Windows versions & planned obsolescence (from "the flagship's issue)

EDIT by @paulakreuzer:
I moved the following posts from here:

I completely agree. The same happens on OS market too. How many are running Windows Vista/7/8/8.1/10 although XP (64 bit) would deliver a far “higher quality experience” for them?


Eh, poor example. Windows XP is 14 years old. You can’t blame Microsoft for phasing out a 14 year old OS.


Once again people are reading something in my posts I have not said :smiley:

I do not blame MS for selling new OS versions. I blame customers to switch to new OS without ANY need. Especially when XP is clearly faster on almost every task. (It’s a fact. I benchmark-ed XP, Vista, 7, 8 even 2012 R2 Update myself.)

Nevermind that Windows XP is full of security holes.

Unlike other Windows versions? :smile:
Anyhow, this is, again, not my point. :wink:
Denying XP users the fixes is MS way to force OS switch. But the issue was there before MS dropped the support of XP.

1 Like

What issue? Really, you can disagree with a lot of MS’ practices, but releasing a new version of their OS every 4 to 5 years is not a bad thing, especially not considering their extended support for existing OSes. It’s one of the things MS does absolutely right.

MS is wise to drop support for WinXP. You can keep plugging holes in a 14 year old, outdated ship, or you can get with the times and buy a brand new ship. Besides, for MS it’s a cost/benefit thing as well. Keeping support up for WinXP costs them lots of money while it doesn’t earn them any (not counting the paid extended support deals some governments have now). They’re still a commercial company, they need to earn money. That’s not a dirty thing. And in today’s world (especially the software world), a commercial company staying committed to their product for 13 or 14 years is quite special actually.

1 Like

[quote=“Jerry, post:8, topic:9470”]
What issue?

People are jumping new versions of Windows like they jump on flagship phones.
And, please, stop defending MS. I did not attack it in this thread (yet? :slight_smile: )

I don’t see people jumping on new versions of Windows like that at all. Yeah, tech oriented people may, because of a peculiar interest in the newest iteration of an OS, but the average consumer won’t. Why do you think it was such a big deal when MS announced they’d stop supporting WinXP? They extended support for 3 more years because it was still used in such large numbers.

There also wasn’t a large migration to Windows Vista because of the poor initial reception. Windows 7 has been a lot more successful in that regard and has held out quite well against Windows 8, which was met with skepticism as well. Considering how Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 are free upgrades, it’s not strange for people to immediately adopt those.

Comparing the flood of flagship phones to 4 OS versions in 15 years time completely misses the mark. I’m not defending Microsoft in anything, I’m just trying to point out where your argument runs wrong.

1 Like

Sure people do. Forums are full with complains about this and that of win10. And since it’s free, I’m positive there are quite a lot of people who already moved to win10.
And the argument about the number of “jumpers” is none. The majority of phone users are still with Android =< 4.4. So it’s a valid comparison Windows <=> Phone. Even the end of support of XP <=> Android < 4.4 is very similar.

Read my post. I already said that because Windows 10 is a free upgrade (and what I failed to mention is that it’s being actively pushed to existing Windows 7 and Windows 8 installations), adoption rate will be much, much higher.

Except that Windows XP is 14 years old and KitKat is not even 2 years old (less than the lifespan of the average on-contract phone). If you’re arguing that people should’ve stuck to using Windows XP then you might as well argue that people should’ve stuck to using Windows 98. Or Windows 95. Or hell, even DOS would suffice, right?

I would, if

  1. Win9x and Dos could use more or less recent hardware.
  2. Win9x and Dos could execute same programs.
  3. Win9x and Dos were faster using same programs.

I really don’t care how old the software is. If it’s working and faster than more recent solutions, I’ll use it.

There is something more important here I think: Since Windows 7 Microsoft has not significantly increased system requirements. It is a great engineering achievement that Windows 10 runs flawlessly on years old PC that where designed for an operating system released 6 years ago.
That means: Even if old versions of Windows are abandoned, most times (today!), computers are able to run the newer version (See also Apple OS X, Ubuntu, etc.). The financial investments required to update are minimal or zero, especially compared to the costs for a new PC.

I argue it is not, since the OS on phones is very much coupled and we required much more vendor support to update. Many PCs running the age old Windows Vista can be upgraded to Windows 7 and even Windows 10.

By that, they not only receive a more secure system, it is also more complete and stable and in some aspects easier to use. Just look at integrated Virus proctection, way better Backup Tools, better integrated Browser etc.

This is good and well, but i lost how this is related to the flagship issue.

Ok… I know this is going off topic and I didn’t want it this way.

