7 ms·

It shouldn't be allowed to happen. It's almost like letting public infrastructure fail.

by themark 13y ago

JTon 13y ago
In microsoft's defense, they've given plenty of time to prepare for this. It's time to move on. If operators can't afford to upgrade their machines, it might be time to replace them with better operators.
- Amezarak 13y ago
  While I believe Microsoft is more than justified in retiring XP, I don't think that's fair either. Many people regard their computer as an appliance. To be told that you need to spend several hundred dollars to buy a new computer (or less to buy a new OS and find someone to upgrade you) is hard to swallow. From their perspective, it's working perfectly fine - why should they throw away $400? Does that mean they'll have to do it all over again in a few years? My grandfather was especially perturbed by that idea. I suppose I would be similarly perturbed if someone told me I needed to upgrade or replace my dishwasher even though (as far as I could tell) it was working perfectly fine. (Just to be clear, that's not how I think of it - I am running 8.1 on my old Vista for a reason.)
jackmaney 13y ago
No software company is--or should be--obliged to support a product until the end of time.
- michaelfeathers 13y ago
  Civil engineering seems like a decent analogy for this. People make buildings. There's a chance they could be around for hundreds of years, but the original engineering firm does not have to provide maintenance. If MS isn't going to issue patches, there ought to be some way for someone else to be contracted to. Buildings are essentially open source so that is easy to do. Software isn't necessarily.
  - jimktrains2 13y ago
    And much of the time you tear down a building that is no longer useful or meets your standards. Even though some people may like the building, the building owner can do as they want with it.
    - michaelfeathers 13y ago
      That gets the crux of ownership - is MS selling a revocable license?
      - jimktrains2 13y ago
        Just because they're not supporting it doesn't mean you don't own it. As you said, the CE that designed it doesn't need to maintain it, and your license for the design of the building limits your ability to modify the building. My point was that most buildings aren't kept around forever either, as you were implying.
        michaelfeathers 13y ago
        > your license for the design of the building limits your ability to modify the building How?
  - deletes 13y ago
    That is a bad analogy. Unlike software, building take time, people and material resources to build and cost magnitudes more, yet windows can be installed/upgraded in an hour. Microsoft already issued a patch( not that they didn't support XP a long time over its lifespan ), it is called Windows 7, Apple does this as well, with their yearly OS releases, even though in a more clever way.
mikeash 13y ago
It's like letting a bridge fail, after advertising that you're going to let it fail for years, and putting up lots of bright neon signs, and orange cones, and barrels, and flashing lights... and people still go out of their way to drive over the bridge because they don't want to learn how to drive over the newer bridge that's just down the road. Microsoft's support of old crap is already at a heroic level. They've already gone above and beyond what anyone should reasonably expect. If people persist in using old junk well after it's obviously a bad idea, that's their own problem.
- camus2 13y ago
  I agree 100% that's why businesses shouldnt be buying bridges from people that tell their customers there is an expiration date on the infrastructure,that's basically a scam. A bridge should be maintainable and upgradable forever,just like Linux. Windows obviously was a poor choice to begin with !!!
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Bridges regularly get torn down and replaced. Nothing lasts forever, and thus nothing is built to last forever. You want to know one sure way to spot a scam? The person selling you on something tells you that it will last forever.
  - Quiark 13y ago
    wait, xp is not upgradeable to 8? Just like linux 2.0 to 3.whatever is current now??
  - benjaminl 13y ago
    Ubuntu provides five years of support for their LTS releases. The oldest OS that Ubuntu support is from 2010. Red Hat just EOLed an OS from 2003. Debian provides support for previous releases for "about a year or so". While Windows XP was released in 2002, over 12 years ago and Windows XP Embedded will be supported until 2016. So it looks like if you want the longest period of support, your best bet is Windows not Linux.
- massysett 13y ago

It shouldn't be allowed to happen. It's almost like letting public infrastructure fail.

by themark 13y ago

It shouldn't be allowed to happen. It's almost like letting public infrastructure fail.

JTon 13y ago

In microsoft's defense, they've given plenty of time to prepare for this. It's time to move on. If operators can't afford to upgrade their machines, it might be time to replace them with better operators.

Amezarak 13y ago
While I believe Microsoft is more than justified in retiring XP, I don't think that's fair either. Many people regard their computer as an appliance. To be told that you need to spend several hundred dollars to buy a new computer (or less to buy a new OS and find someone to upgrade you) is hard to swallow. From their perspective, it's working perfectly fine - why should they throw away $400? Does that mean they'll have to do it all over again in a few years? My grandfather was especially perturbed by that idea. I suppose I would be similarly perturbed if someone told me I needed to upgrade or replace my dishwasher even though (as far as I could tell) it was working perfectly fine. (Just to be clear, that's not how I think of it - I am running 8.1 on my old Vista for a reason.)

jackmaney 13y ago

No software company is--or should be--obliged to support a product until the end of time.

michaelfeathers 13y ago
Civil engineering seems like a decent analogy for this. People make buildings. There's a chance they could be around for hundreds of years, but the original engineering firm does not have to provide maintenance. If MS isn't going to issue patches, there ought to be some way for someone else to be contracted to. Buildings are essentially open source so that is easy to do. Software isn't necessarily.
- jimktrains2 13y ago
  And much of the time you tear down a building that is no longer useful or meets your standards. Even though some people may like the building, the building owner can do as they want with it.
  - michaelfeathers 13y ago
    That gets the crux of ownership - is MS selling a revocable license?
    - jimktrains2 13y ago
      Just because they're not supporting it doesn't mean you don't own it. As you said, the CE that designed it doesn't need to maintain it, and your license for the design of the building limits your ability to modify the building. My point was that most buildings aren't kept around forever either, as you were implying.
      - michaelfeathers 13y ago
        > your license for the design of the building limits your ability to modify the building How?
- deletes 13y ago
  That is a bad analogy. Unlike software, building take time, people and material resources to build and cost magnitudes more, yet windows can be installed/upgraded in an hour. Microsoft already issued a patch( not that they didn't support XP a long time over its lifespan ), it is called Windows 7, Apple does this as well, with their yearly OS releases, even though in a more clever way.

mikeash 13y ago

It's like letting a bridge fail, after advertising that you're going to let it fail for years, and putting up lots of bright neon signs, and orange cones, and barrels, and flashing lights... and people still go out of their way to drive over the bridge because they don't want to learn how to drive over the newer bridge that's just down the road. Microsoft's support of old crap is already at a heroic level. They've already gone above and beyond what anyone should reasonably expect. If people persist in using old junk well after it's obviously a bad idea, that's their own problem.

camus2 13y ago
I agree 100% that's why businesses shouldnt be buying bridges from people that tell their customers there is an expiration date on the infrastructure,that's basically a scam. A bridge should be maintainable and upgradable forever,just like Linux. Windows obviously was a poor choice to begin with !!!
- mikeash 13y ago
  Bridges regularly get torn down and replaced. Nothing lasts forever, and thus nothing is built to last forever. You want to know one sure way to spot a scam? The person selling you on something tells you that it will last forever.
- Quiark 13y ago
  wait, xp is not upgradeable to 8? Just like linux 2.0 to 3.whatever is current now??
- benjaminl 13y ago
  Ubuntu provides five years of support for their LTS releases. The oldest OS that Ubuntu support is from 2010. Red Hat just EOLed an OS from 2003. Debian provides support for previous releases for "about a year or so". While Windows XP was released in 2002, over 12 years ago and Windows XP Embedded will be supported until 2016. So it looks like if you want the longest period of support, your best bet is Windows not Linux.
massysett 13y ago