AfterDawn: Tech news

Mozilla surprised by Microsoft's abandonment of XP support in IE9

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 21 Mar 2011 20:14 User comments (68)

Mozilla surprised by Microsoft's abandonment of XP support in IE9 Mozilla has expressed surprise after hearing that Microsoft had abandoned support for Windows XP with the release of Internet Explorer 9.
IE9, released last week, does not support the decade-old operating system, which is still the most popular operating system, although 2009's Windows 7 is quickly gaining.

According to NetApplications, XP still accounts for 55 percent of all PC users, with Windows 7 second at 23 percent.

Microsoft explained their decision with the launch of IE:

We knew we didn't want to optimize for the lowest common denominator, you need a modern operating system. [Supporting XP would have been] optimizing for the lowest common denominator. It's ten years old. That's not what developers need to move the Web forward.


Mozilla disputes that, for the most part, with Johnathan Nightingale, the director of Firefox saying (via CW):

For me, the most interesting thing is not the quibbling about what browser [boasts] full hardware acceleration. What surprises me the most is that acceleration is not available for Windows XP.


Firefox 4 and IE9 support hardware acceleration through Direct2D and Direct3D, but Direct2D is not available with XP, so even Firefox 4 only supports partial acceleration for the aged OS.

Concludes Mozilla:

That took us a lot of work. We had to do almost twice the work to accelerate [Firefox 4] on Vista and Windows 7, and Windows XP. But by our count, Windows XP still accounts for 40% to 50% of the Web. Our obligation is to the users, and Windows XP is not a part we can cut out.

Previous Next  

68 user comments

121.3.2011 20:22

Another way to force people on to windows 7

221.3.2011 20:33

lol..if ff stopped support for xp i could only imagine the out cry thats that in a nutshell,however i see no reason for micro to stop security support for IE8 at least for a little while assuming they have stopped support in that regard


321.3.2011 21:17

It's so odd. Recently M$ has been doing a lot right from a consumer standpoint. And windows 7 is brilliant I've been using it since launch. But I think they really broke that trend with ie9 and it will cause them a whole lot of browser share. People want modern browsers as much than they want modern OSs


XXYYQQOO!!! Yeah WELCOME TO JAMROCK

421.3.2011 21:21

Mozilla seems to have forgot their roots: Linux. They have actually given up on hardware acceleration on Linux and Mac OS X as apparently 'GL is too hard.'

Apparently not! Chrome is doing WebGL perfectly fine and they do not have any plans to start using DirectX even on Windows. Meanwhile, Mozilla is still continuing their complaining nonsense and gaining more irrelevancy.

On another note, by not giving IE9 to XP users, this is MS shoving the latest OS down people's throat just like they did with Vista. It's clear XP is still relevant today, and MS does not want to believe it.

521.3.2011 21:28

Originally posted by TBandit:
Another way to force people on to windows 7
+1
Yet another way Microsoft is trying to force people to upgrade to windows 7 and help deplete their own market share. Over 50% of the OS market is windows xp and you refuse to make IE9 available for your ow product. Damn, terrible marketing as usual kill it like u did to the zune.

621.3.2011 21:57
lissenup2
Inactive

Those that actually choose to stay on the outdated, boring, technologically deficient and antiquated XP are techno morons. It's 10 years old people. Let it die or GTFO of the world of tech!

Those that use the stupid reason "it works therefore I'll keep it" should bury their heads and consider keeping their Pentium Packard Bell 133MHz computers too..........because "they work".

XP users are lazy, cheap, simple-minded and can't be trusted.

As for TBandit.............YES..........those that invent and those that are innovators do want people to stay current by upgrading, and as an engineer myself.....I'm tired of people using old ass tech because of the compatibility issues with better, more current tech. Your tard way of looking at that makes you sound like you actually believe it's isolated to MS "forcing" people. IT HAPPENS EVERYWHERE WITH ALL TECH. What............you gonna bitch about using fuel other than gas because "it's another way for us to be forced to use electric, hydrogen, natural gas,etc"

Get a clue!

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 21 Mar 2011 @ 21:58

721.3.2011 22:40
txlakeside
Unverified new user

Originally posted by lissenup2:
Those that actually choose to stay on the outdated, boring, technologically deficient and antiquated XP are techno morons. It's 10 years old people. Let it die or GTFO of the world of tech!

Those that use the stupid reason "it works therefore I'll keep it" should bury their heads and consider keeping their Pentium Packard Bell 133MHz computers too..........because "they work".

XP users are lazy, cheap, simple-minded and can't be trusted.

As for TBandit.............YES..........those that invent and those that are innovators do want people to stay current by upgrading, and as an engineer myself.....I'm tired of people using old ass tech because of the compatibility issues with better, more current tech. Your tard way of looking at that makes you sound like you actually believe it's isolated to MS "forcing" people. IT HAPPENS EVERYWHERE WITH ALL TECH. What............you gonna bitch about using fuel other than gas because "it's another way for us to be forced to use electric, hydrogen, natural gas,etc"

Get a clue!
Tard? Get a clue dude!

821.3.2011 22:50

lissenup2, i use xp so what does that make me then?

921.3.2011 22:58

i have windows 7 and xp and i honestly like them the same and isn't it what the consumer prefers that makes money?

1021.3.2011 22:59

lissenup2 is under the impression that software ages. Software isn't physical let me remind you. It does not 'wear out'.

1121.3.2011 23:09

Originally posted by lissenup2:
Those that actually choose to stay on the outdated, boring, technologically deficient and antiquated XP are techno morons. It's 10 years old people. Let it die or GTFO of the world of tech!

Those that use the stupid reason "it works therefore I'll keep it" should bury their heads and consider keeping their Pentium Packard Bell 133MHz computers too..........because "they work".

