Windows XP support ended today. Now what?

[demusse]

Linux is a very good alternative ! But leave ubuntu for what it is...
Discovering the many distros and flavours made me forget M$ ever even existed. No more swearing at the pc and Ron's a happy camper

Concerning drivers and proprietary things ... after 4 years i just had one problem with an ancient pci wifi-card, but i still got it working, not 100%, but it works !

(Amiga)Emulation and virtual machines run very smooth and there are solutions for every hardware set-up you can throw at it.

Currently, i'm using Manjaro Linux, arch based and a very vibrant and helpful community.

Actually, 7 is very good, 8 sucks big time but XP should be put to rest, with all due respect.


Ron

 

[Mr B]

Just love my windows 8.1, it's faster than win7, it's just a matter of getting used to it! Give windows 8.1 a chance, you will not regret it

Although I wasn't a massive fan of Win 8.x, I'm liking the 8.1 with Spring Update. The new update ("Spring Update" or "Windows 8.1 update 1" or whatever you want to call it) doesn't bring much new, the minor tweaks are enough to peak my interest and I've now got 8.1 Update 1 on one of my desktops and a laptop.

Love it? Well, i don't. But it's no longer a forced hatred. With windows 8.1 Update 1 it actually behaves as a PC again, rather then as a touchscreen device where the touchscreen broke.
But then again... You could always install a mod and get Windows 8.anything to behave like this, so it's not that big a deal. I'm still on Windows 7 here at home. But now i do sort of regret not buying a windows 8 license when they were almost giving them away.
B!

 

[Paradroid90]

What now for the Paradroid90 .... well I have been dual booting Linux Mint and Windows 8.1 for over a year with no problems on my Q6600 system with 4 gb of ram and a 9600GT graphic cards. Apart from playing Starcraft II and Fallout 3/New Vegas and using CPCXDISK for my Amstrad I hardly boot 8.1.

Not because I am a Microsoft hater I just prefer the layout on KDE, browsing on Firefox and doing my day to day stuff on Linux Mint.

I was going to use XP as an Amiga Emulated Base Machine but I will not use an arch base with FS-UAE when I get around to it

As always its all down to choice

 

[Firthy2002]

My employer is mostly on 7 now, a few machines on XP for the time being to run a legacy app that doesn't play nice on 7. Hope to be fully migrated by June. On the home front, will be upgrading the main system to 7 over Easter weekend. It's too under-spec for 8 and 8.1. 11-year-old laptop will stay on XP SP3.

 

[DBloke]

If only I could get Dropbox to work without me using a browser on my XP laptop

 

[Arnie]

I have a dual quad boot setup with OS8, OS7, Vista & XP on one drive and OSX, PartedMagic, Aros and Linux on a second drive and I mainly use OS7 and PartedMagic with OS8 & Vista the least used.

 

[Bastich]

I've been using W7 since it's release and it's always been very reliable. XP was a great OS and I used it for many years without too many problems. Due to my work and the very bespoke hardware I have to integrate all other OSs are not an option due to lack of divers / SDKs. Linux and OSX are both very good and reliable systems just not for me. I do have a RPi to tinker with mind but I do prefer Visual Studio on Windows to any other C/C++ IDE I have tried.

 

[AndyLandy]

I have a dual quad boot setup with OS8, OS7, Vista & XP on one drive and OSX, PartedMagic, Aros and Linux on a second drive and I mainly use OS7 and PartedMagic with OS8 & Vista the least used.

What have you done to manage those from a bootloader perspective? Clever grub config? Or something else?

