Discussion on:

Poll: It is time to face facts and finally dump Windows XP

Agree? Then tell us what you have done to migrate away from Windows XP. Was it a difficult migration?

Disagree? Explain where my logic is faulty. Explain why you are not going to dump Windows XP anytime soon. What is driving your decision and how are you going to work around the technological changes happening all around you?

You comment that XP is based on 10-year old technology, 10-year old interface design, and 10-year old security. Remember that all windoes OSs are based on MS-DOS with bells and whistles added on. Take advantwge of modern hardware and software technology? Windows 7 (32 bit) still won't take more than 3+GB of RAM. With multiple apps open on desktops (where every new version requires more memory), RAM is what's needed, not a new GUI. And speaking of GUI, Why can't the old GUI be used for the new OS? Or at least offer a choice. Some of my most adventurous users are near retirement and many of the least willing to change are young. Finding time and money for re-training, just to do the job users were doing before, does not sit well with upper management, especially in small and medium businesses. XP may not be perfect, but it probably is, as Mike Elgan said in his 3/1/2009 article in Computerworld "Was Windows XP Microsoft's last good OS?"

The 3 gig memory limit for Win 32bit is not limited to Windows. No 32bit OS really does more than 3.5 gig or ram. This is due to the 32bit hardware under the OS which is not capable of addressing more than 3.5 gig or ram. 32bit Windows, Linux Distros, BSDs, osX.. all limited to 3 gig. With 64bit hardware and software, one is capable of properly addressing ram beyond the 3.5 gig limit. One trick you can do is run 32bit apps on a 64bit OS. Each 32bit app won't use more than 3.5 gig or ram but the 64bit OS means two 32bit apps are using 7 gig or ram rather than sharing 3.5 gig between each other.

Also, WinME was the last direct descendant of Dos where your basically layering a Windows shell on top of Dos back end. If you rename win.com, you'll boot to a Dos prompt. WinNT is a separate beast resulting from Microsoft and IBM co-developing OS/2 before they split. IBM kept the OS/2 branding while Microsoft continued developing there copy of the source as the NT line. WinXP was a direct descendant of the NT line as successor to Win2000. It's an NT kernel, back end and shell that includes a Dos emulator not a GUI shell dropped on top of a Dos back end.

Personally, I wouldn't mind having the classic NT theme available on Win7. The new theme isn't really bad but I do prefer the minimal weight of the NT/WinXP (classic) themes. Mind you, I foresee the Office ribbon menu system being more grief for my less adaptable users rather than the OS GUI shell. Odd that your young users would be the least adaptable versus your older users. Maybe the young one's just have an opinion mixed with the assumption that work issued hardware is somehow there personal system.

Personally, I'm finding Win7 to be a very valid upgrade from WinXP. XP was nice and was "the best Windows to date" until Win7. The real problem is going to be when MS stops shipping updates. It's fine to drag your feat as long as vulnerabilities in WinXP are being patched but it'll only increase as a security risk after that.

nice try:

all PAE enabled server versions from win2k Server to 2008 can address and use 4GB and up
all the limitations are programmed limitations

see here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

Windows Server 2008 Datacenter
- 64 GB x86
- 1 TB x64

Windows Server 2008 Standard:
- 4 GB x86
- 32 GB x64

Windows 2000 Datacenter Server:
- 32 GB x86 only
no x64 version

It wasn't a "try", it was simply the facts as I understood them. You needn't suggest some dark conspiracy to misslead others.

Perhaps I've read faulty information. I'm willing to be corrected if that is the case. Here is my source:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201.html

"
Moore's Law

Hardware platform transitions are determined by changes in the size of addressable memory, demand for which doubles every 18 months on a curve closely predicted by Moore's Law. For the past 30 years, the low end of retail "desktop system" memory has been about 2((year-1975)/1.5) kilobytes, and the high end about 4 times that.[3]

Even after 30 years, Moore's Law continues to be predictive.[4] It remains surprisingly accurate in part because memory and motherboard vendors schedule new product releases around it to avoid either falling behind the competition or cannibalizing the existing market prematurely.
"
..and..
"
The decision points are where each CPU architecture has to be abandoned because it doesn't have enough memory. The high end moves 3 years before the low end (and the installed base tails off afterwards).
"
It's possible I'm miss-understanding the engineering bechind the discussion of the hardware. Your welcome to read the full document at your leasure.