XP users are lazy, cheap, simple-minded and can't be trusted.

As for TBandit.............YES..........those that invent and those that are innovators do want people to stay current by upgrading, and as an engineer myself.....I'm tired of people using old ass tech because of the compatibility issues with better, more current tech. Your tard way of looking at that makes you sound like you actually believe it's isolated to MS "forcing" people. IT HAPPENS EVERYWHERE WITH ALL TECH. What............you gonna bitch about using fuel other than gas because "it's another way for us to be forced to use electric, hydrogen, natural gas,etc"

Get a clue!
Tard, you work for Microsoft?

I'm sticking with XP because it does what I need it to.
About your Packard Bell and 133MHz computer statement, it makes no sense. My 93 year old grandfather wants a computer for just Solitaire and some other DOS based games. Your statement implies that I go out and buy him a Windows 7 machine. Why would I buy him a brand new Windows 7 machine when the old Packard Bell works flawlessly for everything he wants to do?

Second, it works. Why would I spend $100 to upgrade to a newer OS? Not to mention that if I upgrade, I'd rather go x64 which would require me to reformat my OS. I just don't have the time for that. It's not worth wasting all that time and effort just for a new OS. I barely deal with the OS directly, I deal with programs on the OS which I can install on XP.

Finally, XP is older, therefore it requires less system resources. You can argue that some programs work better on an x64 based OS but many as of now don't have any advantage on a x64 based OS. Yea, the Windows 7 kernel is smaller meaning a quicker bootup time but the amount of processes it runs on startup are way more than XP and I'm comparing a new formated XP machine with a 7 machine, both with all drivers installed. I know this for a fact.

Finally, 7 runs like crap on anything with less than 2GB RAM. Most people don't need more than 2GB RAM. Also I know many people out there who still use early Single core/early Dual Core (Core Duo) machines. 7 runs like garbage on those.

Gets your facts right before you go bashing everyone here. If you like 7, nobody's stopping you from using it but facts are facts. The most used OS in the world is still Windows XP.

1222.3.2011 0:43

At this point just ignore lissenup2; none of his comments in previous articles make much sense and are usually fanboy bashing rants.

If only doing that too much was a bannable offense...

1322.3.2011 1:16

Originally posted by ROMaster2:
At this point just ignore lissenup2; none of his comments in previous articles make much sense and are usually fanboy bashing rants.

If only doing that too much was a bannable offense...

He does do a lot of name-calling the moderators seem to have to edit.

1422.3.2011 3:21

Official update is tomorrow, but Firefox 4 is available for download now for those who can't wait.......Windows, Mac, and Linux.

http://t.co/de9vmKn

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 23 Mar 2011 @ 2:03

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

1522.3.2011 3:37

Originally posted by ddp:
lissenup2, i use xp so what does that make me then?
same here so i spose it's "birds of a feather"..lmao..that quote right there below has made my day

[quote=lissenup2,
"XP users are lazy, cheap, simple-minded and can't be trusted".

1622.3.2011 4:32

windows users are little more than sheep .. accepting forceware and paying through the nose at the whim of a big corporation...

payware operating systems are obsolete before they hit the shelves

mozilla may be surprised, but I'm not.. this is just another way to force people to scrap perfectly capable hardware.. archaologists in the future will dig through landfill sites and have a nice dating point.. the vista layer... when perfectly good 5 year old computers were scrapped in their millions just because they wouldn't run the latest pile of shit from microsucks..

anyway.. if wincrap 7 is SO fantastic how come it STILL needs antivirus and antimalware things sucking up heaps of the massive amounts of hardware power people are forced to buy in the first place.. and how come it self destructs just as often as xp or fista? .. because it's the same monolithic crap they have been conning people with for 16 years...




ARR! Them pesky Navy! Get out of my sea!
irc://irc.villageirc.net/afterdawn http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/

1722.3.2011 4:41

Or the converse, people that upgraded to Vista and Win 7 are stupid and demonstrate they are easily lead by Microsoft's marketing machine. Especially when using XP does everything needed. If it ain't broke don't fix it is my motto. There is absolutely nothing i would gain by upgrading my machine to Win7. If MS came out with a decent OS that has something of value in it or that i couldn't get my work done then I'll consider getting it, not until then. My compilers and other program run a lot faster in XP then in Win7 anyways, so in the end upgrading to Win7 would slow me down and be more of a hindrance.

1822.3.2011 7:59

I used 7 on several machines and I like it, but I am of the philosophy: If it isn't broken don't fix it. I still run a dual core. It's a few year old, and I do not see the benefit for 7 on my machine. M$ should keep this in mind. I know they are trying to push people towards 7, but I will drag my heels for now.

1922.3.2011 9:23
lissenup2
Inactive

Originally posted by core2kid:
Originally posted by lissenup2:
Those that actually choose to stay on the outdated, boring, technologically deficient and antiquated XP are techno morons. It's 10 years old people. Let it die or GTFO of the world of tech!

Those that use the stupid reason "it works therefore I'll keep it" should bury their heads and consider keeping their Pentium Packard Bell 133MHz computers too..........because "they work".

XP users are lazy, cheap, simple-minded and can't be trusted.

As for TBandit.............YES..........those that invent and those that are innovators do want people to stay current by upgrading, and as an engineer myself.....I'm tired of people using old ass tech because of the compatibility issues with better, more current tech. Your tard way of looking at that makes you sound like you actually believe it's isolated to MS "forcing" people. IT HAPPENS EVERYWHERE WITH ALL TECH. What............you gonna bitch about using fuel other than gas because "it's another way for us to be forced to use electric, hydrogen, natural gas,etc"

Get a clue!
Tard, you work for Microsoft?