But Win 7/8/10 are NOT safer than XP. Win 8/10 are safer to disregard your privacy, that’s for sure. And with every upgrade you lose more and more control over your system. (That’s obviously not an argument if you don’t exercise your control.)


Can you provide some proof for that?

That is a very unusual argument. I bet a lot of Windows experts disagree. Certainly, Microsoft does. Now you are going to say “That is because they want to sell Windows 10!”. But I don’t buy that conspiracy.

Some things Microsoft has introduced after Windows XP that increase security can be found here
– UAC (Windows Vista): User Access Control (,
– End User 64bit support (and with it better protection against some attacks)
– Support for the no-execute (NX) feature (rudimentary support: WinXP SP2, full support of address space layout randomization introduced with Vista) of modern processors than can mark memory areas as non executable
– A integrated firewall (Vista)
– Integrated Virus protection (Win 8)
– An API to integrate virus and malware protection (Win 10)

See also:

  1. Thanks @paulakreuzer

Sure I can.

  1. Windows come with more and more pre-installed Programs which require Internet access. If you deny access for one of those (via Firewall), there is big chance the whole system will be left without Internet. That’s my own experience.
  2. Windows 8 introduced new “API”, a kind of proxy for execution of programs. Let me explain it on an example:
  • I control what a program can and cannot do on my system. Especially what other programs it may or may not execute. Up to Win8 I get a message like “Program X tries to execute program Y. Allow / Deny / etc.”
  • Staring with Win8 this 1:1 relation is broken. Instead program X executes and system program and tells it to execute the other program.
  • To allow program X to execute Y I need to allow this “proxy” system program to execute Y and X to execute the proxy.
  • Now another program S needs to execute program T. This again goes through the new proxy, resulting S executing the proxy and the proxy executing T.
  • 1+1 = program X can execute program T and program S can execute program Y.
  1. There are a lot of options gone in Windows since XP, like the cache setting. On XP, it’s a simple few clicks to let windows use all your RAM for cache and free only what’s needed for running programs. On windows Vista+7 most of your RAM is free and unused and you need a program to change that. With Win8 the cache behavior was changed to what I can set on XP. But there is no choice.

Just the few examples that came into my mind without thinking :slight_smile:

1 Like

And therefore hardly a proof, just an anecdote. This may be true for you, but it does not have to be for others.

I don’t get it. Can explain again or provide a source?

You say “a lot”, then you go into detail on exactly one. Even more so, you are right, strictly speaking, in this case Windows takes some control away (there is probably a good reason for that, it would guess: better performance in average or better predictability). But it does not affect your privacy or your ability to run any program you want.

1 Like
  1. UAC, NX, full support of address space layout randomization
    I use WindowsXP 64bit. Full 32GB (max for my system) are available and used.
    NX is more or less a small failsafe if your system is compromised already.
    My security program has it’s own, superior kind of UAC.

  2. A integrated firewall, Integrated Virus protection
    I assume that’s a joke. If not, try some comparisons of MS integrated “protection” with other, free products.

  3. An API to integrate virus and malware protection.
    That’s just an API. I’d say my virus and malware protection is integrated enough to offer me it’s protection. Without Windows interference.

  1. X is allowed to run Y
  2. S is allowed to run T
    on XP:
    1+2 = X is not allowed to run T, S is not allowed to run Y
    on 8:
  3. X is allowed to run proxy, proxy is allowed to run Y
  4. S is allowed to run proxy, proxy is allowed to run T
    1+2 = X is allowed to run T, S is allowed to run Y.

My experience is proof for me. You may or may not believe me. It’s up to you.

[quote=“ben, post:16, topic:9492”]
You say “a lot”, then you go into detail on exactly one
[/quote]There are a lot of Blog/Forum posts all over internet discussing features removed from Windows. I don’t think we need to copy them in here.

[quote=“ben, post:16, topic:9492”]
But it does not affect your privacy or your ability to run any program you want.
[/quote]Yes, my posts were more about security. We can talk about privacy, too. But it’s a similar discussion as with Google App Store and bundled Apps. And Windows doesn’t tell you if some program want to access your webcam or microphone :wink:

1 Like

I’ve just read this:

That’s a lot of bs. Nice PR for less privacy and less security :slight_smile: Edit: and less control.

1 Like

Right. In the last few posts HackAR spewed out so much bullshit, assumptions and “anecdotal evidence” that it’s grown quite clear to me he’s just a troll, shill or both and probably would write Microsoft with a $ for an S given the chance.

Quoting the FAQ:

[quote]You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But, remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

  • Name-calling.
  • Ad hominem attacks.
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content.
  • Knee-jerk contradiction.

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.[/quote]