I can't believe that there are still companies out there running XP. It just blows my mine how some companies refuse to spend money staying on top of technology.
lowsound
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Going crazy and very frustrated
- Thread starter placedesjardins
- Start date
lowsound
Right, and I would think that any money we "saved" by not upgrading from XP years ago is now going to be lost because we're now forced to upgrade, on a schedule we didn't choose, by Microsoft dropping security support.
I have been in IT since 1977 when it was Data Processing. Since about 1990, all my work has been done on PCs starting with DOS and through every version of Windows. I was also an Microsoft Access MVP for 3 years 2007-2009 and I know a lot of other professionals workdwide working in this environment. I have yet to hear one postitive comment on Windows 8.
Best versions - 2000, XP
Worst Versions - Everything prior to 3.1, Millennium, Vista, 8
Best versions - 2000, XP
Worst Versions - Everything prior to 3.1, Millennium, Vista, 8
Me too. The last job I left, they still have about 500 XP endpoints in production.
-Mike
I saw at least one in this thread, from an IT professional. I am an IT professional, and I like Win8. I use it all day, every day. Server 2012 too.
-Mike
To the OP: Just download one of the free overlays that replicates a Windows 7 OS. Google for choices. That's what I did.
I'm not IT, but I do digital technologies for classrooms so we're constantly in and out of Windows 7 systems.
So far I see the user interface of Windows 8 as the answer to a question that nobody asked.
Unless....they have a touch-screen computer, In that case, there are advantages to it.
BUT - here's the real question: Why in HELL would MS invest years in developing a user interface that's comfortable and familiar to most of the computing world, take it through multiple steps of evolution, then throw the S.O.B. out just to bring out an interface (Win8) that it designed to work with equipment (touch screens) that almost no one owns yet?
It's one of the dumbest decisions I've run into.
I'm not IT, but I do digital technologies for classrooms so we're constantly in and out of Windows 7 systems.
So far I see the user interface of Windows 8 as the answer to a question that nobody asked.
Unless....they have a touch-screen computer, In that case, there are advantages to it.
BUT - here's the real question: Why in HELL would MS invest years in developing a user interface that's comfortable and familiar to most of the computing world, take it through multiple steps of evolution, then throw the S.O.B. out just to bring out an interface (Win8) that it designed to work with equipment (touch screens) that almost no one owns yet?
It's one of the dumbest decisions I've run into.
That underlined part.....new gear, more licenses of Win 8 out there. Microsoft wants your old computer and operating system to die yesterday. Bastards. I've worked in IT too, used to have those cold sweat dreams where I was on a deserted island with Gates, kicking his ass every day like Groundhog Day(the movie).
MY self, I like Win 7, kind of detest 8. Bought 2 new computers about 3 weeks ago, one for me, one for band recording. Specified Win 7 on both. I'll keep my old machine limping along with XP PRo as long as reasonable.
Ah, yes. Run away screaming and kicking from a small change, especially post-8.1 update. I'm actually kind of happy about that - so many "IT" people are scared of it and just trying to make it look/feel like the old thing, that I get more work on the side to actually help people. I guess I'm in a minority when I can actually adapt to new methodologies and techologies quickly, instead of trying to force the new to look and function like the old.
Another person here mentioned being surprised that people were still using XP. Are you truly surprised, when there's so much active force working against any kind of change, even if for the blatantly better? A lot of people are so resistant to small changes (heck, just look at all the rage that hit when TB changed!) - put a few of those in charge of IT and you have the present situation.
Another person here mentioned being surprised that people were still using XP. Are you truly surprised, when there's so much active force working against any kind of change, even if for the blatantly better? A lot of people are so resistant to small changes (heck, just look at all the rage that hit when TB changed!) - put a few of those in charge of IT and you have the present situation.
People are not being wimps about learning the new software, the manufacturers intentionally move feature sets and settings around to cause the old systems to wither off. It's like "Control Panel" - what is in it basically hasn't changed for 17-18 years beyond being able to identify new devices that didn't exist before or were uncommon. They're screwing with us.
Yes and no. Developers are making things easier to find and more intuitive, but they are not doing it just to "screw with you". Trust me, devs have better things to do. Need to get into control panel? Win+X+P and you're there. Or right click the start button and click Control Panel (either method is quicker/easier than it was to get to it in Win XP, Win Vista or Win 7). Want a command prompt? Right click and click either normal or admin command prompt. Control Panel has actually changed quite a lot - we now have Bit Locker, Sync Center, better Indexing, Backup & Restore, Software Explorer more advanced power control options, Credential Manager... ah, I could go on and on. Yes, you have to get at it a different (yet easier) way now, but it is most certainly improved, especially where it matters - in an enterprise setting. Even at home I love all of the changes though and welcome them. I get more done, in less time. Most people I run into just don't know how to use it or know about the new/expanded features, because they don't want to take a few minutes to learn it. Often, I give a free 30 minute consultation which then nets me a few hours of billable service to train these people. Once I do that, everyone I've worked with has loved it as well.
