Why continuing support for XP is bad math

Topic

New Reply

	TOP STORY Why continuing support for XP is bad math
	By Tony Bradley More than a few Windows XP users are willing to pay Microsoft for more updates to the now effectively obsolete OS. In theory, doing so could produce billions in revenue for Microsoft. Here’s why it’s not going to happen.

---

The full text of this column is posted at windowssecrets.com/top-story/why-continuing-support-for-xp-is-bad-math/ (paid content, opens in a new window/tab).

Columnists typically cannot reply to comments here, but do incorporate the best tips into future columns.[/td]

[/tr][/tbl]

Reply | Quote

Replies

As an old time user, I rarely post in forumns. It takes a LOT to move me to add to this discussion, however in this case I cannot resist.

This writer has made the clasic mistake of confusing the UNDERPININGS of an operating system and the USER interface.

If we look at android vs ios, you see that many people like that they can customize the interface of android while not changing the underpinings.

I LOVE the XP interface, I have been able to have some work arounds in my one windows 7 machine to make it look ALOST the same, but still everyday I find things that I cannot stand in windows 7, and don’t get me started with windows 8.

All of the writers complaints were about the underlying structure of the OS and he may indeed be correct. I sure wish that he would have related to this. It is MY interface, and I can do what I need.

On another note, I maintain a very old software projects (Started in 1964 in cards, and compuserve in 1979) all written in formula translator (fortran) This is for calculating certain wind tunnel effects, and this has been tested in labs for over 30 years.

Every time we come out with a new revision, we go back and test vs the older versions. These old versions do not run on windows 7, but DO run on XP in native mode. I keep these older computers around in order to maintain my project. I need support!

In addition I have 3 older CNC machines that REQUIRE 16 bit interfaces. These multimillion dollar machines work just fine. Why should I be foreced to replace them after only 10 years of work, because of some interace changes?

Just because some people have touch screens, and want a METRO interface, doesn’t mean you can kill people who are doing actual work.

It is my sincere hope that you only wrote this to be contrary and to stir up replies. If you meant what you read I would be very disappointed.

VTY.

Reply | Quote

Microsoft are, in effect, continuing support through Windows Update for XP by still supporting Embedded versions through to 2019 (POSReady 2009). Updates are still available through Windows Update so obviously MS are still patching XP. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windows-embedded/archive/2014/02/17/what-does-the-end-of-support-of-windows-xp-mean-for-windows-embedded.aspx

Reply | Quote

Everybody seems to think they know why Microsoft is ditching XP, but we can only
guess or make logical conclusions.
My take is that Microsoft has ca. 94000 mouths to feed, they would much prefer
you to spend upwards of 150 Dollars for a new OS, renting out XP would take
6 years to bring in the same revenue, and by that time frame MS would have
brought out a couple of new OS’s, again raking in upwards of 150 Dollars each time.

Although deep in the new OS’s there are better practices being employed regarding
security, the fact of the matter is that all the old delicate DLL’s from previous windows
version have been ported to the new OS’s as is. This is required to maintain backwards
compatibility with old software. H3ll even the registry system is the same. Microsoft
could make XP better if they wished but will not because of the above reasons, for them (MS)
XP, it’s dead, buried, finished, over and done, we can pull our hair out, gnash our teeth but it
will be to no avail.
p.s. I am writing this on XP, oh ye.

Reply | Quote

More of the scare tactic being fostered by Microsoft. The author says “A successful infection on an XP system could easily spread to other machines.” If the other machines are Win 7 or Win 8 machines, shouldn’t they be less vulnerable? And both Win 7 and Win 8.x, despite it’s inclusion of MSE are delivered naked and vulnerable. A dual layer of protection, i.e. antivirus and antimalware is needed, and the layer of protection to an XP machine should keep it safe.

Reply | Quote

If the other machines are Win 7 or Win 8 machines, shouldn’t they be less vulnerable? And both Win 7 and Win 8.x, despite it’s inclusion of MSE are delivered naked and vulnerable.

Don’t those two sentences contradict each other?

The article explained the advantages of DEP, ASLR and UAC included with Windows 7 and 8, so I don’t understand why you consider them to be naked and vulnerable on delivery.

A dual layer of protection, i.e. antivirus and antimalware is needed, and the layer of protection to an XP machine should keep it safe.

Windows 8 has Windows Defender enabled by default providing both antivirus and antimalware.

Bruce

Reply | Quote

Tony, and here’s a problem when a reporter discusses America or a fortune 500 company, you have a tendency to view economics comparatively. What I mean by that, is for Microsoft, and perhaps 10-20 other software and hardware companies, $4 billion dollars is “bad math”. However, $4 billion dollars exceeds the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of all but the top 150 countries in the world. That’s not a single country. We’re talking about the entire economic output of billions of people, by country, is less than Microsoft would receive in “maintenance fees”. The entire program called Windows XP was written for less than $100 million and the entire thing could be re-written for less than $100 million today. It takes supreme arrogance to believe that $3.9 billion is “bad math”. Regarding the obsolescence factor, for far less than the $100 million figure, every security precaution you mentioned could be written into the XP DNA and extant supporters of hardware and software could also maintain their existing drivers, integration and support for far less than the maintenance fees. Almost all of them only complain about continuing to support them for free. Lifetime support for free is not reasonable, but fee-based support is not discussed because it is not a model embraced by Americans who believe it already paid for a product, why should they have to pay to keep “fixing” it. Obviously it should have been designed better to begin with (a subject for a whole different story). The truth is XP does not have to be obsolete. It can be as modern as Vista or Windows 7 and can be produced for a fraction of the cost and have all, not some, but all of the protections offered by the other systems. However, a tradeoff for that is that the system would have changes that would make expected performance change. For example, UAC can be easily written into XP, but programs that did not expect to be stopped by a UAC control could stop functioning and their databases could be corrupted by the unexpected behavior, but this is also a workable solution so long as support includes a continued income stream. In short, there is no good reason to discontinue XP except to make more money (there is also a legal qualification regarding liability, but that actually just boils down to more money so, in the end, the reason is profit and the risk associated with the guarantee of profit). This is a choice and as a the world learned to integrate a computer OS into equipment, they had not yet learned that considering the OS is a long term decision if the hardware will outlive the software. Unix started even earlier than windows and people who designed their equipment around it can find it still works today. We have mainframes that have been running unix since the 1970’s. Why is that important? Because Microsoft is known for MS-DOS (Microsoft Disk Operating System) and through Windows XP, all GUI interfaces were simply software running on top of MS-DOS. Anyone who used any version of Windows was simply using a program running on top of an operating system. Vista and Windows 7 are early attempts to remove the MS-DOS environment and have the GUI actually be the OS (ala Apple). To get to that point, Microsoft has to end earlier versions.

Bottom line, Microsoft is stopping support because they want to move in another direction on another product and the success of Windows XP inhibits their ability to do that. By discontinuing Windows XP they are effectively killing their competition and making more money in the process. It’s not bad math and any software developer could tell you there’s still a fortune to be made from XP. However, if Microsoft really wants to purport it is not viable, then let them sell their code for XP to another vendor, or better yet, make XP Open source and let the market decide. That would demonstrate it’s worthless, dangerous, etc., but nothing like that will happen because it’s a good and viable product and they want it off the market.

Reply | Quote

through Windows XP, all GUI interfaces were simply software running on top of MS-DOS. Anyone who used any version of Windows was simply using a program running on top of an operating system. Vista and Windows 7 are early attempts to remove the MS-DOS environment

Quite a few good points until you began describing the evolution of MS operating systems. Windows 2000 (XP’s predecessor) was the first GUI-based MS OS to abandon the DOS underpinnings, a full 6 years before Vista (which, like all subsequent MS OSs, was also based on the Windows NT core rather than DOS). The only place DOS held in any of these systems was as an emulator running on top of the underlying OS: the last DOS-based MS OS was Windows Me.

Reply | Quote

While I agree that upgrading from XP is certainly the smart thing to do, there are other considerations that I’m not sure that
are being taken into account.
Personnally, I own several PC’s which include 2 XP (one is for backup and the other is for an infrequent special purpose), Win 7
and a Win 8.1 laptop. The latter two are the ones that I use most of the time.
The two XP PC’s are armed to the teeth with security and IE is not used in favor of Firefox and Opera.
I’ve taken an informal and unscientific survey of about two dozen of my friends and acquaintances who have XP PC’s. Only one
does any maintenance (defrag/system diagnosis) and all of them were completely unaware of the end of XP support and, frankly,
none of them seem to care.
None of them run antivirus or antimalware scans and all but two were unaware if any such programs were even installed or updated.
They run their PC’s until there is a problem and then bring it to someone for service or, eventually, buy a new one.
Also, none were aware of current significant threats like CryptoLocker or HeartBleed.
Certainly the technology is outdated today with XP. But, while I’m comparing apples and oranges, there is a considerable industry
that supports with parts, auctions, rides and various events with older cars that is growing all of the time.
Finally, especially with the economy and with older people, the budget to buy new PC’s just isn’t there.
So, how do we get all of this to the general public and convince them to change where it is possible???

Reply | Quote

This article provides yet another dose of slap-dash conventional wisdom rather than well-thought-out analysis. Let’s begin with the seat-belt analogy:

A great many people do indeed go “speeding down the highway in a car with no seat belts” – or at least don’t bother to wear the seat belts that are present. The reason they survive crashes is because cars are also equipped with air bags, which are nearly equally (and sometimes more) effective. I personally choose to wear a seat belt anyway because I’m an old fogy who feels a bit under-dressed without one, but realistically it’s probably not all that important to (unlike the situation in the days before air bags, and I kind of miss those days when natural selection had better opportunity to work its magic: knowing that a bunch of allegedly controlled explosions will occur in my passenger compartment should even a modest collision occur still bothers me a bit and I’d prefer having the option to suppress them and, even better, not having to pay for their added cost).

