Windows sunsetting

Let'sgoflying!

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
21,872
Location
west Texas
Display Name
Dave Taylor
Home Airfield
KMRF
I suppose we will all be running off a mainframe somewhere by then anyway?

"On April 8, 2014, all Windows XP support, including Windows XP SP2 and SP3 will end. This means that past that date in 2014, Microsoft in essence has "discontinued" Windows XP and will not release any security updates, hotfixes or patches for it ever again."
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I suppose we will all be running off a mainframe somewhere by then anyway?

"On April 8, 2014, all Windows XP support, including Windows XP SP2 and SP3 will end. This means that past that date in 2014, Microsoft in essence has "discontinued" Windows XP and will not release any security updates, hotfixes or patches for it ever again."
Click to expand...

I guess the question is, can they get all the bugs fixed after only 13 years?


Trapper John
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
"On April 8, 2014, all Windows XP support, including Windows XP SP2 and SP3 will end. This means that past that date in 2014, Microsoft in essence has "discontinued" Windows XP and will not release any security updates, hotfixes or patches for it ever again."
Click to expand...
Can you cite the source of this, please?
 
No big deal really...hell ask anyone that runs a *nix distro, they sunset old releases all the time.

I never understood why people get upset that a company does not support something as complex as an operating system forever.
 
tdager said:
No big deal really...hell ask anyone that runs a *nix distro, they sunset old releases all the time.

I never understood why people get upset that a company does not support something as complex as an operating system forever.
Click to expand...

Don't forget though, Linux updates are generally free (aside from a few Payware distros).

Microsoft charges for major upgrades, but gives minor patches away for free.

Apple charges for all upgrades, even minor patches.

In the level of upgrade evil - it goes 1. Apple, 2. Microsoft, 3. Linux.
 
> Apple charges for all upgrades, even minor patches.

That is not correct.

10.3 owners get all upgrades to 10.3 (now at 10.3.9 on my dual G4)

10.4 owners get all upgrades to 10.4 (it's up to 10.4.11 on my macbookpro)

10.5 owners get all upgrades to 10.5 (I think my macbook is now at 10.5.8)

I haven't installed Snow Leopard yet so I'm not sure what it's
at (but it could be at 10.6.2 now)

> In the level of upgrade evil - it goes 1. Apple, 2. Microsoft, 3. Linux.

Try flipping apple and ms. Upgrading macs is easy, ms not so much.
 
Bob Noel said:
> Apple charges for all upgrades, even minor patches.

That is not correct.

10.3 owners get all upgrades to 10.3 (now at 10.3.9 on my dual G4)

10.4 owners get all upgrades to 10.4 (it's up to 10.4.11 on my macbookpro)

10.5 owners get all upgrades to 10.5 (I think my macbook is now at 10.5.8)

I haven't installed Snow Leopard yet so I'm not sure what it's
at (but it could be at 10.6.2 now)

> In the level of upgrade evil - it goes 1. Apple, 2. Microsoft, 3. Linux.

Try flipping apple and ms. Upgrading macs is easy, ms not so much.
Click to expand...

Apple has you drinking their Kool-Aid. 10.3 to 10.4 is a MINOR upgrade, despite how they spin it. Moreover, Leopard to Snow-Leopard was a VERY minor upgrade, and still costs money to do.

I'm gonna guess yet another reference to S-Ox coming? :rolleyes:
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I suppose we will all be running off a mainframe somewhere by then anyway?

"On April 8, 2014, all Windows XP support, including Windows XP SP2 and SP3 will end. This means that past that date in 2014, Microsoft in essence has "discontinued" Windows XP and will not release any security updates, hotfixes or patches for it ever again."
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Somehow I seem to remember all this was going to happen before a couple years earlier. Then, no new computers would be sold with XP; they all had to have Vista, but it seemed to change--somehow.

Best,

Dave
 
SkyHog said:
Apple has you drinking their Kool-Aid. 10.3 to 10.4 is a MINOR upgrade, despite how they spin it. Moreover, Leopard to Snow-Leopard was a VERY minor upgrade, and still costs money to do.

I'm gonna guess yet another reference to S-Ox coming? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, we are just going to have to disagree.

Given the changes between Panther, Tiger, and Leopard, calling
those "minor" is very different than my own experiences with
software updates.
 
I'm no big Microsoft fan, but they have been known to make exceptions to their own sunsetting policies for serious security problems. And frankly, as someone who upgraded to XP on most of my Windows machines the day it was released, I don't think it's been that bad a deal.

The activation can be a pain, but I'm not sure that the computer I'm sitting at right now has any of the original parts it had when I first installed XP (except maybe the floppy drive), but it's still running on its original XP installation. Yeah, I had to reactivate a few times, but they never gave me a problem. I just told them I'd upgraded whatever it was I'd upgraded, and they gave me a code. And someone at MS told me that as long as you put, I think, four months between major upgrades (a new motherboard, for example), the new configuration becomes the baseline for determining whether new upgrades will require activation.

So all in all, I think I got my $200.00 worth out of XP.

-Rich
 
SkyHog said:
Don't forget though, Linux updates are generally free (aside from a few Payware distros).

Microsoft charges for major upgrades, but gives minor patches away for free.
Click to expand...
How are you defining "major upgrades"? You mean whole new versions?
 
yayy!! 4 more years before I have to make a decision..
still running XP.. did not worry about Vista.. still wondering about Win7
 
Trying to compare Windows and Mac upgrades is pretty silly, they're just done in different styles.

Apple has a larger number of smaller releases, charges less for them, and users tend to be eager to upgrade. MS has a smaller number of larger releases, charges more for them, and users tend to fear and avoid them.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
Trying to compare Windows and Mac upgrades is pretty silly, they're just done in different styles.

Apple has a larger number of smaller releases, charges less for them, and users tend to be eager to upgrade. MS has a smaller number of larger releases, charges more for them, and users tend to fear and avoid them.
-harry
Click to expand...
Right. Windows, from 95 to 98 to ME, actually changed less in terms of line of code changed/added than OS 10.5 to 10.6. In fact, 10.6 comes with some major kernel and FS rewrites.

It's all just terminology. But if you're really interested in the true story. I wish people would try to look more into details rather than reciting the MS or Apple point of view. Ignorance is bliss, I guess....
 
SkyHog said:
That's generally how software packages determine paid upgrades, in my experience.

Except in Apple's world.
Click to expand...

Ok - like sba55 said - 95 to 98 was an upgrade. XP was a whole new operating system - based on consolidating two lines of operating systems - the 95 Home operating system line and the 3.1/NT/2000 server line. Both previously used different underlying code bases and XP brought all versions under the same general umbrella - so not an upgrade - a new platform.

Now - Vista... I wouldn't call THAt an upgrade :rofl:
 
Does that mean I can't get support for my NT4.0 server and clients? Yikes! What AM I going to do now? ;)
 
gkainz said:
Does that mean I can't get support for my NT4.0 server and clients? Yikes! What AM I going to do now? ;)
Click to expand...

Guess I'll have to install XP Pro in place of Win 2000 on a video server I have....
 
wsuffa said:
Vista is merely ME version 2.0... :rolleyes::rofl:
Click to expand...

I have Vista, I use Vista, I have had ZERO problems with Vista. I never understood the dislike of Vista.
 
tdager said:
I have Vista, I use Vista, I have had ZERO problems with Vista. I never understood the dislike of Vista.
Click to expand...

Mostly people that haven't tried it, or tried it before SP1 came out.

I tried it and disliked it because there was very little support for a lot of hardware I used...so I went to XP.

Then SP1 came out, and it was a beautiful operating system. Windows 7 just takes it a step further towards awesomeness.
 
SkyHog said:
Mostly people that haven't tried it, or tried it before SP1 came out.

I tried it and disliked it because there was very little support for a lot of hardware I used...so I went to XP.

Then SP1 came out, and it was a beautiful operating system. Windows 7 just takes it a step further towards awesomeness.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the "beautiful" part, but I agree that SP1 made vast improvements to Vista.

But 7 is still better.

-Rich
 
tdager said:
I have Vista, I use Vista, I have had ZERO problems with Vista. I never understood the dislike of Vista.
Click to expand...

Well, I was quite willing to try Vista - and I had a brand new computer with parts all supposedly "vista compatible" with Vista drivers and everything.

Never got to the point where I could actually install the drivers or update Vista cause it's base drivers kept crashing and burning violently. Finally had to go back to XP.

I'm thinking of installing a spare drive to try a dual boot to 7 at some point, but XP works fine, so no hurry.
 
Greebo said:
Well, I was quite willing to try Vista - and I had a brand new computer with parts all supposedly "vista compatible" with Vista drivers and everything.

Never got to the point where I could actually install the drivers or update Vista cause it's base drivers kept crashing and burning violently. Finally had to go back to XP.

I'm thinking of installing a spare drive to try a dual boot to 7 at some point, but XP works fine, so no hurry.
Click to expand...

Windows 7 is good stuffs.
 
FlyNE said:
Windows 7 is good stuffs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like I'm gonna take YOUR word for it. You were dumb enough to take on a tech role here, so I *KNOW* your judgment's impaired! ;)
 
tdager said:
I have Vista, I use Vista, I have had ZERO problems with Vista. I never understood the dislike of Vista.
Click to expand...
When I bought a new desktop with Vista 64 I had some compatibility problems with the fact that it was 64 so when I bought a new laptop I made sure to get Vista 32. Other than that, both Vista machines seem to work OK but I don't try to get fancy with them.
 
Everskyward said:
When I bought a new desktop with Vista 64 I had some compatibility problems with the fact that it was 64 so when I bought a new laptop I made sure to get Vista 32. Other than that, both Vista machines seem to work OK but I don't try to get fancy with them.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for the 64 bit pain to really hit the PC market. With all these 64 bit CPUs and Win7-x64 one day the 32 bit hold outs will suffer the plight of Win98 hold outs circa 2004-2006.

OTOH, those running x64 and wanting to run old software will be running emulations within emulations.

In theory would running 16 bit (Win 3.1 prog) in Win 7-x64 mean running XP mode (32 bit emulation of Win XP) and emulating a 16 bit environment within XP? And lets not get started on Dos emulation.
 
Pi1otguy said:
I'm still waiting for the 64 bit pain to really hit the PC market. With all these 64 bit CPUs and Win7-x64 one day the 32 bit hold outs will suffer the plight of Win98 hold outs circa 2004-2006.

OTOH, those running x64 and wanting to run old software will be running emulations within emulations.

In theory would running 16 bit (Win 3.1 prog) in Win 7-x64 mean running XP mode (32 bit emulation of Win XP) and emulating a 16 bit environment within XP? And lets not get started on Dos emulation.
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose you could just emulate Win3.1 if you wanted to.
 
Meh - I don't see any benefit to upgrading from Win 3.0











:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top