Windows XP diehards: Can you survive April 2014 deadline?

Some organisations intend to keep running Windows XP after support ends next April, but the options for doing so safely are narrowing.

To those planning to stick resolutely with the aged Windows XP operating system even after Microsoft ends support next year, the advice from experts is simple: Don't do it.

But despite the chorus of warnings, there are fallback measures for diehard XP users, who could still constitute as many as 40 percent of businesses. One in five of the organisations currently using the OS intend to stick with it after the 8 April 2014 end-of-life deadline for support, according to research from software consultancy Camwood.

Read more at: Windows XP diehards: Can you survive the April 2014 deadline? | ZDNet

 

[Lazure]

Might as well go to toy-like Linux if you are just going to sit and look at it. Know too many people that don't even know what do they need an I7 or FX 3850 for, but still just have to have it. So they don't even know what they are missing and I have to squeeze every cent just to have something half-decent to work on. Bet anybody that Word will not run any faster on their then on my computer.

That doesn't justify gimping it down with a 12 year old operating system that you're lucky would even install properly. For these kinds of people, what would be wrong with leaving the stock Windows 7 (or 8) on it?

 

[CountMike]

Yeah, mind and processor power are terrible things to waste, in this case it's both.

 

[Mustang]

I personally don't use XP anymore, but still repair/reinstall it for a considerable number of persons. I've also noticed it is used by my local doctor, a large hospital, a very large banking organization, etc, etc. No doubt many large and small businesses are still using it.

The question is, will M$ still activate it after Arpil 2014 for those who want to run it for whatever reason?

And if yes, have M$ made a rod for their own back with the never ending activation process?

 

[Wenda]

I 'collect' Operating Systems. I have most versions of DOS and Windows, half-a-dozen different Linux distros, several non-Windows/Linux PC OSes (Geos, BeOS, ReactOS etc) plus a handful of non-PC OSes,(Amiga and C64), plus various betas, RCs and RTMs.

So I'd be keeping XP in any case. I have both Home (SP1) and Pro (original release, no SP), although I have SP2 and 3 as separate executables.

It runs on my P4 2.8Ghz desktop as a print-server and games machine (Home), and also on this machine in Virtual-Box (Pro).

No, Lazure, I'm not going to be racing out to install it as the main OS on this i7 machine (Win 8 Pro 64-bit), and it wouldn't anyway. Nor will it on my older (Core 2 Duo) laptop (Win 7 Ultimate SP1 32-bit). But I do have valid and legitimate reasons for keeping it running on an older machine, none of which involve being connected to the internet. So security, or the lack of it, automatically becomes a non-issue. I have all the 'latest' drivers and software/updates necessary, and enough spare-parts/replacement hardware for the P4, to keep XP running on the P4 almost indefinitely.

It also runs Vista Ultimate 32-bit on a separate internal drive, and is powerful and modern enough to enable me to do exactly the same with Vista when it reaches its EOL.Coincidentally, it's the very same machine I beta-tested Vista on all those years ago, but has been upgraded and enhanced considerably since those days. Vista on 384mb of RAM was never fun, but the current 1gb is adequate. It has a 256mb GeForce 5700 gfx card and an SB Live! sound-card.

So as I have compelling reasons for continuing to use both of these OSes well beyond their official EOL, and have a machine that's virtually tailor-made to do so, I see no reason to panic and dump either OS.

But I would like to stress that my intention to keep both XP and Vista running and up-to-date has nothing to do with my being stuck in the past, or being unwilling to move forward/embrace change. If that were the case it/they would still be my main OSes, but that task falls to W7 and W8.

Screenshot shows the OSes I currently have running in Virtual-Box on this i7. That's less than half the current collection....

Wenda.

 

[Lazure]

I 'collect' Operating Systems. I have most versions of Windows, half-a-dozen different Linux distros, several non-Windows/Linux PC OSes (Geos, BeOS, ReactOS etc) plus a handful of non-PC OSes,(Amiga and C64).

So I'd be keeping XP in any case. I have both Home (SP1) and Pro (original release, no SP), although I have SP2 and 3 as separate executables.

It runs on my P4 2.8Ghz desktop as a print-server and games machine (Home), and also on this machine in Virtual-Box (Pro).