Similarly, PCs have for a very long time now commonly included (usually third-party and often free) software (firewalls, anti-malware, anti-intrusion, etc.) that catches virtually all Internet-based threats (those which the article concentrates on) and most other threats as well before they ever reach parts of the operating system that might otherwise be vulnerable. Zero-day threats might be an exception to this, but then since Microsoft only issues security updates once a month even its current systems are also at risk for up to that long (and by the time Patch Tuesday has rolled around those higher-level protective applications have already had their recognition signatures updated hence have already been on guard for a while waiting for the Microsoft snail-mail to arrive).

Such protective software also significantly reduces the need for the other security enhancements like UAC (which of course XP users could emulate simply by running in an unprivileged account), DEP and ASLR that Microsoft has added since XP. I still run Windows 2000 for most use (including this post and delving into not-so-safe quarters of the Internet) without bothering to run in a non-administrator account and have yet to pick up even a mild head cold (figuratively speaking) – and it’s been nearly 4 years now since Microsoft issued its last Win2K security update (though I do use good firewall and anti-malware/anti-intrusion software and a much more up-to-date browser and email client than Internet Explorer 6 and Outlook Express).

This, incidentally, points out another dubious assertion in the article: I certainly wouldn’t have paid a dime to get Microsoft to continue supporting Win2K and I suspect that may be true for the vast majority of XP users as well (did Tony actually do any research about this or just pull his numbers out of thin air?), save perhaps for those who buy into the assertion that otherwise they’ll suddenly fall prey to all sorts of scary threats.

Moving on, the reason that XP holds third-party vendors hostage has nothing to do with Microsoft’s support (save, again, for the possibility that people may be scared off XP as described just above): it’s because XP still commands the second-largest market share of any PC operating system and thus the XP-based market is huge. Many third-party vendors ceased supporting Windows 2000 LONG before Microsoft support ended in mid-2010: its consumer market share just wasn’t large enough to continue to bother with (to the point where a lot of such software will still run on Win2K: it’s just not worth their while to test to see that it does and then chance having to respond to service inquiries if their testing wasn’t sufficiently rigorous).

The one significant point on which the article seems correct (though in some ways for the wrong reasons) is that Microsoft probably has no reason to be interested in continuing to support consumer versions of XP – despite the fact that it may be continuing to incur the expense of supporting non-consumer versions (and allegedly some large corporations) for a while yet. It’s just that there’s very good reason to ask, “Why should current XP users care very much?”: after all, everything that’s allegedly wrong with XP (save for future problems that might arise and go unpatched and dwindling support by new versions of third-party software) has been wrong for over a dozen years now, so if they’re still using it it’s presumably because it’s still good enough for them.

Reply | Quote

Though I agree in principle with the article it has some of the most glaringly unbalanced points I’ve ever read. “Not to be facetious,” and then I read something that could not be more facetious, comparing XP to 5 and a quarter floppies and 8-track tapes. Also stating that vendors are “burdened” and feel obliged to support XP as long as Microsoft does…that’s fine…as long as XP does NOT constitute 30% of all Microsoft desktop operating systems. Golden opportunity is the actual phrase to use when Microsoft phases out a supported component such as I.E. and a company like Google is more than ready to fill the gap (which they did to great success for their browser). Are antivirus vendors packing their bags now that Defender is no longer being updated on XP? Again 30% market equates to opportunity not burden; if Malwarebytes were given one target to advertise to which would it choose, Win 8 with it’s 11% or XP with it’s 30% and ready-made ad campaign with the support loss of Defender?

Who, what, where, why and when…principles that are not followed anymore in writing. I could write a better article in favor of ending support and reasons it’s time to move on…and I love XP! This just smacks of ill-considered opinion and something to fill out a word count in a word processor program.

Reply | Quote

”Not to be facetious,” and then I read something that could not be more facetious, comparing XP to 5 and a quarter floppies and 8-track tapes.

Seems like a reasonable, non-facetious comparison to me. XP belongs in a museum along with those items.

(Now, “… and more cup holders.”: THAT was facetious!)

Bruce

Reply | Quote

Seems like a reasonable, non-facetious comparison to me. XP belongs in a museum along with those items.

(Now, “… and more cup holders.”: THAT was facetious!)

Bruce

I guess ‘reasonable’ is in the eye of the beholder. Do you really think that the number of PCs still using 5.25″ floppies holds a candle to the number running XP? I still have a machine with a 5.25″ floppy drive and it might even still boot, but I haven’t actually tried to boot it since before XP was born.

Can’t speak for 8-track tapes, since I never used them. I do, however, still have 1/4″ audio tapes (which predate 8-tracks by a decade or more) that I’d like to be able to move to a more current medium (and clean up in the process), and I’d rather not have to visit a museum to do so.

More specifically, the mere fact that something may belong in a museum does not imply that it does NOT belong in continuing use. Only things which have no continuing utility should be consigned to museum-only habitation – and XP clearly has continuing utility for hundreds of millions of people, even if you’re not one of them.

Reply | Quote

Do you really think that the number of PCs still using 5.25″ floppies holds a candle to the number running XP?

No. 5.25″ floppies have been obsolete for 25 years. How many PCs will still be running XP in 25 years time?

I do, however, still have 1/4″ audio tapes (which predate 8-tracks by a decade or more) that I’d like to be able to move to a more current medium (and clean up in the process), and I’d rather not have to visit a museum to do so.

A bit like moving your data to a more current operating system?

Bruce

Reply | Quote

No. 5.25″ floppies have been obsolete for 25 years. How many PCs will still be running XP in 25 years time?[/quote]

You seem confused: it was you yourself who said “XP belongs in a museum along with those items”, a statement crafted unambiguously in the present tense. Had you said “XP will belong in a museum in 2026” (a mere 25 years after its creation, let alone 25 years after whatever date it may be considered to have become obsolete) I’d have had no problem with it.

A bit like moving your data to a more current operating system?

Actually, no: there’s no reason to move your data to a more current operating system if you don’t need to do something with it that your existing operating system won’t do. The reason to move data to a more current MEDIUM is because your existing medium is no longer supported by available hardware (and while I do have a reel-to-reel tape recorder it no longer works very well).

After I have moved it I will be happy to have Audacity available to clean it up (in however many passes it takes to get it the way I want it without losing any quality due to the repetition), but the most recent version of Audacity still runs on Win2K (and of course therefore XP) so that’s hardly a telling point either.

Reply | Quote

You seem confused: it was you yourself who said “XP belongs in a museum along with those items”, a statement crafted unambiguously in the present tense. Had you said “XP will belong in a museum in 2026” (a mere 25 years after its creation, let alone 25 years after whatever date it may be considered to have become obsolete) I’d have had no problem with it.

I’m not confused. 5.25-inch floppy drives have only been useful to museums for 25 years. XP just entered the same phase.

Actually, no: there’s no reason to move your data to a more current operating system if you don’t need to do something with it that your existing operating system won’t do. The reason to move data to a more current MEDIUM is because your existing medium is no longer supported by available hardware (and while I do have a reel-to-reel tape recorder it no longer works very well).

XP no longer works well. Unless you disconnect it from the rest of the world. And then you don’t need support.

Reply | Quote

I’m not confused. 5.25-inch floppy drives have only been useful to museums for 25 years. XP just entered the same phase.
XP no longer works well. Unless you disconnect it from the rest of the world. And then you don’t need support.

Your argument would carry more weight without the exaggerations, and blanket statements are always suspect in my mind. My mother still used my old Osborne I computer with dual DSDD drives into the early ’90s and I doubt that she was alone. And I’m sure a lot of people have apps or drivers that they use regularly and which do not work with Windows 7 or later. One size does not fit all. And not everyone has the technical ability to setup Virtual Box and such. I do not, and would not use XP, but you simply cannot make a blanket statement that it is beyond usefulness.

And what is safety, really? It’s all relative. Back to the earlier analogy, few people would think about driving without their seatbelts, but lots of us still drive without all-around airbags. And here in southern, CA, where I happen to be for the next week or so, people drive like they are suicidal/homicidal maniacs. Come to think of it, in the near future our cars will drive themselves – except for those crazed lunatics who still insist on driving their own or simply cannot afford a newer vehicle, even though it will probably be far more dangerous than riding in a robot car.

I think the important thing is that information is available and those who do want higher levels of safety are able to protect themselves.

Reply | Quote

Your argument would carry more weight without the exaggerations, and blanket statements are always suspect in my mind. My mother still used my old Osborne I computer with dual DSDD drives into the early ’90s and I doubt that she was alone.

Sorry, I didn’t know about your mom. Should I have said 20 years, not 25?

Come to think of it, in the near future our cars will drive themselves – except for those crazed lunatics who still insist on driving their own or simply cannot afford a newer vehicle, even though it will probably be far more dangerous than riding in a robot car.

That is an exaggerated blanket statement.

Will the robot cars be programmed to identify and avoid the crazed lunatics?

Reply | Quote

I’m not confused. 5.25-inch floppy drives have only been useful to museums for 25 years.[/quote]

It seems that you’re not only confused but poorly-informed as well. A quick check in Wikipedia (no, I don’t consider them beyond question, but I certainly trust their content more than some random individual’s on the Internet) indicates that it was only 26 years ago that 3.5″ floppies even began to OUTSELL 5.25″ floppies, so clearly there were a great many people still BUYING the latter at that time and thus USING them for the lifetimes of the machines they were in (several years at a minimum) or even longer (I hadn’t moved the last of my data to more modern media until the end of the ’90s – 15 years ago, not 25).

XP just entered the same phase.

I’m afraid that you’re not a very credible source for this either. Interestingly, the time-profile of 5.25″ floppy use seems fairly similar to XP’s: after a fairly fast ramp-up over 2 years they dominated their market niche for nearly a decade, then their use fell off (though more precipitously than XP’s has) as 3.5″ floppies (or, in XP’s case, Win 7) emerged as a real alternative, and they had been largely relegated to the scrap heap (or museums, if you will) by around their 20th birthday in 1996 save for occasional data retrieval on old media that had not yet been migrated.

