly integrates with Windows 7.
I assume this also stops being supported considering that its basically a full fledged version of XP. But it does seem awkward considering that Windows 7 will remain to be supported for many more years to come.
For people who actively use the XP mode this could result in a somewhat higher risk. Esp. since you can easily "hide" the running virtual PC process (esp. when using the so called "integration mode".
If the price were more reasonable, say no more than US$50 per copy for home use, I'd be happily buying at least six copies. As it is now I'll probably be on XP until new motherboards are incompatible with it. I've yet to meet somebody who's actually needed Microsoft support for anything but sorting out their asinine registration system after a rebuild.
I think for a lot of diehards the issue is one of stability and cold, hard cash. I have two Win7 PCs and one XP box. There's no way I'm migrating my XP Box to Win 7, partly because of the cost of putting in hardware with drivers that actually work in Win7, but mostly because of the time involved to wipe it out and start over. Anyone who suggests there's a way to migrate from one Microsoft OS to another without wiping their HD and starting fresh has been using PCs for less than a week and certainly doesn't support them for a living, because no one who does would leave a PC in that state. At least not with a clear conscience.
Anyway I have and use Win7, it is a decent OS and I would prefer to be using it on all my boxes, but I'm not willing to put in the work required and I'm certainly not willing to spend the money. And I think that goes for many people who are sticking with XP. It works after a fashion so why waste the time changing things until you absolutely have to.
You gotta be kidding me - why replace something that isn't broken...? Can anyone identify the elephant in the room? It's called "capitalism run wild". We need a new version of Windows like we needed the sub-prime mortgage industry - it's smike and mirrors. Use Linux - it's free.
And because it is an OS, I don't want to do anything with it. That's not what it's for. I do things with a web browser, word processor, games and my graphics suite. The job of the OS is to host these applications securely and without crashing and otherwise to stay out of my face.
As long as the OS can do that - and my highly customized version of XP does it very nicely thank you - why do I want to 'upgrade'?
Let's face it, there's been no killer app for the desktop in the past ten years. Only a few people do anything with the latest version of Photoshop or Word that they didn't do a decade ago (apart from using the despicable .docx format).
I've used vista and win 7 and get the feeling that the changes to the interface are mostly dumbing down the system so noobs can't screw it up. And if you've been using XP for a decade as many XP users have, a more 'intuitive' interface don't cut it. By now most XP users can operate their system blindfold.
Don't run it in admin mode, use good security software and a hardware firewall, and really there should be no need to change XP until a real paradigm shift comes along - and then win 7 will be obsolete as well.
Everytime I change Win versions, I have to change hardware because it's obsoleted. Meanwhile, my Linux systems still lovingly talk to old hardware that Windows forgot about 15 years ago. Why is that? Collusion between MS and HW vendors? Think of how many scanners and printers did not really need to be replaced. Embracing the future doesn't mean dumping the past, except in Orwell's "1984".
My wife, mom, grandma, grandpa and cousins are all getting pretty sick of the routine too, and each time I show them my free Ubuntu function flawlessly in all the tasks they perform, they drool a little harder.
MS, like IBM, will continue to price and license their products away from the market.
I have Win 7. I hate Win 7. I hate the varying degree of straight-jackets the Win7 offerings "feature", the unimaginative plagiarized GUI, the condescending "You're an idiot" stance the OS takes towards the user and lack of visibility into the "magical, mysterious" system that is much too complex for mere mortals to understand. I hate that some moronic marketeer keeps telling them that new releases are "totally cool!" when they completely restructure where typical system administration and facilities are found and called - "Otherwise, how will the stupid users know it's a new release?"
The only reason I boot into 7 is the very rare times when I want to watch TV on my laptop because there's no linux driver for the tuner yet (thanks Dell) - and I rarely watch TV normally so you can call that a twice a year venture.
MS - 30 years of wasted time and hardware. If only 1980 could have begun with Debian.
With W7, MS embarked on an eye-candy glut-fest, mainly in a not so successful attempt to have some response to Apple UI developments.
In order to be able to run this UI frippery, a certain level of graphics hardware capability was mandated - even if it was NOT required for ANY of the user's applications. Whilst for motherboards with separate graphics card slots there is an upgrade option, those with integrated graphics or laptops have no such choice. Intel and the other vendors were happy to go along with this and NOT provide W7 compatibility drivers for this legacy hardware because, oh, guess what? it means more hardware sales.
Redmond could reduce the barrier to migration by ensuring that W7 drivers ARE available for legacy hadware, laptops etc. based on (what were) popular chipsets.
Right, so people are complaining about MS forcing people off a 10 year old OS (6/7 if you count SP3?)? How long does Apple support any of their releases for? How come the package manager in my installs of Jaunty Jackalope is greyed out? I switched to Mint because 9.04 was no longer supported and I didn't like 10.10 in that it is, in my opinion, shite and unfinished, and also because it was more resource intensive than Win7 on the same hardware. That having been said, I kept 9.04 on two machines because they were working so well and I think Linux still has such a small desktop footprint to stand by security by obscurity now that updates are no longer forthcoming for them - I'll probably switch them to Mint when I can be arsed.
Also, whenever an article comes out about IE6, there are battlecries slagging MS off for not forcing companies off of that version of the browser, even though they have released IE7 (shite), IE8 (okayish), IE9 (same as 8), and IE10 (same as 9). So what is it you folk want? For them to move on or for them to stand still? The comment about XP to Win7 being impossible? Upgrade install is impossible (needs Vista SP1), clean install is fine. What's the difference between this and OSX Lion needing Snow Leopard to install first as it is sold only as an upgrade?