No, Lazure, I'm not going to be racing out to install it as the main OS on this i7 machine (Win 8 Pro 64-bit), and it wouldn't anyway. Nor will it on my older (Core 2 Duo) laptop (Win 7 Ultimate SP1 32-bit). But I do have valid and legitimate reasons for keeping it running on an older machine, none of which involve being connected to the internet. So security, or the lack of it, automatically becomes a non-issue. I have all the 'latest' drivers and software/updates necessary, and enough spare-parts/replacement hardware for the P4, to keep XP running on the P4 almost indefinitely.

It also runs Vista Ultimate 32-bit on a separate internal drive, and is powerful and modern enough to enable me to do exactly the same with Vista when it reaches its EOL.Coincidentally, it's the very same machine I beta-tested Vista on all those years ago, but has been upgraded and enhanced considerably since those days. Vista on 384mb of RAM was never fun, but the current 1gb is adequate. It has a 256mb GeForce 5700 gfx card and an SB Live! soundcard

So as I have compelling reasons for continuing to use both of these OSes well beyond their official EOL, and have a machine that's virtually tailor-made to do so, I see no reason to panic and dump either OS.

But I would like to stress that my intention to keep both XP and Vista running and up-to-date has nothing to do with my being stuck in the past, or being unwilling to move forward/embrace change. If that were the case it/they would still be my main OSes, but that task falls to W7 and W8.


Wenda.

I made specific mentions that I was speaking about the people holding onto it so much that they taint new hardware with the OS. I also made mention that all is well and fine if you're running it on an older machine. That makes sense and is perfectly viable and acceptable. What you're doing does not bother me in the slightest.

My whole beef is with the people who take it too far, and sacrifice modern hardware to hold onto XP as their primary OS, the ones who have posts all over the internet actually trying really hard to get it on things it won't even properly install on, because they absolutely must use it over Windows 7 or 8.

I mean yeah, I get a lot of people hate 8 and don't wanna use it, but why would XP come before 7 in their selection of OS to 'go back to'? Especially considering this machine likely came with 8, and probably has a UEFI bios, and likely will never be able to install XP anyways. However, I've seen a lot of this with windows 7 oem machines too, which I always wondered... "why?"

"Why?" the answer I would get would either be immediate anger by the person in question, to the point they become infuriated with the simple concept that someone doesn't agree they should be trying to put XP on something too new for it (a windows 7 spec machine or later especially). Anyone who would actually give me any valid reasons without simply frothing at the mouth angrily, had trivial reasons, such as 'oh I'm just used to it' or they don't like some one specific ui change that windows 7 has over xp (and most of that can be adjusted one way or another anyways). It just doesn't make sense to me, sacrificing all that hardware capability for such little things that most people could just adapt to in like 5 minutes and then move on with their computing life.

 

[Mustang]

@Wenda Your last post fairly well describes my own attitude. I've still got Win98 2nd Ed running on a legacy machine as a historical keepsake. Ditto XP on the same machine.

Also Vista Ult 32bit on an i5-2400 CPU, SATA3 SSD HD, 8GB RAM & good graphics card and it burns rubber. Also recently installed it on similar set up for a friend, and they're over the moon. They mainly use it for social networking, banking, paying bills, etc. It's more than adequate, dirt cheap and runs seamless with solutions to all known issues readily available.

If it ain't broke and does the job why fix it or upgrade it? Of course that advice is for others. My flagship has extreme 6core/12thread CPU, extreme mobo, SATA3 SSD HD, 30GB RAM, 3 extreme SLI linked graphics cards. And not for gaming. Just a super fast machine for serious multi-tasking. Oh, and I'm running W8 Pro OEM installed from retail disk, not upgrade ... with StartIsBack ... and Modern turned off permanently.

 

[Lazure]

@Wenda Your last post fairly well describes my own attitude. I've still got Win98 2nd Ed running on a legacy machine as a historical keepsake. Ditto XP on the same machine.

Also Vista Ult 32bit on an i5-2400 CPU, SATA3 SSD HD, 8GB RAM & good graphics card and it burns rubber. Also recently installed it on similar set up for a friend, and they're over the moon. They mainly use it for social networking, banking, paying bills, etc. It's more than adequate, dirt cheap and runs seamless with solutions to all known issues readily available.