I'm sticking with XP because it does what I need it to.
About your Packard Bell and 133MHz computer statement, it makes no sense. My 93 year old grandfather wants a computer for just Solitaire and some other DOS based games. Your statement implies that I go out and buy him a Windows 7 machine. Why would I buy him a brand new Windows 7 machine when the old Packard Bell works flawlessly for everything he wants to do?

Second, it works. Why would I spend $100 to upgrade to a newer OS? Not to mention that if I upgrade, I'd rather go x64 which would require me to reformat my OS. I just don't have the time for that. It's not worth wasting all that time and effort just for a new OS. I barely deal with the OS directly, I deal with programs on the OS which I can install on XP.

Finally, XP is older, therefore it requires less system resources. You can argue that some programs work better on an x64 based OS but many as of now don't have any advantage on a x64 based OS. Yea, the Windows 7 kernel is smaller meaning a quicker bootup time but the amount of processes it runs on startup are way more than XP and I'm comparing a new formated XP machine with a 7 machine, both with all drivers installed. I know this for a fact.

Finally, 7 runs like crap on anything with less than 2GB RAM. Most people don't need more than 2GB RAM. Also I know many people out there who still use early Single core/early Dual Core (Core Duo) machines. 7 runs like garbage on those.

Gets your facts right before you go bashing everyone here. If you like 7, nobody's stopping you from using it but facts are facts. The most used OS in the world is still Windows XP.
Get grandpa a meant-for-7year olds-handheld gaming device from Mattel then.

2022.3.2011 9:29
lissenup2
Inactive

Originally posted by ROMaster2:
At this point just ignore lissenup2; none of his comments in previous articles make much sense and are usually fanboy bashing rants.

If only doing that too much was a bannable offense...
Sorry ROM but you're a mod so I keep my opinions limited besides, your comments in the past have much merit.

2122.3.2011 9:49
lissenup2
Inactive

Originally posted by ROMaster2:
At this point just ignore lissenup2; none of his comments in previous articles make much sense and are usually fanboy bashing rants.

If only doing that too much was a bannable offense...

I'm not a fanboy of ANYTHING. I like certain things but recognize incoherent stupidity when I see it. I'm a pragmatic and highly objective and not subjective in the wrong situations so pipe down because you're sorely mistaken.

As for "fanboyism"......wake up! You're either a fanboy of Apple products or MS products or Hp, Dell, IBM, etc but calling out those that are lazy and cheap that retain severely outdated tech like XP is not being a "fanboy" because I'm not emphasizing anything other than GET CURRENT.

Being behind hinders the progress of modern day networks, the performance of employees and especially hinders tech trying to concentrate on resolving issues with CURRENT DAY TECH.

You really need to check your head before calling out someone that has clearly made a much more valid point than you. I see you as a politician.........the wrong people in positions of authority and power. You're a MOD man........set a better example.

2222.3.2011 10:25

@lissenup2 - Haha...that was a funny read. Can't be trusted? What? Do they look at you with strange intent when you walk by them? Are they conspiring to poison your lawn grass? Are they putting lsd in your drinking water? (ok...this last one I might believe) Honestly, your rant sounds like some weird 1950's anti-communist propaganda...

WinXP does what it needs to for a lot of people. I really do like Win7, but your comments about WinXP are just...weird. Many users do not need to burn another $90 for an OEM copy just because it exists. $90 is a lot of money to people. I can tell you're young, single, and childless because you obviously think everyone's #1 financial priority is keeping up with Microsoft's latest products.

2322.3.2011 10:53

What it boils down to for me is this: XP works for me. I made a custom stripped down version to my liking/needs. It's small, light, and fast! I have zero interest in spending MORE money because M$ says so. You calling ME cheap for being an XP user...yes, I will agree with that. I'm a total cheap a$$ and PROUD of it! I work too hard for my money to just GIVE it away! If you want to pi$$ your money away, go for it!

I personally have zero plans of switching to 7 in the near future. Period! So please...STFU!! And btw...M$ can kiss my a$$!!!

2422.3.2011 11:19

Of course they are. They need to fuel the people that feel an Operating System should be supported forever.




"Have you tried turning it off and on again?" ~ Roy Trenneman

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices

2522.3.2011 11:43

No...I think most of us actually understand that. Microsoft makes money selling operating systems, and leaving behind OSs they don't want to support should make perfect sense. Nobody in particular is complaining that Microsoft doesn't want to support XP.

It's when the trolls start in and begin calling everyone who uses XP stupid, immoral luddites that people here are piping up in support of XP.

However, if Microsoft fails to support 55% of their installed user base it gives 3rd party browser providers an excellent opportunity to gain more market share.

2622.3.2011 11:49

Originally posted by lissenup2:
Originally posted by ROMaster2:
At this point just ignore lissenup2; none of his comments in previous articles make much sense and are usually fanboy bashing rants.

If only doing that too much was a bannable offense...

I'm not a fanboy of ANYTHING. I like certain things but recognize incoherent stupidity when I see it.
So can I, and I recognize some right now.

2722.3.2011 11:57

Originally posted by IguanaC64:
No...I think most of us actually understand that. Microsoft makes money selling operating systems, and leaving behind OSs they don't want to support should make perfect sense. Nobody in particular is complaining that Microsoft doesn't want to support XP.

It's when the trolls start in and begin calling everyone who uses XP stupid, immoral luddites that people here are piping up in support of XP.

However, if Microsoft fails to support 55% of their installed user base it gives 3rd party browser providers an excellent opportunity to gain more market share.
And to add I do not think having IE9 would offer any advantage to XP. It is not like IE8 is going to stop working. Heck there is plenty of information about people unwilling to abandon IE6.

