Do you still use XP? (multiple choice)

sawdoubters

amazon has windows 7 oem 50 pounds

White Heart Loon

sawdoubters wrote: »

amazon has windows 7 oem 50 pounds

That really isn't an option, most XP computers are not good enough to run Windows 7 to any reasonable standard, would be better put that money towards an upgrade to a faster system

PropJoe10

I was at the dentist last week and the dentist was using XP on her computer. She was hot though, so I didnt say a word. Didnt want to upset her.

JustAddWater

No option for Atari XP?

Hugh 2

I have been considering a MAC for a while
If XP becomes unusable I don't think I will go to 8 (or 7)
My iphone and ipad may well become joined by a iMAC

Have one essential program that only runs on PC other ways I would be long gone

White Heart Loon

Hugh 2 wrote: »

I have been considering a MAC for a while
If XP becomes unusable I don't think I will go to 8 (or 7)
My iphone and ipad may well become joined by a iMAC

Have one essential program that only runs on PC other ways I would be long gone

So, if you cannot use XP you will spend three times the price of a new Windows PC on a new Mac as you've already been captured by the Apple ecosystem and are convinced they get updates forever

PropJoe10

Hugh 2 wrote: »

I have been considering a MAC for a while
If XP becomes unusable I don't think I will go to 8 (or 7)
My iphone and ipad may well become joined by a iMAC

Have one essential program that only runs on PC other ways I would be long gone

Each to their own but Windows 8 with Classic Shell is absolutely fine. In fact, its better than fine, its great. Snappy, secure and stable.

Mr. G

W8 is better than Vista and performs better than W7 on machines with small amounts of memory.

Moving from XP to W8 would be a nightmare. I'm involved in a move at the moment and while I would love all PCs to be on W8, I just know it would be a nightmare. The main problem I see is that for computer-illiterate users, they would miss the desktop they're used of, so Windows 7 is most practical. Granted you can get the classic start menu on W8, but still.

I think the design of W8 will grow and it would be interesting to see what path MS take on the next version.

Regarding Vista, just no. Too many crashes, and it is fair to say (in my opinion anyway) that Windows 7 beats it hands down.

State agencies and educational institutions get special licenses with MS, how much cheaper they get licenses I don't know, but for schools there is a difference anyway.

Holsten

I still have it on two older laptops that don't get used.

I use Win 7 Ultimate for nearly everything else.

Hugh 2

White Heart Loon wrote: »

So, if you cannot use XP you will spend three times the price of a new Windows PC on a new Mac as you've already been captured by the Apple ecosystem and are convinced they get updates forever

Thanks I suppose I am impressed by Apple the laptops here has never been used since the iPad arrived.
I keep the PC just for Farm software program that just will not run on MAC.
In honesty if it comes to it I would buy most basic PC just to run this software (if I really have to) rather than shell out for MAC (I was surprised as to how expensive they are)

I will stay with XP till the for as long as I can.

Hugh 2

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Each to their own but Windows 8 with Classic Shell is absolutely fine. In fact, its better than fine, its great. Snappy, secure and stable.

Thanks I will have a look at 8 in classic shell -when I saw 8 in shop it looked like it was just designed for touch screen without a touch screen pc

Duggy747

I'd take Win 7 any day over Win XP, no question about it.

I still use XP at work but I'm going upgrading it to Win 7 before the week is out..........it's a Win 7 machine that was downgraded to XP for some software reason before I started the job.

Gyck

I've got a bunch of VMs running XP (and Win95 and DOS). Use it for legacy games.

janeparker

In my opinion, it is best operating system for work and office both.

the_syco

Use it on one of the home machines, as it's needed for some software. Use W7 on my main gaming machine, and use W7 on my work machines. Have put XP on a few of the older laptops, as it's faster, and can be set to use a lot less RAM.

Ash.J.Williams

The government have signed a 3m deal with Microsoft to protect XP....the UK are doing the same.

JustAddWater

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The government have signed a 3m deal with Microsoft to protect XP....the UK are doing the same.

Bit misleading... They couldn't get their arse in gear more like and now face a €3m bill to Microsoft to get support for what is now going to be a legacy OS

If they had upgraded properly like most other businesses....

