Jody Thornton

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.

Well I'm not posting this out of desparation. I would just find it humourous if Microsoft caved in at the last minute.

A possible quote from Microsoft at the last minute? See up until now, I would think not, but now I'm starting to wonder... See, I have to believe that Microsoft is concerned that so many people are still using Winodws XP, and are even stubbornly staying with it. I really wonder if it may not be a possiblity that Microsoft (at the very last minute) will add a few extra months of updates to the Windows XP codebase. Here's what I don't get. Microsoft and its partners are warning of zero-day attacks even on April 9, 2014 being a possibility. But aren't Windows XP users receiving their last set of Patch Tuesday goodies on or around April 8, 2014? And so are users of Windows Vista, 7 and 8, right? So won't XP actually be up to date until early May 2014? After all, it's only then that XP will be without the benefit of new updates that have been provided to Windows Vista/7/8x. Am I wrong? Microsoft could have fixed this more easily by providing customers with an updated OS that was light on the resources. The "moderninzed" system could have just focussed on basic hardware rendering, lighter RAM requirements, improved compatibility with AF fixed drives, and security improvements. However in every other respect, it could have retained an XP/2003 like heritage.

I opted for Kingsoft Office 2012 and I really like it.

OK Jaclaz (very funny). You surely must've relaized that I meant "Migrational" path. However, since you want to take the converstation there; for those that were inclined to go that XP to tablet route, they may see the lack of obstrusive and heavy hardware as an "upgrade" to their lifestyle, so for them, it is an upgrade. They may see it as, I no longer need a monstrosity of an OS and a full featured desktop or notebook PC to survive anymore. To them, that's an upgrade. Excuse me while I look up "semantics" in that dictionary of mine...lol

I've opted to go with Kingsoft Office 2012/2013 Professional. So long Microsoft Office (unless you want to make a product like v2003 again...lol)

First off, I hate it too, but I don't think Metro is going anywhere. Microsoft needs to compete with Apple and Google, and though I think they will lose the battle, they need to be seen as doing something to attract the phone and tablet markets. Even though corporate business is their core market, they are not the progressive business that will allow Microsoft to move ahead. It's kind of like how Asa Dolzer of Mozilla frowns on business because they want longer acceptance periods of standardization than the rapid release cycle allows, whereas Asa wants to appeal to those who want the latest and greatest. Unfortunately, Microsoft feels they need to appeal to the same bunch. . Second point is, I really wonder if the "dominant" market constitues those of us who want to stick with more traditional Explorer type applications. Those of us who do tend to want to stick with XP or windows 7. That doesn't translate into sales. Windows 8 hopefully does, but I don't think the desktop really represents the future (it will become a niche really). I think that for most people, the upgrade path has benn Windows XP to the iPad or perhaps Android as a close second. Newer versions of Windows don't even register to younger people now for the large part. And Microsoft needs to clawback and get a least a bite of that tablet pie.

I like those too. What I would like to know is were there any tablet/netbook hybrids that would run Windows 7? What about the ARM devices that run Chrome OS? Could they run a Windows OS?

I don't think social media is going away at all. Just more Twitter (which I loathe) I like certain groups on Facebook (ones with Vintage pictures, history and the like) but I think that's an example of how Facebook is attracting older audiences.

Which was precisely what I ended up doing. I have her back on IE10.

My girlfriend's HP Notebook with Windows 7 SP1, really bogs down on Gmail when using Internet Explorer 11. I have checked that Compatibility Views are defeated, and that Default (Edge) is used as the rendering style in the F12 console. So I visit my friends this weekend. She has a Windows 7 based Dell PC. He has a new gaming system with Windows 8.1 installed. Both have Internet Explorer 11, and both load Gmail just fine. They both work great. All three builds are x64 editions (both Windows 7 and the one Windows 8.1 PC). So what gives? Why is my girlfriends IE 11 installation stupified by Gmail? If I unistall IE 11, then IE 10 works fine on the same PC.

This weekend I setup my friend's new PC. It was a gaming PC with Windows 8.1 installed. Now guess what? [OK....here goes.....] I actually liked it. It ran quite well. The first thing I did was install IOBit's StartMenu 8 (though since it's ad-supported I may try something else for him. But I installed Office 2007, setup IE 11 and transferred his data back, giving me ample time to use the system. It really felt like a less animated, but more speedy Windows 7. It worked VERY well. So maybe, ahem, just maybe Windows 8 is somewhere oft in my future. Er, we'll see.