Old OS is old. Time to upgrade that abacus.

I like what I've seen of Metro. Which is why I won't be upgrading until the software I use supports it or vice versa. I want a fully functional interface, not a hub for social networks that I don't and will never use.

If they were going to move the date they would have done so by now; XP's Extended Support ends on April 8, 2014, and this date will not be changing no matter what.

XP will be 12 years old on August 24. It's time to move on.

Hey guys, it's OK. I heard a rumour that Microsoft have got a newer OS out. Can anyone confirm?

That's just a rumor started by dirty Mac users.

Forum platitudes are fine and all, but when you have corporate security and massive migration costs to contend with, things aren't quite so straightforward. As I said, there is precedent for this.

Corporate can pay for support. What's ending is free support.

http://www.startisback.com/

Now if only I could remove Metro...Win8 is a fucking horridly annoying OS for anyone who doesnt want to pretend their PC is a touchscreen Android phone. It came pre-loaded on my laptop, and yes I can (and will) get rid of it but first I wanted to learn how horrid it is. I honestly don't understand how anyone could prefer it to 7 or XP.

You mean, the operating system that came with my netbook when I bought it in 2010?

Yes, I do think they should support an operating system they were still selling on new computers two or three years ago.

The funny part is that Microsoft are saying users should switch to a new version of Windows because their old version of Windows is so insecure. With them it always seems to be 'the old version of Windows sucks, but, trust us, the new one is the best operating system ever'.

Windows 7 was available in 2010, and by then XP was 9 years old. You made the choice to buy an old OS, why is that Microsoft's fault you bought an OS two versions behind? If you want to keep XP so badly, just pay for support? I don't see the problem here.

I think all OS makers say the same thing about old versions, not just Microsoft. I wouldn't trust OS 9 or the original version of Debian (just turned 20 a few days ago) to be as secure as today's.

Switch to Linux if it bothers you that much. Windows Vista and above won't run well on your netbook, I'll tell you that much.
Still, why was Microsoft providing Windows XP licenses to OEMs not too long ago when it is, like you say, quite old and a few versions behind?

Because some people really want it for specific use cases and they are willing to pay for it even if they know they won't get updates from 2014. It's cheaper to get an OS you can install on your existing hardware than buying new PCs, get a new Windows, train people or watch their productivity reducing significantly and so on.

Do you mean: A new Linux Distro?

It's already running Linux: I wiped Windows off there when I put in an SSD.

My point was that people say 'ooh, XP was launched in 2001, it's got Computer Cooties', but new machines with XP were available until very recently. It's not like we're talking about Windows 95 here.

Microsoft are in a bind, because companies don't see any good reason to switch from XP, and Windows 8 gives them very, very good reasons not to do so. I suspect they're going to have to extend the support date again or face a lot of companies moving away from Windows where that's possible.

Hardware drivers are most of the time available for newer operating systems only, Windows XP being left behind. Software developers often release and maintain their code for newer operating systems because it just costs too much to take care of every platform, back in the IT history. The newer hardware and software can bring new features that increase productivity, which is simply progress.

There are always people who aren't ready to switch to newer operating systems or truly don't need any new features nor performance whatsoever, but looking at the bigger picture, the IT needs to evolve. If we get stuck in a world without SSD's, USB 3/Thunderbolt, UEFI and so on, we simply oppose evolution. I'm not saying it's wrong that some people keep using old software, but Microsoft can't just maintain Windows XP or some other old software indefinitely. They have to draw the line somewhere and this is it. Old PCs are anyway a risk to businesses because you can expect them to fail after 4-5 years of usage and the companies would anyway have to migrate from Windows XP to a newer OS at some point. They migrated from MS-DOS to Windows 3.1/95/98/NT/2000 etc, right?

A car doesn't get better with time unless you pay for (relatively) expensive parts or maintenance and replace key components so you can squeeze more life and performance out of it. But in the end you'll get a new car anyway, because changing all the parts will be more expensive than actually buying a new car.

The companies should plan their migration to whatever is more comfortable to them, or take the risks of using old and outdated software and hardware. We all got enough life out of Windows XP so we all saved money in the long run. It's just time to move on. So it's either Linux (for older hardware) or get new hardware and new Windows or Linux (even better).