Here's a link
http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/state-must-pay-33m-security-bill-after-missing-windows-xp-deadline-30021556.html

BionicRasher

After the next upgrade to Window 7 I believe a lot of large companies (and hopefully small too) will start to look at Platform as a Service, Infrastructure as a Service and Software as a Service – PaaS, IaaS and SaaS - or the ‘CLOUD’

It’s a massive cost for a company to upgrade hardware and to put resources in to going to every machine and updating the OS. In 5 years time I believe most forward thinking companies will be running thin clients, Web Browsers on mobile devices or BYOD etc.

It would be much easier and less painful to push a new OS via the Cloud rather than having all the hassle that goes with a major upgrade currently

Irish Steve

BionicRasher wrote: »

After the next upgrade to Window 7 I believe a lot of large companies (and hopefully small too) will start to look at Platform as a Service, Infrastructure as a Service and Software as a Service – PaaS, IaaS and SaaS - or the ‘CLOUD’

It’s a massive cost for a company to upgrade hardware and to put resources in to going to every machine and updating the OS. In 5 years time I believe most forward thinking companies will be running thin clients, Web Browsers on mobile devices or BYOD etc.

It would be much easier and less painful to push a new OS via the Cloud rather than having all the hassle that goes with a major upgrade currently

For the manufacturer maybe, for the end user, there are MASSIVE risks, in a number of areas, which are being conveniently avoided by the proponents of "the cloud". My attitude towards the cloud is that I've seen it all before, it was called bureau processing 40 years ago, and it can be fraught with real problems for the end user, and can be very expensive if not properly managed by the end user.

The first issue is the issue of access to the data and programmes, both in terms of physical connection, and in the event of a problem with the cloud supplier. The last week is a case in point. Many people have had no power for a week. A company can't turn round to the workforce and say "sorry, our broadband has been out for the last week, we can't process the payroll this week", people depend on their money on time.

Then there's the issue of getting access to the data and the programs in the event of the failure of the cloud supplier, which means that there either has to be a cast iron guaranteed escrow system or similar for ALL backups, or the customer has to make local backups of the entire cloud. If you're making local backups, why pay for a cloud?

Some cloud suppliers don't own the hardware they operate on. Do you really fancy trying to get access to your data and programs from the company that's pulled the plug on the cloud supplier because they haven't paid the bill to the hardware supplier? Good luck with that one, there's only one way out of that, pay the possibly large outstanding bill, or pay the possibly large legal bill to enforce the agreement that you have with a different company that may no longer exist or be trading, and having negotiated that minefield, find a new supplier that can host your data and programs and provide access to them, and do it all in a matter of hours to avoid the problem becoming much larger when your payroll is not paid out on time.

No thanks, that scenario doesn't appeal to me at all! There could be very significant consequences for the directors of a company that fails if it is deemed that the directors acted recklessly, and using "the Cloud" without adequate safeguards against the failure of "the cloud" could well prove to be a VERY expensive mistake for some.

The Cloud LOOKS cheap, but when you factor in the very necessary extras that the snake oil salesman conveniently doesn't mention until after you've signed, the total cost of the cloud will be very similar or possibly even dearer than having your own operation in house, the problem being that "the cloud" at first sight appears very attractive to small companies that don't want to have the cost of support of in house computers and systems.

Then there's the hidden costs, both in terms of access, and support, which can be increased by the supplier, who can be comfortable in the knowledge that moving to another supplier can be very difficult. Nice for the supplier, not so nice for the customer.

The bottom line is to remember what a cloud is. It's water vapour that has condensed and become visible, but a very small change in the environment can mean that the cloud disappears as quickly as it formed, and there's no trace to be found of it. If you look at cloud computing in the same way, and treat it with that degree of scepticism, you may stay safe as others rush headlong into what could prove to be a very expensive mistake, which in the worst case scenario could destroy any companies that have not taken the right level of precautions to protect their data.

A significant number of companies that lose their data and systems through flood, fire or systems failure do not survive long term, due to the problems of recovering, and I know what I'm talking about here, I had to recover the entire accounting system for a £15 Million turnover company in the early 80's after a flood, and it wasn't easy.

The Cloud for computing is the latest version of buzz words being peddled in a lot of cases by snake oil sales people, and the very real and substantial risks are being totally glossed over. Don't be caught by it, the consequences could be very serious if you don't make very sure that you are safe and secure.

