From Windows XP to What?

[jon]

Editor's Corner
Upgrading from XP: Will You Stick with Windows?
WXPNews.com
March 15, 2011

Much as we might hate to admit it, we all know that Windows XP's days are numbered. The question is just what that number is. As we noted in last week's newsletter, there are some who believe Microsoft will extend support for XP beyond the August 2014 date that is now its official "end of life." And even though XP still has somewhere around half of the desktop market share (depending on whose statistics you believe), it is steadily losing ground, mostly to Windows 7. Here is one set of statistics from w3schools.com, based on web trends and showing XP with 45.3% and Windows 7 up to 31.1%.
http://www.wxpnews.com/110315-Schools

Despite the trends, I know many of our readers have no plans to abandon XP unless/until Microsoft ends support, and a smaller number say they'll stick with it even after that happens. Most take a more pragmatic approach, reporting that they see no reason to upgrade until they get a new computer, which will almost certainly come with a new OS installed. And then there are those who have decided (or are seriously considering) that when they make the move from XP, it will be to a whole different OS platform.

Some tell me that when they get a new computer, it's going to be a Mac. Others are toying with the idea of going to Linux. Interestingly, these choices seem to be influenced at least in part by their experiences with their mobile devices. People who are telling me they plan to switch to Mac tend to have and like iPhones and/or iPads, whereas many of those who have expressed an interest in switching to Linux on their desktops are basing their impressions of that OS on their love of their Linux-based Android phones or tablets.

On the one hand, it makes sense to think that if you're happy with a particular phone OS, you would also be happy with its "big brother" desktop operating system. Some people have also noted that they think they would have better compatibility and an easier time of synchronizing data between their phones and desktop or laptop computers if they went "all Apple" or "all open source." On the other hand, the mobile experience is pretty different from the desktop environment and what works best on one doesn't necessarily work best on the other. Smart phones and tablets are all about touch, but if you've ever tried to get all your critical work done using an all-touch device, you know it can end up being a slow, clunky, frustrating experience.

There's a saying among some of my friends who belong to the Apple fan club that goes, "once you try Mac, you'll never go back." It sounds catchy, but lately I've heard from quite a few folks who have done just that. They were attracted to OS X for its slick, pretty interface and its alleged ease of use and security advantages. And there's no denying that the UI is elegant, but the complaint I most often hear from them is that it's not easy to use at all. Long-time Windows users lament that they aren't able to find any way to do things that they routinely and easily did on their Windows machines. Windows is more customizable, for instance. And for those of us who prefer to keep our fingers on the keyboard and off the mouse, Windows supports far more keyboard shortcuts. Most Windows users are also stymied by the limitations of managing files on a Mac. But it's not just those who have decades of "the Windows Way" engrained in our brains who find it easier to use Windows; I gave my old Mac to my cousin for her grandchildren to use, and after trying it, they both let it sit while they fought over the Windows machine, because it "wouldn't do as much."

I'm sure I'll get lots of mail from people telling me they find OS X easier to use than Windows, and that's fine. Ease of use is often a matter of personal preferences. Just don't assume that because the Apple commercials tout how easy-going the Mac guy is, that you'll really find him easier to get along with, on a daily basis, than the PC guy.

As for security, the idea that OS X is inherently more secure has been pretty much blown apart in recent "Pwn to Own" hacking contests that have taken down the Mac computers handily. Sure, Macs do get fewer viruses and are attacked less often, because with only a small portion of the operating system market, they present a much less attractive target to virus writers and attackers. If your goal was to infect as many computers as possible, would you focus on creating attacks for the OS that runs on fewer than 10% of the computers out there, or the one (Windows) that runs on closer to 90%? Even so, the bad guys are now coming up with malware that infects both Windows and OS X, such as the new variant on a Random Access Trojan (RAT) called darkComet, that can infect both platforms.
http://www.wxpnews.com/110315-Ober-Gizmo

And if you think Apple products don't have security vulnerabilities, think again. This month, Apple patched a record 62 vulnerabilities in its Safari web browser, most of which could be exploited to allow remote code execution:
http://www.wxpnews.com/110315-Bugs-in-Safari-Update

What about Linux on the desktop, then? Unlike the Mac, for which you pay a premium, some distros of Linux can be downloaded at no cost whatsoever, and you can install it on low cost PC hardware. That's certainly attractive to those on a tight budget. Traditionally, the problem with Linux is that it hasn't been easy to get installed or to use. True Linux geeks like to spend a lot of time at the command line, and enjoying doing things like compiling their own kernels and writing their own device drivers - not things that the typical consumer really wants to do. Recent distributions of Linux, though, such as Ubuntu and Mint, make it (relatively) easy. The Linux desktop, which not so long ago looked pretty "rough" in comparison to Windows and Mac, is now much more sophisticated, too, and has user interfaces that are designed to be familiar to Windows and/or Mac users. Some distros are made specifically for new Linux users, such as PinguyOS:
http://www.wxpnews.com/110315-Linux