Now, I won’t suggest that XP will not be ready for the scrap heap until its own 20th birthday in 2021, but with over 25% of the current world-wide PC market XP is NOWHERE NEARLY ready for that today: it’s very much alive (much as Microsoft might wish otherwise) and will remain so for quite a few years to come.

XP no longer works well. Unless you disconnect it from the rest of the world.

Oh, my – you are way out of your depth here. I can assure you that even Windows 2000 still works very well indeed (including connecting to the rest of the world: it’s all I use to do that), so well that the ONLY reasons I’ve contemplated moving to a newer platform (XP being at the top of my list, though as Win 8.1 back-pedals toward something less objectionable the possibility that I’ll move there increases) are that 1) some software of interest to me cannot run on Win2K without at least some unofficial .dll wrappers to support later Windows API calls (and some can’t run even then) and 2) it’s getting more difficult to buy new hardware that has drivers supporting Win2K. Neither of these conditions applies nearly as much to XP today, so it’s all that much more viable.

Reply | Quote

It seems that you’re not only confused but poorly-informed as well.

I’m afraid that you’re not a very credible source for this either.

Oh, my – you are way out of your depth here.

Thanks.

Good to know that you’re considering upgrading to XP.

Reply | Quote

Thanks

You’re welcome: always happy to help straighten things out.

Reply | Quote

XP no longer works well. Unless you disconnect it from the rest of the world. And then you don’t need support.

Poppycock. 13 years of use and not one virus across a dozen machines or so, and the only rules I follow are the classics; secure browser (to the best of ability), no clicking on popup windows unless initiated, no attachments are ever opened unless saved and scanned first, always behind NAT router with natural hardware firewall.

Windows updates have been seldom and random and no active antivirus since AVG 7.5. Same methodology is employed for Windows 7 and the sole Win 8 system except updates are automatic on the latter. Consequently nothing has ever occurred of a viral nature on those systems either. Ever. Zero in 13 years.

Poppycock!

Reply | Quote

Poppycock. 13 years of use and not one virus across a dozen machines or so, and the only rules I follow are the classics; secure browser (to the best of ability), no clicking on popup windows unless initiated, no attachments are ever opened unless saved and scanned first, always behind NAT router with natural hardware firewall.

Windows updates have been seldom and random and no active antivirus since AVG 7.5. Same methodology is employed for Windows 7 and the sole Win 8 system except updates are automatic on the latter. Consequently nothing has ever occurred of a viral nature on those systems either. Ever. Zero in 13 years.

Poppycock!

Exactly!!! There is only one reason for Win7/Win8/Win etc….. $$$$$$$$$$$$$!

Well said, and concurred.

Reply | Quote

Exactly!!! There is only one reason for Win7/Win8/Win etc….. $$$$$$$$$$$$$!

Presumably if MS hadn’t developed and sold W7 etc. they would either be out of business, or would be charging for XP updates rather than free ones. And I assume you are driving a very old car, because car companies only introduce new ones so they can make money. Indeed, pretty much most new things are introduced just to make money…

Eliminate spare time: start programming PowerShell

Reply | Quote

Poppycock!

You’re talking about the past and I’m talking about the future.

Could we revisit this in a year?

Reply | Quote

You’re talking about the past and I’m talking about the future.

Could we revisit this in a year?

Only one comment to this, since Win7/Win8 came out, really most of us have been screaming for XP. & is glitchy and 8 is horrid. XP was straight forward, uncomplicated and a pleasure, I run 7 because when I did my 64 bit build, everyone said it was so good. Hind sight beeing 20/20, I should have did a 32 bit
build and kept XP. Everything I use now is really not effected by 64 bit, not any faster and the headache is not worth the evil Microsoft software.

Reply | Quote

Only one comment to this, since Win7/Win8 came out, really most of us have been screaming for XP. & is glitchy and 8 is horrid. XP was straight forward, uncomplicated and a pleasure, I run 7 because when I did my 64 bit build, everyone said it was so good. Hind sight beeing 20/20, I should have did a 32 bit
build and kept XP. Everything I use now is really not effected by 64 bit, not any faster and the headache is not worth the evil Microsoft software.

You don’t need to build a 32bit system. Win XP runs fine on any system, 32 or 64 bit. I have a 64 bit system I’ve been running for years with XP. A few months ago I took out the hard drive with XP and installed 7 on a different drive. Got it all setup and started using Windows 7 home premium 64 bit. A few weeks later I couldn’t stand it and put the XP drive back in. There are features in XP that are missing in 7. I work faster with XP.

Reply | Quote

You don’t need to build a 32bit system. Win XP runs fine on any system, 32 or 64 bit. I have a 64 bit system I’ve been running for years with XP. A few months ago I took out the hard drive with XP and installed 7 on a different drive. Got it all setup and started using Windows 7 home premium 64 bit. A few weeks later I couldn’t stand it and put the XP drive back in. There are features in XP that are missing in 7. I work faster with XP.

Thank you for this info! I thought since I had a 64bit and a Pentium5 processor I was stuck. Quick question, I remember XP only used 4 gb’s of Ram, I have 16, any comments?

Reply | Quote

Thank you for this info! I thought since I had a 64bit and a Pentium5 processor I was stuck. Quick question, I remember XP only used 4 gb’s of Ram, I have 16, any comments?

32-bit XP can only support 4GB of RAM.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

32-bit XP can only support 4GB of RAM.

Actually, it’s licensed to support only 4GB.

Reply | Quote

Actually, it’s licensed to support only 4GB.

It’s the license, but it’s also the architecture. 32-bit CPU’s can read virtual address space to 2³² bits. PAE (Physical Address Extension) capable processors can extend this virtual address space, but it’s only useful with application support, which is not common.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

32-bit XP can only support 4GB of RAM.

Thank you. I thought I remembered correctly.

Reply | Quote

Thank you. I thought I remembered correctly.

Ooooh! Super monitors everywhere! Thank you as well satrow.

Reply | Quote

I am in agreement with you that people should upgrade to a higher level than XP if they can.

I’m curious why you feel that way. I certainly CAN upgrade to something later than XP – in fact I scooped up no less than 3 Win 8 Pro upgrade licenses (for a total of about $105, back when Microsoft was using fire-sale pricing to try to jump-start its introduction) with the expectation that at some point I’ll need a contemporary Windows system to run software that won’t run on earlier versions (and we’ve got 2 or 3 unused computers kicking around that the upgrade can apply to). But if I can run an older system (in my case Win2K, not even XP) safely, and for almost 4 years now I’ve been doing just that, why ‘should’ I upgrade?

You’re talking about the past and I’m talking about the future.[/quote]

Had you read FUN’s post more carefully you might have realized that the situations are a lot more similar than you suggest they are. In particular, aside from the fact that you’re talking about the allegedly ‘intrinsically less secure’ XP in both cases, he specifically said that he had applied Windows Updates seldom and randomly, quite similar to the situation which will obtain in the future (i.e., the fact that updates were available in the past really doesn’t make much difference to the relative safety of a system to which they by and large weren’t being applied).

Now, I certainly wouldn’t run such a system without good third-party malware protection myself since my AntiVir installation catches the occasional download of something infected and dutifully alerts me to it – but if people are as careful where they surf as FUN apparently is and have a hardware router with its own firewall protecting them from random unsolicited probes it’s hardly surprising that they can get away with less.

Could we revisit this in a year?

I strongly suspect that I’ll enjoy doing that.

somehow, someday, we have to do something about the environmental consequences of technology obsolescence. In most cases, XP computers can’t be upgraded (in any cost-effective way, anyway). The idea of 400 million XP computers being added to landfills can’t make anyone very happy.

That’s a tough one, because technology doesn’t just become obsolete, in many cases it actually wears out. Disk drives certainly do (any that have been running for more than a half-dozen years or so are living on borrowed time, and quite a few fail well before that), power supplies stressed anywhere near their rated capacities are notorious for eventually failing in ways that may take other components with them (though many modern ones claim to incorporate fail-safes to guard against this), some motherboard materials can degrade over time (and electrical traces on them may become more brittle and crack at the slightest provocation), discrete components on modules can fail (capacitor failures are are not unknown even after you set aside the bad batch that rumbled through the industry a few years ago), heat can gradually destroy many things if people don’t occasionally clean the dust out of their systems…

And then there’s the fact that the pace of progress in the industry makes obsolescence inevitable. It’s not like the ’50s when many people bought a new car every year or two because fashions changed, even though under the new sheet metal the innards were essentially the same: the PCs of today make the PCs on which the first XP systems shipped in 2001 look antedeluvian (hardware has evolved MUCH faster than the operating systems on it), and even my sister’s 2006 Dell XP system with its 50-some GB hard drive and surprisingly capacious 1 GB of RAM is now seriously limiting her ability to keep using it productively.

There are ways to keep using such systems if they still satisfy your needs, much as Microsoft might wish that there weren’t. Many current Linux distributions, for example, can run well on such relatively modest hardware if you’re nervous about just continuing to run XP on it, and Linux can handle all that a great many people do on their PC, in many cases even without all that wrenching accommodation to changed user interfaces. Even then, though, people may need to apply some upgrades just to handle evolving media: remember when a CD-ROM drive became superseded by a DVD-ROM drive and then by DVD-RW drives and now by BluRay? Those original CD-ROM drives really aren’t very useful any more, even if they still work fine. At least these days SOME of the materials that shouldn’t go into land fills get recycled.

The fact the Microsoft is trying to force people who cannot do so to upgrade is IMMORAL, UNETHICAL, and STUPID! They created the systems that had all the vulnerabilities in the first place and made fortunes in the process. And now they just want to keep their money-grubbing hands full of everybody else’s money! They created the problems, and now it’s their responsiblity to keep fixing them IN PERPETUITY!!!!!

While I’m not a great fan of a lot of the ways that Microsoft behaves, I think you’re way off base here. While Microsoft is certainly trying to convince people that they need to upgrade (in the finest tradition of marketing the perception of obsolescence), it’s not FORCING them to in any way: XP will continue to run (and to be able to run relatively safely, as discussed extensively in this thread), and the fact that Microsoft would eventually cease to issue updates was public knowledge available to anyone who bought XP (in fact, those updates have continued far longer than anyone ever envisioned).

