5 ms·

Until linux can compete with an OS old enough to vote, we'll still need XP.

Crito 13y ago
Even assuming that Linux cannot compete with XP (what does linux have to do with this discussion anyway?), it is still ridiculous to think that we need XP. We have OSX, Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8....
- Fasebook 13y ago
  Don't you find it interesting that all your supposed alternatives are paid software? (never mind the fact that Vista, 7 and 8 are almost identical OSes)
  - pikachu_is_cool 13y ago
    > Even assuming that Linux cannot compete with XP
  - jonlucc 13y ago
    But XP was a paid OS. I know it was paid for moons ago, but I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a $100 upgrade after 12 years. Alternatively, I think many Linux distros work better than XP will come August 2015.
    - samolang 13y ago
      The price of the OS you are upgrading to does not equal the total cost of upgrading your OS necessarily.
      - rbanffy 13y ago
        Just the time you spend not working and making backups, doing the upgrade and dealing with the various historical artifacts it leaves behind will end up costing more than the license. The last time I upgraded my Fedora box (with fedup) I spent most of the duration working uninterrupted, then had the upgrade perform itself over lunch. The last time I did it on Ubuntu, I worked throughout the process, only having to stop for the reboot required to switch between major kernel versions. Minor kernel changes happen without rebooting.
    - rbanffy 13y ago
      > Alternatively, I think many Linux distros work better than XP will come August 2015. I know you probably live on another planet, but, here on Earth, I've been using Linux and BSD since before Windows Vista was launched and I can tell you it has always worked much better than Windows on the same hardware. I'll give you I am not an idiot and I will not pick hardware that is not supported under Linux because the manufacturer doesn't want it to be, but, so far, my experience has been very nice. Every once and then I use Windows - I've been assigned Windows computers on several occasions - and I always notice how convoluted, absolutely illogical and inconsistent an operating environment it is, with scars that lead back to its predecessor, that half-assed copy of CP/M. It's only suitable for human consumption because humans have been subjected to it since the early 90's and have adapted to it. Any human who has been freed from this torment will resent deeply having it forced upon them again.
      - kuschku 13y ago
        I've got a really interesting example of this: I installed for my little sister (12 years) Kubuntu on her computer, now she has used it for half an year and she says it "just works". Using Windows XP or iOS at school is really difficult for her, because it is "so illogical", "nothing works as expected".
      - freehunter 13y ago
        But then again, to a Windows user BSD and Linux are convoluted and illogical (I've been using Linux for years and still have no idea which folder a program will install to. Every distro handles it differently). And you can't say that BSD and Linux don't bear scars of their predecessor, a half-assed copy of AT&T Unix. Any time I have to hit the command line to do something that should really have a proper GUI over it, I'm reminded of its past. Every OS has its warts. There's no need to trash talk software, it can't hear you.
        rbanffy 13y ago
        > still have no idea which folder a program will install to Why would anyone want to know where the program installs? I want to run programs, not look at them with a filesystem browser. > And you can't say that BSD and Linux don't bear scars of their predecessor, a half-assed copy of AT&T Unix It's more like AT&T Unix and BSD evolved together. There was a point when AT&T was selling BSD software with the copyright notice removed. And, if we are building copies, it's much better to be a copy of Unix than of CP/M. > Any time I have to hit the command line to do something that should really have a proper GUI over it I can't imagine what kind of activity you were trying to perform... It's not trash-talking software. It's pointing out its warts.
- copx 13y ago
  The newer versions of Windows have much higher system requirements. Seriously, get out of your rich man's ghetto at least occasionally. Many people still run very old computers because they do not have the disposable income to buy new ones. My computer can run the newest version of Windows but I have a Windows XP/Win 7 dual boot setup. I keep Windows XP around because of old games from the Win9x/WinXP era which do not work (correctly) on newer Windows versions. Unfortunately, there is no WindowsBox (i.e. a DOSBox equivalent) yet. I have tried virtual machines but the experience was not positive. They are for running old office apps, and tend to fail miserably at running DirectX games.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Rich man's ghetto? Give me a break, we have to look to really the bottom rung classes of 3rd world countries to find people unable to scrape enough money together over a decade to buy half-decade old hardware needed to run a copy of Vista they would inevitably pirate. Anyone in a first world country with internet access can find old PCs capable of running more than XP on craigslist or the local equivalent for literally a couple of dollars. Anybody without internet access won't be getting any support anyway. Seriously, machines from 2009 are half a decade old at this point, they are cheap as dirt. You "need" XP for your games? Well fine, keep it around, but expecting free support for that is nuts. Talk about a first world problem...
    - vxNsr 13y ago
      Unless this third world country is the south side of Chicago you're very wrong. Over the summer I worked with a non-profit who's only mission was to get computers into the houses of people. we were working with <2gb of ram and hard drives that topped out at 50gb, I don't even want to think about the processor.
      - Crito 13y ago
        I would say that doing it in small-scale bulk is a different animal than an individual doing it for them-self.
      - 13y ago

Crito 13y ago

Even assuming that Linux cannot compete with XP (what does linux have to do with this discussion anyway?), it is still ridiculous to think that we need XP. We have OSX, Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8....

