XP updates until 2019/ good idea or bad ?

[nemesismk2]

I have decided to stop trying to keep windows xp running because it's not worth the trouble so have gone back to using windows 7 instead.

 

[Guest essential]

Overclocked systems, not done properly, can cause errors in data ("bit rot"). It's no so much the speed itself, but the fact that the overclock is unstable.

At least for stock speeds, accuracy is basically guaranteed by the mfg. That's not to say that certain combinations of CPUs and motherboards and RAM can't be unstable; you do need to do your job of system integration properly if you are building your own system.

The long and the short of it is - "unstable" systems can cause errors; "fast" systems do not.

It has probably been corrected by now, with the advances in cpu's etc., but, excessive download speed was critical at one time, as it would cause file corruption; so I am told.

 

[Guest essential]

I still don't understand this; speed doesn't cause any errors. Do you mean CPU speed, download speed? Speed of what? - RampantAndroid

I'm referring to download speed, basically.

 

[Ketchup]

I'm referring to download speed, basically.

Now that I know what you are talking about, download speed (and networking in general) has no effect on what OS you choose. The standard for networking is not related to the OS you choose. I would be interested in what you to think that, but that is up to you.

There is no practical reason to stay on XP as a main OS at this point (as in something you actually depend on). I use XP on a VM for purely personal use due to it's light nature. No personal data is kept on the VM. If something infects it, I can nuke it and pull over a backup and be back in business in a matter of minutes, due to the fact that is has a small footprint and light on resources.

 

[Guest essential]

Windows 7 can be downloaded for free and tried for 30 days. It would probably not do so well on your current hardware, however, as 1GB of RAM is just too close for comfort for Windows 7. - Torn Mind

Upgrading from Windows XP to Windows 7


With my present set-up, Windows 7, appears too distant. I would need a clean install. Also, after 7 years, my Iomega back-up drive seems to have given up, on doing any more back-ups. I haven't been able to get inside of it to see what the problem is.

 

[Guest essential]

Now that I know what you are talking about, download speed (and networking in general) has no effect on what OS you choose. The standard for networking is not related to the OS you choose. I would be interested in what you to think that, but that is up to you.

There is no practical reason to stay on XP as a main OS at this point (as in something you actually depend on). I use XP on a VM for purely personal use due to it's light nature. No personal data is kept on the VM. If something infects it, I can nuke it and pull over a backup and be back in business in a matter of minutes, due to the fact that is has a small footprint and light on resources.

I don't use Win XP, online very much now a days. I have a lot of work that I do with it concerning the word processing software. I store a lot of old post's there as well, some going back to the early 2000's.

But, upgrading this notebook, with its 1 gig of ram, is not something that I'm favorably looking forward to.

 

[RampantAndroid]

It has probably been corrected by now, with the advances in cpu's etc., but, excessive download speed was critical at one time, as it would cause file corruption; so I am told.

The *only* time a hardware config caused my network downloads to fail, it was because the old nVidia chipsets (nForce 2) had a firewall in it that while cool...corrupted downloads sometimes. So I turned it off in BIOS and everything was fine.

I cannot ever think of a time where networking was affected by the CPU, short of user error.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Anyone seen this site?

https://www.xpextend.com/

Not sure what it's about yet.

Edit: After reviewing their web site, it's very vague on how it provides updates for Windows XP. I think that perhaps, they use this hack, or somehow get a hold of the MS updates. I highly doubt that the one single programmer they mention, is going to release updates for security flaws himself, without source-code access to XP. Not to mention, don't Windows Updates have to be digitally-signed by Microsoft to be installed?

 

[fire400]

http://securitywatch.pcmag.com/secu...xp-exploit-protection-tested-winners-revealed

the best corporate security / VPN tunneling / and linux server rerouting might have a harder time keeping up in the near future. but the battle is silent, the death cries are near absent and the reward may be punishment to the end user for refusal to change. and yes, VM is awesome, but not perfect.

i personally still use wXp to play starcraft broodwar on thinkpads

 

[Zodiark1593]

I'm not buying this at all. If this is the case then businesses are running their business poorly.

Fifteen years ago I was in corporate sales and the trend even then was to lease hardware instead of owning it. They usually would do 2-3 year leases and not have to deal with aging equipment at the desktop, or continue to support legacy operating systems.

Most larger companies, including the one I work for now, have been doing this for years and don't buy into the software snare of not being able to run on tomorrow's operating systems. They either buy/develop robust software for long-term use or insure the future OS has some sort of backward capability or an exit plan.

My employer has >200K employees with at least half of them on desktops. They didn't wait all that long on Windows 7 adoption because the 2 and 3 year technology lease at the desktop made it easy for them, and this is with a plethora of retail and custom software still being used across generations of operating systems (e.g. XP>Vista>W7).

As a business, it is like operating a motor vehicle. Never change the oil and suffer the consequences.

Many of thepc running the solder machines at my work are still running XP (pentium 4 processors btw), due to the fact that it's the only OS the software was tested against. They are run on a near-constant basis, coupled with a relatively small IT staff, extensive testing would equate to a shot in the foot. And as everything works just fine, there is no need to shut down the machines to perform an upgrade that will provide little, if any benefit to offset the downtime.