In other words, you’re demanding behavior which you never paid Microsoft to provide. Be thankful that XP has been supported for as long as it has been: you didn’t pay for that either – it just happened.

Reply | Quote

Very interesting article and numbers revealed. From my point of view, this is just another nail in the original Windows 8 coffin. I doubt that very many Windows XP users would be interested in a new operating system that is 1/2 desktop and 1/2 phone-tablet design. So, many more Windows users now have even less reason to like Microsoft or think that their new O/S design was based on anything approaching good judgment.

I just installed the latest LTS Ubuntu on two XP windows desktops and after two weeks have yet to find anything so different that I couldn’t find it in a few seconds or had to search help. This software is so easy to install a 5 year old could do it (not the one that got around x-box security), but this is way off topic for the current thread.

I will keep my “Windows 8.1 Update” system assuming that additional updates will further evolve to Windows 7 and that Windows 9 will contain ONE (1) interface with the best features of Windows 7 & 8, but just in case, I’ve also installed Linux on a new UEFI motherboard system with LGA-1150 and 3.6 GHz processor and SSD, so it looks to me like Windows is no longer a monopoly! Dramatic new changes in an operating system that has ignored really good security for many years is not a big feature in my book, but slowly evolving an O/S to be extremely secure, adding new features, and adding value gets my attention.

Reply | Quote

Had you read FUN’s post more carefully you might have realized that the situations are a lot more similar than you suggest they are. In particular, aside from the fact that you’re talking about the allegedly ‘intrinsically less secure’ XP in both cases, he specifically said that he had applied Windows Updates seldom and randomly, quite similar to the situation which will obtain in the future (i.e., the fact that updates were available in the past really doesn’t make much difference to the relative safety of a system to which they by and large weren’t being applied).

Now, I certainly wouldn’t run such a system without good third-party malware protection myself since my AntiVir installation catches the occasional download of something infected and dutifully alerts me to it – but if people are as careful where they surf as FUN apparently is and have a hardware router with its own firewall protecting them from random unsolicited probes it’s hardly surprising that they can get away with less.

I read it. Carefully.

The big difference between past and future is that until now XP’s flaws and vulnerabilities were getting publicized and fixed (potentially). From now on they only get publicized.

Reply | Quote

The big difference between past and future is that until now XP’s flaws and vulnerabilities were getting publicized and fixed (potentially). From now on they only get publicized.

Please explain how that alleged difference applies to the specific situation under discussion here, where until now XP’s flaws and vulnerabilities were getting publicized but NOT by and large getting fixed in FUN’s systems whereas in the future they will also be getting publicized and not fixed.

It’s the license, but it’s also the architecture. 32-bit CPU’s can read virtual address space to 2³² bits. PAE (Physical Address Extension) capable processors can extend this virtual address space, but it’s only useful with application support, which is not common.

Ah – I see that satrow has already provided an extremely well-written article by Geoff Chappell to correct that assertion, saving me the effort of writing something off-the-cuff and far less detailed. The bottom line is that 1) there’s no way to extend a 32-bit virtual address space: it’s intrinsically limited to 4 GB of addressing; 2) there ARE ways to extend the amount of RAM (edit: I use the term RAM loosely here, since we’re still talking about pages virtualized by the operating system) that a 32-bit application can make use of, by letting it dynamically map pieces of that 32-bit virtual address space around a much larger amount of physical RAM at its disposal (though of course never having direct access to more than a total of 4 GB at any one time, and any code or data in such mapped segments cannot be addressed directly until it has first been mapped to an expected range of virtual addresses, which is of course a lot slower than a simple direct virtual access but can usually be handled so as not to impact application performance too much); and 3) it’s certainly POSSIBLE for a 32-bit operating system to map and make good use of more than 4 GB of ram transparently to applications (e.g., by allowing many more applications and parts thereof to remain resident in RAM rather than having to evict them to the paging file and by caching much more data in RAM).

So it’s less that 32-bit environments CAN’T use a lot more than 4 GB of RAM effectively than that it requires more folderol (by the OS and/or the application) to do so and may exact modest performance penalties compared with running a 64-bit architecture and addressing everything directly.

Reply | Quote

So it’s less that 32-bit environments CAN’T use a lot more than 4 GB of RAM effectively than that it requires more folderol (by the OS and/or the application) to do so and may exact modest performance penalties compared with running a 64-bit architecture and addressing everything directly.

…what I said…

32-bit CPU’s can read virtual address space to 2³² bits. PAE (Physical Address Extension) capable processors can extend this virtual address space, but it’s only useful with application support, which is not common.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

…what I said…

Yes, I know what you said. It was incorrect in that 1) the virtual address space cannot be ‘extended’ and 2) the additional RAM can be put to good use without any application support (though can certainly also be put to additional good use with application changes)..

Reply | Quote

Yes, I know what you said. It was incorrect in that 1) the virtual address space cannot be ‘extended’

The word “cannot” is not present in my posts related to this subject. Also,

PAE (Physical Address Extension) capable processors can extend this virtual address space

From Lifehacker: “In any 32-bit operating system, you are limited to 4096 MB of RAM simply because the size of a 32-bit value will not allow any more. On a 32-bit system, each process is given 4 GB of virtual memory to play with, which is separated into 2 GB of user space that the application can actually use at a time.

Savvy readers might point out that modern chips support PAE, a processor technology that allows the operating system to use a little bit more memory—up to 64 GB, but it also requires special application support that most applications don’t have or necessarily need.

A common misconception is that this is a Windows-specific problem, when in fact 32-bit Linux and Mac OS X have the same limitations and the same workarounds. 32-bit Linux uses a mapping table to allow access to the extra memory, and OS X Snow Leopard actually ships by default with a 32-bit kernel that can’t access all the memory on older systems, even though most of the rest of the OS runs 64-bit processes.

The 4 GB limit for Windows, at least, is also a factor of licensing—the home versions of 32-bit Windows, while technically being able to support PAE, have a hard limit of 4 GB for licensing and driver compatibility reasons.”

And that’s the end of it from me on this issue.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

Dear me, you have misread my intent completely.

The word “cannot” is not present in my posts related to this subject.[/quote]

The incorrect statement (which indeed does not contain the word ‘cannot’) was:

PAE (Physical Address Extension) capable processors can extend this virtual address space

The 32-bit virtual address space is in no way extendible: it’s limited to 4 GB, period.

Technically, your earlier statement

32-bit XP can only support 4GB of RAM.

was incorrect as well: in fact, this restriction is only present in XP SP2 and later – see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137

From Lifehacker: “In any 32-bit operating system, you are limited to 4096 MB of RAM simply because the size of a 32-bit value will not allow any more… Savvy readers might point out that modern chips support PAE, a processor technology that allows the operating system to use a little bit more memory—up to 64 GB, but it also requires special application support that most applications don’t have or necessarily need.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate Lifehacker and HowToGeek when I need guidance in areas I’m not familiar with, but in cases like this one I’m reminded that even the best tech writers (and I’ve worked with some of them) seldom get things exactly right without careful supervision.

In this case, both of the statements which I chose to quote above are incorrect (and if you think about them are mutually exclusive as well). The size of the virtual address space does not constrain the amount of RAM which can be used effectively, and effective use of RAM above 4 GB by the operating system does not depend upon any in-application support (though in-application mechanisms can let individual applications make more effective use of large amounts of RAM as well). Trust me on this: I’ve written system code that takes advantage of both, though not on Windows systems.

Reply | Quote

Dear me, you have misread my intent completely.

You misread my post.

The incorrect statement (which indeed does not contain the word ‘cannot’) was:

PAE (Physical Address Extension) capable processors can extend this virtual address space

The 32-bit virtual address space is in no way extendible: it’s limited to 4 GB, period.[/QUOTE]
I did not use the words “32-bit virtual address space”. I wrote “virtual address space”.

32-bit CPU’s can read virtual address space to 2³² bits. PAE (Physical Address Extension) capable processors can extend this virtual address space

-not “32-bit” virtual address space. PAE extends the “virtual address space” that can be read beyond 2³².

Technically, your earlier statement

32-bit XP can only support 4GB of RAM.

was incorrect as well: in fact, this restriction is only present in XP SP2 and later[/QUOTE]

Not. Check this Scott Dunn article in Windows Secrets from December 18, 2008. Be sure to click on the MSDN links. The article you linked primarily describes only the change in the way RAM is reported by the OS, not the RAM limitations per se.

”For example, before you upgrade to Windows XP SP2, the System Properties dialog box may report approximately 3.87 GB of RAM. The System Information tool may report that the total physical memory is approximately 3,540.00 megabytes (MB). After you upgrade to Windows XP SP2, the System Properties dialog box may report approximately 3.12 GB of RAM, and the System Information tool may report that the total physical memory is approximately 2,770.00 MB.”

Trust me on this: I’ve written system code that takes advantage of both, though not on Windows systems.

A couple of things, here. I’ve written some code in assembly language, myself; interesting, but tedious. And we are talking about Windows systems here; 32-bit Windows XP.

Effective use of RAM in excess of supported configurations in XP requires fault-free, rock-solid drivers – for XP. That brings specific hardware issues into the mix, as well.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

You misread my post.[/quote]

No, I did not.

I did not use the words “32-bit virtual address space”. I wrote “virtual address space”.

As the context was that of a 32-bit virtual address space I used that, but my observation applies equally to ANY virtual address space (a term which I’m beginning to suspect you don’t understand the meaning of).

-not “32-bit” virtual address space. PAE extends the “virtual address space” that can be read beyond 2³².

No, it does not. You don’t have to take my word for it: Microsoft says this unambiguously in its discussion of PAE at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366796%28v=vs.85%29.aspx:

PAE does not change the amount of virtual address space available to a process. Each process running in 32-bit Windows is still limited to a 4 GB virtual address space.

(Back to your quotes now:)

Not. Check this Scott Dunn article in Windows Secrets from December 18, 2008. Be sure to click on the MSDN links.