If it ain't broke and does the job why fix it or upgrade it? Of course that's for others. My flagship has 6core/12thread CPU, extreme mobo, 30GB RAM, 3 extreme SLI linked graphics cards. And not for gaming. Just a super fast machine for serious multi-tasking.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies really well to an older machine. I wasn't ever attacking that. If anyone reads what I'm talking about, I'm talking about using old operating software on newer computers.

Now my question is, why are you using a 32-bit version of Vista on a machine with 8GB, you do realize that 5GB of that RAM is not even usable with 32-bit, right? On a machine with 8GB, it would seem a lot more logical to have installed the 64-bit edition (Which in Vista, shares the same license key, so it's not like you have to buy 64-bit version separately).

 

[Wenda]

Lazure, my apologies if I came across as singling you out for my comment. this was not my intention, and I'm sorry if it was taken as such. And I do agree with you re the apparent obsession some have with hanging onto it as their main OS at all costs on modern machines.

As I said, I did try it on my Core 2 Duo laptop, and it didn't want to know about it without a lot of preliminary mucking around. I didn't bother. Because of that experience, I've never even bothered trying to see if it'd install on this machine. It doesn't have an UEFI Bios (thank Heaven, as I don't like the idea at all, nor its execution), but I assume I'd have the same issues as the Core 2, if not more.

So yes, some have valid reasons to keep XP, but I don't think that 'cos Win 8 sucks' or 'Tried Vista, it sucked, I'm not even bothering with 7' are not among them.

I've actually told family and friends that if they buy a new W7 or W8 machine and want to go back to XP, to pay a techie as I will not help them. I don't want to be the 'fall-guy' when the inevitable issues arise. But I will continue to maintain their old machines currently running XP.

Cheers!

Wenda.


EDIT: Although I sadly no longer have the screenshots to prove it, I did at one stage set this thing up to run a stand-alone MS-DOS 6/Windows 3.1 setup, just for fun. It wasn't actually that difficult, but, as Lazure says, it wasted 99.8% of the machine's potential (see system specs). You don't see a lot of Sandy-Bridge i7s running Win 3.1!!! As a fun exercise it was great, but I'd not use an OS earlier than Vista SP2 as my main OS.

 

[Mustang]

@Lazure I haven't even read your earlier post. I just happened to read Wenda's as it was the last post on the thread. When I bought Vista Ult OEM 32 bit there was no 64 bit disk included, which is different to my retail version of Win7 Ult which included both 64 and 32 bit disks. I chose 32 bit back then because of possible driver issues. In Oz you do have to buy the 64bit version separately if OEM.

Contrary to what you claim, my son is a qualified PC techo and has exactly the same 32bit version of Vita Ult OEM on exactly the same machine, but with 6GB RAM and there is a considerable difference in speed of operation ... meaning my machine is faster. Regardless of what theoreticals may apply, it ain't necessarily so!Update: Incidentally the machine with Vista on it originally had Win7 Ult 64 bit on it. I only put Vista on it when I upgraded Win7 to a top end machine, and never even thought about changing the RAM. With Win8 I built an entirely new rig.

M$ told me I couldn't install XP first on the same machine as Win98. WRONG! It can be done and quite easily. When I spoke to the M$ techo to explain how, he didn't want to know, and told me I was "dangerous"! Keep an open mind and try a few of the so called "can'ts". It doesn't hurt to think outside the box occasionally and try stuff out.

 

[Lazure]

@Lazure When I bought Vista Ult OEM 32 bit there was no 64 bit disk included, which is different to my retail version of Win7 Ult which included both 64 and 32 bit disks. I chose 32 bit back then because of possible driver issues. So in Oz you do have to buy the 64bit version separately.

Contrary to what you claim, my son is a qualified PC techo and has exactly the same version of Vita Ult OEM on exactly the same machine, but with 6GB RAM and there is a noticeable considerable difference in speed of operation ... meaning my machine is faster. Regardless of what theoreticals may apply, it ain't necessarily so!

