xp with i3 processor

[cluberti]

When you buy a software and after one month it happen it isn't working in some cases, you'll ask for support and sometimes you don't get any. We had cases at work where Microsoft didn't found any solution... just making us wait until we got tired of asking them.

Do you have any specific instances or bugs that weren't fixed, or instances where they just made you wait? I've worked with MS many times, and this has most definitely not been my experience with any products (even support incidents on the free ones, like Internet Explorer).

Another example is the support for windows 2000 (it is ending soon), the people who bought windows 2000 didn't buy it for the bugs and the security flaws. So, after the end of the 2000 support, if a big flaw is discovered and exploited by something like a new conficker, there should not be an hotfix.

Microsoft has fixed pretty much every bug and security issue found with Windows 2000 right up until this past year (where they were unable to patch the TCP flaws, because the stack was many versions out of date compared to even 2003 and XP). Customers paid at most a few hundred dollars US for a software product, which has been maintained at least to that level (not including the price of the software itself in that equation). Frankly, 10 years of support is a long time (XP is going to ultimately have had 13!!!! years of support), honestly, and this policy is more time than practically any other commercial or open-source vendor provides support for any other product, and the longest OS support lifecycles of any OS vendor.

I can understand that like a waranty on hardware, you can't support software for ever (for hardware, there is third party companies who don't care how old servers are) but then Microsoft should either open the old source code not supported or at least transfer it to other companies willing to do it. Reverse engineering isn't an easy task and isn't legal either. And this behaviour is called "abuse of dominance".

Why would Microsoft open the source of a product just because they've ended support for it? For one, it would be a bad business decision for Microsoft (fewer sales of future versions as there's now a free one!), and second it could have the potential to create fragmentation in the market if the source was forked, etc. Not giving away your intellectual property isn't abuse of dominance, it's called good business strategy when you are a closed-source company. When you pay your bills with sales of that source code, you just do NOT give away those crown jewels, ever, unless pried from your cold, dead hands (and at that point you're likely out of business and capital anyway from the legal fees to fight said release of code).

It's one thing to give away code for free and make revenue supporting and maintaining it (ala Red Hat), or releasing it without wanting or receiving any compensation (aka out of your own interest, or to scratch your own itch, etc), but it's quite another thing entirely to make money off of the sales of the code (and take a loss on the support/maintenance side of things). For a company that does the latter, open-sourcing the code would be the death-knell of that business.

[CoffeeFiend]

No i didn't bother to try last photoshop

So then you're just using it as your primary example but without actually knowing if it's the case?

As for the kind of people who don't buy hardware, they sometimes want to buy software but can't most of the time because their hardware isn't supported.

Pretty much all the people I've seen that still used 10 year old computers don't buy the latest software. Either being the frugal kind, or being one of those people into that old software (you know -- the "everything new is bloated" type of guy), or just having such an old machine that new apps won't run. Businesses don't base their business model around a tiny market segment that typically spends ~nothing.

As for open source, of course they have sponsors

It's hardly just "sponsors". They say about 75% of the open source code (things like the Linux kernel, Apache and such) is written directly by the large companies I listed (as in by employees directly paid/hired by them). Money matters a LOT more than you seem to imply. Even "small" companies like the Mozilla foundation makes a lot of money -- 78.6M in 2008 alone.

and for their quality and support i totally disagree with you because at least you don't pay for it

So buggy, featureless, barely usable, unstable, poorly supported and often worthless projects are perfectly fine because it's free? Thanks but no thanks, I'll just keep using something nice that actually works, even if it costs money.

Another example is the support for windows 2000 (it is ending soon), the people who bought windows 2000 didn't buy it for the bugs and the security flaws

So you're blaming MS for dropping support a decade later? Because Linux distros from 10 years ago (2.2.x kernel) are perfect and still supported, right? It's not like the Ubuntu LTS releases (long term support) are only supported for 5 years or that it's only 18 months otherwise A typical Example would be RHL 7 that came out in 2000 (same time as Win2k which is currently still supported) for which support ended back in 2002 or 2003. Or RHL 7.3 which came out after XP (which still has some years of support left) for which support ended in late 2003. MS simply has the best support, and yet you're blaming them for it.

Then again, you were saying that some people like you don't want to upgrade hardware for 10 years but buying software was OK, but here it seems like buying new software is also out of the question, again showing that you're probably spending just about nothing anyway. Honestly, it just looks like you want all the latest and newest, but without actually buying new hardware or software, and with ~eternal support thrown in for free (and perhaps open source too). I'd love to see you run a successful business this way.

then Microsoft should either open the old source code not supported or at least transfer it to other companies willing to do it

Or some people can be realistic and think about moving forward to a more modern tech in the 10+ years period before it's unsupported (the lifecycle concept). You're going to have to do this even with other OS'es than Windows (Linux distros and Mac OS X don't support their product even close to 10 years). Using Win2k (on 10 year old hardware like you said) now is exactly like someone still using Win 3.1 on a 486 after XP came out (not quite 10 years apart) and refusing to buy something newer instead.