One of the problems with Linux is the phenomenon known as "fragmentation." There are so many different distributions and none of them are exactly alike, that it can be confusing to users. If you thought the six editions of Windows 7 had your head spinning, just take a look at all the choices you have with Linux; there are reportedly more than 600 different Linux distros, although not all of them are currently active. This fragmentation, along with the fact that there is no "official" support resource for most of the distros, probably accounts for the inability of Linux to gain much market share on the desktop (most stats put it at under 5%). This site lists the most popular desktop offerings (59 of them):
http://www.wxpnews.com/110315-Fragmentation

Of course, these three aren't your only choices when it comes to a desktop operating system. Google is still working on Chrome OS, a completely web-based operating system that would run on very low powered devices and do most of the computing "in the cloud." The problem with that is that it's Internet- dependent; if you can't get online, your operating system becomes essentially useless.
http://www.wxpnews.com/110315-Chromeos

And that's not all. This article lists 10 alternative desktop operating systems, some of which are still in early stages of development. Of course, trying out one of these is only for the brave of heart and the ultra-curious; you probably aren't going to be using it on your main productivity machine anytime soon, but it can be fun to experiment:
http://www.wxpnews.com/110315-Alternative-OS

Tell us what your plans are, when XP finally goes the way of the dinosaurs? Will you hang on as long as you can, even after Microsoft ends official support? Will you just throw away your computer and go back to pen, paper and slide rule if you can't have your XP anymore? Will you upgrade to Windows 7 (or whatever the current version of Windows is at the time)? Will you switch to Mac? Will you give Linux a whirl? Are you waiting for a web- based "cloudified" OS like Chrome? Pinning your hopes on a desktop version of HP's webOS? Let us know your thoughts and opinions. We invite you to discuss this topic in our forum at
http://www.wxpnews.com/110315-Discuss-T ... PNews-Here

[TRENT310]

Does anyone actually USE Microsoft's official support with an operating system? Now I know this means end of updates, so what. The major components have already been dropped for Windows XP, DirectX hasn't been developed for it for a while now.

I don't like Linux for the desktop. I feel it takes away from what makes it great - I like the shell so I am able to complete tasks with great efficiency, and you can indeed accomplish everything on *NIX platforms from the shell. Even in Windows I find myself Winkey+R cmd 'ing a lot to get to the DOS prompt to get things done without having to deal with graphical user interfaces, however there are things that are not easily administered via that method because of Microsoft's tree-based configuration method (like the registry and the Microsoft Management Console). No doubt that you need graphics for multimedia, and to render web pages properly, but when I'm working with a billion text files, I don't want the GUI there.

Sure Linux distros are spread around everywhere. That's the best part about it, there's always a version for some application, no matter if you want a mainstream, general purpose platform or a very specific platform for embedded applications that run on limited hardware and use few resources. The way the community works if you want a feature, MAKE the feature. Don't wait for someone else to make the feature for you. With Windows, we're waiting on people to put in features and otherwise we're doing hacks and workarounds to deal with the issue.

If it comes down to convenience or time constraints, definitely Windows based platforms are the easiest to roll out across many computers in an organization, and the users are generally at least somewhat familiar with its operation to avoid a need to train people on the operation of a computer. While the upcoming OS X Lion is finally coming out with effective corporate network friendly mass administration features, Windows has had those features since NT.

Will you just throw away your computer and go back to pen, paper and slide rule if you can't have your XP anymore?

Back to that point, so what? End of Life as indicated by Microsoft doesn't literally mean your operating system will suddenly stop working. Heck, the HARDWARE probably reached support End of Life way before the operating system did. Will you throw away your car once the warranty period ends? Perhaps, but unlike hardware, requiring parts that will ultimately become increasingly rare, software does not have the same issues.
Instead, when an operating system becomes unsuitable will more likely be determined by the user and software developers, when new programs they want to use no longer function on the platform they have. But if you cared for cutting edge software anyway, you wouldn't still be using Windows XP. I know people who are still happily using Windows 98 with Office 97 and Internet Explorer 5 on their Pentium II 400MHz with ISA 10mbit Ethernet card. I don't think they are overly concerned anymore whether or not the software is going to be supported.

[Mike Cleaver]

I intend to hang on to XP Pro SP3 until I buy a new main computer for audio.
It's been bulletproof since SP 2 and I never have issues with it.
We have three other computers in the house, two with Vista and one with 7.
The Vista ones tend to have very few issues and 7 has been fine so far.
As for switching to any overpriced Apple gear, that's not going to happen here.
I've had too many people who've expected Apple means perfection to be disappointed and as has been pointed out, they only have about 10 per cent of the world's computer population using their gear and OS.