You can't just download the 64-bit ISO matching your edition and plug in your license key during install? That's typically what we can do over here in the US anyways, you're not paying for the disc you're paying for the license key in the end. Download the appropriate ISO and make your own disc . Maximum available memory may not affect speed directly, but if you use up the ~3GB that you can use, it can become sluggish through more intensive multitasking. I guess that hasn't been a problem with you, though.

 

[Mustang]

@Lazure. No, you can't just download the ISO and plug in the key because when you go to activate an OEM it tells you it's already installed on an existing machine. At least that's the message I got when I tried it, even after saying it was being re-installed on the same machine. And they actually blacked my serial key. I had to phone M$ Australia to get it sorted; and that was quite an experience.

And no, sluggish performance has not been an issue. I do acknowledge that excess RAM can potentially slow machines. But I like experimenting to find things out from hands on experience, related to the type of work I'm dong. Obviously hyper-threading is only helpful if the programs you're working with are compatible with it, etec, etec.

I don't have any formal qualification with PC technology, but I am a graduate Electronic Engineer, and just like tinkering. I guess I'm a bit Neanderthal in the sense that I usually read the instruction manual after everything else has failed. And I also admit that attitude can occasionally have dire consequences.

Anyhoo, the amount of RAM was incidental to the main point of my post in relation to Vista, which was to show that it is a very respectable, solid OS if installed on the right hardware, especially SATA3 SSD HD; good graphics and adequate RAM. And can be justifiably used as a flagship. My rule of thumb with RAM is that it's better to have too much than too little. And it's so cheap it doesn't matter.

Edit: Incidentally, the machine that has Vista on it was not custom built for Vista. I originally had Win7 Ult 64bit on it. When I upgraded Win7 to a high end machine, I put Vista on the old Win7 rig and never even thought about reducing the RAM. With Win8, I built an entirely new rig.

 

[lehnerus2000]

RAM Drive

More than 4 GB of RAM isn't a problem with 32 bit operating systems in any case.

On a PC with 8 GB of RAM:

• Simply allocate the "excess" 4 GB to a RAM drive
• Redirect:
  • The Page File to it
  • The Temp folders to it
  • The browser cache to it

RAM outperforms HDDs and SSDs.

Drivers are problematic, but I keep copies of my downloaded drivers.

Since ~37% of the World's desktop machines still run XP, I suspect that peripheral manufacturers will have to "play nice" for a little while longer.

 

[Lazure]

More than 4 GB of RAM isn't a problem with 32 bit operating systems in any case.

On a PC with 8 GB of RAM:

• Simply allocate the "excess" 4 GB to a RAM drive
• Redirect:
  • The Page File to it
  • The Temp folders to it
  • The browser cache to it

RAM outperforms HDDs and SSDs.

Drivers are problematic, but I keep copies of my downloaded drivers.

Since ~37% of the World's desktop machines still run XP, I suspect that peripheral manufacturers will have to "play nice" for a little while longer.

So you're saying you're one of the people who uses XP on a modern computer where it doesn't belong?

 

[Mustang]

So you're saying you're one of the people who uses XP on a modern computer where it doesn't belong?

I totally agree it is a waste of time and effort to put XP on modern hardware.

At one point I had XP Pro, Vista Ult and Win7 Ult all running on the same machine. But to even get XP to load I had to create an nLite disk with SATA drivers and modify the hard disk configuration in the BIOS to IDE instead of AHCI.

Acronis backup images for Vista & Win7 would only reload with BIOS set to AHCI, and XP only with it set to IDE. It was a pain in the butt and limited the performance of the other two OSs. Eventually I just ran it as a VM.

 

[Coke Robot]

This is something MS and the fanbois can't seem to grasp, that it's perfectly possible to use a computer productively without internet access. In fact, millions of people compute that way every day, and not all of them in 3rd-world countries.


Wenda.

Tell this to the general public and see what the reaction to that will be.

 

[Wenda]

This is something MS and the fanbois can't seem to grasp, that it's perfectly possible to use a computer productively without internet access. In fact, millions of people compute that way every day, and not all of them in 3rd-world countries.


Wenda.

Tell this to the general public and see what the reaction to that will be.

You mean it's not possible to be productive on a computer without internet access?

I was perfectly productive for the first 20+ years of my computing life, with no internet whatsoever.

