Windows XP still in use?

[XL-Dennis]

Lately I have seen some post mention that Windows XP is in use.

Do You still use Windows XP and if so, why?

[Michael Uplawski]

Do You still use Windows XP and if so, why?

Now I am even sorry to have to answer. Your subject-line sais “Windows XP still in use?” and talks to many more people than the question you are eventually addressing to the forum.

Hm. What do I do now..? Yes Windows® XP is still in use. I know a few people who are perfectly sane and do very well know, what they are doing. Some of those use Windows® XP. I guess, they do not see any reason to give up Windows (else they would upgrade to Linux) and nothing about later versions of the Microsoft™ system appears to appeal to them.

Why? Knowing your needs is a precondition for a good choice of tools and machinery. I guess, these folks know perfectly well which tool serves which purpose. And that should be it.

I know of other people who just collect “tools” and applications, then reflect about the possibilities that these tools will give them. And I have once developed *new* stuff, which we sold for the same price as the *old* stuff to people who were well informed about the current trends in software. Uninterested in the fact that the *new* stuff did exactly the same as the old, they gave me enough money so I can stop manufacturing new money now. This is probably all right.

[Jossi]

I'm running Windows XP in a virtual machine on my Mac. The Windows system has no internet connection, so security risks are minimized. I also have a Windows 7 licence here, but until now I was simply too lazy to set it up. I use Windows almost exclusively for SoftMaker Office, so XP meets all my needs. For everything else I use my Mac, but in the Mac world there is nothing quite as good as SoftMaker Office.

[XL-Dennis]

Now I am even sorry to have to answer. Your subject-line sais “Windows XP still in use?” and talks to many more people than the question you are eventually addressing to the forum.

A well patched Windows version is always a good option. No matter any new version with "whistle and bells". However, when Microsoft stop its official support then using an older version comes with a risk of security vulnerable.

[Michael Uplawski]

A well patched Windows version is always a good option. No matter any new version with "whistle and bells". However, when Microsoft stop its official support then using an older version comes with a risk of security vulnerable.

Where I live, people have a crappy satellite connection or no Internet at all. Internet is not a priority, here. And then. How do we discern well-patched and dead-patched before it is too late?

[XL-Dennis]

If You informed us in Your first post about the present condition You apparently face then I would have taken another route.

Sorry for that and I hope You will sooner or later get a better situation.

[JSR]

Although not frequently, I still run Windows XP here. I run it in a Virtual Machine due to Windows 8 not playing nice with some old software I need to use, and also on an old netbook because it doesn't have the space & hardware to accommodate Windows 8. The old netbook is a perfectly fine machine for my writing, nicely portable and with long battery life. I don't want to dump it in a landfill just because Microsoft no longer support the OS.

[Freddie]

The problem is that, in our modern world, large software providers have constructed a business model based upon perpetual reinvention and remarketing of established functionality. For most, this cycle adopts a bell curve whereas, in the early days, they are refining the codebase and generally climbing the curve. At a certain point, there is nothing more that can be added which is genuinely useful, and so cosmetic changes and different ways of performing the same function are introduced, effectively rendering the code as bloatware and usually proving detrimental to performance as they slide down the other side of the curve. Microsoft reached the top of the OS bell curve with XP. After that, it has been bloat and degraded performance, coupled with unintuitive operation all the way. Consequently, those who appreciate such niceties, will be happy to stay with Windows XP. Why should they change? XP works and does what an operating system should do. If the user has the software they need to undertake their everyday computing tasks, which will generally be the case, then why not continue? Companies such as Microsoft also understand this, which explains the close association with hardware manufacturers in order to force people towards later, inefficient systems such as Windows 7/8. We live in a strange world. The smart ones will find something that works, and then leave it alone to let it work (at least until the hardware fails).

[Jossi]

Freddie, I completely agree with you (in fact, I wrote something similar in the German forum in January). By the way, it's quite the same with Mac OS X which reached the top at 10.6.8 and has been on its way downhill since then.

[Freddie]

Hi Jossi,
Ditto with Linux - which started off on the right foot, but many distributions now are bloated and temperamental, although one or two remain quite interesting.
I remember (in the good old days..) I ran a system with DRDOS. It was comprehensively documented, easy and intuitive to configure and absolutely reliable. Actually, there is very little I do now that I couldn't do with my trusty DRDOS system, which also came with a little Lotus Works for DOS utility which was excellent. And it came with an equally well documented Novell Netware - very useful. No crashes, no surprises, worked with all my peripherals, the whole thing taking just a few MB. It was also FAST, even on the hardware of the day.
Now, after a quarter century of development, it takes ages to boot up the average device, applications are slow as h*** and, if something doesn't work, we will typically spend a long time trying to find out why. Such is progress.
Somewhere, there is a happy medium, where we have all the functionality we actually need, presented in a logical manner that still allows for some user configuration and customisation. In the Microsoft world, XP is probably as good as it is ever likely to get. So, why not lock everything down, keep a few judicious hardware spares and continue working?

[Michael Uplawski]

Somewhere, there is a happy medium, where we have all the functionality we actually need, presented in a logical manner that still allows for some user configuration and customisation. In the Microsoft world, XP is probably as good as it is ever likely to get. So, why not lock everything down, keep a few judicious hardware spares and continue working?

This is a good example for a type of question that I tend to end with a full stop rather than a question mark. For fear of answers, I admit.
The ambience which is created in the posting which starts this thread, may nourish my evil forebodings. "Windows XP still in use?" was alright with me, but then:

Lately I have seen some post mention that Windows XP is in use.
Do You still use Windows XP and if so, why?

Gave me the shivers and I am still afraid.

So, why not lock everything down, keep a few judicious hardware spares and continue working?

Because the system is approaching its end, and if you want to squeeze the last drop of honey from a dying economical model, you cannot possibly condone such an attitude.

[Freddie]

Ah... that will be the majority view certainly. Nevertheless, systems approaching ends is something of a relative concept. They can be longer lived than many might suppose.

[XL-Dennis]

Gave me the shivers and I am still afraid.

Grow up and get a life instead of trying to be an arrogant pia

[Michael Uplawski]

Ha. Put your questions differently. Or not.

[XL-Dennis]

That's exactly what I mean. You're not the moderator or appointed judge to decide what other should write or not.

You seems to be a genuine SOB who sit behind the screen. Actually, You're sad person...