BionicRasher

Irish Steve wrote: »

For the manufacturer maybe, for the end user, there are MASSIVE risks, in a number of areas, which are being conveniently avoided by the proponents of "the cloud". My attitude towards the cloud is that I've seen it all before, it was called bureau processing 40 years ago, and it can be fraught with real problems for the end user, and can be very expensive if not properly managed by the end user.

The first issue is the issue of access to the data and programmes, both in terms of physical connection, and in the event of a problem with the cloud supplier. The last week is a case in point. Many people have had no power for a week. A company can't turn round to the workforce and say "sorry, our broadband has been out for the last week, we can't process the payroll this week", people depend on their money on time.

Then there's the issue of getting access to the data and the programs in the event of the failure of the cloud supplier, which means that there either has to be a cast iron guaranteed escrow system or similar for ALL backups, or the customer has to make local backups of the entire cloud. If you're making local backups, why pay for a cloud?

Some cloud suppliers don't own the hardware they operate on. Do you really fancy trying to get access to your data and programs from the company that's pulled the plug on the cloud supplier because they haven't paid the bill to the hardware supplier? Good luck with that one, there's only one way out of that, pay the possibly large outstanding bill, or pay the possibly large legal bill to enforce the agreement that you have with a different company that may no longer exist or be trading, and having negotiated that minefield, find a new supplier that can host your data and programs and provide access to them, and do it all in a matter of hours to avoid the problem becoming much larger when your payroll is not paid out on time.

No thanks, that scenario doesn't appeal to me at all! There could be very significant consequences for the directors of a company that fails if it is deemed that the directors acted recklessly, and using "the Cloud" without adequate safeguards against the failure of "the cloud" could well prove to be a VERY expensive mistake for some.

The Cloud LOOKS cheap, but when you factor in the very necessary extras that the snake oil salesman conveniently doesn't mention until after you've signed, the total cost of the cloud will be very similar or possibly even dearer than having your own operation in house, the problem being that "the cloud" at first sight appears very attractive to small companies that don't want to have the cost of support of in house computers and systems.

Then there's the hidden costs, both in terms of access, and support, which can be increased by the supplier, who can be comfortable in the knowledge that moving to another supplier can be very difficult. Nice for the supplier, not so nice for the customer.

The bottom line is to remember what a cloud is. It's water vapour that has condensed and become visible, but a very small change in the environment can mean that the cloud disappears as quickly as it formed, and there's no trace to be found of it. If you look at cloud computing in the same way, and treat it with that degree of scepticism, you may stay safe as others rush headlong into what could prove to be a very expensive mistake, which in the worst case scenario could destroy any companies that have not taken the right level of precautions to protect their data.

A significant number of companies that lose their data and systems through flood, fire or systems failure do not survive long term, due to the problems of recovering, and I know what I'm talking about here, I had to recover the entire accounting system for a £15 Million turnover company in the early 80's after a flood, and it wasn't easy.

The Cloud for computing is the latest version of buzz words being peddled in a lot of cases by snake oil sales people, and the very real and substantial risks are being totally glossed over. Don't be caught by it, the consequences could be very serious if you don't make very sure that you are safe and secure.

Yes I am in agreement with a lot of your points.
The Cloud needs to be managed correctly and you cannot solely rely on it for things like a Payroll application or a critical application that requires 99.9% uptime. What I believe many larger companies will do is have their own private cloud (datacenter) that deploys the OS and software and maybe has a connection to an external cloud as a fail over etc.
From a OS upgrade point of view pushing a new OS to thin clients from your own private cloud is way easier and more cost effective that the current model. I am not saying move everything off to some fly by night cloud operator but I am saying it is a serious step forward if you can consolidate your systems in to some sort of central hub. This cuts down on things like hardware costs, desktop support visits, upgrade deployments can be managed, inventory can be tracked and everything can be centrally managed which will help especially for larger companies that might have offices in multiple locations.

Ash.J.Williams

I would say for the public sector the issues regarding the cloud are not valid, as they would use a private cloud. Plus payroll and other critical services would remain as they are. In affect just the end user/data entry office people would be using the cloud. (which is a lot of people). Many of which have locked down pc's anyway.

Irish Steve

BionicRasher wrote: »

Yes I am in agreement with a lot of your points.
The Cloud needs to be managed correctly and you cannot solely rely on it for things like a Payroll application or a critical application that requires 99.9% uptime. What I believe many larger companies will do is have their own private cloud (datacenter) that deploys the OS and software and maybe has a connection to an external cloud as a fail over etc.
From a OS upgrade point of view pushing a new OS to thin clients from your own private cloud is way easier and more cost effective that the current model. I am not saying move everything off to some fly by night cloud operator but I am saying it is a serious step forward if you can consolidate your systems in to some sort of central hub. This cuts down on things like hardware costs, desktop support visits, upgrade deployments can be managed, inventory can be tracked and everything can be centrally managed which will help especially for larger companies that might have offices in multiple locations.

Sounds good in theory, but as things stand at the moment, it's not going to happen with Microsoft, as they are not in the business of making their sources available to end users, or corporates, and patching without source access is a nightmare, been there, done that, and it's not fun, especially in time critical environments.

For a lot of corporates, they'd be much happier if they could have a "dumb" intelligent terminal for remote users, so there are NO risks of USB sticks, or CD's or any of the other devices that are all too easy to hang on to a "standard" PC. In some cases, the user does need the ability to be able to use peripherals, so that has to be handled differently.

In some respects, I see this change as being the beginning of the end for Microsoft in the operating systems arena, their recent offerings have not been popular with many users especially at the corporate level, and I suspect that a lot of that is down to the inability of the user to get "into" the thing and make it do what they want easily.

We hear very little about the "IBM" PC these days, because IBM have moved on to different things, and I don't think it will be long before Microsoft ends up doing the same, and I'm coming to the conclusion that Microsoft may not have a long term future in operating systems, unless they change their stance on some of their ways of doing things.

Private Clouds are nothing new, it's just a new name on a well established concept, but some of the finer points, like "thin" client are a distinct possibility, which may indeed reduce the support load for the companies. Good thing too, support of operating systems right now is a nightmare, and for all the wrong reasons.

If nothing else, the next couple of years are going to be "interesting"

partyguinness

allybhoy wrote: »

I work in IT, from what ive seen there are thousands of XP machines still out in the workplace and a lot of companies have no plans to upgrade \ replace. The budget just isnt there to replace every desktop \ laptop. Obviously we are advising all our customers to replace before April and some are but a lot simply dont have the capital.

We are in this position.

We know it's old and basically running on coal but it's cashflow. We just paid VAT, wages etc and it will be something else next month. Our entire IT needs to be upgraded..:(

BionicRasher

Irish Steve wrote: »

We hear very little about the "IBM" PC these days,

Now Lenovo and I believe they have also bought out IBM Server side of things too

Dravokivich

yeah, but it's not my "only" PC at home. I've one Desktop and Laptop running XP. I'd rather use the OS itself instead of compatibility modes for games. Some I've got don't even function fully in Win7.

Everything else is Win 7.

BionicRasher wrote: »

Now Lenovo and I believe they have also bought out IBM Server side of things too

The lower spec end of it.

bnt

Linux here too (Debian), but I still keep an XP virtual machine (in VirtualBox).

briany

Got XP on a couple of old machines which I can and have used when the main one goes down. I do prefer W7 but XP is perfect as a bread and butter OS for your everyday productivity based tasks, security/support qualms aside.

GTE

200motels wrote: »

Don't forget you wouldn't have 7 and 8 without Vista. Vista is not rubbish, with at least 2gb of ram and a good processor Vista runs extremely well in fact it runs as well as 7 on my PC but Linux Mint beats the two of them hands down.

As long as you are clear that is your opinion and it does not trump another persons opinion then fire away but I have had extensive use on all these operating systems from a audio/tv/film production point of view and I know very well what is good and what isn't for me :pac:

PropJoe10

Vista is actually alright with the latest service pack, but it will never be accepted because of how crap it was when it first came out. I will probably continue to use XP in a VM for a few things (legacy games) after April but it definitely wont be safe to use for every day use.

Sir Arthur Daley

My home pc is on xp along with the 2 work laptops, looking into getting them upgraded to windows 7.