Are you suggesting that I imagined it all?

The internet is but an aspect of computing, not the reason it exists.

Sure, it's nice to have, but it's far from being essential.

And anyone who thinks it is, has been conned or is very naive.


Wenda.

 

[Coke Robot]

For an operating system that no one really cared for, didn't really want to bother with, and was going to be pushed aside for vista (considering if it came out in 2003 versus four years too late) xp is just something else. It's an awkward beast that people still like. Someone once told me that they thought Windows xp was the latest "thing" at the moment. That person is of about 68 years of age, and this was last summer ago...

Anyways, there are certain legit circumstances where xp has to be used one way or another, such as VERY specific hardware like a computer operated machine lathe. Drivers were built for xp and not later and can't work in compatibility mode in newer versions. OK. Some software can't work anywhere else other than xp, but that is where the power of virtualization comes in. Windows 7 Pro and Ultimate had xp mode to run that software, which is probably a good reason why 7 was adopted pretty well in the enterprise space. 8 doesn't for some reason...other than Hyper-V.

But to use it in a space such as the medical field, in hospitals, dental offices, etc ESPECIALLY here in the US where there is a mandated shift from using cumbersome paper forms for patients for a faster, cleaner, digital format to be used on a PC or tablet PC or other device, Windows xp just can't be used for those purposes all that well. It's just not ideal. When xp was released, it was tweaked to better adapt to digital media storage when that first started to happen way back when. vista was going to have MUCH better capabilities like that, but wasn't until 7 that brought around those certain features. Let alone the fact that in that scenario of Windows xp being used in the medical field, THOSE PCs will be connected to the internet in one way or another. Not all of them can be, but many will be.

This is also disregarding the fact that instead of having third party software developers focus on newer coding methods for Windows 7 and 8, they have to question whether or not should they develop for Windows xp. Which oddly enough, there isn't even a consideration for vista but this is obvious as to why not. If they develop for xp, they have to focus time and energy on SUCH an old platform that is slowly but surely dying off whereas they could focus full steam for newer platforms.

I personally am not for Windows xp staying around mostly because it freaking f'ed everything up at Microsoft when Longhorn was in development. It came a year after 2000, to mostly adapt around newer usages for the PC which at the time was digital media storage like photography, music and such; but it was mostly just a stopgap from Windows 2000/ME to vista. If it weren't for the GAPING security flaws in xp (I believe xp was hacked in about three weeks of being released if I remember correctly) that distracted the Windows division at the time from Longhorn development to xp fixing, things today would be VERY different. Windows vista might had actually come out in 2003 or even a year later, 7 would had been released when vista was, and we'd be at Windows 9.1 today with probably different feature sets, technologies, and PCs. So Windows xp, I give it a giant two finger gesture, a bad word, and irritable bowel syndrome. It's also such a PITA to try to repair/maintain xp era PCs. When people ask me to fix their PC that has xp, I will upgrade them to 7 and/or 8, whatever works best. I don't even want to try anymore to figure out issues on an operating system that doesn't have measures to keep itself in check (7 and 8, especially 8, have measures to keep the OS in peak performance whereas xp is just fat) and is just more effort than it's worth.

 

[Coke Robot]

This is something MS and the fanbois can't seem to grasp, that it's perfectly possible to use a computer productively without internet access. In fact, millions of people compute that way every day, and not all of them in 3rd-world countries.


Wenda.

Tell this to the general public and see what the reaction to that will be.

You mean it's not possible to be productive on a computer without internet access?

I was perfectly productive for the first 20+ years of my computing life, with no internet whatsoever.

Are you suggesting that I imagined it all?

The internet is but an aspect of computing, not the reason it exists.

Sure, it's nice to have, but it's far from being essential.

And anyone who thinks it is, has been conned or is very naive.


Wenda.

This the general public.

Why do you think Windows 8 was designed the way it was? It wasn't JUST because to "push" people into Microsoftia, it was because the first thing people did when they started up Windows 7 was open up their web browser, and open 10 tabs at a time. The most important piece of software on WHATEVER internet capable device is obviously the web browser. You or I can't be here discussing this without the internet. I can't order specific O rings for my car without the internet.

