Why Microsoft did the right thing in ditching XP for IE

[JMH]

I recently expressed a lack of surprise that Internet Explorer 9 will almost certainly not be supported on Windows XP. In Redmond's words, a "modern browser" needs a "modern operating system," and Windows XP doesn't qualify. Much to my surprise (well, not really, I know that XP is still used and, apparently, loved by many), many doubted my characterization of XP as "obsolete," and they questioned my lack of surprise at this decision.

Simple things first. Windows XP is not a new operating system. Windows XP was released in 2001, and it has been succeeded by not one, but two newer operating systems: Windows Vista, and Windows 7. The other major desktop platform vendor—Apple—doesn't even begin to support anything that old, and the company routinely restricts its software compatibility to only the most recent version or two of its operating system.

Now, it's true that software is not like physical goods; while the ravages of time may make hardware break down, Windows XP works as well today as it did when it was new. Better, if you consider the extensive capabilities added in Service Packs and free downloads. But the computing world does not stand still; working as well as it did when it was new means that Windows XP hasn't kept up with computing's advances. The next generation of hard disks (or indeed, current generation, for Western Digital users), for example, are at risk of suffering severe performance penalties on XP systems. To get the best from the technology that for many has replaced spinning disks—the solid state drive—requires support for the TRIM command, found natively only in Windows 7. XP similarly lacks any built-in support for Blu-ray discs.

Source -
Why Microsoft did the right thing in ditching XP for IE9

 

[arkhi]

Really informative. Awesome!

Of the big five, only two browsers currently use this protection on Windows; Internet Explorer (7 and 8), and Chrome. For this reason alone, I'd be hesitant to use Safari, Opera, or Firefox. Their security track record isn't really any better than Microsoft's, and the consequent exploitability of these browsers is much greater.

 

[severedsolo]

i loved reading the comments that came after, this one in particular tickled me

DrPizza ( Contributing Writer / Author ) | about 13 hours ago | permalink
SanctimoniousApe wrote:
While I eventually plan to upgrade to Win7, I'm in no rush. Sorry, the abomination that was Vista didn't count as an OS release to a vast majority of people (myself included), so as far as I'm concerned XP *WAS* the most recent OS prior to Win7. XP, when intelligently run in Limited User mode with SuRun escalating privileges when needed under user control, is just fine security-wise - I've yet to have a problem since adopting this setup.

If Vista is an "abomination" that "didn't count" then Windows 7 doesn't count either.

Everything that sucks in Vista sucks in Windows 7.

original comment - Why Microsoft did the right thing in ditching XP for IE9

would love to hear how he can justify that

 

[KazeNoKoe23]

i loved reading the comments that came after, this one in particular tickled me

DrPizza ( Contributing Writer / Author ) | about 13 hours ago | permalink
SanctimoniousApe wrote:
While I eventually plan to upgrade to Win7, I'm in no rush. Sorry, the abomination that was Vista didn't count as an OS release to a vast majority of people (myself included), so as far as I'm concerned XP *WAS* the most recent OS prior to Win7. XP, when intelligently run in Limited User mode with SuRun escalating privileges when needed under user control, is just fine security-wise - I've yet to have a problem since adopting this setup.

If Vista is an "abomination" that "didn't count" then Windows 7 doesn't count either.

Everything that sucks in Vista sucks in Windows 7.

original comment - Why Microsoft did the right thing in ditching XP for IE9

would love to hear how he can justify that

:roflmao: More proof that many of the people who hate Vista have no idea why they actually hate it.

 

[HerrKaLeun]

Good article. I think whoever uses the (unsafer) XP when IE 9 comes out doesn't care about security anyway and likely still uses IE 6 or so. If one still needs to have the newest browser on XP, there still is FF etc.

It is good to cut off old ties. the resources needed to support XP are needed elsewhere.

I think once SP1 comes out companies will switch to W7 like mad anyway.

 

[pweegar]

The biggest problem for most business switching from one OS to another is COST. Cost in terms of the financial terms, plus the cost in manpower hours to, not only rebuild pc's, but to also train users on the new OS, test new roll outs, test networking, test hardware, etc.