The newer browsers from Microsoft, Google, and Mozilla all are shown to perform better and offer better security on Win 7 compared to XP so to download a newer version is not much more than a GUI change

Running FF 4 on both an XP and a Win7 machine now pretty much proves that just as it did with IE8.

"Have you tried turning it off and on again?" ~ Roy Trenneman

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices

2822.3.2011 11:59

Originally posted by IguanaC64:
No...I think most of us actually understand that. Microsoft makes money selling operating systems, and leaving behind OSs they don't want to support should make perfect sense. Nobody in particular is complaining that Microsoft doesn't want to support XP.

It's when the trolls start in and begin calling everyone who uses XP stupid, immoral luddites that people here are piping up in support of XP.

However, if Microsoft fails to support 55% of their installed user base it gives 3rd party browser providers an excellent opportunity to gain more market share.
This is exactly right. Microsoft makes money off the sale of Windows 7 now but it is clear by the 50 market share for XP that many believe XP is "good enough" for their current needs. I bought Windows 7 on launch day for $50 (running 64-bit version now) and could not be happier. It is leaps and bounds better than XP and Vista but that doesn't mean that most Americans aren't ok with XP.

Let's be real here. How many people use their computers for what that average AD user does? Not too many :) Most people are happy to read the news, check their emails and maybe stream some videos (Hulu, Netflix). An upgrade is certainly not required.

Eventually we will see the numbers get closer...35 percent XP, 35 percent Win7, because many people who bought computers in 2006 (or earlier :o) will be replacing soon and every new computer comes with Windows 7. Not rocket science.

I do agree with lissenup, however, when saying that if you are building a new computer and choose to put Windows XP instead of Win7, you may need to rethink your frugality a bit :)

2922.3.2011 12:01

Originally posted by DVDBack23:
Originally posted by IguanaC64:
No...I think most of us actually understand that. Microsoft makes money selling operating systems, and leaving behind OSs they don't want to support should make perfect sense. Nobody in particular is complaining that Microsoft doesn't want to support XP.

It's when the trolls start in and begin calling everyone who uses XP stupid, immoral luddites that people here are piping up in support of XP.

However, if Microsoft fails to support 55% of their installed user base it gives 3rd party browser providers an excellent opportunity to gain more market share.
I do agree with lissenup, however, when saying that if you are building a new computer and choose to put Windows XP instead of Win7, you may need to rethink your frugality a bit :)
Exactly what I said. Upgrading makes no sense, if you buy a new computer with 7 and downgrade or build and put XP on it, you better have some really good reasons.

3022.3.2011 12:07

Originally posted by ps355528:
windows users are little more than sheep .. accepting forceware and paying through the nose at the whim of a big corporation...

payware operating systems are obsolete before they hit the shelves

mozilla may be surprised, but I'm not.. this is just another way to force people to scrap perfectly capable hardware.. archaologists in the future will dig through landfill sites and have a nice dating point.. the vista layer... when perfectly good 5 year old computers were scrapped in their millions just because they wouldn't run the latest pile of shit from microsucks..

anyway.. if wincrap 7 is SO fantastic how come it STILL needs antivirus and antimalware things sucking up heaps of the massive amounts of hardware power people are forced to buy in the first place.. and how come it self destructs just as often as xp or fista? .. because it's the same monolithic crap they have been conning people with for 16 years...
You know for a senior member of Afterdawn you sound very much like a troll. Only trolls say things like Microsucks and Wincrap.

It is fine that you do not like Windows but to insult the people that use it because they do like it or want/need to use it for their applications is just childish.

Also if you had any sort of clue you would realize that malware goes after who they can harm the most. If you think another operating system or software was used by so many and not be a target of attack then you are as about as ignorant as your post. No matter what Operating System or software you use Security begins and ends with the person using it. There are exploits for virtually every piece of software out there and they pretty much all require some sort of user intervention to cause damage. Security was beefed up in Windows Vista and then again in 7 just like every other Operating System does. No one is saying you are forced to upgrade but you have to accept that technology evolves and old technology cannot be supported forever.


"Have you tried turning it off and on again?" ~ Roy Trenneman

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices

3122.3.2011 13:13

@lissenup2 -- It is interesting, and anyone on here who should argue and urge you to get Win 7 would be me, yet i'm not doing that and say upgrade if you need it and there is a benefit. Oh and I say this because if you buy it you'll be helping drive my stocks up, if their stock goes up $.50 I'll make 8K, so buy away and upgrade to Win 7, but personally i don't think it is ethical to have someone buy something they don't need. I'm not one to argue, i'm just happy to see people like you so controlled by marketing and advertising you will do something from a few 20 second advertisements and do it. In the end I'd like to say thanks for the money in my pocket :)

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Mar 2011 @ 13:16

3222.3.2011 14:06

I use XP on my 12 year old laptop. Works fine for school, media, and internet access while traveling. Based on the amount of use the old girl gets there is absolutely no reason to buy a new one just for IE9 or a new OS for that matter. Beware, I am untrustworthy and could very well do abhorrent things with maple syrup to people you like.

3322.3.2011 15:14

Originally posted by lissenup2:
Those that actually choose to stay on the outdated, boring, technologically deficient and antiquated XP are techno morons. It's 10 years old people. Let it die or GTFO of the world of tech!

Those that use the stupid reason "it works therefore I'll keep it" should bury their heads and consider keeping their Pentium Packard Bell 133MHz computers too..........because "they work".

XP users are lazy, cheap, simple-minded and can't be trusted.

