Topic: I'm Not dead yet!

[Lieutenant_Q]

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/not-dead-yet-dutch-british-governments-pay-to-keep-windows-xp-alive/

Many hospitals in the US still use Windows XP on workstations and healthcare devices because software developers have not had their products certified by regulators for use with later versions of Windows.

An Interesting dilemma...

[Javora]

Seems to me that it would be cheaper for them to keep those computers on a separate internal network, away from the outside Internet.  Then again wouldn't it be more prudent to pay that money to Microsoft (if they are going to pay Microsoft) to install complete compatibility with older programs to Win 7/8 ?  Obviously this is a cheaper option than paying to update these older programs.  If a US company does pay for continued support, then I can't to see that support leak onto the Internet.

Can't wait to see how this plays out.

[Nemesis]

There is a lot of equipment out there which require drivers to connect to a PC and the drivers in many cases are not compatible with newer versions of Windows.  Not just home hardware but lab equipment for taking spectrographs for one example (that I've used with driver issues).  It can be 10s of thousands of dollars or more to replace perfectly functional hardware because MS broke driver compatibility. 

[Corbomite]

Remember when we used to make fully integrated devices and machines that could function perfectly all by themselves? Even if old, as long as you gave it power, fuel, whatever, it worked just fine for years if not decades. Somewhere along the line some idiot suggested that everything would be easier if we outsourced our functionality to fickle, ever evolving, time sucking software and we forgot what the point of what we were doing was in the first place. It's been slowing us down ever since in many ways.

[Nemesis]

Short term flexibility at long term costs of early replacement. 

[TAnimaL]

As an example of "fuly intergrated devices," for many years in the video business I have pointed to the stability of cassettes, from 3/4" on. Especially the number of times an export from a computer or a DVD burn failed exactly when you needed them most - 99% of the time, a VHS copy worked (plus you knew it right away if it didn't).

That said, the level of quality to the video image I am working on today is multiple times superior - this morning I exported an 5 min HD clip in half that time, including dropping into a cloud drive and reimporting it on a duplicate machine.

Steps backwards, steps forwards...

Supplying tech support to a doctor last week, he told me about the digital flouroscopy device he was buying, for real-time internal views of a patient, including streaming the feed to a tablet. Bones would approve...

[Corbomite]

Bones would only approve if the tech was ubiquitous and user friendly.The majority of doctors having incredibly important tech to do their jobs is more important than a few being able to ignore their patients on their smartphones while they play golf. There is no need to have the device stream to anything. Download yes, stream no.

[TAnimaL]

in defense of the doctor I'm talking about, no, that's not it. He wants to provide quality care in a friendly office environment while spending more than 20 minutes with a patient; having a device he can show someone where the problem lies and why he wants to poke a lng needle into their back just makes him more effective a doctor.

Sorry, it's the randomly applied cynicism that bugs me.

[Corbomite]

And the fact that the patient's medical procedures/conditions are being broadcast across an unsecure internet is not an issue? There is nothing that the patient needs to see real time. A couple of minutes (or less) later would be just as effective and there would be no need to hook anything up to an external device except a memory stick to show the patient on whatever device you like.

There are plenty of things being online is useful for. Medical tests are not one of them unless you are trying to save someone's life real time and the specialist(s) you need are not on hand.

[Tulwar]

The problem is that too many institutions have been built around computers as they were 10 years ago.  The only thing that MS offers with their new machines are headaches.  Windows 8.1 is not even designed to work with a conventional work station!  Some of the most important software I had on my XP machine does not work with 8.1, and 8.1 lacks significant features, such as complete control over the color scheme.  Perhaps a 3rd party can write a "app" to change the settings in the registry to replace what had once been standard to MS OS's.  Then, MS just changes things to make them different.

I never intended to use this 12 year old mini-tower for anything but old games, but when my Win 8.1 machine suddenly failed, I was without a computer.  I found the old VGA cable goes right in my television, and wireless keyboard, mouse, and USB HD still work with it.  Wow!  I like this thing!  IE 8 rocks!

Windows made the mistake of perfecting some forms.  In the interest of "Built in obsolescence," they have to reinvent the wheel, and break the things they did right the first time.

[Vipre]

If you want that thing to keep working don't ever touch IE.

[TAnimaL]

Sorry, I forgot the point of this thread is "Microsoft is evil/stupid" and "Win8 sux"   

[Tulwar]

Sorry, I forgot the point of this thread is "Microsoft is evil/stupid" and "Win8 sux"   

I thought these were given.

What this article is about is that the IT departments of important infrastructure cannot give up their old machines, now that MS is making XP obsolete.  The thing is that most of the reason MS has to make their older systems obsolete is to justify that huge R&D department.  I'm merely expressing my amazement at how much the old user interface is superior to newer products.  Whenever a new OS comes out, there is a lot of whining and complaining.  I'm coming from the other direction.  I rediscovered the older software and found it superior.  Well, I can't say I got used to Win 8.  8up is 8up.  I did not mean to launch an anti-MS rant.

[TAnimaL]

but that's what it  keeps turning into across these forums, a rant on the badness of MS & Win 8, anytime they're mentioned. I get what you're saying about liking older software - obviously, these SFC games is big example of our concerns here, and we want it to work. However, I have been on Win8 for a year now, and I find it much superior to Win7 and I don't find much I "miss" about XP, other than the fact that the only XP program I have trouble loading in 8.1 is SFC:OP. I find the start menu easy to use, the graphics/video programs I use work fine in 8.1, and the fact that I'm on a cutting edge piece of hardware is all I care about. That's my opinion, just like you finding older software superior. Rationlizing "why" MS does things is speculative and prone to hyperbole.