You came off as conceited in your first post in this thread. I thought, well, you can have your opinion.
But now, I see you are that way towards everyone.
But you can't deny that once they've been bootstrapped into the new OS the old immediately starts losing value in money and time invested.
I'm just tired of having the same argument about how "terrible" the next iteration of an OS is, from people who don't put time in to learn about it. (the same reason I all out avoid the "P versus J" type threads here). I'll gladly concede certain points about it (initially, 8 was a lot to learn, and before 8.1 I can see where a lot of people had very legitimate complaints and was on board with them, but complaining directly to MS through my resources there instead of online forums). But now, I personally feel 8.1 is great, and feel that if someone spends one whole day with it and *learn* it, they'd come around to it. But, that is also asking a lot for people who don't want to learn it, and don't have to for their day jobs.
Also, I'm not conveying any emotion in my posts. No matter what, text online is emotionless. I am proud of myself, my life and my accomplishments so far in it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "they"? People using the OS? That's most certainly the case, IMO. BUT, XP is dead for a novel full of reasons. Yes, it works. It still does even though MS doesn't support it, nothing has stopped that. But as an OS, it's dead, and should've been dead a long time ago. If nothing else, from a security standpoint - it just has (and always had) too many attack vectors to live in the modern OS world. Win Vista addressed a lot of those, which gave tons of people headaches, but we've all learned from that and accept it now. Win 7 built on that. Win 8 further built on that as well as introduced even more kernel efficiencies, modularity, and the new next-gen UI that is nearly unified across all of their platforms.
In my opinion, OSes should be released on an even faster cadence, keeping up with technology and security trends much better than they are now. At the same time, doing things like unifying the OSes across platforms, feature adding and enchancing and pushing tech to new levels should also be par the course. But, that's just my (apparently conceited) opinion.
Well, beyond the OS they could have made a bit more effort in bringing our old software and some old hardware devices along in to the future. I had to replace my HP Desject 1220c printer. Not because it's broken, because it's not supported beyond XP. What crap. You're not in anywhere near the average user's position - you are getting paid for almost every minute you are adjusting to the new OS. And getting paid to tutor others. Of course you want to sell us on the koolaid.
Seems you should be making use of the Disclosure area that appears below your avatar to alert others you are a paid MS spokesperson.
It's not really MS's fault that HP didn't bring their own device up to snuff for Vista/7/8. Having legacy support can only go so far, and I feel MS has shot themselves in the foot in the past with it. They (historically) have bent over backwards to make everything work from any era, and set expectations that they always would. They have now stopped that, and it's causing a lot of people grief. I'm in the boat that MS doesn't need to keep manufacturers drivers and such up to date with the new system - I feel the manufacturer needs to keep their own stuff up to date to work on the new system. But, in the end, MS could be seen as the catalyst since they did change the driver model dramatically, and HP likely won't pay someone to write a new driver for something that will net them no money. Rock and hard place for people, and I always feel bad when I help people in that spot. "Here, you just spent a few grand on new systems, but your printers don't work. I might be able to hack it and make it work, but if not, you'll need to spend even more."
Yup, I definitely make money from this. Lots of people could if they did what I did. On the reverse, if more people took it upon themselves to do it, I wouldn't be able to
. And, it's all side work, fluff money (the consulting part) - not my bread and butter income.
I use Linux daily... and I wouldn't currently consider it for home use. I can't play all of my games on it. And it doesn't really address the point - you either learn Win 8 or learn Linux. Of the two, learning a new iteration of Windows is easier, IMO, not to mention that the flavor of the month Linux distros fall out of favor and go dead in development, causing way more issues for the less-than-savvy users.
Edit: Just to add, Mint has been seeing explosive popularity lately. Before that though, Ubuntu was all the rage (guess what killed it? Oh, yeah, Unity UI!). Before that, Fedora. GenToo in there as well. The fragmentation, IMO, is what keeps Linux flavors from taking more desktop, home use market share. Mint does have a lot going for it though, and is poised to do well if it doesn't fracture and divide the devs behind it, or simply fall off the face due to a new "flavor" taking top spot.
Last edited:
Sorry I'm not trying to hijack your thread, Mr. OP. Wondering, though. Still using XP at home. Am I really ultra-exposed to threats continuing to run XP with AVG in place? A computer shop in the town my folks live in told my dad that since Microsoft is not supporting XP any longer, that he's now at an "ultra high risk" of viruses and all the nasty computer risks. I'm not sure I agree with that but not being the computer saaviast, am not sure.