As for TBandit.............YES..........those that invent and those that are innovators do want people to stay current by upgrading, and as an engineer myself.....I'm tired of people using old ass tech because of the compatibility issues with better, more current tech. Your tard way of looking at that makes you sound like you actually believe it's isolated to MS "forcing" people. IT HAPPENS EVERYWHERE WITH ALL TECH. What............you gonna bitch about using fuel other than gas because "it's another way for us to be forced to use electric, hydrogen, natural gas,etc"

Get a clue!
And it's precisely people like this that deserve to have every penny stripped away from them by the tech industry... I myself run 7 different OS' in various forms and versions, and the fact of the matter is, I use each one because to me they are USEFUL. Anyone can try to advance technology at breakneck speed to push us forward into a sci-fi future, but ultimately it's the consumers that decide whether they want it or not. The statistics speak for themselves, which is that a huge share of people online today are happy with XP and that's the end of it. They will change to a new OS if and when they want to, but I think we're more likely to see Microsoft backtrack on their current tactics and IE9 become available for XP in due time.

3422.3.2011 15:55

All I gotta say about this thread (not going to mention any names) is some people are just full of hate. ;) Whatever OS works for you is the best one to use. While I can see the importance of staying current (more security holes get patched over time, more features, etc) some people are fine with lower-end machines and older OSes. Heck it took my Dad a long time to loosen his grip from Windows 2000! So, to each his own, but at the same time be cautious that older OSes = more security risk.

Meanwhile, I use Linux which is impossibly easy and cheap to keep updated. ;)

3522.3.2011 17:03

Come on, people. Don't whine and cry just because IE9 is not available on your 10-year-old grandfathered Windows XP. Just upgrade to Windows 7 and ditch that obsolete OS. Problem solved.


Intel Core i7-950 3.06 GHz, 12 GB DDR3 RAM, ATI Radeon HD 6770, 1.5 TB 7200 RPM HDD, Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit SP1

3622.3.2011 17:09

Originally posted by banzaigtv:
Come on, people. Don't whine and cry just because IE9 is not available on your 10-year-old grandfathered Windows XP. Just upgrade to Windows 7 and ditch that obsolete OS. Problem solved.
See that is not a solution either. Now if a person can upgrade I do highly recommend it for the added security and loads of other features too but not everybody can or wants to. IE9 offers better security as it should being a new version but the version of browser you use is not going to save you. IE8 or the latest version of Firefox is fine too. They should take the better steps to secure themselves than just relying on a browser.

"Have you tried turning it off and on again?" ~ Roy Trenneman

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices

3722.3.2011 18:01

If you don't see the need to upgrade to a modern OS then keep your older OS and older browser.
No one is making you upgrade.
A great many programs do not work in both XP and Win 7. I run XP in a VM... solves everything.
But seriously, If you do not need the latest OS or browser then use your old hardware and old software forever. Who is stopping you?

3822.3.2011 18:14

lissenup2, lightning struck!!!

3923.3.2011 0:31

Originally posted by ddp:
lissenup2, lightning struck!!!
Thank you!

“Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Forget this... and attaining enlightenment is the least of your problems.”
–Zen Judaism by Someone Clever

4023.3.2011 10:49

Makes me wonder when the patents for XP expire....Anyone here know?

When they day comes that XP *IS* too old to support current hardware/software, the folks at ReactOS should have a release candidate at the ready...

4123.3.2011 10:58
mark19821
Inactive

Alot of stuff requies windows 7, like windows messenger and the latest IE


www.priceladder.co.uk

4223.3.2011 11:06

Originally posted by mark19821:
Alot of stuff requies windows 7, like windows messenger and the latest IE
That is true. Less and Less software and hardware drivers are supporting XP as time goes on. This is the nature of technology. For example the school district I work for where I manage IT has a entire site license for Adobe Creative Suite CS5 Master Collection and programs like Premiere Pro and After Effects require Windows Vista or Windows 7 64bit. If you still have XP I believe they give the option to obtain the 32bit CS4 versions. We also have an annual subscription to Autodesk for their AutoCAD suite and version 2012 will be Windows 7 x64 only I am told.

I only mention this because I know someone will come here and post something that it is Microsoft stopping to make updated versions of their software for XP but the truth of the matter is other companies are too.

"Have you tried turning it off and on again?" ~ Roy Trenneman

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices

4323.3.2011 14:10

Originally posted by banzaigtv:
Come on, people. Don't whine and cry just because IE9 is not available on your 10-year-old grandfathered Windows XP. Just upgrade to Windows 7 and ditch that obsolete OS. Problem solved.
Or simply don't bother with IE9; there's several superior products out there. Problem solved.

Being a bloated posterior doesn't help anyone. Relax.

4423.3.2011 16:56

Originally posted by ddp:
lissenup2, lightning struck!!!

Does it matter when he's immediately back as lissenup3, etc.?

4523.3.2011 17:20

found him.

4624.3.2011 13:25

Originally posted by bobiroc:
Originally posted by mark19821:
Alot of stuff requies windows 7, like windows messenger and the latest IE
That is true. Less and Less software and hardware drivers are supporting XP as time goes on. This is the nature of technology. For example the school district I work for where I manage IT has a entire site license for Adobe Creative Suite CS5 Master Collection and programs like Premiere Pro and After Effects require Windows Vista or Windows 7 64bit. If you still have XP I believe they give the option to obtain the 32bit CS4 versions. We also have an annual subscription to Autodesk for their AutoCAD suite and version 2012 will be Windows 7 x64 only I am told.

I only mention this because I know someone will come here and post something that it is Microsoft stopping to make updated versions of their software for XP but the truth of the matter is other companies are too.
Oh the irony! :D

Autodesk only keep updating AutoCAD because their users are too old fashioned to move onto its successor Inventor. rofl


Originally posted by core2kid:

Finally, 7 runs like crap on anything with less than 2GB RAM. Most people don't need more than 2GB RAM. Also I know many people out there who still use early Single core/early Dual Core (Core Duo) machines. 7 runs like garbage on those.