Now that we've both measured members, provided our sources, and shown that no malice was intended, let me state that we are both correct to a degree based on a water-cooler question to the engineers here.

I am correct; The memory limit is indeed imposed by the hardware. A 32bit CPU can only address ram within the 32bit space. It is not physically capable of addressing memory beyond that. If you want your CPU (the hardware) to recognize more than ~3.5 gig of ram, you require a 64bit processor. The faster and more stable way to access RAM beyond the 32bit limit is to use a 64bit processor which is then natively capable of addressing a 64bit memory space.

You are correct; software tricks can be used to get around this physical hardware limitation. The software manages an extended address table for RAM beyond the CPU's limitation. The issue is that it is very volitile, an error in your software implementation directly affects what is active in RAM so when things go badly, they go very badly. The other issue is that this adds a lot of overhead to the system; it's a slow dirty hack of a way to access memory beyond the hardware's limitation.

My questions now:
- Given that Windows Server has this dirty hack implemented, why is Windows Workstation 32bit still limited? With the capability going back to Win2k Server, was leaving it out of 32bit WinXP due to stability issues or the need to sell new Windows versions as system ram standard sizes increased?

- Given that the original poster is not likely running Win2k Datacenter, how is my discussion of the hardware limitations out of place or a "nice try:"? How does my discussion of 32bit hardware limitations not help inform the original poster?

because MS is restricting the function of PAE in 32-bit desktop OS
as well as in the server versions
if you want to use large RAM with PAE in x86 you need to pony up the cash

2^64 is way larger than the current x64 limitations on both Server and Desktop OS
XP, Vista x64,= 128GB
win 7 x64, = 192GB

max x64 server is 2TB
nowhere close to 18EB

sure the "average normal user" would not ever in my lifetime use 128GB on a desktop system

what is 2^64 ?
18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes

if that's the max. addressable space for x64
why limit x64 to pittance numbers compared to that

sure the hardware isn't there yet, but why limit it

hell win3.1x on DOS 5 or higher would run on 65,534KB (64MB max addressable under 16-bit OS)
long before there ever was an 80486 capable of addressing 64MB RAM
(I only ever saw one)
they never thought of limiting it to 16MB
all my win3.1 systems had 32MB RAM
and if I had the Hardware to bring it up to 64MB
I could have done it without problems

but the switch between 16, 32, and now to 64 has brought about some weird crap
ie. good luck installing win9x on a system with 4GB RAM
theoretically this should work, after all wasn't 95 supposed to be their first 32-bit desktop consumer OS?
but MS hosed the code so that if you took the chance to run 9x on a huge RAM base
ie. anything over 512MB, it could / would screw up royally

PAE is a necessary evil during the switch to x64 only
and hardware Mfg.s probably won't catch up until 128-bit is close to becoming standard
who knows why the current x64 based hardware can't address: 18,446,744,073,709,551,616Bytes

but that's no excuse for winders or any other OS to limit their x64 implementations

hell NT4-SP6 and win2K-SP4 don't choke on 4GB

etc.

The theoretical limit for a 32bit OS Desktop is 4GB, but depending on the chipset, a certain amount of that 4GB is reserved and therefore unavailable to the OS. On some of my machines it was .5GB on others 1GB.

PAE is as the name suggests, an extention, and it only works on 64bit capable systems (x64).

Yes, but PAE still allows you to use more of the RAM, NOT limiting you to just the 3.25-3.75GB.

I normally set the remaining RAM up as a PAE RAM Drive. Then move the virtual memory, temporary internet files, and other temp folders to it.

"Windows 7 (32 bit) still won't take more than 3+GB of RAM"

http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm and http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/brianmadden/archive/2004/02/19/the-4gb-windows-memory-limit-what-does-it-really-mean.aspx

"Windows XP Was Microsoft's last good OS"

That is so !true I !agree.