 

[Paul]

My business is mostly website design and management so I have no choice I CANNOT leave XP. If you run a commercial website, even if it is just a PR thing for your main business, you should keep at least one computer running Windows XP and Internet Explorer 8 (or lower). It is what the majority of surfers still use. Even before XP hit the wall I had encountered a few websites not optimised for IE8 which either do not display correctly or some of the functions do not work. In most cases I am guessing that this is not deliberate, it is just that their web designer has a later version of Windows or MacOS and does not realise that the site does not work in XP. The problem at the company's end is that they are just annoying the majority of their clients/customers. Simply put, in a few years time THESE COMPANIES WILL HAVE GONE OUT OF BUSINESS, bottom line - you are not the only company on the planet, if you don't cater for all your customers they will go elsewhere. Anyone with a professional website and using a computer other than an XP/IE8 to design their website (including those using Linux, MacOS, Workbench/Kickstart etc) must also have a XP/IE8 box to check their site after each change and before uploading those changes. If you don't, your company will NOT be in business in a few years time.

And if you use a web design company to run your website for you, you need to look at their work on a XP/IE8 machine from time to time, because not all web management companies bother to check compatibility.

Do note (before I get a lot of angry PMs) that if you are running a site just for the fun of it, and are not financially dependant on your website in any way, not using a XP/IE8 machine to test view your site is not such a big problem. But do be aware you will not get as many surfers if you don't, and you risk getting a name for yourself as a lousy webmaster.

CLIENT SECURITY A few pages back in this thread someone posted that for compliance they cannot use a non supported OS. This is true, many companies are in a business that requires high levels of data security but:

1) Windows 8 is not yet secure enough. It is too new, it is still too full of exploits that Microsoft have not found yet. Hackers will find them first. At the moment, and for the next year or so, XP will be a lot more secure than 8. Or, if you have to use a supported OS for compliance, use Vista (as that is old enough to be secure) or possibly Windows 7, until 8 has "come of age". If you need to guarantee client confidentiality and you are keeping their details on an Internet connected Windows 8 box, you are simply screwing your customers over.

2) And don't forget to keep a machine or two still running XP/IE8 (although totally disconnected from your office network), for designing/checking your company website.

 

[AndyLandy]

Simply put, in a few years time THESE COMPANIES WILL HAVE GONE OUT OF BUSINESS

Actually, in a few years time, those XP machines will be the minority and won't matter any more.

Capitalism is a funny old beast. I've seen websites that have explicitly told customers that they're being charged a premium on their purchases for visiting with IE6. Companies don't just go bust for not supporting outdated web browsers. It might play a part in the downfall of some, but I'm afraid this just sounds like hyperbole to me.

1) Windows 8 is not yet secure enough. It is too new, it is still too full of exploits that Microsoft have not found yet. Hackers will find them first. At the moment, and for the next year or so, XP will be a lot more secure than 8. Or, if you have to use a supported OS for compliance, use Vista (as that is old enough to be secure) or possibly Windows 7, until 8 has "come of age". If you need to guarantee client confidentiality and you are keeping their details on an Internet connected Windows 8 box, you are simply screwing your customers over.

So much doom and gloom! What Windows 8 offers over XP is the ability to patch it against known vulnerabilities. All it takes is for one critical XP vulnerability to come to light, that now won't get patched, and it's game over for online XP systems. With any currently supported OS, you'll get a patch via your software updates. It's always a race between the hackers and the software security people, but with an XP system, you're no longer even in the running.

 

[Retrograde]

My business is mostly website design and management so I have no choice I CANNOT leave XP. If you run a commercial website, even if it is just a PR thing for your main business, you should keep at least one computer running Windows XP and Internet Explorer 8 (or lower). It is what the majority of surfers still use. Even before XP hit the wall I had encountered a few websites not optimised for IE8 which either do not display correctly or some of the functions do not work. In most cases I am guessing that this is not deliberate, it is just that their web designer has a later version of Windows or MacOS and does not realise that the site does not work in XP. The problem at the company's end is that they are just annoying the majority of their clients/customers. Simply put, in a few years time THESE COMPANIES WILL HAVE GONE OUT OF BUSINESS, bottom line - you are not the only company on the planet, if you don't cater for all your customers they will go elsewhere. Anyone with a professional website and using a computer other than an XP/IE8 to design their website (including those using Linux, MacOS, Workbench/Kickstart etc) must also have a XP/IE8 box to check their site after each change and before uploading those changes. If you don't, your company will NOT be in business in a few years time.
...

At work I stumble across so many websites that are quirky in Explorer 8/9 already that the IT department these days images all Windows 7 and 8 installs with Chrome so it's on every comp in our company group.

And you don't need to keep a physical comp with XP, run a virtual comp in Windows 7/8 and that will do the job for compatability testing.

 

[Paul]

Actually, in a few years time, those XP machines will be the minority and won't matter any more.

True, but by then those companies will have already gone out of business.

So much doom and gloom! What Windows 8 offers over XP is the ability to patch it against known vulnerabilities. All it takes is for one critical XP vulnerability to come to light, that now won't get patched, and it's game over for online XP systems. With any currently supported OS, you'll get a patch via your software updates. It's always a race between the hackers and the software security people, but with an XP system, you're no longer even in the running.

Yes, but: (a) XP has been out a long time, exactly how many serious vulnerabilities do you think have not been found yet? (b) This still means you should be using Vista or 7 for a year or two, not 8.

Capitalism is a funny old beast........but I'm afraid this just sounds like hyperbole to me..

Which is exactly the same thinking that HMV and the UK Woolworth's ran with.

(Apologies to those pedantic about English for my last sentence.)

 

[Paul]

.
Sorry, just realised that you may be misunderstanding the point I was making in my first post in this thread:

I was NOT saying "XP good, W8 bad". I have not yet tried W8 and am not really a big fan of XP so I have no idea which is better.

What I was saying is "Businesses who ignore the majority of their customers in favour of those who make life easy for them (in this case by updating to W8 )will fail in business". It does not matter if, in a few years time, W8 becomes the most used OS - you will be bankrupt by then (unless you can pay your staff and fund your business to run at a loss for a few years).

As to the security issue, my point was pretty much the same, except that your customers won't know there is a problem until the brown sticky stuff hits the whirring air moving thing. But at that point 90% of your customers will leave for someone who pays better care to the security of their data. Blaming Microsoft won't save you, they will still feel that you should have done more, and go elsewhere.

 

[NinjaRabbit]

Capitalism is a funny old beast........but I'm afraid this just sounds like hyperbole to me..

Which is exactly the same thinking that HMV and the UK Woolworth's ran with.

Please do pardon me, but I was of the impression that Woolworths and HMV did themselves in due to poor management, not from keeping their computers up-to-date...

 

[Paul]

Please do pardon me, but I was of the impression that Woolworths and HMV did themselves in due to poor management, not from keeping their computers up-to-date...

Please read my post immediately above your post. I think that answered your question as to why I used HMV and Woolworth's as a comparison.

 

[NinjaRabbit]

Please do pardon me, but I was of the impression that Woolworths and HMV did themselves in due to poor management, not from keeping their computers up-to-date...

Please read my post immediately above your post. I think that answered your question as to why I used HMV and Woolworth's as a comparison.

Unfortunately not, that's why I asked.

They didn't fail at catering to their customers, to the best of my knowledge. They were run into the ground by poor managerial decisions.

 

[Paul]

Unfortunately not, that's why I asked.
They didn't fail at catering to their customers, to the best of my knowledge. They were run into the ground by poor managerial decisions.

Yes and no. They did fail because of "poor managerial decisions", but the poor managerial decision that killed 'em was to fail to cater for their customers.

Woolworth's The majority of their stock was not what most people wanted, and where they did stock popular lines they were too often out of stock of the most popular items.

HMV Unhelpful staff, long queues at tills at normal times and often over an hour at peak times (i.e. pre-Christmas). I do remember, just before the brown stuff hit the fan, 'phoning their customer service with a complaint. There attitude was "I don't care, we have plenty of other customers besides you." I remember my final line before hanging up, because it turned out to be prophetic. I said to her "Congratulations, you have just bankrupted your company!"

Websites Not Optimised For XL/IE8 Are both "not stocking what most people want" and have an "I don't care, we have plenty of other customers besides you" attitude.

 

[SaviorX]

well for starters XP and IE are already in the minority, XP pretty much since 7 surpassed it in August 2011, and IE by Firefox in January 09 (both Firefox and Chrome easily surpass it now apparently)

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

usage of IE8 appears to sit at 2.7% of users.

in business terms this is about the equivalent of telling me that HMV has gone/is going out of business because they no longer carry VHS tapes.
HMV failed to see the writing on the wall... thanks to the internet, downloading and 'on demand' services, physical media (the lions share of HMVs business as far as i can see) has been a steadily diminishing interest, the same reason Blockbuster is now gone.

 

[Paul]

well for starters XP and IE are already in the minority, XP pretty much since 7 surpassed it in August 2011, and IE by Firefox in January 09 (both Firefox and Chrome easily surpass it now apparently)

The figures you have are different to the ones I have. However they still show W8 as a very minor player, so NOT the OS you should be aiming your sites at.

Again (and this is probably my fault for not being clear) my actual point is being misunderstood. I am NOT saying that you should only aim your sites at XP/IE8, I am saying that you should aim your sites at all browsers and OS (and not just Windows either, lots of people use Mac OS, Linux, etc). However XP/IE8 is the oldest, later Windows can run sites designed for XP/IE8, but the reverse is not true. And most Mac and Linux browsers were created by people aware that they would mostly be viewing sites created for XP/IE8, so can read them.

In short, design for XP/IE8 and nearly everyone will be able to visit your site. Code for later Windows and many will not, and will hate you for it. This is not a problem if your site is simply for the fun of it (eg "Bob's Amiga Fan Blog") but if it is a business site you are not only turning away customers but you are having those customers diss your company to their mates down the pub (eg "Tried to enter Walker's online competition. The ---- site would not load on my computer. If those guys can't even run a website how ---- must their ----ing crisps be?")

in business terms this is about the equivalent of telling me that HMV has gone/is going out of business because they no longer carry VHS tapes.
HMV failed to see the writing on the wall... thanks to the Internet, downloading and 'on demand' services, physical media (the lions share of HMVs business as far as i can see) has been a steadily diminishing interest.

Sorry, you have been listening to lazy tabloid journalism. This is simply not true. And if you need proof: After going bankrupt HMV was bought from the receiver by someone else. They are doing fine. And as far as I am aware the Internet has not gone away - download, on demand, etc still exists. And the "new" HMV is doing OK too. Also WH Smith's sells all the "downloadable" stuff that HMV sell, plus those book things, which are now mostly downloadable, and their main competition is the cheaper online company Amazon, but WH Smith's is still going strong.

Basically, if you hear a journalist say "They went bust because of the Internet", you are really hearing a journalist saying "I cannot be arsed to do any research, so I'll just throw in a popular myth and claim I thought of it". And if you hear a company executive saying it, they usually mean "We screwed up royally, but we cannot admit to that or no one else will hire us. Quick, we need an excuse."

 

[AndyLandy]

Again (and this is probably my fault for not being clear) my actual point is being misunderstood. I am NOT saying that you should only aim your sites at XP/IE8, I am saying that you should aim your sites at all browsers and OS (and not just Windows either, lots of people use Mac OS, Linux, etc).

Absolutely, completely agree with that point. The more OSes/browsers you support, the greater your potential customer-base and the more likely you are to attract business.

However XP/IE8 is the oldest, later Windows can run sites designed for XP/IE8, but the reverse is not true. And most Mac and Linux browsers were created by people aware that they would mostly be viewing sites created for XP/IE8, so can read them.

I'm not sure XP/IE8 is really the lowest common denominator though. Websites that rely on proprietary MS extensions like ActiveX plug-ins (even XP/IE8 ones) are the biggest offenders for lack of compatibility. The optimum strategy is to design a website that looks good in modern browsers, but is still functional in older ones.

Of course, it's not just compatibility that matters, you have to consider usability too. What good is a website that renders perfectly in every browser if the UX is terrible, and not forgetting Universal Access functionality!