Look, I agree absolutely with everything you said in that post core2kid except that bit. Win7 Ultimate runs cheerfully enough on a old 1GB netbook.

(Just don't install the wireless adaptor driver from MS... get it from the maker/manufacturer or google for it.)
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 24 Mar 2011 @ 13:29

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

4725.3.2011 12:38

Just for Listenup2 and the rest of his ilk, there are many hundreds of thousands of systems running XP controlling many industrial systems and processes that require XP systems to maintain and modify them, where the old addage " If its working its doing what it is supposed to do, so dont try to modify, update, or do anything that will stop it doing its thing. They don't care what the latest software is capable of, or whether anybody is supporting it, it's only only you theoretical whizz kids that feel they know all there is to know about computing when in actuality youre spouting your so called knowledge about probably 20% of the uses of computers.

4825.3.2011 13:04

Originally posted by core2kid:

Finally, 7 runs like crap on anything with less than 2GB RAM. Most people don't need more than 2GB RAM. Also I know many people out there who still use early Single core/early Dual Core (Core Duo) machines. 7 runs like garbage on those.

Look, I agree absolutely with everything you said in that post core2kid except that bit. Win7 Ultimate runs cheerfully enough on a old 1GB netbook.

(Just don't install the wireless adaptor driver from MS... get it from the maker/manufacturer or google for it.)
You're looking at a netbook, they perform fine on 7 Starter. I'm talking about a full computer such as a desktop or something. They won't perform well only because people will try to do more than it can. If you use a desktop or low end laptop as a netbook, it'll perform fine. Also I don't think you can buy a standalone license for Windows 7 Starter. I'm pretty sure that Home Premium is the lowest it goes.

4925.3.2011 14:28

Originally posted by lissenup2:
Originally posted by ROMaster2:
At this point just ignore lissenup2; none of his comments in previous articles make much sense and are usually fanboy bashing rants.

If only doing that too much was a bannable offense...

I'm not a fanboy of ANYTHING. I like certain things but recognize incoherent stupidity when I see it. I'm a pragmatic and highly objective and not subjective in the wrong situations so pipe down because you're sorely mistaken.

As for "fanboyism"......wake up! You're either a fanboy of Apple products or MS products or Hp, Dell, IBM, etc but calling out those that are lazy and cheap that retain severely outdated tech like XP is not being a "fanboy" because I'm not emphasizing anything other than GET CURRENT.

Being behind hinders the progress of modern day networks, the performance of employees and especially hinders tech trying to concentrate on resolving issues with CURRENT DAY TECH.

You really need to check your head before calling out someone that has clearly made a much more valid point than you. I see you as a politician.........the wrong people in positions of authority and power. You're a MOD man........set a better example.
Some of us cannot afford all the upgrading needed to run Windows 7. So should just stop using my computers to do the things we need to do?
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 25 Mar 2011 @ 17:04

5025.3.2011 16:29

Originally posted by core2kid:
Originally posted by core2kid:

Finally, 7 runs like crap on anything with less than 2GB RAM. Most people don't need more than 2GB RAM. Also I know many people out there who still use early Single core/early Dual Core (Core Duo) machines. 7 runs like garbage on those.

Look, I agree absolutely with everything you said in that post core2kid except that bit. Win7 Ultimate runs cheerfully enough on a old 1GB netbook.

(Just don't install the wireless adaptor driver from MS... get it from the maker/manufacturer or google for it.)
You're looking at a netbook, they perform fine on 7 Starter. I'm talking about a full computer such as a desktop or something. They won't perform well only because people will try to do more than it can. If you use a desktop or low end laptop as a netbook, it'll perform fine. Also I don't think you can buy a standalone license for Windows 7 Starter. I'm pretty sure that Home Premium is the lowest it goes.


*sigh*

I know what version of Win7 I installed on this and other old netbooks mate.

{Yet another person who has no idea how services run in an OS. Pro and Ultimate provide access to a greater number of them only and I mean ONLY if they are called upon.}

Ultimate runs as least as well as XP Home ever did on them and they are frankly more stable.


================================================================
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 25 Mar 2011 @ 21:01

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

5125.3.2011 19:59

I.E. 9 is great.. Windows 7 is great.. People are crying over this.. Car change every 5 years.. Linux changes every 6 months.. FF changes just as much as IE. If you are still using XP just use IE 8 if you want the latest and greatest upgrade your OS... Once you get 7 you will wonder why it took to long to update... Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...

5225.3.2011 20:37

Originally posted by bw5011:
Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...
No way. FF4 poos on it.



Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

5325.3.2011 20:49

Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...
No way. FF4 poos on it.


how? name one thing

5425.3.2011 20:59

Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...
No way. FF4 poos on it.


how? name one thing
One? How about the thousands of addons you don't have a clue about. Ok, I'll name just one... AdBlock Plus.

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

5525.3.2011 21:00

Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...
No way. FF4 poos on it.


how? name one thing
One? How about the thousands of addons you don't have a clue about. Ok, I'll name just one... AdBlock Plus.
I am a system admin.. i know all about FF... with IE 9 u dont need an "addon" to block adds.. try again...

5625.3.2011 21:02

Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...
No way. FF4 poos on it.


how? name one thing
One? How about the thousands of addons you don't have a clue about. Ok, I'll name just one... AdBlock Plus.
I am a system admin.. i know all about FF... with IE 9 u dont need an "addon" to block adds.. try again...
The thousands of addons you don't have a clue about.