Advice you might better have taken yourself: one of those links is to the MSDN citation that I just provided to correct you above.

The article you linked primarily describes only the change in the way RAM is reported by the OS, not the RAM limitations per se.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Wrong yet again, I’m afraid: while the initial focus of the article is the visible change in the way available RAM is reported, the section under ‘Cause’ clarifies the design change underlying this change in reported size:

This issue occurs because of a design change in Windows XP SP2 that is also included in Windows Vista. The changes were made to PAE mode behavior to improve driver compatibility.

To reduce driver compatibility issues, Windows Vista and Windows XP Service Pack 2 or a later version include hardware abstraction layer (HAL) changes that mimic the 32-bit HAL DMA behavior. The modified HAL grants unlimited map registers when the computer is running in PAE mode. Additionally, the kernel memory manager ignores any physical address that is more than 4 GB. Any system RAM that is more than the 4 GB barrier would be made unaddressable by Windows and be unusable in the system.

Nearly identical wording can be found in the “Part 3: Memory Protection Technologies” link in the “Service Pack 2 Functionality Changed” description for SP2:

To constrain compatibility issues, Windows XP Service Pack 2 includes hardware abstraction layer (HAL) changes that mimic the 32-bit HAL DMA behavior. The altered HAL grants unlimited map registers when the system is running in PAE mode. In addition, the kernel memory manager ignores any physical address above 4 GB. Any system RAM beyond the 4 GB barrier would be made unaddressable by Windows and be unusable in the system… As a result of these changes to the HAL and memory manager, the impact to device driver compatibility is expected to be minimal on systems running Windows XP Service Pack 2 with data execution prevention enabled.

The reason for this change was to allow implementation of DEP by co-opting a bit in the larger page-table entries used when PAE is enabled, while avoiding the potential driver problems that enabling PAE can cause. The result of this “design change in Windows XP SP2” was to remove the ability present in SP1 and XP’s original release to support more than 4 GB of RAM (the 2008 discussion you refer to occurred long after this change hence does not single out these early versions of XP as being different).

(Edit: I don’t know whether use of PAE in XP was so minimal prior to its use to support DEP in SP2 that associated driver issues just never were considered to be a problem, but Microsoft got religion about security at about the right time to incorporate this security enhancement for ALL systems in SP2 and clearly wanted people to be able to take advantage of it without problems – even if it meant axing an existing feature that was likely little-used anyway.)

I’ve written some code in assembly language, myself; interesting, but tedious.

Do you seriously think that ‘system code’ means ‘assembly language code’? While I wrote in assembler for close to a decade working on RSX PDP-11 operating systems at DEC the PDP-11 was the last DEC processor with operating systems written primarily in assembler: even VMS on the VAX (which first shipped in 1978) was written largely in higher-level languages save for small, performance-critical routines, and 15 years later Microsoft’s NT (the progenitor of all the systems we’re talking about here and whose design was based on VMS’s) was virtually all higher-level-language code (though I suspect that Cutler may still have sneaked in a bit in assembler just because he was so fanatical about performance).

Reply | Quote

You misread my post.

No, I did not.

Reading in words that have not been written is, indeed, misreading.

I did not use the words “32-bit virtual address space”. I wrote “virtual address space”.

-not “32-bit” virtual address space. PAE extends the “virtual address space” that can be read beyond 2³².

No, it does not. You don’t have to take my word for it:

Believe me, I don’t.

PAE extends the virtual address space to 2³⁶. Windows uses virtual addressing to initiate all normal memory accesses, whether from the OS or from applications. A virtual address can either point to physical RAM or the pagefile, but its physical address is intially accessed through its virtual address, not physical. If it’s in RAM, the virtual address is located via the PFN database to its physical location. From ”Page Frame Number (PFN) database”:

”The Page Frame Number database contains lists that represent the physical memory pages of the system. The kernel uses the lists to track which pages are “in use” (allocated to working sets), free, available, and so on. This allows the kernel to quickly know which pages of memory are best to use or reuse. For example, if a page is needed for a process working set, then the kernel can get a page from its free list towards the allocation.

It’s important to note that the PFN database resides in kernel virtual address space and the more physical memory [RAM] that a system has, the larger the PFN database must be. In non-PAE mode 24 bytes in the PFN database represents each 4 KB page of physical memory – this is a ratio of 170:1. In PAE mode 28 bytes represents each 4 KB page of physical memory – this is a ratio of 146:1. This means that roughly 6 MB or 7 MB is needed in the PFN database to describe each 1 GB of physical memory. This might not sound like much, but if you have a 32-bit system with 16 GB of physical memory, then it requires about 112 MB of the 2 GB of kernel virtual address space just to address the RAM. This is another reason why systems with 16 GB of physical memory or more will not allow the 3GB mode (also known as IncreaseUserVA) which increases the user virtual address space to 3 GB and decreases the kernel virtual address space to 1 GB on 32-bit systems.

Note: The x64 (64-bit) architecture has 8 TB of virtual address space, so this should be plenty of space to accommodate a large PFN database for systems with large amounts of physical memory.”

PAE does not change the amount of virtual address space available to a process.

I neither wrote nor implied that it did.

Not. Check this Scott Dunn article in Windows Secrets from December 18, 2008. Be sure to click on the MSDN links. The article you linked primarily describes only the change in the way RAM is reported by the OS, not the RAM limitations per se.

Advice you might better have taken yourself: one of those links is to the MSDN citation that I just provided to correct you above.

No article makes any mention of decreasing the physical RAM support to 4GB in x86 XP. You appear to reading in that unwritten tidbit, as well.

I’ve written some code in assembly language, myself; interesting, but tedious.

Do you seriously think that ‘system code’ means ‘assembly language code’?

Of course not; assembly is more tedious. Just trying to point out that you’re not the only coder that visits these Forums. I first started writing code in 1973.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

Reading in words that have not been written is, indeed, misreading.[/quote]

That’s why when I FIRST corrected you I ‘read in’ nothing at all:

Yes, I know what you said. It was incorrect in that 1) the virtual address space cannot be ‘extended’

It was only after you appeared incapable of understanding this correction that I added detail specific to the context of the discussion to try to make it more comprehensible to you (obviously to no avail).

Believe me, I don’t.

Nor do you take Microsoft’s word for it either, apparently – but I’m beginning to see why your misconceptions about what the actual definition of ‘virtual address space’ is have led you so far astray that you keep grasping at straws (‘Oh – I wasn’t talking about PROCESS virtual address space…’) to keep from confronting your real problem. If you’d like a reference that states more generally that PAE does not affect virtual address space size see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/268363:

Even with PAE enabled, the underlying architecture of the system is still based on 32-bit linear addresses. This effectively retains the 2 GB of application space and the 2 GB of kernel mode space because only 4 GB of addresses are available.

(Now back to your quotes again:)

PAE extends the virtual address space to 2³⁶.

No, it does nothing of the kind: it extends the PHYSICAL address space to 2³⁶ – that’s why they’re called PHYSICAL Address Extensions (duh), not VIRTUAL Address Extensions (which aren’t possible given the definition of what a virtual address space is, at least in the flat virtual memory model used by all NT-derived systems).

Since I don’t yet understand the exact nature of your confusion I have no idea why you included that lengthy description of the PFN database, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with your mistaken contention that PAE manages to extend the virtual address space. The fact that PAE extends PHYSICAL memory addressability is made quite clear in http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366796%28v=vs.85%29.aspx – though it and more especially the links it provides play a bit fast and loose with terminology (either written by a sloppy engineer or an inadequately-supervised tech writer), sometimes referring to the fixed-size 4 GB virtual address space of the hardware and at others using the same term to refer to the 2 GB or, optionally, 3 GB portion of that space which Windows allows applications free access to.

No article makes any mention of decreasing the physical RAM support to 4GB in x86 XP. You appear to reading in that unwritten tidbit, as well.

For Pete’s sake, when the ‘design change in Windows XP SP2’ / ‘Service Pack 2 Functionality Changed’ states that “the kernel memory manager ignores any physical address that is more than 4 GB. Any system RAM that is more than the 4 GB barrier would be made unaddressable by Windows and be unusable in the system”, just what do you think this changed things FROM? If XP had not previously had the ability to address and use physical memory beyond 4 GB these changes would not have been required. PAE was supported in XP from Day 1, just as it was in Win2K, so that developers would have it available to use to test things like drivers that were sensitive to it – and while Microsoft specified that Win2K Professional was nominally limited to 4 GB of physical memory my recollection is that nothing prohibited it from using more (just as was the case with XP until SP2).

I hate to cite Wikipedia on a controversial technical point unless it has specific supporting citations, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension states that

(PAE) increases the physical memory addressable by the system from 4 GB to 64 GB. The 32-bit size of the virtual address is not changed, so regular application software continues to use instructions with 32-bit addresses and (in a flat memory model) is limited to 4 gigabytes of virtual address space.

(plenty of other support for that one – just thought I’d throw it in) and

The original releases of Windows XP and Windows XP SP1 used PAE mode to allow RAM to extend beyond the 4 GB address limit. However, it led to compatibility problems with 3rd party drivers which led Microsoft to remove this capability in Windows XP Service Pack 2.

I’ve looked around and found other statements similar to the latter but still without citations from Microsoft (though Microsoft’s wording sounds a bit cagey when viewed from this perspective, almost as if they wanted to sneak these changes in under the radar so that no one would notice that they were removing existing functionality, even if no one was actually using it). The really discouraging part is seeing just how many posters don’t hesitate to make confident and seemingly authoritative statements in and around this area that are simply wrong (but I guess that’s just the nature of the Internet these days, and I probably shouldn’t expect technical discussions to be a cut above the rest of the drivel).

On the plus side, though, at the end of these searches this morning and after having written the above I happened upon another link to the Geoff Chappell article that satrow cited earlier, and this time rather than merely glance at it to see that it seemed competent I read through it – and that helped make up for all the earlier discouragement. It’s positively uplifting in this sea of mediocrity to find such a gem, and you could learn a lot from it if you were inclined to.