Xp was a piece of junk up until Sp-3 came out.
BSOD even with Sp-2
Win7 appears much better Right out of the Box.
However, get over it an do what I should of done years ago;
Dual Boot to Linux-ubuntu and learn there is a better life than MSwindows.

As you've confirmed, Windows is for the rich and the helpless. I've worked with windows 20 years now and Linux 10. If you want stability and remote accessibility in a Windows world you need cash. I try and do my part after hours to help non-profit organizations as I believe in their causes, they do not have the cash. That cash can rather be invested in the poor. Open source has become the viable option for the people of lower income.

Sounds like a similar timeframe of working with both OSes for both of us.

I'd add that businesses that just want it to work without headache, $$$ aside, go Linux too. Non-profits with cash generally go Mac and use them for years and years too.

I did a job in a hospital where they cried when I had to upgrade their server - it was a Novell, and had been running more than 1500 days uninterrupted. My SOHO linux server gets rebooted after a power failure because the ISP doesn't come back clean and reboot fixes the ISP problems.

I used to run Windows servers. They're great if you don't mind reboots every 100 days or so - you'll never make it to 1000. I prefer reliability. Free is nice too.

"Fringe users" - like most web servers & the London Stock Exchange...

I'd argue that with you. So would PCWorld. PCWorld says as of August 2010, Linux servers account for 16.8% of all server revenue.

Enterprise IT Planet would argue that too. ???Linux is used to some degree by 90% of GCG???s enterprise IT respondents, and the majority see their usage increasing significantly,??? said Dan Olds, an analyst at GCG. They also state that 13% of respondents to their survey only use Linux for a server OS. http://www.enterpriseitplanet.com/article.php/3928156

Walmart might argue. According to Netcraft Walmart uses Linux for it's web servers primarily with a little Netscaler thrown in for load balancing.

What happened with IBM. Did they go through with their plan for Linux on all corporate desktops? If so, I'd say that's a ringing endorsement. Ditto Mexico City, etc.

Microsoft's server growth and dominance in the enterprise closely mirrors the drop in other OSes and the move away from mid-size and mainframe systems. How much of this can be attributed to the willingness to push the legal boundaries regarding monopolies is an open question.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not an OS zealot. I recognize that Microsoft rules the desktop. I've never made the switch here to Linux desktops. For servers, we've been Linux only for over 10 years. But things are changing. The biggest threat probably to MS is desktop agnostic cloud services. For example, a company moving to Google Apps, using hosted GMail, Google Docs with integrated services like CRM, ERP, accounting, etc., doesn't need anything other than basic hardware like a Google pilot notebook or an old 486, running from flash and storing everything online. This is a completely disruptive technology and I expect within the next several years, we'll see big migrations to this model. It will be driven purely by economics. This lowers hardware, software and support costs. It also is going to represent an enormous disruptor for us as support providers. I think Microsoft recognizes this as they finally rolled out web based services after years of work, announcements, denials, etc. now called Office 365. IBM is providing Notes this way for I think $25 per seat (bye bye server, backups, support for the servers, etc. and high costs).

There a "nobody by fired for buying Microsoft" attitude just like Cisco or in the old days so other products. That's about CYA, not about making the best decision for a business.

It's probably attitudes like yours also declaring how Linux is a fringe product which seems pretty close minded that has kept it out of businesses regardless of value, efficacy or that it might be a better fit.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/222728/10_ways_linux_is_making_life_better.html

Not like our original poster will actually take the time to read it; they've obviously made up there own mind already and facts be damned.

Another interesting example; Red Hat just reported record revenues and is on track to enter the billion dollar profits club this year. So obviously this whole Linux fad is just freetards playing with toys now isn't it..

it's = it is only.

Why are you comparing server products to Windows XP? XP is a desktop operating system and no one intentionally runs desktop versions of Linux because you wouldn't be able to get anything done. Your argument is certainly valid for the server arena but utterly pointless in this discussion.