These days, to many people, the internet is needed to be productive. The enterprise sure as hell can't be productive without it. The reason why some have computers around is in fact, the internet.

And no, I never said you can't be productive without the internet. I've gone many a time without an internet connective over the eyars and still did productive tasks. I don't manage my finances with the internet, but offline with Excel 2013, and save a copy to my SkyDrive just in case.

Today isn't 20+ years ago. How people computed back then, like Office software and printers over typewriters, isn't the main focus of the PC. It's how fast your internet connection is, how fast your browser can render video, etc.

 

[Wenda]

Quite honestly, if people want to stick to XP, surely that's up to them. They have their reasons, whether we consider them valid or not.

I certainly consider my reasons (posted above) to be perfectly reasonable and valid (tho one or two obviously don't). I also consider that I should not have to justify those reasons to anyone. I've chosen to here, as that's the topic, but really, does it matter so much what OS someone else uses? After all, they're not forcing you to.

As I've stated, I collect operating systems as a part of my computing hobby. So no doubt I run systems that no-one in their right mind would use as their primary OS. So, I don't. But I do run them, and surely that's my choice? Not that of MS, or of some anonymous stranger on a forum/blog.

If I wanted to run Windows 1.0, and it did what I needed, what business is it of anyone to tell me I can't? It doesn't impact on them in any way.

We do not all compute the same way, we do not perform the same tasks. We do not all have the same equipment, level of expertise or interest. We do not have the same needs. We do not all have access to the internet. One size does not fit all, when it comes to computing. My needs are not yours, nor yours mine.


Wenda.


EDIT: I'd be curious to know just how much of the 'security issues' in XP were a direct result of the stunning ignorance of online security by Joe Public, and his reluctance to understand, install and use anti-virus and anti-malware programs? Quite a large percentage, I'd reckon.

 

[Coke Robot]

Quite honestly, if people want to stick to XP, surely that's up to them. They have their reasons, whether we consider them valid or not.

I certainly consider my reasons (posted above) to be perfectly reasonable and valid (tho one or two obviously don't). I also consider that I should not have to justify those reasons to anyone. I've chosen to here, as that's the topic, but really, does it matter so much what OS someone else uses? After all, they're not forcing you to.

As I've stated, I collect operating systems as a part of my computing hobby. So no doubt I run systems that no-one in their right mind would use as their primary OS. So, I don't. But I do run them, and surely that's my choice? Not that of MS, or of some anonymous stranger on a forum/blog.

If I wanted to run Windows 1.0, and it did what I needed, what business is it of anyone to tell me I can't? It doesn't impact on them in any way.

We do not all compute the same way, we do not perform the same tasks. We do not all have the same equipment, level of expertise or interest. We do not have the same needs. We do not all have access to the internet. One size does not fit all, when it comes to computing. My needs are not yours, nor yours mine.


Wenda.


EDIT: I'd be curious to know just how much of the 'security issues' in XP were a direct result of the stunning ignorance of online security by Joe Public, and his reluctance to understand, install and use anti-virus and anti-malware programs? Quite a large percentage, I'd reckon.

IF, people have valid reasons to stay on xp, that's perfectly reasonable. If their reasons are more along the lines of, "They should make a better xp!" Then no...

See, that's cool you collect operating systems. I don't have an .iso image of xp anymore ever since Windows 8 was in development. I have a few Windows Longhorn builds as THOSE are really interesting (and also quite shocking considering when one realizes Windows 8 is a modernize Longhorn) to poke around with. I have all the official release builds of Windows 8. I might start collecting ALL the Windows versions just to see the progress and design of them.

And of course, I bet Joe Public is an ignorant street whore when it comes to online security. I've seen this personally, and just ask ANY IT admin about this. But I doubt that ignorance was the main direct or indirect reason for xp's security issues. There were SERIOUS, I mean, SERIOUS account security issues as well as online security issues in that release. I remember once I installed xp in a VM to virtualize a program, it was an SP2 image. So I had to update it, then update it to SP3, and then update it once more. All in all, I think there were well over 250 updates, JUST SECURITY UPDATES, maybe 50 performance related updates give or take. Even after SP3 which was basically just security updates, there were almost 90 security updates. If that was due to Joe Public, well damn! That is a whopper of ignorance right there!