Sorry, but I have to echo cluberti's point, your blind hatred towards MS seems to be clouding your judgment.

[allen2]

@coffeefiend

So then you're just using it as your primary example but without actually knowing if it's the case?

I said i didn't tried recent version but it was at least a CS version perhaps a CS2 but i am not sure. It was too complex and too slow for my needs (i had at this time an athlon XP dual core, they were selling for something like 6 month), so i thought it would run correctly. Of course the recent versions could be a lot better and i hope so, and as i already said, i don't need this kind of software often and will stay with a light tool (1Go of space on hard drive (CS5 requirement), that's pretty big for an application and no i don't have a hard drive space problem, i have more than 20TB).

So buggy, featureless, barely usable, unstable, poorly supported and often worthless projects are perfectly fine because it's free? Thanks but no thanks, I'll just keep using something nice that actually works, even if it costs money.

That's your choice, i am not selling you open source application (as it's free). You don't like open source, it's okay if you don't use it.

So you're blaming MS for dropping support a decade later? Because Linux distros from 10 years ago (2.2.x kernel) are perfect and still supported, right? It's not like the Ubuntu LTS releases (long term support) are only supported for 5 years or that it's only 18 months otherwise A typical Example would be RHL 7 that came out in 2000 (same time as Win2k which is currently still supported) for which support ended back in 2002 or 2003. Or RHL 7.3 which came out after XP (which still has some years of support left) for which support ended in late 2003. MS simply has the best support, and yet you're blaming them for it.

I am not that much into Linux. For you to know: 2.2 kernel were supported at least till 2004 as the lastest kernel 2.2.26 was released on 24/02/2004. As i said before:

you can't support software for ever

and ten years is great.

And as it seems you didn't read this:

With open source, at least people don't sell you something they are not able to do and if you are a little experienced, you'll be able to find a solution yourself.

Then again, you were saying that some people like you don't want to upgrade hardware for 10 years but buying software was OK, but here it seems like buying new software is also out of the question, again showing that you're probably spending just about nothing anyway. Honestly, it just looks like you want all the latest and newest, but without actually buying new hardware or software, and with ~eternal support thrown in for free (and perhaps open source too). I'd love to see you run a successful business this way.

I think you should re-think that comment. My lastest motherboard is very old (one month): It is a DFI CP330-NRM for cpu I7 720QM. My oldest computer running (my nas) is a P4 2.4G and i will replace its motherboard soon. I renew my computers parts every year at most.

Or some people can be realistic and think about moving forward to a more modern tech in the 10+ years period before it's unsupported (the lifecycle concept). You're going to have to do this even with other OS'es than Windows (Linux distros and Mac OS X don't support their product even close to 10 years). Using Win2k (on 10 year old hardware like you said) now is exactly like someone still using Win 3.1 on a 486 after XP came out (not quite 10 years apart) and refusing to buy something newer instead.

That's a pretty good idea, i'll try it at work: we have clients (in the food business), they are still using a supported application (for orders) which only run on NT4. Replacing the OS would cost them a lot more than just a 2003 (they have volume license) or a 2008 and the new hardware to support it. They'll have to replace all client application and it take a long time to replace it on all their sellers computers. Virtualizing the server would only remove the old hardware server but the unsupported NT4 would still run( probably better and faster). They might loose orders or even clients when upgrading all. I can understand their points. The new application can't work with the old one. The only way around would be buying new computers for the sellers, installing the new application on it and installing the new server. Do some tests and then replace all at once. Isn't that a little overkill for a little NT4 and how much would that cost ?

That's the real world.

@cluberti

Do you have any specific instances or bugs that weren't fixed, or instances where they just made you wait? I've worked with MS many times, and this has most definitely not been my experience with any products (even support incidents on the free ones, like Internet Explorer).

Yes, with a 2003 r2 terminal servers farm, end user are randomly disconnected and we found a corruption of the terminal server directory database. Even after purging the database (and purging is not a real solution), there were still problems but a little less side effects so now we are purging the database and rebooting the servers every week.

For other part, i agree that Microsoft don't want to open old OS source because they'll loose money: people (like coffeefiend ) might not buy their product any more.

It's one thing to give away code for free and make revenue supporting and maintaining it (ala Red Hat), or releasing it without wanting or receiving any compensation (aka out of your own interest, or to scratch your own itch, etc), but it's quite another thing entirely to make money off of the sales of the code (and take a loss on the support/maintenance side of things). For a company that does the latter, open-sourcing the code would be the death-knell of that business.

I never said to give it for free to third party companies.

[CoffeeFiend]

i had at this time an athlon XP dual core, they were selling for something like 6 month

No such thing exists.

I said i didn't tried recent version but it was at least a CS version perhaps a CS2 but i am not sure

Ah, so your whole point is just based on a grossly outdated bad example then, my bad.

2.2 kernel were supported at least till 2004 as the lastest kernel 2.2.26 was released on 24/02/2004

Again, that doesn't matter if the particular distro didn't support it, and RHL didn't nor did pretty much anybody else (nor do they do today)

And as it seems you didn't read this: With open source, at least people don't sell you something they are not able to do and if you are a little experienced, you'll be able to find a solution yourself.