Of course not; assembly is more tedious.

Say, what? Assembly is a choice of language, system software is a technical area one works in: the two are orthogonal, not comparable.

Just trying to point out that you’re not the only coder that visits these Forums. I first started writing code in 1973.[/QUOTE]

What a coincidence – so did I, but I spent most of the rest of my career writing system-level software, the point being that working INSIDE operating systems tends to give one an understanding of their behavior that simply using them typically does not.

Reply | Quote

Since I don’t yet understand

…it’s unlikely that you will.

I remain uncorrected and unconvinced. Enjoy your day.

Oh, and check my web site for working inside Windows.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

…it’s unlikely that you will.

I’m not particularly interested in the exact nature of your problem – it’s entirely sufficient to understand that you have no interest in correcting it. The description of the Chappell article at the end of my last post was a test: had you passed it and actually visited the article you would have found that he had decompiled the HALs of early Windows versions and verified that Win2K, and XP until SP2, did indeed allow use of PAE to make use of more than 4 GB of physical memory.

(The link that led me to it most recently, by the way, was a discussion of how some users used the XP SP1 HAL to do exactly this, and how the later XP HALs might be patched to do the same.)

Have a nice, blind life.

Edit: Unlike you, when challenged on a point I actually look into it, so I did visit your Web site. While I wasn’t willing to waste a great deal more time on this, a quick perusal gave no indication that you’ve ever done any coding inside the Windows operating systems, though you do seem relatively conversant with their external interfaces. By all means point me to anything there that I may have missed which would counter this impression.

Reply | Quote

Please explain how that alleged difference applies to the specific situation under discussion here, where until now XP’s flaws and vulnerabilities were getting publicized but NOT by and large getting fixed in FUN’s systems whereas in the future they will also be getting publicized and not fixed.

In the past, flaws weren’t getting fixed on some XP systems; in the future, any flaws affecting XP can’t be fixed on millions of systems; they will provide a much bigger target.

Reply | Quote

In the past, flaws weren’t getting fixed on some XP systems; in the future, any flaws affecting XP can’t be fixed on millions of systems; they will provide a much bigger target.

But also a diminishing target as the XP universe continues to dwindle. A better gauge of potential attractiveness to the bad guys may be the total XP-related target size (number of unpatched XP systems plus number of unpatched newer systems) in this specific area plus additional vulnerabilities cropping up in systems and software outside that applicable to XP, but in either case it’s still just speculation – and still doesn’t consider the mitigating effects of running decent and up-to-date third-party browser and security software on those unpatched XP systems.

People seem to have strong opinions about this, though it’s difficult for me to understand the motivation of those who insist that the sky is falling but have no obvious financial stake in convincing people to move off XP (perhaps they’re just natural go-gooders who want to protect those whom they consider uninformed, and I do have some sympathy with such motivation even while also feeling that it’s a bit condescending for my taste). And I admit that I have a somewhat contrarian nature, so when I see such warnings without real, quantitative substance behind them I tend to step up to the plate and question them (and in this case have years of experience running unpatched but otherwise well-protected Win2K systems to back up those questions).

In any event, we’ll see: tens or possibly hundreds of millions of those XP systems won’t be going away any time soon, and a lot of them won’t be running the ‘decent up-to-date’ third-party browser and security software that I just mentioned. My thesis here is that machines that DO run such software should be relatively safe, because I assume that people HERE interested in continuing to run XP in other than a well-isolated environment will have the sense to take such precautions.

Reply | Quote

I’m not confused. 5.25-inch floppy drives have only been useful to museums for 25 years. XP just entered the same phase.[/quote]
How about 8 inch floppies?

XP no longer works well.

Oh, but it does. It’s a matter of perception, and what one’s needs for the OS happen to be. I know more XP users than Windows 7 users; definitely more than Windows 8 users. I doubt that I’ll live long enough to see those ratios change very much.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

I know more XP users than Windows 7 users; definitely more than Windows 8 users. I doubt that I’ll live long enough to see those ratios change very much.

That’s surprising when there are twice as many Windows 7/8 users as XP users.

And XP market share has slipped 5%-10% over the last year.

That can surely only accelerate now?

Do you only have a few years left?

Windows XP refuses to go down without a fight

Reply | Quote

That’s surprising when there are twice as many Windows 7/8 users as XP users.

I wrote “I know”, not “I know of“.

And XP market share has slipped 5%-10% over the last year.

I have a couple of friends still using Windows 98.

That can surely only accelerate now?

But not universally. There are holdouts.

Do you only have a few years left?

I’ve got quite a few years left, Lord willin’, but you and I don’t run in the same circles, or know the same people.

There are a number of control systems of which I am aware that are hosted on XP machines, have never had an update or been exposed to the internet. They are more than adequate for the task, and spare parts abound.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

…
There are a number of control systems of which I am aware that are hosted on XP machines, have never had an update or been exposed to the internet. They are more than adequate for the task, and spare parts abound.

For Windows XP Embedded, I think the retirement date is different. Are these control systems Windows XP Embedded?

Reply | Quote

For Windows XP Embedded, I think the retirement date is different. Are these control systems Windows XP Embedded?

No, control software written to run on XP workstations networked to servers for input/output.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

An old timer here…

Got used to getting thoughts from brain to screen by using good old PC-Write. Been looking for a good work-alike program to replace it, either for Windows or Linux (Unfortunately, running it in DosBox under Win 7 only allows for editing documents of 30Kb max. Too small.).

So unless a better solution comes up, will still be doing my wordprokking under Command.Com in WinXP for the forseeable future. Suggestions welcome.

Reply | Quote

I don’t disagree that XP needs to go, but somehow, someday, we have to do something about the environmental consequences of technology obsolescence. In most cases, XP computers can’t be upgraded (in any cost-effective way, anyway). The idea of 400 million XP computers being added to landfills can’t make anyone very happy.

Reply | Quote

But… but… weren’t we good ol’ XP boys supposed to be subjected to a wave of attacks by all those zero day exploits that were being saved up by those nasty cybercriminals as soon as Microsoft stopped support?

I’m still waiting.

:bananas:

Nil illigitimi carborundum

Reply | Quote

Quite a picture you paint of XP users. I imagine driving down the road in my old pickup, elbow out the window and Good Golly Miss Molly blaring on the 8-track. (Mine was actually cassette.) That was a time when we did things, not just lurked in cubicles wringing our hands about safety. I still see that guy drive by now and then and a little part of me is envious. And if he does have a PC at home it probably has XP on it.

Reply | Quote

Illogical deductions

How secure is Windows 7 or 8 to a hacker = not very
How secure is Windows XP to a hacker = not very

Where are all those Windows XP users = China (about 200 – 500 million mostly hacked versions at nil cost), the rest are large corporate users, government departments and last of all, private users.

These Chinese users aren’t going to upgrade to Windows 7 and definitely not to Windows 8 any time soon due to cost.

Security threats have changed dramatically over the last three years, no longer is the downloaded auto-installed Trojan or virus the big issue it once was, no… now they’re installed by the user who forgot to read the last message and in any event there are now security threats that can’t be detected no matter what version of Windows you run or security protection you have installed evidence Stuxnet which ran undetected for five years.

The reality is there’s no such thing as computer security only a perception of it.

So what we’re talking about here is merely the difference between one version of Windows and another. Of course this doesn’t include all the network hardware kit required to connect to the net or things that plug into USB ports and browsers/plugins to name just three.

When all this is stripped away the difference (XP to Win 8) my guestimate is an increase in risk in the ballpark of 2% to 3% and even then this is mitigated by the quality of your third party security/virus program and how you’ve set up your PC in the first place.

All in all “much ado about nothing”, but what gets me is that for $200 per year per, increasing logarithmically, PC’s for large corporates, .Gov’s and top end Microsoft partners, support continues for another three years. One rule for the rich, another for the poor.

This could come back and bite Microsoft badly when if all the XP doom merchants are correct the internet is clogged up by huge botnets running XP targeting MS servers or worse.

Reply | Quote

i fully expect to find a chinese or east european country with a new company offering support for xp at a price

i also expect to keep xp running for another 25 years or so
my win98se boxes are doing just great
and am not going to give up my 3 xppro pcs cause microslop dropped support

i really do not expect to need any support that i cant find on the web already
but i do believe some 3rd party will step up to keep xp going like a permanent xp geek squad type operation

	TOP STORY Why continuing support for XP is bad math
	By Tony Bradley More than a few Windows XP users are willing to pay Microsoft for more updates to the now effectively obsolete OS. In theory, doing so could produce billions in revenue for Microsoft. Here’s why it’s not going to happen.

---

The full text of this column is posted at windowssecrets.com/top-story/why-continuing-support-for-xp-is-bad-math/ (paid content, opens in a new window/tab).

Columnists typically cannot reply to comments here, but do incorporate the best tips into future columns.[/td]

[/tr][/tbl]

Reply | Quote

I use and like Windows 7 – but there are no drivers for my scanner, my webcam and my special purpose equipment. Several pieces of proprietary software will not run on Windows 7. All of these run fine on XP and there are no replacements, except for the scanner. So some I run in Virtual Box on XP and some on a laptop with XP.

Reply | Quote

I just have to wonder how come windows 7-8 are loaded with updates if they are so much better, although I do like how windows 7 operates and of course it is much faster but give XP enough meat to work with and it’ll fly too……eh..I guess at some point the software vendors will stop making new stuff unavailable for the older operating systems…..that’s usually how they chase everyone to the newer systems….

Reply | Quote

There are four old laptops and two old desktops in our household, all running XP with no problems. Obviously they won’t run Windows 8 (they are all over 7 years old). Even the cost of Windows 7 is more than each is worth.

It is totally immoral to expect users send perfectly serviceable equipment to landfill. I will keep my browsers and antivirus updated and stick with XP!

Reply | Quote

Here is some feedback from an old XP supporter.
1.) I have never experienced any issues with XP> EVER!!!!