I read the article too, and my takeaway is cynical about the healthcare industry, which has vastly deep pockets and is notoriously cheap about infrastructure. Between  VM and compatibility modes a lot of the older hardware can be made to work. Witness the move by banks to upgrade their ATMs from XP. Progress is progress, and I guess there's always scramble

[Nemesis]

It isn't just healthcare or IT departments it is across the board industry.  My last employer had a lot of trouble keeping a spectrograph working because the company didn't make drivers for later versions of Windows.  There was no way that they were going to budget to replace it.  My current employer (nameless due to NDA) runs various production lines using old Windows machines.  At least some of the software won't work on newer machines.  They also need serial and parallel ports which are becoming rarer.

Microsoft really never intended XP to last so long and they want to go on with more rapid OS replacement cycles in the future. This is bad for industry whose major hardware may be controlled by Windows machines which can't be controlled by the next revision of Windows due to software incompatibility.  They can't afford to replace primary production machinery every time MS obsoletes a version of Windows.  Industry needs to move off of commodity Windows on to software that can be counted on to maintain backwards compatibility for literally decades. 

Consider home automation/security systems run by Windows.  How many times would you want to replace the whole system because you can no longer get the last version of Windows and it isn't compatible with the newer versions? 

[Tulwar]

GM "built-in obsolescence" with the model year.  The end of support for an OS is much like cutting off replacement parts for automobiles.

The reason that in Europe, especially England, needs to keep XP is that they are practicing some severe fiscal austerity.  Their economy makes the US economy look good.  They should have been replacing their computers all along, but they haven't.  They're running old pieces of junk, like my current machine.

Nemesis makes a really good point.  Aside from academia and medicine, industry uses machines for decades.  If those machines are being used over several decades, for the want of a $500 mini-tower, running twenty year old software, a $500,000.00 custom built machine might need to be scrapped.  That is, assuming anybody makes a machine like it, anymore.

Terminating support for Win XP a year before a new OS is to be released is troublesome for anyone wanting a new computer, let alone companies, institutions, and governments.  Everybody whined about Win ME.  With the exception of the illegal anti-competitive routines built into it, that was the last machine I enjoyed having.  Windows XP has simply been the least of many evils.  I'm going to use it until Win 9 comes out.  I'm not bothering to fix my 8.1 machine.  With the exception of the Netflix app, it didn't do anything better than this machine, and a lot not nearly as well.

[Nemesis]

GM "built-in obsolescence" with the model year.  The end of support for an OS is much like cutting off replacement parts for automobiles.

The new car is operated in the same fundamental way as the old car.  If  you have other equipment like a trailer the new car can still tow it.  It still drives on the same roads.  It can still do what the old one could

New computer may not operate with any of the old equipment/software and require you to replace it all. 

[Vipre]

The end of support for an OS is much like cutting off replacement parts for automobiles.

Not really. When the OEM stops producing replacement parts aftermarket suppliers are allowed to take the "source code" and continue making new parts. With an OS it's just left to rot by the parent company in order to force a new "car" purchase.

[Tulwar]

These analogies don't work that well.

Back in the 20th Century, I thought of a computer as a collection of parts, and then, I bought my first complete machine.  It was a little Win 95 desktop.  It was cheap, and after the software failure recover wizard failed, it worked perfectly.  It was all complete and came with useful utilities.  I suddenly understood that complete systems were cheap and easy to use.

Of course, the reason that machine was so affordable was because it was little, and last year's model.  I could scrape together enough money to replace it, until the year 2000.  I missed out on Windows 98/NT, and bought a really powerful Win ME machine really cheap.  Despite everything evil I heard about Win ME, that machine rocked!  It came packed with useful applications and had a 40 Gig HD.  ISFC worked perfectly with a dial-up modem on that machine.   Then, I put a video card in it that destroyed power supplies.  Oops.

Getting tired of replacing PS's, I bought my first XP Pro machine.  It was a PoS.  Oh, it worked pretty much like the ME machine.  It was just slower.  It also got every virus on the internet, despite anti-viral software, and then I made the mistake of buying Norton's 360.  Back, in the days of DOS, Doc Norton was your friend, not any more.  I tried to go "Cadillac" when I bought my Vista machine, but that was a mistake.  Vista was not released as a usable OS.  I quickly tired of going through the registry to pick out keys for software that failed to install correctly.  I fell back on XP.  I never liked XP.  I just haven't been able to use Vista and Win8.  My only experience with Win 7 is with my employer's machine.  I still don't understand what people liked about Win7.  I do not appreciate the way it handles overlapping windows.  I still prefer XP when I'm juggling a half dozen spread-sheets.  A little continuity would be nice.

[Nemesis]

Nemesis makes a really good point.  Aside from academia and medicine, industry uses machines for decades.  If those machines are being used over several decades, for the want of a $500 mini-tower, running twenty year old software, a $500,000.00 custom built machine might need to be scrapped.  That is, assuming anybody makes a machine like it, anymore.

Does no one else remember "Windows for Warships"?  How much does a top of the line Destroyer with every thing computerized cost to scrap or re-engineer when MS obsoletes your OS?  Planned life span of said destroyer compared to lifespan of a Microsoft OS?