Am I the only one here who would be willing to use 2000 as his primary OS for extended periods of time, if needed?
I ran 2000 as a primary OS for a very long time, basically up until EOL. I still use a copy on a virtual machine to run programs that don't work in 7, which is actually quite a lot.
I used to be willing to do that, but it's been several years since I ran 2000 as a main OS. Recently, I installed it as part of a security training exercise and I realized just how out of date it was. Kind of made me sad, but I've moved on and now I'm feeling that way about XP.
Everything I use on a regular basis runs just fine on Windows 7. And with the exception of vSphere, everything also runs just fine on Windows 8.
XP can't be obsolete. You can do almost everything a W7 machine can do and more. The purpose of an OS is to get your applications running. Applications get your work done.
1. .Net 4.0 installs on XP
2. C++ 2012 runtime installs on XP
3. If your worried about IE, upgrade to real browser, Firefox.
4. Updates until next year.
5. The more is run old applications without a problem.
XP can't be obsolete. You can do almost everything a W7 machine can do and more. The purpose of an OS is to get your applications running. Applications get your work done.
1. .Net 4.0 installs on XP
2. C++ 2012 runtime installs on XP
3. If your worried about IE, upgrade to real browser, Firefox.
4. Updates until next year.
5. The more is run old applications without a problem.
For right now yes. Once XP hits end of life, I don't think MS is going to release updated runtimes, so any apps compiled for the newer runtimes may not run then. I still think they'll run with tweaking. Looking at people getting NT 3.51 to run modern applications however, I think apps will be backwards compatible with XP for a while.
One thing I wonder about soon, is since XP and later required activation, something I'm still against to this day, I bet they're going to stop allowing activations on reinstalls soon for it. It wouldn't surprise me at all.
Apps may work on XP for now and probably will for a little while, but it won't be too long before new versions stop supporting it. Updates will cease and XP will become an even juicier target for malware. XP had its day in the sun, it's time to let it rest now.
One thing I wonder about soon, is since XP and later required activation, something I'm still against to this day, I bet they're going to stop allowing activations on reinstalls soon for it. It wouldn't surprise me at all.
Microsoft have said they won't stop activation's after the 2014 deadline. But I do wonder how much longer they'll keep activation's going and what they'll do when they stop. One theory is that they'll offer a patch to disable activation. They may do that, but I'm guessing it'll be a few years down the road, after XP's market share has dropped significantly.
I used to be willing to do that, but it's been several years since I ran 2000 as a main OS. Recently, I installed it as part of a security training exercise and I realized just how out of date it was. Kind of made me sad, but I've moved on and now I'm feeling that way about XP.
Everything I use on a regular basis runs just fine on Windows 7. And with the exception of vSphere, everything also runs just fine on Windows 8.
Some older programs that use DirectX don't seem to work properly in 7, but work fine in 2000 and XP. I keep a XP vm for those games and then there's some industrial apps I run in 2000 (An old version of ETAP Powerstation I needed for my senior design project was one of them.) But yeah, using it feels ancient now. Unrelated, but even me using 7 with the classic theme, newer applications seem a bit out of place with that style, which I guess can be understandable.
Apps may work on XP for now and probably will for a little while, but it won't be too long before new versions stop supporting it. Updates will cease and XP will become an even juicier target for malware. XP had its day in the sun, it's time to let it rest now.
One thing I wonder about soon, is since XP and later required activation, something I'm still against to this day, I bet they're going to stop allowing activations on reinstalls soon for it. It wouldn't surprise me at all.
Microsoft have said they won't stop activation's after the 2014 deadline. But I do wonder how much longer they'll keep activation's going and what they'll do when they stop. One theory is that they'll offer a patch to disable activation. They may do that, but I'm guessing it'll be a few years down the road, after XP's market share has dropped significantly.
I have a feeling they won't offer a patch to bypass activation when they shut down those activation servers. Why should they? From their perspective, XP is still one of their larger competitors to their current releases. But yeah, I do have to agree if they will do such a thing, it might be another couple years down the road likely around when 7 hits EOL.
Funny thing, few years ago in the early days of this forum and on IRC, we were making comments like "95 and 98 are obsolete now, why the heck would you still want to use it? Move over to 2k and XP, they're newer."
I have a feeling they won't offer a patch to bypass activation when they shut down those activation servers. Why should they? From their perspective, XP is still one of their larger competitors to their current releases. But yeah, I do have to agree if they will do such a thing, it might be another couple years down the road likely around when 7 hits EOL.
Well, like I said, they wouldn't do it until XP lost a significant amount of the market share. Right now, XP and 7 are still the top dogs. Once XP falls down to Vista's level of market share or maybe a little less, they may start to consider shutting down the activation servers and then a few years after that, they may release the patch to bypass activation.
Funny thing, few years ago in the early days of this forum and on IRC, we were making comments like "95 and 98 are obsolete now, why the heck would you still want to use it? Move over to 2k and XP, they're newer."
Yeah the same thing is pretty much happening again. Because back then, 98 (and to a lesser degree, 95) were still useful. You could browse the modern web on them and still use them as an every day use machine without suffering too much. But time marched on and now, I don't want to say they're useless, but their usefulness has declined significantly. Trying to use them as an every day use machine is painful, browsing the modern web is also painful and gets more so every year.
Now the same thing is happening to XP. It's still in its useful phase, but sooner or later, it will become painful to use it.
I have a feeling they won't offer a patch to bypass activation when they shut down those activation servers. Why should they? From their perspective, XP is still one of their larger competitors to their current releases. But yeah, I do have to agree if they will do such a thing, it might be another couple years down the road likely around when 7 hits EOL.
Well, like I said, they wouldn't do it until XP lost a significant amount of the market share. Right now, XP and 7 are still the top dogs. Once XP falls down to Vista's level of market share or maybe a little less, they may start to consider shutting down the activation servers and then a few years after that, they may release the patch to bypass activation.
Funny thing, few years ago in the early days of this forum and on IRC, we were making comments like "95 and 98 are obsolete now, why the heck would you still want to use it? Move over to 2k and XP, they're newer."
Yeah the same thing is pretty much happening again. Because back then, 98 (and to a lesser degree, 95) were still useful. You could browse the modern web on them and still use them as an every day use machine without suffering too much. But time marched on and now, I don't want to say they're useless, but their usefulness has declined significantly. Trying to use them as an every day use machine is painful, browsing the modern web is also painful and gets more so every year.
Now the same thing is happening to XP. It's still in its useful phase, but sooner or later, it will become painful to use it.
I find that running firefox isn't all that painful to because Firefox 2.0 runs in 98 easily and (with a bit of stress and tweaking) 95.
windows xp is nerly dead we got to stwich to 7 8 8.1 but NOT vista
Sadly this is probably going into the river of dumb and any signs of an intelligent conversation lost with it.
While yes XP will cease to receive security updates a good deal of people will likely keep it running longer, just look at the Windows 2000 extended kernels, or the unofficial service packs for 2000 and even 98.
And because I like treating with trolls, please explain why Vista is a bad move? One who wants to switch to 7 or newer without removing their programs CAN upgrade XP to Vista and go from there, granted they'll still be running a 32-bit OS and there are almost no reasons to NOT use 64-bit these days...
I mostly run Debian as my main OS and run Windows in Virtualbox. For me, XP works better because it requires less RAM (you can fit it in an 512 VM and have enough to surf and whatever) and it is also faster than Vista/7/8 are. It does feel dated and I vaguely recall reading that they're not even making Firefox for it any more -but it's still fun and an XP VM is still a good thing to keep around for when you're bored.
I wouldn't run it as my day to day OS tho. That's what Debian or Windows 7 are for.
Grabbing an old copy of firefox and running it on 2k is an interesting idea I might try as an experiment.
Firefox 12 is the last supported version for 2k, but using extended kernels made by third parties basically melds support for handling newer win32 code and allows some newer programs to run.
One who wants to switch to 7 or newer without removing their programs CAN upgrade XP to Vista and go from there, granted they'll still be running a 32-bit OS and there are almost no reasons to NOT use 64-bit these days...
Driver compatibility is why. 32-bit systems have more drivers than 64-bit does, especially on older, XP-based systems.
I have not had a driver issue on any 64 bit install I've done. Which is pretty much every Windows 7 install I've done.
Any system that can run 7, should have no issues with drivers on 64bit.
You could argue, however, the lack of 16bit app support. So, for instance, if you had some older 16 bit programs or games that you still played. But the answer to that is virtualization.
BlueSun i think he thought about old hardware, like old cards, embed stuff, those not-so-common things that are for a specific task
also i think it´s obsolete. a lot of things already won´t work
-Dx11 (there is a unnoficial 10, didnt tested it)
-.net 4.5
-any .exe compiled with lastest vs 2k13
-vs 2k13
-ie 9+(say what you want about ie, after you configure it using regedit tweaks, disable addons and see if you dont have adware crap, it runs pretty good)
-afaik opera(another great browser) is also droping support
-any new decade AAA game
-origin´s in-game overlay seems to be glitched
-way less security policies(like run as admnisitrator)
However i still think it´s a usable OS depending on the application. for instance, i work fixing pc´s, since im from brazil(and live in brazil), most of my consumers comes either with new pc´s, witch i put 7 or really old pcs, like athlons 2400,pentium 4/pentium 2, with at max 1/2gb of ram, some old sata 1 or even ide hard drive.
their main porpuse it´s to browse, facebook, emails etc.
so i put xp, some ant virus(depends on machine specs), disable a bunch of services and other crap(except themes, or they complains) and those clients seems to be happy.
XP has lost support, though "obsolete" means that it doesn't exist anymore, and almost 30% of the world's population still uses XP. I still see XP used in Home Depot and other stores I've gone to. So it may be old and have lost support, but no, it isn't obsolete.
XP has lost support, though "obsolete" means that it doesn't exist anymore, and almost 30% of the world's population still uses XP. I still see XP used in Home Depot and other stores I've gone to. So it may be old and have lost support, but no, it isn't obsolete.
Just because stores use it doesn't make it not obsolete. I still see Point Of Sale machines running Windows 2000, including at a local grocery store. You'd never know except I saw one reboot a few months ago, and it was a Windows 2000 machine.
That doesn't make Windows 2000 not obsolete, but it does make the store behind on the times...
ob·so·lete
ˌäbsəˈlēt/Submit
adjective
1.
no longer produced or used; out of date.
Microsoft is no longer producing it, in that they're no longer writing patches for it and (as far as I know), they're no longer selling it.
It is, however, still being used by about 25% of the market.
But XP is certainly out of date. It's support for modern hardware and software is getting smaller and smaller all the time. It's time to let it rest. It's time for that 25% to upgrade. Hell, even 7 is starting to feel old now.
After briefly using the latest OSX recently, as well as my dabblings with *nix DEs, I'm starting to feel the same way. 7 is starting to feel a bit dated.
I've gotten used to 8.1 now. And with Update 1, they've made this whole metro / desktop thing quite usable.
But Microsoft, seriously, it's time to implement multiple workspaces in Windows. Nearly every other GUI for the last couple of decades has had it, why not Windows? Surely it must be some kind of copyright / patent thing?
Considering Apple, and for the longest time, any commercial UNIX using CDE, probably not.
Current solutions use either hiding groups of windows or actual window stations in the NT kernel (which is what the Sysinternals's multidesktop thing uses) - while the window stations are more elegant, it's not quite ready for prime time, considering the limitations the shell faces with multiple.
I've gotten used to 8.1 now. And with Update 1, they've made this whole metro / desktop thing quite usable.
But Microsoft, seriously, it's time to implement multiple workspaces in Windows. Nearly every other GUI for the last couple of decades has had it, why not Windows? Surely it must be some kind of copyright / patent thing?
There was one of the XP powertoys that did this, but from memory it was pretty annoying to use.
there are still ways to update xp, if you know how. If it is ok puppy linux world made a video about it and if it is ok with the admins for me to put a link to it. I am just asking so I don't get trolled.
Comments
Second, XP was a good OS for its day. But its day has come and gone. 7 is just as good as XP was, if not better.
Everything I use on a regular basis runs just fine on Windows 7. And with the exception of vSphere, everything also runs just fine on Windows 8.
1. .Net 4.0 installs on XP
2. C++ 2012 runtime installs on XP
3. If your worried about IE, upgrade to real browser, Firefox.
4. Updates until next year.
5. The more is run old applications without a problem.
One thing I wonder about soon, is since XP and later required activation, something I'm still against to this day, I bet they're going to stop allowing activations on reinstalls soon for it. It wouldn't surprise me at all.
Microsoft have said they won't stop activation's after the 2014 deadline. But I do wonder how much longer they'll keep activation's going and what they'll do when they stop. One theory is that they'll offer a patch to disable activation. They may do that, but I'm guessing it'll be a few years down the road, after XP's market share has dropped significantly.
I have a feeling they won't offer a patch to bypass activation when they shut down those activation servers. Why should they? From their perspective, XP is still one of their larger competitors to their current releases. But yeah, I do have to agree if they will do such a thing, it might be another couple years down the road likely around when 7 hits EOL.
Funny thing, few years ago in the early days of this forum and on IRC, we were making comments like "95 and 98 are obsolete now, why the heck would you still want to use it? Move over to 2k and XP, they're newer."
Well, like I said, they wouldn't do it until XP lost a significant amount of the market share. Right now, XP and 7 are still the top dogs. Once XP falls down to Vista's level of market share or maybe a little less, they may start to consider shutting down the activation servers and then a few years after that, they may release the patch to bypass activation.
Yeah the same thing is pretty much happening again. Because back then, 98 (and to a lesser degree, 95) were still useful. You could browse the modern web on them and still use them as an every day use machine without suffering too much. But time marched on and now, I don't want to say they're useless, but their usefulness has declined significantly. Trying to use them as an every day use machine is painful, browsing the modern web is also painful and gets more so every year.
Now the same thing is happening to XP. It's still in its useful phase, but sooner or later, it will become painful to use it.
I find that running firefox isn't all that painful to because Firefox 2.0 runs in 98 easily and (with a bit of stress and tweaking) 95.
While yes XP will cease to receive security updates a good deal of people will likely keep it running longer, just look at the Windows 2000 extended kernels, or the unofficial service packs for 2000 and even 98.
And because I like treating with trolls, please explain why Vista is a bad move? One who wants to switch to 7 or newer without removing their programs CAN upgrade XP to Vista and go from there, granted they'll still be running a 32-bit OS and there are almost no reasons to NOT use 64-bit these days...
I wouldn't run it as my day to day OS tho. That's what Debian or Windows 7 are for.
Grabbing an old copy of firefox and running it on 2k is an interesting idea I might try as an experiment.
Any system that can run 7, should have no issues with drivers on 64bit.
You could argue, however, the lack of 16bit app support. So, for instance, if you had some older 16 bit programs or games that you still played. But the answer to that is virtualization.
also i think it´s obsolete. a lot of things already won´t work
-Dx11 (there is a unnoficial 10, didnt tested it)
-.net 4.5
-any .exe compiled with lastest vs 2k13
-vs 2k13
-ie 9+(say what you want about ie, after you configure it using regedit tweaks, disable addons and see if you dont have adware crap, it runs pretty good)
-afaik opera(another great browser) is also droping support
-any new decade AAA game
-origin´s in-game overlay seems to be glitched
-way less security policies(like run as admnisitrator)
However i still think it´s a usable OS depending on the application. for instance, i work fixing pc´s, since im from brazil(and live in brazil), most of my consumers comes either with new pc´s, witch i put 7 or really old pcs, like athlons 2400,pentium 4/pentium 2, with at max 1/2gb of ram, some old sata 1 or even ide hard drive.
their main porpuse it´s to browse, facebook, emails etc.
so i put xp, some ant virus(depends on machine specs), disable a bunch of services and other crap(except themes, or they complains) and those clients seems to be happy.
That doesn't make Windows 2000 not obsolete, but it does make the store behind on the times...
Microsoft is no longer producing it, in that they're no longer writing patches for it and (as far as I know), they're no longer selling it.
It is, however, still being used by about 25% of the market.
But XP is certainly out of date. It's support for modern hardware and software is getting smaller and smaller all the time. It's time to let it rest. It's time for that 25% to upgrade. Hell, even 7 is starting to feel old now.
But Microsoft, seriously, it's time to implement multiple workspaces in Windows. Nearly every other GUI for the last couple of decades has had it, why not Windows? Surely it must be some kind of copyright / patent thing?
Current solutions use either hiding groups of windows or actual window stations in the NT kernel (which is what the Sysinternals's multidesktop thing uses) - while the window stations are more elegant, it's not quite ready for prime time, considering the limitations the shell faces with multiple.
There was one of the XP powertoys that did this, but from memory it was pretty annoying to use.