Nah, I had just cut you some slack. With open source you're very often sold given something horribly broken. And if you're experienced at all, you can just as easily fix Windows issues (it's arguably a lot simpler and faster -- thanks to sysinternals utils and some other gems). PS: I also run Linux, and not just on x86 HW for that matter.

I think you should re-think that comment. My lastest motherboard is very old (one month): It is a DFI CP330-NRM for cpu I7 720QM

So a modern OS should run great on this, far better than old x86 stuff, I fail to see where the problem was in the first place (unless you got your i7 all of 2GB and then try to run several memory hungry apps on it at once)

That's a pretty good idea, i'll try it at work: we have clients (in the food business), they are still using a supported application (for orders) which only run on NT4

If their IT staff is too incompetent to see this coming it's quite sad. It's only a matter of time before they're forced to move to something else anyway. They're going to be in a world of hurt because they waited too darn long to do anything and no transition is ever going to be smooth. They only got themselves to blame.

[allen2]

No such thing exists.

X 2 doesn't exist ????

As for the photoshop example, it was only 4 years from now and i won't try every new version of all software going out every year.

If the new photoshop cs5 is working this well, i guess i'll have to try it when i'll need to edit picture (about 1 time every two years).

Again, that doesn't matter if the particular distro didn't support it, and RHL didn't nor did pretty much anybody else (nor do they do today)

But anyone can try. That's the point.

Nah, I had just cut you some slack. With open source you're very often sold given something horribly broken. And if you're experienced at all, you can just as

easily fix Windows issues (it's arguably a lot simpler and faster -- thanks to sysinternals utils and some other gems). PS: I also run Linux, and not just on x86 HW for that matter.

You need to explain how you can create hotfix with sysinternals tools or anything else without source code of the flawed dll/exe. That would be great to know this.

[Kelsenellenelvian]

X 2 doesn't exist ????

That IS NOT a Athlon XP dual core... NO such thing ever existed.

[allen2]

My bad, I meant an athlon 64 X2 3800+ to be more precise. My apologies to the mods and supermods.

Anyway it was a dual core but an athlon 64 instead of an athlon XP (those one are older).

[Tripredacus]

I think that the Athlon isn't a real dual core anyways, wasn't it like a bridged single core or is the X2 the real dual core?

That's a pretty good idea, i'll try it at work: we have clients (in the food business), they are still using a supported application (for orders) which only run on NT4. Replacing the OS would cost them a lot more than just a 2003 (they have volume license) or a 2008 and the new hardware to support it. They'll have to replace all client application and it take a long time to replace it on all their sellers computers. Virtualizing the server would only remove the old hardware server but the unsupported NT4 would still run( probably better and faster). They might loose orders or even clients when upgrading all. I can understand their points. The new application can't work with the old one. The only way around would be buying new computers for the sellers, installing the new application on it and installing the new server. Do some tests and then replace all at once. Isn't that a little overkill for a little NT4 and how much would that cost ?

That's the real world.

Yes that is the real world but it is unfortunate. That doesn't mean companies are doing it right. Most corporations I have worked with are very much against being "up to date" because they see things with a "well it still works" attitude and do not realise the price of waiting to long. Do you know how many companies wait until the last possible minute to do migrations? For example, one migration I worked on was in 2004, where the company was migrating from Windows NT and Windows 2000 to Windows XP. And the reason they were doing it was because their support period was ending, that's it.

[cluberti]

I think that the Athlon isn't a real dual core anyways, wasn't it like a bridged single core or is the X2 the real dual core?

The AMD dual-core and quad-core chips are all "real" multicore CPUs. Intel's original quad-core chips were the bridged processors (dual dual-core parts on one die), although they were only created for a short time before their quads were true quad-core parts.

[MagicAndre1981]

@cluberti

split the discussion about Itanium into a new topic. This has nothing to do with the question from the topic starter. He wants to know if he can use a i3 with XP.

[Tripredacus]

@cluberti

split the discussion about Itanium into a new topic. This has nothing to do with the question from the topic starter. He wants to know if he can use a i3 with XP.

Technically, the question has been answered already. There can only be one thing to do, lock the topic or move it into GD...

[CoffeeFiend]

But anyone can try. That's the point.

Yes, applying thousands of source fixes from hundreds of different sources to hundreds of individual packages, some individual packages (like the Linux kernel) being well over 10M LOC, and the OS spanning *hundreds* of millions of LOCs. Yeah, clearly in anyone's reach.

[allen2]

It's like telling to a sportsmen "you can't break a world record"; not everybody can do it but many people want to try. When someone begin in a sport, he can't break a world record but at least he can train and improve and try and retry until...

Edited May 20, 2010 by allen2

[gunsmokingman]

So because you want to run an x64 OS you need twice more ram. Doesn't that bother you ?

No, because I could not use the 8 gb of ram I have on a 32 bit OS.

[allen2]

That's a good reason to use x64 if you need 8GB.