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

5725.3.2011 21:10

Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...
No way. FF4 poos on it.


how? name one thing
One? How about the thousands of addons you don't have a clue about. Ok, I'll name just one... AdBlock Plus.
I am a system admin.. i know all about FF... with IE 9 u dont need an "addon" to block adds.. try again...
The thousands of addons you don't have a clue about.
ok. if that is all u got.. we can just say you win.. LOL.... but really you should check out IE 9 and how it performs with html5.. check out chrome and check out ff.... i have to use all because of my users since we dont have a standard browser.. for what most people do on the net you can use anything to surf.. but u should try something else just to see what u think...

5825.3.2011 21:24

Originally posted by lissenup2:
Those that actually choose to stay on the outdated, boring, technologically deficient and antiquated XP are techno morons. It's 10 years old people. Let it die or GTFO of the world of tech!
The computers at our university run XP quickly, and XP is compatible with the school's software. It boots faster, runs faster on older machines, and requires less hardware to get the basics done. Believe me when I say that we could care LESS about being able to run the newest browser (supporting the latests, most intrusive ads from developers). That's really what all of this is about -- providing new revenue streams for ad companies and MS. Who really LIKES those ads bouncing across your screen when you're trying to view a webpage, or taking-over your entire screen until you push "X"? Why do I want that?? That's why new browsers need all of this speed -- to run that garbage. The school's old IE browser will probably just not run it at all, and still be faster for not doing so!

I like Windows 7 overall, too, but the sad fact is that they'll keep running XP at my job an elsewhere until the older computers using it totally die. No way they'll every purchase an upgrade -- they'll just buy new by that time and have Windows 7 included, or if they still can find a way, will downgrade all of the computers to XP again. That's what they did with all of our new dual-core machines they bought 2 years ago.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 25 Mar 2011 @ 21:27

5925.3.2011 21:56

Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...
No way. FF4 poos on it.


how? name one thing
One? How about the thousands of addons you don't have a clue about. Ok, I'll name just one... AdBlock Plus.
I am a system admin.. i know all about FF... with IE 9 u dont need an "addon" to block adds.. try again...
The thousands of addons you don't have a clue about.
ok. if that is all u got.. we can just say you win.. LOL.... but really you should check out IE 9 and how it performs with html5.. check out chrome and check out ff.... i have to use all because of my users since we dont have a standard browser.. for what most people do on the net you can use anything to surf.. but u should try something else just to see what u think...
What makes you think I haven't? :)

Look, the fact of the matter is that I can't be bothered arguing with you bw501. Same as I can't be stuffed arguing with you over a Flat Earth... I don't have the time. If you think IE provides a better (and safer) user experience than FF4 or don't mind Doubleclick spyware from Google's Chrome well good luck to you.

I've cheerfully admitted above I admire Win7. I've defended it above. Still, I'm not about to head over to OCZ forums to ask Bill Gates for a reach around... you're welcome to.

Likewise your welcome to nit-pick over this ~ http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/features/ ~ with some other member of AD... you'll find plenty.

:)

Cheers.



=================================================================
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 25 Mar 2011 @ 22:00

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

6025.3.2011 21:59

Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by core2kid:
Originally posted by core2kid:

Finally, 7 runs like crap on anything with less than 2GB RAM. Most people don't need more than 2GB RAM. Also I know many people out there who still use early Single core/early Dual Core (Core Duo) machines. 7 runs like garbage on those.

Look, I agree absolutely with everything you said in that post core2kid except that bit. Win7 Ultimate runs cheerfully enough on a old 1GB netbook.

(Just don't install the wireless adaptor driver from MS... get it from the maker/manufacturer or google for it.)
You're looking at a netbook, they perform fine on 7 Starter. I'm talking about a full computer such as a desktop or something. They won't perform well only because people will try to do more than it can. If you use a desktop or low end laptop as a netbook, it'll perform fine. Also I don't think you can buy a standalone license for Windows 7 Starter. I'm pretty sure that Home Premium is the lowest it goes.


*sigh*

I know what version of Win7 I installed on this and other old netbooks mate.

{Yet another person who has no idea how services run in an OS. Pro and Ultimate provide access to a greater number of them only and I mean ONLY if they are called upon.}

Ultimate runs as least as well as XP Home ever did on them and they are frankly more stable.


================================================================
The average home user can't work with services. For pros in computers, we really don't need to have a discussion on which OS to use and why.

6125.3.2011 22:13

Originally posted by Darney53:
Originally posted by lissenup2:
Originally posted by ROMaster2:
At this point just ignore lissenup2; none of his comments in previous articles make much sense and are usually fanboy bashing rants.

If only doing that too much was a bannable offense...

I'm not a fanboy of ANYTHING. I like certain things but recognize incoherent stupidity when I see it. I'm a pragmatic and highly objective and not subjective in the wrong situations so pipe down because you're sorely mistaken.

As for "fanboyism"......wake up! You're either a fanboy of Apple products or MS products or Hp, Dell, IBM, etc but calling out those that are lazy and cheap that retain severely outdated tech like XP is not being a "fanboy" because I'm not emphasizing anything other than GET CURRENT.

Being behind hinders the progress of modern day networks, the performance of employees and especially hinders tech trying to concentrate on resolving issues with CURRENT DAY TECH.

You really need to check your head before calling out someone that has clearly made a much more valid point than you. I see you as a politician.........the wrong people in positions of authority and power. You're a MOD man........set a better example.
Some of us cannot afford all the upgrading needed to run Windows 7. So should just stop using my computers to do the things we need to do?
Unless you have an older computer with low end Intel integrated graphics (8xx series chipsets) with less than 1GB of ram then you may have to upgrade using a $30 graphics card and maybe $50 in ram but that is probably a 7 - 8 year old computer. I have yet to find a computer within the last 5 - 6 years that cannot run Windows 7 with a simple upgrade to 2GB ram. Win7 runs just as good and in most cases better on the same hardware.