Fasebook 13y ago
Don't you find it interesting that all your supposed alternatives are paid software? (never mind the fact that Vista, 7 and 8 are almost identical OSes)
- pikachu_is_cool 13y ago
  > Even assuming that Linux cannot compete with XP
- jonlucc 13y ago
  But XP was a paid OS. I know it was paid for moons ago, but I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a $100 upgrade after 12 years. Alternatively, I think many Linux distros work better than XP will come August 2015.
  - samolang 13y ago
    The price of the OS you are upgrading to does not equal the total cost of upgrading your OS necessarily.
    - rbanffy 13y ago
      Just the time you spend not working and making backups, doing the upgrade and dealing with the various historical artifacts it leaves behind will end up costing more than the license. The last time I upgraded my Fedora box (with fedup) I spent most of the duration working uninterrupted, then had the upgrade perform itself over lunch. The last time I did it on Ubuntu, I worked throughout the process, only having to stop for the reboot required to switch between major kernel versions. Minor kernel changes happen without rebooting.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    > Alternatively, I think many Linux distros work better than XP will come August 2015. I know you probably live on another planet, but, here on Earth, I've been using Linux and BSD since before Windows Vista was launched and I can tell you it has always worked much better than Windows on the same hardware. I'll give you I am not an idiot and I will not pick hardware that is not supported under Linux because the manufacturer doesn't want it to be, but, so far, my experience has been very nice. Every once and then I use Windows - I've been assigned Windows computers on several occasions - and I always notice how convoluted, absolutely illogical and inconsistent an operating environment it is, with scars that lead back to its predecessor, that half-assed copy of CP/M. It's only suitable for human consumption because humans have been subjected to it since the early 90's and have adapted to it. Any human who has been freed from this torment will resent deeply having it forced upon them again.
    - kuschku 13y ago
      I've got a really interesting example of this: I installed for my little sister (12 years) Kubuntu on her computer, now she has used it for half an year and she says it "just works". Using Windows XP or iOS at school is really difficult for her, because it is "so illogical", "nothing works as expected".
    - freehunter 13y ago
      But then again, to a Windows user BSD and Linux are convoluted and illogical (I've been using Linux for years and still have no idea which folder a program will install to. Every distro handles it differently). And you can't say that BSD and Linux don't bear scars of their predecessor, a half-assed copy of AT&T Unix. Any time I have to hit the command line to do something that should really have a proper GUI over it, I'm reminded of its past. Every OS has its warts. There's no need to trash talk software, it can't hear you.
      - rbanffy 13y ago
        > still have no idea which folder a program will install to Why would anyone want to know where the program installs? I want to run programs, not look at them with a filesystem browser. > And you can't say that BSD and Linux don't bear scars of their predecessor, a half-assed copy of AT&T Unix It's more like AT&T Unix and BSD evolved together. There was a point when AT&T was selling BSD software with the copyright notice removed. And, if we are building copies, it's much better to be a copy of Unix than of CP/M. > Any time I have to hit the command line to do something that should really have a proper GUI over it I can't imagine what kind of activity you were trying to perform... It's not trash-talking software. It's pointing out its warts.
copx 13y ago
The newer versions of Windows have much higher system requirements. Seriously, get out of your rich man's ghetto at least occasionally. Many people still run very old computers because they do not have the disposable income to buy new ones. My computer can run the newest version of Windows but I have a Windows XP/Win 7 dual boot setup. I keep Windows XP around because of old games from the Win9x/WinXP era which do not work (correctly) on newer Windows versions. Unfortunately, there is no WindowsBox (i.e. a DOSBox equivalent) yet. I have tried virtual machines but the experience was not positive. They are for running old office apps, and tend to fail miserably at running DirectX games.
- Crito 13y ago
  Rich man's ghetto? Give me a break, we have to look to really the bottom rung classes of 3rd world countries to find people unable to scrape enough money together over a decade to buy half-decade old hardware needed to run a copy of Vista they would inevitably pirate. Anyone in a first world country with internet access can find old PCs capable of running more than XP on craigslist or the local equivalent for literally a couple of dollars. Anybody without internet access won't be getting any support anyway. Seriously, machines from 2009 are half a decade old at this point, they are cheap as dirt. You "need" XP for your games? Well fine, keep it around, but expecting free support for that is nuts. Talk about a first world problem...
  - vxNsr 13y ago
    Unless this third world country is the south side of Chicago you're very wrong. Over the summer I worked with a non-profit who's only mission was to get computers into the houses of people. we were working with <2gb of ram and hard drives that topped out at 50gb, I don't even want to think about the processor.
    - Crito 13y ago
      I would say that doing it in small-scale bulk is a different animal than an individual doing it for them-self.
    - 13y ago