Comparing server capable OS to winXP is indeed missleading. However;

"no one intentionally runs desktop versions of Linux because you wouldn't be able to get anything done"

You also need to re-examin your thinking given that many make daily use of Linux based distributions which are perfectly viable for desktop use. Could you provide more detail on how no one intentionally runs Linux distributions for desktop use?

Uptime on my desktop at home running Debian 6 Stable is at 22 days, 16 hours, 23 minutes with 7 user sessions open while also hosting my home groupware server VM which is on 24/7. By contrast, the VM running on my Windows desktop at work crashed out yesterday forcing me to not get things done while it was rebooted. Actually, in terms of getting things done (ie. productive stuff, not playing Windows based video games), I'm finding new capabilities daily thanks to all that desktop applicable software in Debian's huge software library. Back in a sec, gotta go fix a staffer's Windows workstation so they can return to getting things done.

I am so proud right now, I figured it would be dead by now again. Usually it does this strange death where the screen won't come back on, but some server components keep working???
Under Win95, it was really odd, Apache and FTP would keep working, file shares would be dead though and you couldn't turn the monitor on or use the system, it would be completely locked and only beep on a key press.

Obviously, you work for the maintenance department... or all your stock are on Microsoft. Get informed first, that way you won't get embarrassed.

It has been many years since Linux was Fringe software. Naturally the end users' desktops are still MS. It would cost to much to retrain them. But many IT shops, including the one I work in, have several Linux boxes.
If you refuse to "even sniff linux" then obviously you have no experience to base your statement on, just opinion.

Hey fool, you 'sniff' Linux every time you open your browser and use the 'net'.

Fringe Software?

Tell that to Google, Yahoo, eBay, Facebook, Twitter, MOST ISP's, websites, etc...

Apparently, your company succeeds despite your truly massive ignorance.

You seem to be the joke here for saying that.
Big companies use Linux to back up their data onto servers, even Microsoft uses it. So, to you Quasar Kid, get a grip, do not talk rubbish.

Most of the major Internet nodes run on Unix or Linux for reasons of security and reliability.

As to Linux in the desktop environment, most of the changes to the look and services of Windows for the last decade have been stolen from Linux. MS wouldn't steal the Linux GUI ideas if they thought it was a joke.

Linux runs the internet ! Maybe you do not have the aptitude to use it on the desktop.

promoting that security butchered bit of garbage called ubuntu, you need to learn what unix seurity is about, and Canonical or derivatives will NOT teach you.
get a REAL distro.

I have to say that for an open source freebie, ubuntu is marvellous. It enables you to bridge a bluetooth connection with an ethernet just by selection and click for example and no MS OS can do this. However the downside is the lack of dedicated hardware drivers which given the size of its community, will never be profitably produced.

This is more a *nix trait than any specific distribution but I usually bond my network cards. The motherboard has two wired ports so I tell the OS to consider them the same device. My network IP hits both of them and if one gets unplugged, the other keeps on going. This isn't the OS switching between teh two based on which is plugged in but splitting the traffic half/half unless one goes down. Same for my servers; two nics, bond them into one device.

I wish I could do the same with my WinXP install at home rather than leaving both nics on in the bios with one disabled in the Win hardware manager. So far, I've found no way to tell Windows that two NICs should be treated as a single device for redundancy and/or increased throughput.

Linux Mint is basicly Ubuntu with some cosmetic changes and many more drivers. If you have a problem with a missing driver(s) in Ubuntu, try Mint.

I agree with most of what you say. I did upgrade to Win 7 and used it exclusively for 10 months but after requiring a reinstall I reverted to my old XP laptop and you know what, I have stayed on it for the past 2 months. The key benefits of XP over Win 7 are that there are less distractions in the GUI. The text is more dense and so one can pack in more info into the display. Win 7 has an awfullot of empty space, also Office 2010. Additionally there are more clicks required for common functions than in XP. I am sticking with XP and Office 2003 despite improved security and some other Win 7 features, because it is the productiity of the GUI which is most important. MS could easily have made a few minor tweaks to the XP GUI to genuinely improve it and left it as an option on Win 7. It really is a nonsense not to leave something that people spent 10 years getting familiar with and it is not necessarily progress just to change something.

