Jody Thornton

Can you rate (in a 0 to 10 scale) what is the actual relevance (if any) and/or practical use of such piece of info? If you find any relevance in it. (or practical use) for the info, i.e. you assigned more than 0 to the question, what is the particular aspect that you feel important? I mean, when the *whatever* will come out will actually come out, it will be called in the *whatever* way the good MS guys will see fit, but what's in a name? It can be: Pessimistic: the usual abomination, called 8.2 the usual abomination, called 9 the usual abomination, called "Curtains 1.0"Optimistic: a good OS, called 8.2 a good OS, called 9 a good OS, called "New Panorama"The relevant point seems to me whether it will be a good release or not. , and we might get to know that once it will be available. jaclaz Sigh! (OK Jaclaz, maybe some of us care.) I wanted to know if it means a different vision path perhaps, and maybe the differences in version numbering may mean a different marketing path. I just want to know so I asked, that's all! And yes, I would like to know more importantly what's in the release.

I used T-Bird for years. I halted it's use as of version 3 when they began indexing mail and offering tabs. I've found it slow ever since. I use Seamonkey Mail on my notebook and I tried it on my desktop as a POP client (it reminds me more of version 2x of Thunderbird). But it's just as slow as Thunderbird 3x+. I have also tried Evolution, Opera and maybe fifteen others. I really liked the interface of Windows Mail. What is it that's really wrong with Windows Mail (no one has answered that yet). Is it any worse than Outlook 2003?

Sorry to revive a dead thread, but is this going to be Windows 8.2 or Windows 9? In the Windows 8 Forum, a new Windows 8.2 release is supposed to be ready for March. However, it sounds as if it will be Windows 9. Am I clear on this?

So to be clear, you're saying that Windows 8.2 is going to be Windows 9? What are the new features?

No, IE11 was on my girlfriend's Windows 7 notebook PC. I run Seamonkey at home on my HP Desktop.

So I take it that you're saying Windows Mail is insecure? What is it that's bad about Windows Mail?

Just download a new instance once a week.

actually you could do following, but isn't quite legal yet also not illegal either find yourself Longhorn (Vista) reset build, the client version 5.2.3790.1232 this is XP since it is client version of Server 2003 SP1 RC its EULA makes it illegal, but its out of ANY support makes it legal - by logic it should accept any Server 2003 SP and hotfixes since its kernel is 5.2 (remember this one is 32bit) and is still XP so stiff Servers '03 SP2 init and all hotfixes (or try slipstream) and there you go Can anyone else confirm this? Would it be updated continuously along with Server 2003?

Given that Microsoft Office 2003 extended phase support ends along with XP. I am migrating to Windows Mail and Calandar apps in Vista for now. Is there ANY way at all to convert the Outlook 2003 rules to ones that can be uised by Windows Mail? All directions seem to point to "no", but I wanted to double and triple check with the experts.

I was able to solve my issue. I had installed Ad Block on IE10, and left it intact as I upgraded to IE11. As soon as I disabled the utility, Google Mail starts operating at full speed.

Actually there IS a way to accurately challenge my statements above (but it really should be a separate thread; hmmmm, naw not really). For those who continue to run Windows 2000 Professional as of 2014, that would give a more real life indication as to how life with Windows XP as an unsupported OS would be. They are very similar in many ways.

In your opinion. Now, with all due respect, in my own opinion, I'm good for at least the next 10 years: yesterday I've activated my 6th XP Pro SP3 x86 machine (two of which are also bootable into 98SE). MS will stop supporting XP next April... well, it can do that, all right. Myself, I couldn't care less whether it actually does it, or backs off in the last moment. I don't know. I really don't think that running an unsuported OS sounds safe. And I'll say it again. I think comparing the running of Windows XP with Windows 9x/ME unsupported is foolish. 9x/ME's kernel is way simpler than Windows NT's, which still exists in Vista, 7 and 8. So an attacker of those systems can get to XP as well. So you shouldn't use 9x/ME's security through obscurity as a precedent for how things my go with XP. I sense a lot of folks think that Microsoft is out to screw with people on Windows Updates. Somehow they believe Microsoft is undermining the system. I really don't think Microsoft is out to mess with it's own products.

Welcome to the ranks of Vista users. (A small club, sorry to say.) --JorgeA Well Windows XP x64 users made up a small user base as well so no loss.

