Rilbur Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 There was some conversation today, and I decided it would make a good place to start a forum conversation. That conversation revolved around XP -- and all the hate it receives from those 'in the know'. Lets start our conversation by reviewing some of the reason it's so well hated. Historically, that hate has started from the geek community because those who use XP are limited to older versions of Internet Exploder. Software developers, at least the good ones, don't become software developers to do lots of hard work. We become software developers so that someone else (the computer) will do all the hard work for us. Anything that increases to our work load annoys us, and forcing us to support older versions of IE multiplies our work load in two ways. First, it means that all sorts of modern additions to the HTML specifications are no longer available to make our lives easier. Second, when handling browser-based behavior, you add in yet another set of browsers we have to account for and support -- browsers that frequently act in odd, non-compliant ways. Moving on, the general reluctance to upgrade has also cost the gamer portion of the population more heavily than many realize. Many games hit the 32 bit cap years and years ago. You see, a 32 bit OS can only address so much memory. Even if you have 16GBs of RAM in your machine, your computer could only use up to 4 of it at a time. And so long as programs were limited to supporting 32 bit OSs, that meant they were effectively restricted to using no more than two gigabytes of memory at a time. This has stifled game development for the last several years. Improving graphics demanded more memory to support them, which meant that not only were games 'capped' as their size, that size had to compete with graphics for resources, further capping the scale of games. Think that didn't matter? Take a look around, you'll find more than one blog post or news article about a company that's rejoicing over finally shedding that artificial, absurd limit. And in a modern context, Microsoft has finally shed their albatross and ended all future updates and supports for XP. They bent (broke, really) that decision for the patch targeting the recently discovered attack, but in the end that doesn't matter. What matters is they aren't going to patch every vulnerability. Which means that any computer running XP is vulnerable to the security flaws that are patched in every patch Tuesday. And before you try to argue that after 12 years, most of those flaws have been found and fixed, let me point out that every patch Tuesday consists of a roadmap pointing straight to the flaws that haven't already been fixed. In announcing a fix to various security flaws, Microsoft -- of necessity -- has announced what those flaws are. If you're still running XP, and want to use the internet, you must upgrade ASAP to a new operating system. The first two reasons may or may not effect you, but in the end that third one is critical. You can't avoid the security flaws in XP by running another browser, because many of those flaws are in the underlying OS, not just the browser. If you're running a machine that can't support a more recent version of windows, well, you've got two choices. One is to pony up for a new machine -- expensive, but in the end necessary. Computers come with a definite lifespan (about 6-7 years), whether you like it or not. Second is to side-grade to a different OS. Many of the Linux distros can run extremely efficiently on a relatively weak machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.