"Have you tried turning it off and on again?" ~ Roy Trenneman

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices

6225.3.2011 22:13

Originally posted by core2kid:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by core2kid:
Originally posted by core2kid:

Finally, 7 runs like crap on anything with less than 2GB RAM. Most people don't need more than 2GB RAM. Also I know many people out there who still use early Single core/early Dual Core (Core Duo) machines. 7 runs like garbage on those.

Look, I agree absolutely with everything you said in that post core2kid except that bit. Win7 Ultimate runs cheerfully enough on a old 1GB netbook.

(Just don't install the wireless adaptor driver from MS... get it from the maker/manufacturer or google for it.)
You're looking at a netbook, they perform fine on 7 Starter. I'm talking about a full computer such as a desktop or something. They won't perform well only because people will try to do more than it can. If you use a desktop or low end laptop as a netbook, it'll perform fine. Also I don't think you can buy a standalone license for Windows 7 Starter. I'm pretty sure that Home Premium is the lowest it goes.


*sigh*

I know what version of Win7 I installed on this and other old netbooks mate.

{Yet another person who has no idea how services run in an OS. Pro and Ultimate provide access to a greater number of them only and I mean ONLY if they are called upon.}

Ultimate runs as least as well as XP Home ever did on them and they are frankly more stable.


================================================================
The average home user can't work with services. For pros in computers, we really don't need to have a discussion on which OS to use and why.



================================================================
*Ugh*

We ran comparisons between Ultimate and Starter on newer (same cpu, same chipset) netbooks. It wasn't particularly planned, a mate just turned up with extra one. It's really easy to pop a fresh HDD in one to experiment with.


I agreed with you about everything else. :)



=============================================================
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 25 Mar 2011 @ 22:20

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

6325.3.2011 22:25

Originally posted by bobiroc:

Unless you have an older computer with low end Intel integrated graphics (8xx series chipsets) with less than 1GB of ram then you may have to upgrade using a $30 graphics card and maybe $50 in ram but that is probably a 7 - 8 year old computer. I have yet to find a computer within the last 5 - 6 years that cannot run Windows 7 with a simple upgrade to 2GB ram. Win7 runs just as good and in most cases better on the same hardware.
Hear bloody hear.

Testify!

:)



======================================================================
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 26 Mar 2011 @ 10:29

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

6426.3.2011 10:46

Don't be thinking everyone can cheaply upgrade RAM, either. For one, my home data server is an older dektop that has 512 MB RAMBUS (remember that?) RAM. Now, RAMBUS was nice and fast, but WAY too expensive, and only costs more now. What, I should spend approximately the original cost, if not more, of that PC to upgrade it to run 7..? LOL Nope. Am I going to throw away a perfectly good house server? Nope. And that doesn't even enter into the subject of how much unalloyed *cough* "fun" it is to install an entire OS + applications and etc., whether 7 is superior or not... My main PCs run 7, and that's fine.

Anyone who thinks otherwise probably still has all their bills paid by their parents. If not, they're just elitist trash with too much time on their hands. *ptui*

6526.3.2011 10:53

Originally posted by Bozobub:
Don't be thinking everyone can cheaply upgrade RAM, either. For one, my home data server is an older dektop that has 512 MB RAMBUS (remember that?) RAM. Now, RAMBUS was nice and fast, but WAY too expensive, and only costs more now. What, I should spend approximately the original cost, if not more, of that PC to upgrade it to run 7..? LOL Nope. Am I going to throw away a perfectly good house server? Nope. And that doesn't even enter into the subject of how much unalloyed *cough* "fun" it is to install an entire OS + applications and etc., whether 7 is superior or not... My main PCs run 7, and that's fine.

Anyone who thinks otherwise probably still has all their bills paid by their parents. If not, they're just elitist trash with too much time on their hands. *ptui*
RDRAM isn't too expensive anymore, I got 4 x 256MB Sticks for $2 on Ebay shipped. I saw similar ones going for about $10.

6626.3.2011 11:02

Originally posted by core2kid:

RDRAM isn't too expensive anymore, I got 4 x 256MB Sticks for $2 on Ebay shipped. I saw similar ones going for about $10.
I almost think even $10 is too expensive for RDRAM :)

I thought the main problem was even though it was fast memory for its day, there was a huge bug in the memory bus that required you to slow the memory to as slow or slower then the comparable SDRAM at the time... What a joy to pay 3x or 4x the cost of other SDRAM for fast memory only to be required to run it slower then SDRAM...

While i assume it is worth it in your case, if you need it you need it. Now, where's my beer, think i left it, oh there she be.


This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 26 Mar 2011 @ 11:04

6726.3.2011 11:43

Heh, I don't think I'd ever recommend someone use Win7 for a server.

I would only strongly advise that someone move to Win7 if I built them a gaming rig (or if they had one) that had a DX11 card and they were keen on playing new games.

Pro and Ultimate have built in virtual XP for retro gaming anyway. Not referring to compatibility mode here.

Might look for some old registered RAM on eBay ~ seen a number of superseded workstations for sale. Solis but shame about how they deal with SATA.

I did not know that about RDRAM! I know it has a colourful history what with all those SDRAM execs going to jail and that $700mil fine coz of the price fixing.

Beer...


Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

6831.3.2011 2:11
lordoftheleft
Inactive

Why does anyone even care that you can't use IE9 on XP? I've only used IE once and that was to download Firefox. There's so many great browsers to choose from Chrome, Opera, Firefox, Safari why would anyone choose to use one of the worst. Also XP will be relevant for as long as there's software and drivers written for it, Windows 7 has a nice new UI but it's not as if it can do anything XP couldn't.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive