7 ms·

I find it amazing that people seem to be more concerned about upgrading the browser than upgrading the OS. The delta between XP and Win7 is so much larger than

I find it amazing that people seem to be more concerned about upgrading the browser than upgrading the OS. The delta between XP and Win7 is so much larger than IE8 and IE9 that having this discussion is almost embarrassing. While I get that this may make the life of the HTML5 dev easier -- its just dwarfed by the importance of getting people off of a dangerous OS. While in theory it would be nice to see MS support XP with IE9, I much prefer they use any means to get people off this OS. I'd even love to see them offer Ubuntu or Win7 as upgrade path. There's just no reason to be on XP. And everything we do to make their lives seemingly easier, really keeps this in this precarious situation.

nkassis 16y ago
They should make a free Windows 7 Basic basic (basically XP but newer ;p) upgrade. That way people would have a option but that IF they have a PC capable of running a basic version of Windows 7.
- tesseract 16y ago
  Really I think it's surprising that MS hasn't done this rather than continuing to spend money on XP security patches.
  - mixmastamyk 16y ago
    Companies don't usually put off upgrading for lack of money, rather all the outdated internal software that will have to be fixed.
- yuhong 16y ago
  Yea, it is pretty stupid this time they made Home Basic available only in developing countries.
middus 16y ago
Thing is: I don't care if you run XP or Win7 (or Mac OS X or Ubuntu for that matter) because my software does not run on top of the OS but on top of a modern browsers. So the IE8/9 difference matters to me, the OS difference does not. Don't forget that most (or at least a lot of) people here on HN develop or run web apps.
- Pahalial 16y ago
  Within the scope of this discussion, that's somewhat facetious. The main reason cited for wanting people to move off IE6 is security concerns rather than HTML5 support, and for good reason - I don't care whether people can use the latest-greatest version of gmail, I care whether they're unduly liable to become part of a botnet that can bring down gmail for everyone.
  - SwellJoe 16y ago
    That's not my reason, and I've never once mentioned it. I don't care a bit about other people's security. It's an important issue, but life is short, and I've got other stuff to worry about. My applications have to run in people's browsers...if there are a significant number of people using crappy old browsers (of which IE8 is one), it affects my life and my use of time.
    - Locke1689 16y ago
      Alright, well I'm in security and I want people off Windows XP. What now? Do we fight over who has the more self-serving agenda? Please. Since when did Hacker News become about pandering to software development subfields?
      - mixmastamyk 16y ago
        The difference is that XP can be coerced into a reasonable semblance of security, whereas IE6 is unfixable.
        Locke1689 16y ago
        XP is also unfixable. You just know more about web development than you do about permissions security.
        wtallis 16y ago
        So, are you saying that Windows 7 is significantly more secure than XP can ever be?
joe_the_user 16y ago
Uh, Actually, the need to upgrade anything and everything is a bit overdone. What, in particular, is your problem with XP? The MS monopoly thrives on the need for a regular update, needed or not. Windows XP is a great OS IMHO - it's a shame MS found it convenient to ditch support for it. OSes aren't new. We've been doing them a long time. MS may say there are things missing from XP but it satisfies a lot of needs - for example, it runs Firefox quite well. Now browsers, in particular, are still in a state of flux. With browser, in particular, upgrading matters. That also might not continue forever but its true now. The browser you use impact me because I care about what you see. The OS you use does NOT impact me because only you see it. Uh, and Win7 doesn't run on a lot of hardware and MS probably isn't going offer Ubuntu anytime in the next supereon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_(geology)#Terminology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_(geology)#Terminology).

nkassis 16y ago

They should make a free Windows 7 Basic basic (basically XP but newer ;p) upgrade. That way people would have a option but that IF they have a PC capable of running a basic version of Windows 7.

tesseract 16y ago
Really I think it's surprising that MS hasn't done this rather than continuing to spend money on XP security patches.
- mixmastamyk 16y ago
  Companies don't usually put off upgrading for lack of money, rather all the outdated internal software that will have to be fixed.
yuhong 16y ago
Yea, it is pretty stupid this time they made Home Basic available only in developing countries.

middus 16y ago

Thing is: I don't care if you run XP or Win7 (or Mac OS X or Ubuntu for that matter) because my software does not run on top of the OS but on top of a modern browsers. So the IE8/9 difference matters to me, the OS difference does not. Don't forget that most (or at least a lot of) people here on HN develop or run web apps.

Pahalial 16y ago
Within the scope of this discussion, that's somewhat facetious. The main reason cited for wanting people to move off IE6 is security concerns rather than HTML5 support, and for good reason - I don't care whether people can use the latest-greatest version of gmail, I care whether they're unduly liable to become part of a botnet that can bring down gmail for everyone.
- SwellJoe 16y ago
  That's not my reason, and I've never once mentioned it. I don't care a bit about other people's security. It's an important issue, but life is short, and I've got other stuff to worry about. My applications have to run in people's browsers...if there are a significant number of people using crappy old browsers (of which IE8 is one), it affects my life and my use of time.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    Alright, well I'm in security and I want people off Windows XP. What now? Do we fight over who has the more self-serving agenda? Please. Since when did Hacker News become about pandering to software development subfields?
    - mixmastamyk 16y ago
      The difference is that XP can be coerced into a reasonable semblance of security, whereas IE6 is unfixable.
      - Locke1689 16y ago
        XP is also unfixable. You just know more about web development than you do about permissions security.
        wtallis 16y ago
        So, are you saying that Windows 7 is significantly more secure than XP can ever be?

joe_the_user 16y ago

Uh, Actually, the need to upgrade anything and everything is a bit overdone. What, in particular, is your problem with XP? The MS monopoly thrives on the need for a regular update, needed or not. Windows XP is a great OS IMHO - it's a shame MS found it convenient to ditch support for it. OSes aren't new. We've been doing them a long time. MS may say there are things missing from XP but it satisfies a lot of needs - for example, it runs Firefox quite well. Now browsers, in particular, are still in a state of flux. With browser, in particular, upgrading matters. That also might not continue forever but its true now. The browser you use impact me because I care about what you see. The OS you use does NOT impact me because only you see it. Uh, and Win7 doesn't run on a lot of hardware and MS probably isn't going offer Ubuntu anytime in the next supereon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_(geology)#Terminology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_(geology)#Terminology).