If your in IT in a large company, it will take a very long time. I worked at a large company that took over a year to upgrade to Active Directory. At times you can NOT interrupt an entire department to install new software. People have dead lines to meet. Especially financial departments. See how upset management can get if a days deposit is late (and we're talking under of thousands of dollars, if not millions). Want to lose a job because you caused the company to lose interest??? I don't think so. And I've seen it happen.

 

[The Apathetic]

I upgraded from xp to 7, never used Vista on my pc, but I did have a taste of it for an hour on Jonathan's pc, it looked and felt exactly like 7, I don't understand why everybody is bashing it so damn much, yeah it's true that Vista requires double the ram size that 7 asks for but that doesn't necessarily mean Vista is as horrible as what most people seems to be implying..

I never used Mr. Vista on my pc but If I ever had to downgrade from 7, I wouldn't use anything else but Vista.

 

[arkhi]

For the poster above, it's true that people are just biased. I give myself big facepalms when I read comments about XP being immortal, and the ad hoc bashing of vista whilst praising 7. Vista was awesome when I was using it, and I never regret it (except when playing Worms 4, had to go back to XP for this and went back to vista again after). It was running flawlessly on a 768MB RAM, P4 2.26 GHz PC.

On the side note, Vista and 7 has the EXACT same requirements.

 

[The Apathetic]

For the poster above, it's true that people are just biased. I give myself big facepalms when I read comments about XP being immortal, and the ad hoc bashing of vista whilst praising 7. Vista was awesome when I was using it, and I never regret it (except when playing Worms 4, had to go back to XP for this and went back to vista again after). It was running flawlessly on a 768MB RAM, P4 2.26 GHz PC.

On the side note, Vista and 7 has the EXACT same requirements.

When I was still using windows xp, I thought it was gonna last forever, I couldn't imagine how life would be like without it. Life turned out just fine without it and I hope I never go back to it ever again..

As far as I know, the ram requirement for 7 is 1g and 2g for vista.. Every single application recommends vista to have 2g before using that app, while non does that with windows 7...

 

[smarteyeball]

:roflmao: More proof that many of the people who hate Vista have no idea why they actually hate it.

That constituted at least 85% of Vista bashers. ie - those that never even used it, but 'had it it on good authority that'....

"I heard from someone who knows about computers that Vista is crap" was my 'favorite' argument.


Even my non-tech minded father ripped this one out to me one day after listening to 'so called experts at work'.

I took great delight in proving them wrong by wiping XP and installing Vista for him - waited a week or so and then asked, "So how is Vista working out for you? Is it the crap your 'expert workmates' claimed it was?"

When he replied, "No it isn't" I then asked him to pass on my not so polite sentiments regarding his 'work place experts' validity and credibility regarding technical matters and suggested they leave the hot air blowing to the politicians...

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
Of COURSE a company like MS will want to push its latest OS -- but whether IE9 is supported or not on XP is in any case a moot point of which only the most geekish would even care about.

The main thing in deciding whether or not to change browsers (assuming the basic attributes of passable security etc) won't be in MS's hands at all but will be decided by two factors

1) Roll out of IPV6

2) rendering of websites.

Both these are TOTALLY outside MS's control and even with the roll out of IPV6 IPV4 will still be supported for many many years yet.

As to SSD's etc -- most MODERN high end computers (or even low end one's now) have BLISTERING performance compared with the machines XP was originally designed to run on -- and provided you can find SATA drivers etc (still easily enough done) for XP it will perfgorm very fast indeed on a new computer. The performance "penalty" you incur by using XP is more imagined than real.

SSD's are still extremely expensive and unless you are interested (and can afford) them most "Mom and Pop" situations won't be using these for YEARS yet -- if ever.

Blu Ray is another area -- most people do not sit in front of their computers to watch movies -- that's what decent LCD / Plasma TV's and DVD players are for.

A sitting room is a place to RELAX -- not be cluttered with loads of computing gear -- and in any case Blu Ray DVD's are excruciatingly disappointing compared to a decent DVD upscaler - especially when considering the price and play back restrictions these devices have.

Aany decent up rezzing DVD player which upscales to full 1080p can make a conventional DVD appear almost as good as a Blu Ray one and without the irksome playback restrictions either.

I LIKE W7 and new technology -- but XP isn't the lumbering old Dinosaur that people seem to think it is -- it's going to be around for a long time yet.

Cheers
jimbo