2.) While all programs advance (*photoshop, etc) I like the older programs
which are not supported by Win7/Win8. CS2 (*of which I own some fairly
expensive PlugIns), my older Vue and like programs not meant for 64 bit/Win7/Win8.

3.) The ease of XP use is so underrated by so many, but applauded by millions as stated.

4.) Have you seen the crap that is Win8????? UGH! My girlfriend has it, I don’t want it at all.

5.) Since the flaws are known why not sell a new version of XP? One that erases the holes
and flaws, but is XP?

I am obviously not ‘puter savvy. But I do know what works for me and what I love!

Lastly, has anyone checked out PCMatic? Said to guarantee XP use?

Reply | Quote

Bruce, I’m sorry you feel attacked, but if you aren’t careful about your facts, it defeats your whole purpose. My Mom’s use of 5.25″ floppies long after your claimed museum date was an example of why I questioned your veracity. And I know for a fact that she was not the only one who held out into the 1990s. She was just my most direct example. I don’t know you or where you are coming from. It’s not personal. All I know is that you based your argument on an incorrect premise and so the argument is without validity. If you had said “20 years ago” instead of “25 years ago” I would have had no direct knowledge that your premise was wrong and I probably would not have questioned it.

I am in agreement with you that people should upgrade to a higher level than XP if they can. But I am not in agreement that they must. And I think it is important to understand why. There are billions of people on this little planet and each one of them is living his own unique life with his own unique set of resources to draw on. Yes, we do tend to fall into broad groups, but only for broad purposes. When it comes to individual humans there are still billions of us. And we are all exceptions to some rule somewhere. Just like those 55 year old guys that I still see once in a while driving around in their old pickups with the radio (probably not 8 track) blaring and living their individual lives, so also are there people who have no money or desire to “upgrade” something that to them is perfectly serviceable. Upgrading from XP to Win7 was expensive for me. In addition to the cost of the OS I lost some software that worked well and had to find and purchase replacements. Someone mentioned having a scanner with no drivers available in Windows 7. I was in that situation myself. I almost tossed a perfectly good scanner which has served me very well for quite a few years, until I learned that I can use Vue Scan. That would have meant spending even more money to replace it. Etc. What if I didn’t have all that money? Many people don’t. And not everyone needs the most up-to-date thing on the market. How can you blame them for wanting to continue to use something which they already paid for and which still does what they want it to do? I can’t.

Reply | Quote

Tony Bradley’s article makes perfect, logical sense. . . from a highly restricted point-of-view. But NOT from the view of the computer user who is constrained by a multitude of reasons to continue using XP! Especially those who cannot afford to upgrade, especially because the hardware is obsolete! I’m on an eleven-year-old HP desktop running XP right now which only has 250 Mb of RAM, so it’s impossible to upgrade even if I wanted to. It’s also on a wireless internet connection, which also complicates and slows things down. It give me fits, and runs very slow at times, but it’s a miracle that it even works at all.

However, there is another point to be made. The fact the Microsoft is trying to force people who cannot do so to upgrade is IMMORAL, UNETHICAL, and STUPID! They created the systems that had all the vulnerabilities in the first place and made fortunes in the process. And now they just want to keep their money-grubbing hands full of everybody else’s money! They created the problems, and now it’s their responsiblity to keep fixing them IN PERPETUITY!!!!!

Reply | Quote

Bill – 4 Star Lounger wrote:
While I’m not a great fan of a lot of the ways that Microsoft behaves, I think you’re way off base here. While Microsoft is certainly trying to convince people that they need to upgrade (in the finest tradition of marketing the perception of obsolescence), it’s not FORCING them to in any way: XP will continue to run (and to be able to run relatively safely, as discussed extensively in this thread), and the fact that Microsoft would eventually cease to issue updates was public knowledge available to anyone who bought XP (in fact, those updates have continued far longer than anyone ever envisioned).

In other words, you’re demanding behavior which you never paid Microsoft to provide. Be thankful that XP has been supported for as long as it has been: you didn’t pay for that either – it just happened.

———-

You missed my point! So let me make it very explicit.

MICROSOFT SHOULD PAY PEOPLE TO USE THEIR CRAP SOFTWARE. . . NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply | Quote

MICROSOFT SHOULD PAY PEOPLE TO USE THEIR CRAP SOFTWARE. . . NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you feel that way, you should find a better and cheaper alternative.

Reply | Quote

Microsoft is still supporting XP for the Govt of Canada and the Govt of UK. Probably others who paid, too.

Why can’t these patches be made available to other people?

Reply | Quote

Microsoft is still supporting XP for the Govt of Canada and the Govt of UK. Probably others who paid, too.

Why can’t these patches be made available to other people?

”Paid”

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

Tom Bradley’s article isn’t a well argued demonstration of XP support being bad math; it’s just an anti-XP polemic.

Although Tom postulates “Microsoft might see roughly $4 billion in annual revenue” by continuing XP support, nowhere does he make the case that it would be uneconomical for MS to do so or that it would cost MS more than that to make XP more secure. Nor does he consider the math from the standpoint of the users of those “roughly 300 to 500 million PCs in the world still running Windows XP”. For them to upgrade, the minimum cost will be that of a new OS – somewhat more than Tom’s suggested $25 per annum XP service fee… Then there’s the applications and peripherals these users now run that the new OS won’t support – ca-ching! ca-ching! Plus, of course, there’s the cost of new hardware for all those users whose current hardware won’t support a new OS – ca-ching! ca-ching!- ca-ching! ca-ching!

Don’t get me wrong – for those with the means to do so, upgrading certainly has its benefits and for many it’s wiser than staying with XP. For people: of limited means; who only need a PC for emailing and the like’ and/or who have invested in expensive peripherals & software they can’t afford to upgrade (or for which upgrades aren’t available), the math says upgrading isn’t the way to go. Not yet, anyway.

Cheers,
Paul Edstein
[Fmr MS MVP - Word]

Reply | Quote

Given the emerging trend is cheap or free software (e.g. Mac OS, Android) Microsoft could offer an upgrade to 7 or 8 at 20/30 dollars/euros and thus keep a large swath of loyal and active Windows users. It’s a golden opportunity.

Reply | Quote

Indeed Microsoft could offer such an upgrade (it might even net them more income than charging the current prices – or they could even offer as an act of good will – heaven forbid – free upgrades to Vista [as per Adobe making Acrobat Pro 8 available for free]), but that won’t benefit anyone who, for the reasons outlined in my previous post, can’t upgrade so simply.

Cheers,
Paul Edstein
[Fmr MS MVP - Word]

Reply | Quote

Here’s a take on Vista x86: http://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/license/memory.htm, Xp isn’t so different if you check what’s possible with the Server 2003 equivalent:

Physical Memory Limits: Windows Server 2003

The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2003. Limits over 4 GB for 32-bit Windows assume that PAE is enabled.
Version Limit on X86 Limit on IA64

Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition

64 GB

(16 GB with 4GT)

512 GB

Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition

64 GB

(16 GB with 4GT)

512 GB

Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition

4 GB

Windows Server 2003, Web Edition

2 GB

Windows Small Business Server 2003

4 GB

Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003

32 GB

Windows Storage Server 2003, Enterprise Edition

8 GB

Windows Storage Server 2003

4 GB

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778%28v=vs.85%29.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_xp

X86 Server 2003 can use/is licensed for, 64GB.

The biggest problem is getting hardware (motherboard, etc.) with stable drivers.

I’m not supporting trying this out, I would be likely to hit showstoppers, most users would be almost certain to.

I’ve come across a few users who have taken this route to enable 4GB+ memory on XP x86 and, without a complete change in hardware/drivers, they were never likely to get a stable system.

Way off topic for almost all XP users, I’m afraid.

Reply | Quote

The only folks motivated and computer suave enough to take the necessary precautions will be the many companies that continue to use Windows XP and the
advanced private users who, in practically all instances, do not need to be told how to run their systems.
Even the above will ever increasingly find XP to be a very weak and anemic system bound with hardware limitations as each quarter passes.

For the vast majority of the non technical Windows XP personal computer users, and they are the fastest dwindling user base, moving on from Windows XP is the most sound advice that can be given. Not providing such advice would be anathema. The article is spot on.

Reply | Quote

The only folks motivated and computer suave enough to take the necessary precautions will be the many companies that continue to use Windows XP and the
advanced private users who, in practically all instances, do not need to be told how to run their systems.[/quote]

You really ought to be more careful about presenting personal opinion as absolute truth. In fact, people HERE who are eminently capable of making their XP systems reasonably secure DO seem interested in guidance about how to go about it and explanation of why it should work reasonably well.

Even the above will ever increasingly find XP to be a very weak and anemic system bound with hardware limitations as each quarter passes.

So what, if it still meets their wants and needs? That’s really their assessment to make, after all.

For the vast majority of the non technical Windows XP personal computer users, and they are the fastest dwindling user base, moving on from Windows XP is the most sound advice that can be given. Not providing such advice would be anathema. The article is spot on.

My, your regard for the ability of people to make their own decisions when presented with explanations about what their options are (rather than simply being told the one option which the writer seems to consider valid, regardless of what their circumstances may be) seems to be low. Call me an optimist, but I at least want to give people the opportunity to make an informed choice on their own – even if I may personally think that some of their choices may not be the best ones.

Reply | Quote

You really ought to be more careful about presenting personal opinion as absolute truth. In fact, people HERE who are eminently capable of making their XP systems reasonably secure DO seem interested in guidance about how to go about it and explanation of why it should work reasonably well.

Not opinion. Most people don’t have a clue about how to go about doing so, let alone frequenting tech forums. For those that do, that’s fine, they’ll have the best chances for
the most successful & continued use of XP if that is their desire. But they are a MINORITY.

So what, if it still meets their wants and needs? That’s really their assessment to make, after all.

True enough, but one has to wonder how much longer antiquated software will continue to be relevant or useful.
Regardless, those in the know will find a way to work it out or move on.

My, your regard for the ability of people to make their own decisions when presented with explanations about what their options are (rather than simply being told the one option which the writer seems to consider valid, regardless of what their circumstances may be) seems to be low. Call me an optimist, but I at least want to give people the opportunity to make an informed choice on their own – even if I may personally think that some of their choices may not be the best ones.

When it comes to computing most people DO need to be told what to do and there is almost ZERO initiative amongst the average Windows user base.
If we were talking about Linux then that would be a different matter completely.
Again, those that have the minerals to step forward and seek out information relevant to their situation will be in a vastly better position to get what they want.
But the vast majority are simply just “cattle”. [that’s a fact]

Reply | Quote

Not opinion.[/quote]

Ah – I now seem to recall that you don’t understand what the difference between fact and opinion is and aren’t interested in learning. Forget that I brought it up again.

Most people don’t have a clue about how to go about doing so, let alone frequenting tech forums.

So explaining that there are other options in such tech forums won’t do any harm and for those interested in continuing to run XP may do some good.

For those that do, that’s fine, they’ll have the best chances for
the most successful & continued use of XP if that is their desire. But they are a MINORITY.

Your earlier statements (the ones I responded to rather than this straw man above) were considerably broader than merely claiming that a only a simple minority of XP users could benefit from information about how to keep running it with reasonable security.

the vast majority are simply just “cattle”. [that’s a fact]

Not unless you have actual numbers to back it up (hint: one of those differences between fact and opinion that I was talking about before recalling that it likely wouldn’t do any good). And while I happen to share that opinion, I also believe that at least some of those ‘cattle’ can rise to the occasion and learn something if they’re motivated to and exposed to the opportunity.

Reply | Quote

Your earlier statements (the ones I responded to rather than this straw man above) were considerably broader than merely claiming that a only a simple minority of XP users could benefit from information about how to keep running it with reasonable security.

You’re wrong again here. Those are the minority as most users will be forced through attrition to either upgrade, buy a new system with a non XP OS when their systems no longer function, or change to another company’s OS.
Your advocating XP’s continued use is a dead end in reality for most users as it will not be physically possible. It’s a moot and irrelevant argument you are pursuing.
The vast majority of XP users will NOT benefit from technical details on continuing to securely use XP because they will not follow through in the first place.
We’ve been talking about securing Windows XP for over 10 years now, if they didn’t get it then, they sure as hell are not going to get it now.

Not unless you have actual numbers to back it up (hint: one of those differences between fact and opinion that I was talking about before recalling that it likely wouldn’t do any good). And while I happen to share that opinion, I also believe that at least some of those ‘cattle’ can rise to the occasion and learn something if they’re motivated to and exposed to the opportunity.

Once again, not an opinion of mine, but a real world fact. I don’t need to quote you numbers that you would undoubtedly disregard.
Although it is possible for “some of those cattle to rise to the occasion” most of them won’t, and also, it will usually be to their detriment that they take your advice and continue using Windows XP.
Most people do not want to know technical details about their computers beyond getting what they need to do done.
But for someone, like yourself, to advocate that the average non technical user strive to keep and maintain an antiquated OS beyond it’s natural expiration is an affront to your own subjective political viewpoints & not anything whatsoever to do with “helping people”. That is the kind of help most can do without.

So explaining that there are other options in such tech forums won’t do any harm and for those interested in continuing to run XP may do some good.

I have no problem whatsoever in responding to user’s requests for info on how to keep windows XP secure. We will always stride to help.
We will NOT go out of our way to advocate keeping an antiquated and inherently insecure operating system.
I find it ironic that you are not found more frequently in the XP forums “helping” people to secure their OS to the same extent that you seem passionate in debating here in this thread.

Your earlier statements (the ones I responded to rather than this straw man above) were considerably broader than merely claiming that a only a simple minority of XP users could benefit from information about how to keep running it with reasonable security.

I am confident that those that want to keep XP will do so with no input from me. Those that are not up to the mark do not need a mouthpiece like you advocating the continued usage of an antiquated OS that many will not be technically inclined to follow through on.

Reply | Quote

most users will be forced through attrition to either upgrade, buy a new system with a non XP OS when their systems no longer function, or change to another company’s OS.

Upgrading the OS just because of a hardware upgrade is not a given. The mere fact that a new box might come with a new OS doesn’t automatically mean an older OS can’t be used on it…

Cheers,
Paul Edstein
[Fmr MS MVP - Word]

Reply | Quote

We’ve been talking about securing Windows XP for over 10 years now, if they didn’t get it then, they sure as hell are not going to get it now.

That’s the only thing I continually find contradictory to my Spidey sense. Presumably if they never learned anything along the way (the majority at least) then it should be costing them far too much to reasonably continue using XP. Excluding pirated copies of course, I actually think most of the parsley has slid off that plate so to speak and they are the ones now responsible in part for the impressive surge in simpler and safer computers, like the iPads and Chromebooks of the world.
I suspect smaller businesses in large part are more flexible and dynamic than big business so presumably big businesses are the ones with huge armadas of XP systems they just don’t want to upgrade and while they certainly will have their fair share of incompetent users that never seem to learn, larger business is more likely to have IT departments that are on the ball to compensate.
That only leaves what I think is a rather small contingent of actual XP users who have not learned a thing and who cannot afford to get something simpler and safer or have their systems maintained or cleaned once infected. For those folks I kind of feel sorry for since they seemingly have no place or alternatives to turn to and undoubtedly have a rather poor computing experience.

Reply | Quote

You really need to learn to read more carefully, CLiNT: in your last post you assert no less than 4 times that I am ‘advocating’ or ‘advising’ people to continue using XP, whereas in fact I am merely refuting all the blowhards who keep shouting that people have no other option than to abandon XP because if they don’t they will surely suffer horrendous consequences.

My own continued use of Win2K these past 4 years without a single malware infection is proof that it is possible (without extraordinary experience, intelligence, or software, since all I’ve done is apply the same kind of common-sense precautions that anyone can, especially if they’re described to them) to use a no-longer-supported Windows OS to surf even some the seamier portions of the Internet without dire consequences, at least if one uses good third-party browsers, security software, and a hardware router with firewall. I don’t ‘advocate’ or ‘advise’ use of Win2K either, but it does provide a pretty analogous situation (no Windows Updates for nearly 4 years now while the large majority of malware that targets more recent systems could infect Win2K as well if it could get in) to what has just begun to occur with XP.

So if people WANT to continue to use XP they can do so with reasonable safety IF they take such precautions, and that’s an entirely reasonable thing to tell them rather than treat them like small children who cannot be trusted to cross the street unless a crossing guard is present. Adults are generally accorded the freedom to screw up in our society yet somehow most of them manage to survive anyway: it may be a sub-optimal system by some measures but I don’t know of a better one, and my level of disgust at the ways people are already manipulated and often outright lied to (even if it’s allegedly ‘for their own good’) is such that I tend to confront such activity when it crosses my path.

Reply | Quote

Not if it’s an OEM license, and I believe the majority of the them possibly are of that type.
Even if it’s a genuine disk many won’t bother with a clean install.

Reply | Quote

Please correct me if I’m wrong in what, I believe, are some fundamental facts around XP.

1. It’s the singularly most successful Windows OS ever. That is in terms of copies sold.
2. There are hundreds of thousands of systems still using XP.
3. Unsupported OS’s become a potential threat to all systems on the web.
4. There will, almost certainly, be hundreds of thousands of systems still using XP for years to come and therefore, hundreds of thousands of potential threats to other users on-line.
5. Microsoft are continuing support for XP in China.
6. If it’s good enough to continue support for the Chinese, it’s good enough to support it for all.

Reply | Quote

Please correct me if I’m wrong in what, I believe, are some fundamental facts around XP.

1. It’s the singularly most successful Windows OS ever. That is in terms of copies sold.

True.

2. There are hundreds of thousands of systems still using XP.

The estimated #, discussed earlier in this thread, is 300-500 million.

3. Unsupported OS’s become a potential threat to all systems on the web.

That doesn’t necessarily follow. It’s probably more of a case that they’re at greater risk of being turned into zombies for DOS attacks and the like. That might harm connectivity, but not your system, per se.

4. There will, almost certainly, be hundreds of thousands of systems still using XP for years to come and therefore, hundreds of thousands of potential threats to other users on-line.

See # 2, above.

5. Microsoft are continuing support for XP in China.

Microsoft says otherwise – Chinese users will get the same support as everyone else. Furthermore, MS says that, over the last 13 years, 70% of China’s XP users haven’t used Microsoft’s free periodic security service updates to keep their systems updated. So I see little likelihood they’d change that behaviour – for a price – now.

6. If it’s good enough to continue support for the Chinese, it’s good enough to support it for all.

See # 5.

Cheers,
Paul Edstein
[Fmr MS MVP - Word]

Reply | Quote

One of the biggest problems with the article is that software written by Microsoft tools for XP (ie Visual Studio 6) quite often don’t work, compile or, if they’re large enough, load on Windows 7 and upwards.

Visual Studio 6 must have billions of lines of live code out there and the only way that a lot of these projects are going to run or even be developed for Windows 7+ machines is to rewrite the whole lot in the latest language, i.e. .Net.

The problem is that Microsoft produce these development environments and the operating systems and I completely fail to understand why there can’t be any backward compatibility between their newer operating systems and their older development environments. Yes, we have the XP Mode which would be great if it worked all of the time and didn’t fall over with large projects.

The answer isn’t to rewrite everything when there’s a new operating system coming out. If a new operating system comes out ever three or four years then who is going to rewrite the code each time?

The reason why I have a number of XP machines is purely because of the maths; I can’t afford to spend the years rewriting all my code (and I am looking at projects of at least hundreds of thousands of lines of code here) to make it work with the new shiny operating system. And then what happens five years down the line? Do I need to do it all again?

All this talk of having to upgrade to the latest version is nothing short of short sightedness because all of the implications haven’t been considered. Oh, yes, Microsoft did promise to fix this backward compatibility, but as expected they haven’t. The Official Line is that we should rewrite all our code.

I tell you, the next time I rewrite the code it will be away from the Windows platform.

Reply | Quote