Don't get me wrong - I love XP. I have it on a couple of machines, including one older than the T43 chatted about above (Pentium 4 machine, 2GB of slow RAM)... it also runs Win7 about the same, as limited by a PATA 4200rpm disk, snail speed FSB and enough heat to cook an egg. That machine turns 10 next year and is still one of my best running machines, despite never having had the OS reinstalled (don't know what some people do to their machines to have to flash their OS!) and having been worked hard as it is a gaming laptop. And whilst I acknowledge the overall superiority of Win7 over XP, I still prefer the way XP does things, mostly as it wasn't geared for dummies using it - folders were in logical places, you didn't have libraries hiding real paths, etc.
And now for a pint and a ruby. Ciao bello.
it's a bit like a new car, why do people bother changing - because they like new shiny ones. they still do the same job, get you from a to b. A lot of the time, the 'old' car isnt really that old either.
Why do people do this?! Because we like the latest shiny stuff. Sure it might be buying into the trend or whatever, but i personally love it and will be slapping Win8 over the top of all my Win7 machines as soon as it comes out! (fresh install obviously!)
(fresh install on WP7 - hmmm.. something i haven't done for a while (or even 'ever' on this machine) - unlike with XP, which was roughly every 3 - 6 months....)
... never talk about religion, politics or windows.
Belated post that will get ignored so:
Windows 7 is XP with better memory support and a shiny new skin.
That's... erm, about it really?
Sure, there's lots of new widgets, gadgets, updated default programs (that nobody uses anyway) - but nothing that hasn't been provided by countless XP programs already.
Yep, it's probably got better security - but again, XP is capable of the same level with additional apps installed.
It *still* occasionally blue screens.
It *still* has issues finding other computers on the network
It *still* has the same file system
It's *still* a resource hog that doesn't clean up after itself properly (altho m$ will always blame that on third party software)
It *still* gradually gets slower, the more applications you install on it (dll hell)
It *still* requires a reboot when it starts getting bogged down after too much multi-tasking
It's *still* the biggest target for malware
I have two good reasons:
1) 64bit, if you want to get more than 4GB of RAM, you need 64bit windows, and I get hardly anyone still using XP is using 64bit and they would be insane to upgrade to 64bit XP... Hence Windows 7 is a good option.
2) (warning network techie point), Windows XP and 2003 do not have TCP window scaling, this is the ability of the IP stack to scale the TCP window size on dependant on the size of the connection and latency... in a nutshell this means that if you are on XP downloading content from far away places, even if you have 100Mbit/s, you will NEVER get more than 2Mbit/s from asia, and maybe 3Mbit/s. (though i accept you could do some reg hacks to permanently increase the window size - if you have the ram - which you don't cos you haven't gone 64 bit :)).
Windows 7 is really good, and I think M$ release cycles are quite restrained, especially compared with say Ubuntu - which I love but they drive me crazy with a new version and new pain every 6 months.
As for Windows 8, may I remind everyone that like Star Trek films, only alternate versions of Windows are any good - so wait for Windows 9.
Anyone seriously connecting a Windows XP box direct to the Internet is going to have bigger problems than window-scaling anyway. And all that window-scaling stuff hasn't ever been a problem for anyone except possibly CERN. If you're trying to use connections with more than a couple of hundreds of milliseconds of latency, there's something wrong anyway - something that TCP window scaling can help only a little (10-20% at best - it's not the miracle worker you claim it to be) but can't "solve". There's also a huge range of other problems that are infinitely more likely to be the cause (the remote server / connection is just that crap being one).
In the last 15 years, I have never needed to tweak or enable TCP window scaling to download at phenomenal speeds on any operating system. If I did, virtually all of the machines I've ever used commercial actually have had intermittent routers, proxies and caches that would take care of such things on my behalf (the "connection" is only to them, not to the outside server). Even then I'd only save 10-20% of the connection time, if that, not some mythical 5000% that you are claiming.
Additionally, if it was really that big a problem, everyone would be madly upgrading to 7, patching their registry or just using Linux. It's not. I don't know of a single commercial deployment where they routinely increase the TCP window scaling, or have cited it as a reason to upgrade. And to be honest, the speed difference in copying local-network data to/from local shares between XP and Vista/7 VASTLY outweighs anything TCP-window-on-huge-latency-connection wise - what you win in TCP-scaling to remote sites you lose (quite literally) 50-100-fold on copying files to/from local network shares.
The 64-bit thing, we agree on. But as yet I haven't hit a single deployment or even personal use case (*cough* games *cough*) that requires (or would even benefit enough) from more than 4Gb - actually 3Gb because my laptop steal 1Gb for it's nVidia chip and various other bits. When I do, I'll be upgrading but until then it's not the big deal you make it out to be.
...is pretty generous support (all things considered) to get for a proprietary piece OS where the updates have been free for all that time. Anyone buying an XP retail licenese all those years ago is going to end up having had a pretty good deal considering they would have been able to port it on to new hardware several times by then.
Whether you'd want to have been stuck with it for all those years is another matter. I prefer Win7 these days, definitely a better product than XP.
How many Linux distributions can claim to have a re-install free upgrade path from that far back? Not many I'd guess. My personal experience of upgrading between major editions of Ubuntu has been patchy at best. XP may have been boring all this time, but it has done (mostly) a job that its users have wanted it to do.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