Why ms (without asking) has left my giu without icons, for example, copy and paste in the menu bar?
Why ms (without asking) puts a large, nearly useless status bar in the bottom, wich steals me space in the files window?
Why ms (without asking) when I make a search, and I try "open in a new window" it does in the same window, and I lose the search results, unless I go back, but then it tries to do the full search again?
Moreover:
Why, when after a search, I do that "open in a new window", it does not show me the full path of the requested file, but instead a useless, senseless "search results..."?

You can change almost all the interactions you are complaining about. And because most pople use control c for cutting.

Do you mean copying? ctl-x cuts

Control C is for COPY ... Control X is for CUT ...

And why should someone have to change the interactions? What was sooooo wrong with the way things worked before?

I loath the new "search" microsoft has in Vista and XP ... I can search in a folder, where I've just created a file .... and Search won't find it because the indexer hasn't updated ... I guess the common sense PATH has gone completely out the window (ie, if you start search in a folder.. regardless of the f**king index, perhaps you should *START* looking in the folder you're in.. AND THEN move on to the index ... but I guess that's too common a routine for microsoft to continue using)

Ctrl + Insert is for copying
Shift + Delete is for cutting

Shift + Insert is for pasting

ctrl v paste

What gui without icons
Hide the status bar - I think you mean the task bar
It will open a new window
You should probaly do some more reading. Win7 does not have any of the problems that you mention. For instance you can right click on the search results and say open file path and you will not lose your search results. Although I do think there should be an easier way to search amongst multiple drive locations.

" you can right click on the search results and say open file path and you will not lose your search results" Yes right click gives an option to take you to the folder. However, it better be the one I want or I am required to start all over. Every time I do a "search" I feel I am using an inferior engine compared to XP.

I have been using Win7 since the first Beta and think it is great. I will definately agree with you though about the search feature. One of my first observations about the programs was that someone needed to develope a better search program, especially one that will easily search multiple drives at the same time.

The "Search" function in Win 7 is much worse than for XP. Why can't one search in the drive they know contains the file? Does not search for a word in a paragraph or file. And I agree why should all other results be lost and require starting all over if the first selection is not the one for which I was searching?

I have customers that think that there is nothing wrong with their Win98 computers and a 26K dialup connection. I am sorry but I do not live in the same world as they do. With Win 7 Pro, MS Off 2010 and a dual monitor setup I am 50% more productive than I ever was before on a system.
Whether we like it or not Microsoft is going to pull the plug on Win XP and I think that it is better to not wait until they do so to upgrade.

And I am currently researching and using Linux distros with the aim of forgoing Windows altogether! Linux is a true upgrade.

You said it so very well! I have worked in IT (started out in Dos), Have used Win 7 on relative's PC. Have Vista... still when all is said & done, prefer XP, Office 2003; and I really like the other software I have purchased that is XP compatible; Upgrading Windows would require uprading my other software. Too expensive when everything currently works as wanted. Like the GUI, and more real estate in the windows. The others are distractions, not benefits.

Seems Office 2003 works great when Reader9 is installed and one is embedding PDF in Word documents. Upgrade to Reader10 and all those Word documents with embedded PDF break along with your ability to import the PDF (I assume any PDF created prior to version 10 but can't confirm).

Yes, you can come "reasonably" close to making 7 look like XP without installing some third party util, still not nearly close enough for my liking. But what is really important is what is under the hood. There have been just too many major changes to the file system and the entire user experience for my liking. Of course it comes back to personal preference. I've had 7 and XP in a dual boot config on my laptop for over 6 months and I still keep going back to XP because that is what works best for me. I'll continue to run XP for daily tasks until something forces me to abandon it.

I found WIN 7 much easier to use for my daily activities especially the Start Menu where I can right click a pinned Application or a most recently used application to list the recently used file. I no longer need to set up an icon for each file that I access daily.
Furthermore it is easier to pull up the open application when you can see a thumb nail of the open window.
After grumbling some I learned to like XP when it came out, but this leap in presentation with Win 7 was welcomed once I overcame the learning curve ( a slight bump in the road!!).