We need to be careful not to use Windows 9x/ME support history as a precedent here. That OS line may have achieved security through obsolesecence, being that it's a simpler, flimsier kernel that no attacker targets anymore. However, the Windows NT kernel continues to exist in Vista, 7 and 8 and WIL BE TARGETED. XP doesn't differ nearly as much and will be much more affected. So I don't think XP will eventually be a safe bet based on the likelihood that 9x now seems to be a safer bet after years of non-support status.

Well, in any case I have made the move to Vista x64 Ultimate Edition since I had started this thread, so there's no looking back. I really had wished that Microsoft would have extended Windows XP x64 Edition officially until July 2015 (no patching updates), but that isn't to be I suppose. Besides I've migrated now, so I'm good for three years.

I suppose the status of updates never changed here, eh? I suppose the .INF editing would still be necessary?

And is there a relationship here between the two products? I really wished support for Windows XP x64 Edition continued. Sigh!\

LostInSpace2012: The truth is that you never EVER "owned" any version of Windows, including 9x/Me. You used it under license, so no you shouldn't be able to just make 500 CD-ROM copies of it and have Microsoft never know. In fact, it's your actions that justified Windows Activation in Microsoft's mind. You were "renting" ME just as much as XP. Mind you, the way you should lack of care for others with your big, rusty, polluting vehicle; then why would I expect you to care about things like copyright?

As an owner of a '64 Mustang, I agree with you. There are still plenty of aftermarket products for those who wish to make their daily driver into a safer ride like four-wheel drum to disc brake conversions, frame-stiffening components, et cetera. Still, you get what I mean. Ford itself will not fuel sales of an older automobile model. And Microsoft will not create a new "XP". Now comparing aftermarket auto parts sales train of thought with Microsoft Windows, there is ReactOS. I wish that project would mature and stabilize, because I would use that operating system in a heartbeat!

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but Microsoft is now trying to convey a COMPLETELY different vision for Windows, one that is not congruent with the vision conveyed with XP. In fact, when it comes to this vision, Windows 7 and Windows Vista are no longer in line with current product offerings. When you think of "Windows" in 2014, Microsoft wants you to visualize the "Metro" Start Screen. Notice in it's Windows 8x/Surface commericals that even though the Explorer style desktop shell still exists; they NEVER show it? That's because Microsoft want users to disenfranchise themselves with that image. Microsoft wants you to envision Windows as a place to run apps and use on a tablet, akin to Android or iOS. So XP, Vista and 7 do not fit that image of Windows. So they will not revive it. They want you to stop using it. And they're hell-bent on letting you know it's unsafe to run. Consider this: as much as you may love a 1965 Ford Mustang, Ford will never make another vehicle of that fashion EVER AGAIN. It would likely pose safety concerns. Now you may say as an experienced driver, "I know how to protect myself in an older car and how to avoid the hazards it may impose." However, that wouldn't make Ford build an old-style vehicle, since it compromises safety.

I wonder if the July 2015 MSE end date coincides with the EOL for Windows Server 2003? Although unsupported, I run the x86 Vista/Win7 MSE version on Windows Server 2003, and I was running MSE x64 for Vista/Win7 on XP x64 Edition. Just curious.

OK I give up. What are you talking about then? Cheers and Regards I had posted wondering two things: (a) Would Microsoft at the last minute (no matter what they have previously insisted upon) cave in and provide further updates for Windows XP, since the remaining user base is simply too high, and thus perceived as a security threat to IT. (b-) If all versions of Windows (XP/Vista/7/8) receives updates on April 8, 2014, wouldn't Windows XP continue to be up to date (at least as any other version of Windows) until Patch Tuesday in May 2014? I only ask because Microsoft warns of zero-day exploits and what not on April 9, 2014; yet it isn't until a month later when Vista, 7 and 8 receive updates that XP does not. Is that clear? I think I said that right....lol

Well I wonder if some here from Microsoft might step in to say whether or not April's updates sufficiently protect XP users for an additional month. If they do for Vista/7/8x, then they should for XP.

I wonder if they'll be fearful that compromised users on XP will give Windows a bad image overall. I'm not saying they should worry, but I wonder if they'll cave in to XP user demand; that's all. I'd be more interested in whether or nor XP is to considered "out of date" immediately as of April's updates, or only when May's updates have come and gone, and XP is not included. (After all, XP still gets the same updates as Vista/7/8 does for April, no?)

I'm aware of that. I just wonder if the stubborn fan base for XP worries Microsoft so much that they'll change their mind.