PDA

View Full Version : Time to leave XP?


NSR500
01-07-2011, 3:55 AM
I have one last machine on XP SP3 and I'm on the verge of moving on. It's a P4 socket 478 OC'd with 2gb of ram on a reliable Asus board. The only reason I've kept it on XP for so long is because I use it to backup my CDs and DVDs.
I'm contemplating two possible directions. A move to Windows Server 2008 R2, or bumping it over to Ubuntu.

Decisions, decisions...

Any of you guys still have a legacy XP system around?

jmlivingston
01-07-2011, 5:52 AM
Sure do, at least 7 of my systems here at the house are still XP. I've found XP to be solid and reliable for most household uses such as email, web-browsing, etc. I would only upgrade a system if there was a clear-cut need to.

Milsurps
01-07-2011, 5:59 AM
I have one last machine on XP SP3 and I'm on the verge of moving on. It's a P4 socket 478 OC'd with 2gb of ram on a reliable Asus board. The only reason I've kept it on XP for so long is because I use it to backup my CDs and DVDs.
I'm contemplating two possible directions. A move to Windows Server 2008 R2, or bumping it over to Ubuntu.

Decisions, decisions...

Any of you guys still have a legacy XP system around?

XP on two older P4 systems. XP on my Netbook. Their all solid and reliable. I wouldn't dream of "Upgrading" them. YMMV

NSR500
01-07-2011, 6:10 AM
I share the same mindset which is why I'm a bit torn because it definitely ain't broke. I guess I'm just antsy because I've got a lot of time on my hands and it's been a bit too cold to do my outdoor projects.

UltraLNW
01-07-2011, 7:31 AM
I never saw why everyone hated Vista so much - I liked it and used it on all of my machines. Windows 7 is even better. When I hop on an XP machine now, I sigh. It was nice in 2002 but man does it show its age when compared to 7 and Vista.

I'd upgrade - Ubuntu, in my opinion, is a better option than XP.

nmerced
01-07-2011, 7:36 AM
My business system is running on XP simply because its the more stable platform. Vista was just a nightmare and I'm testing Win 7 at the moment but I'm still hesitant about moving all my stuff to Win 7 because of my Vista experience.

rockdogz
01-07-2011, 7:41 AM
Win 7 would be my choice if you have 2+ gigs of RAM. 64-bit if you can run 4+ gigs. XP if not, and Ubuntu if you have no need for Windows apps.

den888
01-07-2011, 7:51 AM
2 of the 5 machines that my wife and I own are on XP. I find it to be very reliable. I actually like XP over Vista.

sevensix2x51
01-07-2011, 8:29 AM
i love ubuntu. the learning curve is really mellow, its easier to install and maintain than windows, and everything is free. you can still run windows programs with wine, so i can play doom 3 or warhammer whenever i want. (dont have any new games, but theyd work too, if my laptop's video card would support them) and open office is just like ms office, but free, and included.

Kestryll
01-07-2011, 8:52 AM
My home computers are all XP and are rock solid, until something comes along that won't run on XP I don't see a need to change them.

I had a laptop for two+ years that ran Vista and never had a problem.

My new laptop has 7, so far not too bad but I do notice that some of my programs have issues because of the 32/64 issue.
Franky I've been considering taking the laptop back from Win7 64 to Win7 32, 64 is nice but there are relatively few programs that can use it and many 32 programs have problems.
The benefit to 'cost' ratio does not add up in 64 bit's favor.

rockdogz
01-07-2011, 10:10 AM
My home computers are all XP and are rock solid, until something comes along that won't run on XP I don't see a need to change them.

I had a laptop for two+ years that ran Vista and never had a problem.

My new laptop has 7, so far not too bad but I do notice that some of my programs have issues because of the 32/64 issue.
Franky I've been considering taking the laptop back from Win7 64 to Win7 32, 64 is nice but there are relatively few programs that can use it and many 32 programs have problems.
The benefit to 'cost' ratio does not add up in 64 bit's favor.

I'm surprised to hear that.. I have yet to find anything that won't run on Win7 64. Not that I've gone out of my way looking for it... Vista 64 was a nightmare but Win7 64 has been good to me.

Grumpyoldretiredcop
01-07-2011, 10:38 AM
All my home PCs are on XP, my work PC is on Windows 7. There's nothing so magical about Win 7 that would make me update my home PCs.

Coded-Dude
01-07-2011, 10:55 AM
I would switch to ubuntu if those are your two choices(from there you can virtualize XP with minimal settings) just in case you find a reason to use windows. Win7 is a resource hog so we still have a lot of machines running XP(for legacy software, etc.).

tacticalcity
01-07-2011, 11:12 AM
My computers at home all run Windows 7. I really love that operating system. My day job has me on a machine running XP. It can be really annoying, because I have gotten so used to some of the features of Windows 7, and I sometimes forget you can't do something on XP or that XP behaves different, and it snaps me back into reality.

Uriah02
01-07-2011, 11:26 AM
My older computers all still run XP and will until they die. However, I do intend on going to 7 when I build my new system next year.

MikeH1
01-07-2011, 4:02 PM
I just upgraded my main PC to Win 7 64 bit, only because I'm having to support more PCs with Vista and 7, so need to learn it. Otherwise I still have XP on one desktop and my laptop.

XP is solid, especially compared with the last few releases (ME, Win95 original release, etc). And, as is usual with Microsoft, as soon as you get used to one desktop layout, they hit you with another one.

erik_26
01-07-2011, 8:26 PM
I loved XP, but I did beta testing on Windows 7 and fell in love. I have since upgraded to Windows 7 64-bit and have not looked back.

Solid State Hard Drive
Intel Dual Core
4 gb ram
Nvidia 8800 GTX

meaty-btz
01-07-2011, 8:38 PM
I hate XP with a passion. Not because there is anything really wrong with it, other than its age.

It is the thorn in my side and its random bug-outs are maddening and time wasting. This perspective comes from being personally responsible for more than 1200 machins at more than 5 locations. Maintaining XP is hell on earth. It is prone to all sorts of strange behaivors and half baked enterprise systems from back in the day. I would, and do take, Vista over XP. Windows 7 being the prefered platform. Overall, vista is easier to deploy and maintain than XP is, now. That is also an artifact of running XP in a 2008 Domain. XP, Server 2k3, and older pre-SATA machines coexist in relative harmony and joy. The fact is, XP is old, out of date and frankly a load of junk compaired to the reliabillity and recovery abillity of windows 7.

My perspective being born of enterprise life, is vastly different from home. If you have anything legacy, stick with XP. Hybrid environments are hell. Either keep it all legacy or get all new. Crossing Decades is a recipe for disaster and torment.

freonr22
01-07-2011, 8:39 PM
desktop w/ xpr pro. good
desktop w/ vista ultimate 64 (did not need the 64, but when you buy it you have a choice and just arbitrarily picked 64) good
laptop cheapy cap w/ win 7 64 good

never had issues with any of the 3
like the win 7 feel

NSR500
01-08-2011, 2:11 AM
Oh Bollocks!

After more research it looks like a lot of hoops to get BluRay movies to play on Linux. I might just have to hang in with the XP build on this machine a bit longer.

badfish2
01-08-2011, 8:27 AM
I've been running Vista for a couple years now on the same clean install without a problem at all, this wasn't an OEM install either. I never did understand what anybody was complaining about. :rolleyes:

AAShooter
01-08-2011, 8:30 AM
I guess I should move on from ME then. :)

orchard
01-10-2011, 7:23 PM
I have Win7 32 and 64 bit desktops,
2008 R2 server running in a VM,
32 bit Vista,
XP Professional on a laptop

Drivers! If you have old printer/scanner/etc. need to keep XP. I need old driver to support my wife's sewing machine :-)

automatikdonn
01-10-2011, 7:25 PM
Sever 08 R2 is really gonna tax that machine. I have quad core, on 4g of ram and it was rough on my machine.

Ubuntu all the way. I use it every day, super fast and no problems with the basics.

automatikdonn
01-10-2011, 7:29 PM
Sever 08 R2 is really gonna tax that machine. I have quad core, on 4g of ram and it was rough on my machine.

Ubuntu all the way. I use it every day, super fast and no problems with the basics.


And if you wanna make the Mac guys jealous, give Macbunutu a try... Just a sweet theme/gui, but its worth the time...

JDay
01-11-2011, 12:12 AM
My home computers are all XP and are rock solid, until something comes along that won't run on XP I don't see a need to change them.

I had a laptop for two+ years that ran Vista and never had a problem.

My new laptop has 7, so far not too bad but I do notice that some of my programs have issues because of the 32/64 issue.
Franky I've been considering taking the laptop back from Win7 64 to Win7 32, 64 is nice but there are relatively few programs that can use it and many 32 programs have problems.
The benefit to 'cost' ratio does not add up in 64 bit's favor.

What programs are you having issues with? I have yet to have any 32 bit programs refuse to run on 7, the only programs that may have issues are older "legacy" apps, and you can just run those in XP mode.

JDay
01-11-2011, 12:15 AM
I have Win7 32 and 64 bit desktops,
2008 R2 server running in a VM,
32 bit Vista,
XP Professional on a laptop

Drivers! If you have old printer/scanner/etc. need to keep XP. I need old driver to support my wife's sewing machine :-)

XP Mode in Windows 7 will let you install XP drivers.

Sever 08 R2 is really gonna tax that machine. I have quad core, on 4g of ram and it was rough on my machine.

Which edition did you install? That is likely the problem.

Iknownot
01-11-2011, 9:11 AM
I'm still running XP on a P4 PC. Runs everything just fine, but I am using it for word processing, internet and other basic computing.

It runs similarly to my newer machines running Vista and 7.

Frankly, I never much understood what the hullabaloo was between XP, Vista and 7, with regards to a regular home/office PC user like me. (I have friends that were power users or admins, so I heard why they did not favor Vista).

In any case. XP was the first MS OS that I felt was truly decent. I never had a problem with Vista. I found it just as stable and it ran basically the same as XP for me, at least.

Win 7, I feel is a tad faster than Vista, in some respects, but overall is basically the same.

I'm talking about every day, basic computing on a PC. I never much saw the difference between any of the 3 OS's. They have all worked fine for me. I'm running one of each between the 3 PC's I use, and I don't feel any real love or hate for one PC or the other, depending on which OS I am using at the time.


I guess I should move on from ME then. :)

Don't get me started on ME. I bought an HP pavilion that came with ME and it blue screened out of the box, on start up. ME was, hands down, the worst OS I have ever used and I've used 95, 98, XP, Vista, 7, Ubuntu, various Mac OS's like 7, 8, and 9 etc.

The HP would lock up all the time, and I wasn't doing anything besides internet and word processing on it. It was ridiculous.

The best thing I ever did with that HP, was load XP on it. The second XP was running on the machine, I never had an issue with it again, and that was with using all the same programs on the machine. It is ridiculous how bad ME sucked.

NSR500
01-11-2011, 9:17 PM
Windows ME did suck very much!

johnny_22
01-12-2011, 4:33 PM
Wife is right now doing the Windows 7 conversion (by buying a new laptop). One engineer here has switched to Windows 7 (again with a new laptop). All others are Windows XP Pro, Windows 2k, or Windows 95/98.

We need compatibility with specialized engineering software, and Windows 7 had one incompatible software already.

JDay
01-12-2011, 6:00 PM
Wife is right now doing the Windows 7 conversion (by buying a new laptop). One engineer here has switched to Windows 7 (again with a new laptop). All others are Windows XP Pro, Windows 2k, or Windows 95/98.

We need compatibility with specialized engineering software, and Windows 7 had one incompatible software already.

Which is the entire reason Microsoft gives you a free XP virtual machine with Windows 7 Professional and above. You can even install drivers for legacy hardware with it if you need to.

eNFczLYBtrA

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/features/windows-xp-mode.aspx

It's the best of both worlds: The new Windows XP Mode lets you run older Windows XP business software right on your Windows 7 desktop.

This feature is designed primarily with small- and medium-sized businesses in mind. Windows XP Mode comes as a separate download and works only with Windows 7 Professional and Ultimate. Windows XP Mode also requires virtualization software such as Windows Virtual PC. Both are available free on the Microsoft website.

hcbr
01-14-2011, 2:29 AM
I've dumped all my xp machines. I am now all windows 7 Pro in my household. Also for backing up and storage, you may want to look at a windows home server solution like the acer easy store as an alternative, but either way, the other reason why i didn't keep xp is that it's at EOL (or END OF LIFE) on support from MS. Don't even bother with Vista, if you're gonna look for an alternative upgrade, go Win 7. Unbuntu is also a good alternative too, but that's if you are really going the linux route , i have vm's of unbuntu, but only for purposes of training and support.

NSR500
01-14-2011, 2:58 AM
I'm going to run Ubuntu 10.10 on it for a week and make a decision. I just got really pissed at this desktop the other day because of a MSFT update. Damn update kept asking me to reboot and knackerd my WiFi. At that point I was reminded why MSFT is so damn annoying.
I rarely have to reboot on a Linux update, unless it's a new kernel. MSFT product want you to reboot for everything.

Nose Nuggets
01-14-2011, 2:04 PM
The biggest drawback to XP systems now is that its no longer a supported product from Microsoft. This usually makes little difference for consumers, as consumers will rarely work directly with Microsoft for technical issues, and opt to take it a computer shop. The support, however, is also no longer available for developers. So you will start to see XP as a supported platform for software and peripherals moving forward. There are already computer games that are not only unsupported, but will not even install on an XP system.


My suggestion is run it until you encounter a reason to upgrade. If there is a feature you really want in another OS, go for it. But don't feel obligated to just because its End Of Life. Just be aware that the next printer or scanner or video game you buy might require an OS upgrade as well.

As for your choice of OS, at this juncture i cant find any reason why you would opt for a windows server os over a workstation OS. Windows 7 IS Windows Server 2008 with some features added and a lot of features removed. The kernal and main workings of the OS are almost identical. The drawback to a Server OS is you will find A LOT of programs that you cannot install on a server OS.

Cokebottle
01-14-2011, 2:26 PM
My home computers are all XP and are rock solid, until something comes along that won't run on XP I don't see a need to change them.
This.

Still running XP-SP3 on an Athlon XP2600+ with a gig.
It's a bit slow at times and high def video playback isn't what it could be (stuttering, but I think a better video card could take care of that), but my entire computer experience has been "I'll upgrade my OS when software forces me to do so."

I was still running DOS and Norton Commander, moved to Win-3 only months before 95 was introduced.
Stuck with '95 until I needed USB support... then went to 98-SE (and XP had already been released).
I finally went to XP in 2002 or 2003.

JaMail
01-14-2011, 3:59 PM
i personally love xp and ive been a computer tech for 15 years. i have an xp, windows 7, vista, and ubuntu on my desk and i use the XP for 99% of my daily computing. im dreading when it goes end of life here at my work and im forced to surplus it.

jarhead995
01-17-2011, 1:23 AM
I just put a copy of W7U on my P4with 1.5gigs of ram. Its running fine. It was actually a test and now I'm formatting my main pc to put W7U 64bit on it :)

Omil
01-17-2011, 1:31 AM
I got W7, Vista, Mac's book for home. That's enough to covers CG's and some..:D

locosway
01-17-2011, 5:30 AM
If Linux is an option as you say, I'd go that route. In the long run you'll save money and you won't fuel any corporate giant entities more than you need to.

With that said, Windows 7 is excellent as far as Windows goes. I haven't seen many issues with it personally.

pilote
01-17-2011, 6:04 AM
xp is extremely stable; i will only abandon xp if programs no longer support it...that's why i left win 3.1 to 98, then 98 to xp; had no choice...

i have full versions of vista 32 and 64 bit; won't go to them unless i have to start working in the new versions of access and excel; but since big businesses aren't using the new versions yet, i can hold off till they do...

ExtremeX
01-17-2011, 1:46 PM
I still have many systems with XP, at work we are an XP shop, everything works, but there is NO reason NOT to upgrade to Windows 7.

After using it, I love it, won’t go back.

One of the main reasons I changed is my application requirements for more ram. I use VMware workstation on a regular basis, and a 64bit OS with 12GB ram was the answer to my problems. I get the best of both worlds now as I VM Windows Server 2003 and 2008, Vista and XP. As long as u have enough HDD I/O you can get pretty creative as to how you utilize a PC now.

XP is over 10 years old now... its time to move on.

NSR500
02-02-2011, 4:23 PM
Ubuntu migration completed!

I'm very happy with this machine because it feels new again. Speed, speed, speed... Not to mention a little better security. ;)

JDay
02-05-2011, 12:31 AM
Ubuntu migration completed!

I'm very happy with this machine because it feels new again. Speed, speed, speed... Not to mention a little better security. ;)

Windows 7 is more secure than Linux ans OSX. Microsoft has put their reputation behind securing Windows, it's not the security nightmare it used to be.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vista-SP2-and-Windows-7-More-Secure-than-Linux-and-Mac-OS-X-Leopard-109192.shtml

locosway
02-05-2011, 12:34 AM
Windows 7 is more secure than Linux ans OSX. Microsoft has put their reputation behind securing Windows, it's not the security nightmare it used to be.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vista-SP2-and-Windows-7-More-Secure-than-Linux-and-Mac-OS-X-Leopard-109192.shtml

I'm sorry, but that article is just BS. Windows 7 is a lot better than any other Windows OS, but it is not more secure than Linux, and by design never will be.

Zorrm
02-05-2011, 8:26 AM
I'm sorry, but that article is just BS. Windows 7 is a lot better than any other Windows OS, but it is not more secure than Linux, and by design never will be.

This. Times one mirrion.

Coded-Dude
02-05-2011, 8:31 AM
didn't they just find a HUGE security leak in IE again? unix/linux were by design a networking based OS and are thus far more secure than windows. MS has come along ways in improving their security, but more and more holes are found just *** fast as they patch the old ones.

loose_electron
02-05-2011, 12:25 PM
Me personally - I got Windows 7, and XP, no Vista machines and a couple of Linux boxes.

As for Microsoft products being less secure than Apple or Linux, or other tools, I say utter BS.

Why? Its a matter of big target vs. little target. Microsoft has a huge percentage of the CPU's out there (is it 80-90% these days? I havent checked recently) so hackers shoot at the big target a lot more frequently. Its really that simple.

NSR500
02-05-2011, 12:41 PM
Windows 7 is more secure than Linux ans OSX. Microsoft has put their reputation behind securing Windows, it's not the security nightmare it used to be.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vista-SP2-and-Windows-7-More-Secure-than-Linux-and-Mac-OS-X-Leopard-109192.shtml

:fud:

Additionally, there is no way that a Windows 7 image on this OC'd 3.0ghz P4 Prescott would run as fast versus the Linux image I've got running.

Me personally - I got Windows 7, and XP, no Vista machines and a couple of Linux boxes.

As for Microsoft products being less secure than Apple or Linux, or other tools, I say utter BS.

Why? Its a matter of big target vs. little target. Microsoft has a huge percentage of the CPU's out there (is it 80-90% these days? I havent checked recently) so hackers shoot at the big target a lot more frequently. Its really that simple.

Therefore Linux is less likely to be breached and hence, secure. I can further harden my Linux image and increase my level of security beyond what Windows 7 can achieve.

JDay
02-05-2011, 12:56 PM
Why? Its a matter of big target vs. little target. Microsoft has a huge percentage of the CPU's out there (is it 80-90% these days? I havent checked recently) so hackers shoot at the big target a lot more frequently. Its really that simple.

That is only true in the desktop market, Linux rules the server world.

JDay
02-05-2011, 1:02 PM
I'm sorry, but that article is just BS. Windows 7 is a lot better than any other Windows OS, but it is not more secure than Linux, and by design never will be.

Let me ask you this, how many Linux distributions are FIPS certified? I know there's Redhat but what else? I know it is hard to adapt to change but the fact is that Windows is quite secure these days. Sure, you have to worry about what the end user does but they will always be a security risk on any system.

JDay
02-05-2011, 1:05 PM
didn't they just find a HUGE security leak in IE again? unix/linux were by design a networking based OS and are thus far more secure than windows. MS has come along ways in improving their security, but more and more holes are found just *** fast as they patch the old ones.

Web browsers are always being exploited, happens to Firefox, Chrome, IE, Safari, etc, all the time. A web browser also is not the OS. Why here's one that just got patched in Chrome in the last few weeks.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20028422-264.html

loose_electron
02-05-2011, 1:09 PM
That is only true in the desktop market, Linux rules the server world.

Um, yes and no. Certain variations of Linux and Unix rule the server world.

Thing is with Linux, there are a number of different variants and you got to look a little more carefully at the details.

FYI - Mac OSX is a Linux variant, but its been patched, modified and tweaked so much that its unique to itself. In a similar fashion, a lot of servers use different variations on the Unix/Linux theme.

thrasherfox
02-05-2011, 1:15 PM
I am a IT pro, stand back :)


I have all my home systems on XP.

All patched up, it is very reliable. I have one Windows 7 system.

I think XP for me is one of those OS's that I will not be in a hurrry to upgrade.

For work, we are on XP. at work however upgrades rare baed off when MS decides to stop supporting an operating system. once they stop support and we can non longer get security updates, then we are forced to upgrade.

We have a few systems that are being looked at for upgrade to windows 7. but we have heard XP support from MS will be extended.

bottom line is i go by the principal, if it is not broke, don't fix it. and so far patched XP is pretty reliable

JDay
02-05-2011, 1:23 PM
FYI - Mac OSX is a Linux variant, but its been patched, modified and tweaked so much that its unique to itself. In a similar fashion, a lot of servers use different variations on the Unix/Linux theme.

This is not true at all. OS X is a certified UNIX distribution, it is based on the Mach kernel and has some BSD code in it.

JDay
02-05-2011, 1:29 PM
We have a few systems that are being looked at for upgrade to windows 7. but we have heard XP support from MS will be extended.

Where have you heard this? Most support for XP has already ended, in fact XP stopped being a downgrade option with new systems on October 22, 2010 and retail availability ended on June 30, 2008.

loose_electron
02-05-2011, 1:50 PM
This is not true at all. OS X is a certified UNIX distribution, it is based on the Mach kernel and has some BSD code in it.

Again, yes and no - I do agree with you, but a personal friend is one of the folks inside who has ownership of some of the builds, and some of the "starting points" where stuff from the gnu Linux world, that were then tuned, tweaked, re-written, and in general tuned up.

The OS is unique to Apple, but then everybody borrows code from elsewhere, do they not?

Besides, to me, the only difference between Linux and Unix is that the history of Linux is being designed to run on X86 platforms and being open source software. However, many of the Linux builds are proprietary these days and are not OSS Even that has been so muddled considering the shifts happening in the last 5-10 years. Just like scripts in certain shells will have problems as you port them from Solaris, to HP-UX, to AIX, etc. (What was the cry a few years back? "Not all Unix is created equal" - which got morphed into "Not all Linux builds are created equal")

I will take my propellor cap off now!

:D

loose_electron
02-05-2011, 1:54 PM
Where have you heard this? Most support for XP has already ended, in fact XP stopped being a downgrade option with new systems on October 22, 2010 and retail availability ended on June 30, 2008.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/windows-7/end-of-support.aspx

SP2 XP support ends, what was the latest, I believe SP3 or SP4?

thrasherfox
02-05-2011, 3:45 PM
Where have you heard this? Most support for XP has already ended, in fact XP stopped being a downgrade option with new systems on October 22, 2010 and retail availability ended on June 30, 2008.

First, I had it through department of defense channels. We have systems we are looking at upgrading to Windows 7, but we have been told that there is not that much of a rush at this time because Mircrosoft has extended support for Windows XP.

Here is a link

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&C2=1173

If you look at the Service pack support end date the field is blank. I think they are currently trying to determine to when they will extend the support date.

Of course, my sources could be wrong. it wouldn't be the first time I received bad gouge on something. But I feel on this issue the sources are pretty reliable.

NaughtyMonkey
02-05-2011, 4:13 PM
I have a computer in my room that runs Windows 3.11. haha. But my favorite is still Windos 98. My opinion it was the best.

Ubuntu is a good OS, but there are other Linux distros I like more.

JDay
02-05-2011, 11:56 PM
Again, yes and no - I do agree with you, but a personal friend is one of the folks inside who has ownership of some of the builds, and some of the "starting points" where stuff from the gnu Linux world, that were then tuned, tweaked, re-written, and in general tuned up.

The OS is unique to Apple, but then everybody borrows code from elsewhere, do they not?

Besides, to me, the only difference between Linux and Unix is that the history of Linux is being designed to run on X86 platforms and being open source software. However, many of the Linux builds are proprietary these days and are not OSS Even that has been so muddled considering the shifts happening in the last 5-10 years. Just like scripts in certain shells will have problems as you port them from Solaris, to HP-UX, to AIX, etc. (What was the cry a few years back? "Not all Unix is created equal" - which got morphed into "Not all Linux builds are created equal")

I will take my propellor cap off now!

:D

Strange then that your friend does not know that OSX was developed out of NeXTSTEP. I would think someone involved in its development would know that little fact. OSX is a direct descendant of NeXTSTEP and there is no GNU code in NeXTSTEP since it is closed source.

bx9889
02-06-2011, 12:51 PM
FYI - Mac OSX is a Linux variant, but its been patched, modified and tweaked so much that its unique to itself. In a similar fashion, a lot of servers use different variations on the Unix/Linux theme.

Mac OSX is NOT a Linux variant, it is a BSD variant, specifically FreeBSD & NetBSD, even more specifically Apple's purchase of NeXT Computer, which was Steve Jobs' company that he started when he was booted after Apple.

Apple did something that no other unix vendor has been able to do for 40 years and that is put a beautiful Window Manager/GUI on a *nix system.

I do not use a Mac, because they do not make me money, I use Windows, FreeBSD, & Linux both for home and business.

steve91104
02-06-2011, 3:07 PM
FreeBSD FTW!

http://www.freebsd.org/

Richard Erichsen
02-06-2011, 4:16 PM
I have one last machine on XP SP3 and I'm on the verge of moving on. It's a P4 socket 478 OC'd with 2gb of ram on a reliable Asus board. The only reason I've kept it on XP for so long is because I use it to backup my CDs and DVDs.
I'm contemplating two possible directions. A move to Windows Server 2008 R2, or bumping it over to Ubuntu.

Decisions, decisions...

Any of you guys still have a legacy XP system around?

NSR500,

XP is showing it's age with regard to IPv6. The last block of IPv4 address space was handed out by IANA just last week - by Sept of this year, ARIN will be out of IPv4 address space. After that, it will be down to whatever the remaining address space is that the ISP has on hand. Optimistically, that could mean as much as an additional year, or as little as 3-6 months.

XP has an incomplete IPv6 implementation so it is dependent on the IPv4 stack even when IPv6 is enabled. DNS lookups are one example.

In choosing an operating system, you need to start by looking at the applications you run, or plan to run. If you can get work-alike applications that are file format compatible on Ubuntu (OpenOffice, etc.), it's got some advantages (significant self-help community, a mostly "free" GPL license with certain minor exceptions). Ubuntu will also effectively eliminate viral infections and worms that are written for Win32/Win64. While virii could be written for Unbuntu, currently no one bothers with less than 4% of the worldwide operating systems being Linux based. IPv6 support, the essential secret sauce for surviving the transition to IPv6 over the next two years, is well sorted out in Ubuntu and fairly efficient in Windows 7's codebase.

As for Windows Server 2008 - what apps do you need that requires a server OS vs. a desktop? Unless you are getting a special deal, it's on the polar end of the spectrum from Ubuntu and on the same hardware won't really give you any performance or reliability advantage over Ubuntu.

Good luck,

-R

NSR500
02-07-2011, 3:30 PM
Thanks Richard E.!

I ended up moving to Ubuntu 10.04 LTS on the machine. The machine is doing desktop duty at the moment and I will be migrating it into a MythTV Front/Back end machine to serve media in the house. That's the reason I had Windows Server 2008 R2 under consideration.
Historically, this machine is used to back up all the media in the house. Since it's getting long in the tooth my goal is to have it pull more server type duty, but still be able to backup media. Ubuntu has certainly given the machine new life and I don't worry as much about the machine as I did the WinXP image.

pdugan6
02-07-2011, 3:39 PM
windows 7 for sure. My dad just replaced his windows 7 OS with XP. its like going into a time machine.

loose_electron
02-10-2011, 4:50 PM
Strange then that your friend does not know that OSX was developed out of NeXTSTEP. I would think someone involved in its development would know that little fact. OSX is a direct descendant of NeXTSTEP and there is no GNU code in NeXTSTEP since it is closed source.

He was part of NexT, and part of the "human shuffle" associated with the "re-coronation" of Jobs about 10-15 years back.

Luck SOB got Apple options at $10/share.

NSR500
02-14-2011, 12:52 AM
It's your personal choice but for me XP is the best and it has all the features that I need.

That's good for you.

Technology is about advancement and XP is an anchor I no longer need to have.

CalBear
02-14-2011, 6:20 AM
I went through the same discussion with a family member recently. They were getting a new computer and were so used to XP they figured they should just keep on with it on the new computer. I insisted they get W7, and after they couldn't be happier. W7 has a much improved UI, and driver installation and system management is much, much better than XP.

NSR500
02-14-2011, 4:03 PM
Windows 7 is a lot more stable and user friendly. I have a machine on it already and it has been very good. My old P4 desktop now on Ubuntu runs like a new machine and I'm very happy to have 86'd XP.

rynando
02-17-2011, 10:56 PM
Windows 7 is a very good OS. I wouldn't hesitate giving it a spin, even on older hardware.

altxf4
02-17-2011, 11:55 PM
I Run W7 64bit, and dual boot Ubuntu....its interesting learning a Linux distro.

Richard Erichsen
02-21-2011, 11:21 AM
I Run W7 64bit, and dual boot Ubuntu....its interesting learning a Linux distro.

Wise choice - A bit of Linux knowledge certainly won't hurt and you can always use it to fix the Windows 7 environment if required (NTFS drivers are just a download away using the Synaptic tool). Every computer in my house is running Ubuntu, some dual boot for apps I must run for business use that aren't available on Ubuntu or have a work-alike (yet). Since making the change, my "home IT support" time on my kids and wife's computers has dropped to 2 hours total per 90 days. Under Windows 7 and Vista, it was 2 hours per week and more than I could allocate. Supposedly automated antivirus, file system management and other routines eat a lot of that time. I haven't had a virus infection or worm problem on my wife or kids machines now in a couple of years. For simple file/print/web browsing/word processor and presentation software - unbeatable. For more complex applications, it takes more work to set up but is on par or better in many regards going the GPL/Ubuntu/Open Source apps route.

G'day.

-R

Richard Erichsen
02-21-2011, 11:32 AM
Thanks Richard E.!

I ended up moving to Ubuntu 10.04 LTS on the machine. The machine is doing desktop duty at the moment and I will be migrating it into a MythTV Front/Back end machine to serve media in the house. That's the reason I had Windows Server 2008 R2 under consideration.
Historically, this machine is used to back up all the media in the house. Since it's getting long in the tooth my goal is to have it pull more server type duty, but still be able to backup media. Ubuntu has certainly given the machine new life and I don't worry as much about the machine as I did the WinXP image.

No prob. I'm glad that worked out for you. With much of the fluff and chaff stripped relative to Windows code builds, it's often surprising how much life the older hardware can have just running a proper Linux distro. You can achieve similar rejuvenation doing a full reinstall of the Windows OS on a clean install - though the effects are less dramatic and invariably unravel as you install new apps and actually use the system.

If you want a patch for a Linux distro - it may be available in as little as a few hours. You could be waiting months or years for Microsoft to do the same - if ever (depending on severity). New features are created in most Linux distros at such a pace you can decide on how stable you want the code to be before you actually download and install it be configuring your package manager appropriately. Drive letters? Silliness - Linux has a hierarchical file system and a labeling system with support for both soft and hard links (so you only need one file referenced in several places) which is a lot smarter. The file system is not prone to fragmentation and has been journalled for the last few years for rapid disk repair/block recovery. Ubuntu is not the ultimate Linux for programmers, it wasn't supposed to be. Debian/GNU Linux is probably the better choice for that crowd. For a good desktop or server OS, it's hard to beat. RH and SUSE would be my second choices for a server, but not much is added to justify the new cost models being used.

-R

bruin556
02-21-2011, 11:34 AM
I love Windows 7.

SnWnMe
02-24-2011, 7:33 AM
Vista was such a slow as molasses joke. I always wonder if anyone tested it before they released it. I'm using Vista until my puter is no longer capable of doing what I need it to do.

AlliedArmory
02-24-2011, 4:16 PM
I was on XP for a lonnnnnng time. Just switched my desktop and laptop over to Windows 7 and love it. My 2gb of ram had to go up to 4gb though. It ran fine, but seemed sluggish at times.

chris
02-24-2011, 5:28 PM
i loved XP but it did show it's age when comes to games which i play on my PC. i did upgrade to Win7 Ultimate. love it. works great no issues at all. there are somethings that i have to get used to after using XP for so many years. XP was and is a solid OS. why Microsoft made Vista is beyond me.

ChaparralCommando
02-24-2011, 6:11 PM
I'm still using XP and I'm planning on continuing to use it until support ends in 2014. I will then most likely move to one of the Linux variants like Ubuntu. I use Mac OSX and Windows 7 on the school computers, and I despise both. I don't use MS office (OpenOffice.org FTW!) or most MS products unless I have to, so leaving Windows is not going to be a big deal I'm hoping. No way I'm buying a Mac though.

Coded-Dude
02-24-2011, 6:55 PM
i'm still not sure if Oracle is gonna keep open office around. I still use it some, but I'm starting to transition to google docs.

jmlivingston
02-24-2011, 7:02 PM
OpenOffice has already been forked, the variant is called LibreOffice and has been getting quite a few rave reviews recently.

NSR500
02-24-2011, 11:46 PM
When Ubuntu 11 comes out I'll probably give LibreOffice a shot. Right now OpenOffice is doing the job I need it to.
Ubuntu 11 will be interesting with it's move to Unity.

locosway
02-25-2011, 12:43 AM
When Ubuntu 11 comes out I'll probably give LibreOffice a shot. Right now OpenOffice is doing the job I need it to.
Ubuntu 11 will be interesting with it's move to Unity.

I really don't like the direction Ubuntu is going. Maybe this is what Linux needs, what Ubuntu is doing, but it's not my Linux anymore. I guess this is the reason I'm moving back to either Debian or Arch.

Coded-Dude
02-25-2011, 5:57 AM
i was always an opensuse fan....until the MS partnership and subsequent sell-off.

Bryansix
02-27-2011, 8:40 AM
I'm not upgrading XP on this machine but my new hardware build will be running Windows 7.

I hate hate hate Vista. We do small business IT and Vista blows. The UAC is always intruding (fixed to annoy you less in Win 7) and a lot of things still don't work correctly like permissions to run things from certain folders or file transfers etc. Vista was a hack job. Windows 7 was Microsoft saying "we'll do it right this time. Sorry.".

SupportGeek
02-27-2011, 11:32 PM
Let me ask you this, how many Linux distributions are FIPS certified? I know there's Redhat but what else? I know it is hard to adapt to change but the fact is that Windows is quite secure these days. Sure, you have to worry about what the end user does but they will always be a security risk on any system.

It doesnt matter. My understanding is that since 2.4 Kernel every Linux distro crypto API is 100% FIPS 140-2 compliant, the problem is validation.
Linux kernel development occurs rapidly compared to the glacial pace of other OS's, when you look at how FIPS certification is obtained, it validates with very specific builds and revisions, meaning that in order to maintain FIPS certification on the kernel code, it would have to be re-validated over and over again, multiple times a year, (there have been 5 stable releases of the Kernel this year alone) an expensive process, especially since Torvalds would be the one handing over the cash since he is the maintainer of current builds.
Some distros of Linux can lock in and obtain FIPS certification if it is important, AFAIK some federal versions do this, but they would need to update in a very controlled way, probably every 3-6 months depending on the budget to re-validate and maintain certification.

That said, in my house, I have a vista box, a Win 7 box and 2 ubuntu boxes in the house, everyone that has used the ubuntu boxes are surprised at how fast they are, and were actually able to figure out how to use them faster than the win 7 box.
Ive had to rebuild the vista box once because of a web based trojan (antivirus 2008 or whatever it was called) and Ive had to remove a few issues that appeared on both the vista and 7 boxes, I havnt had to do a thing to the ubuntu boxes, as they are completely unaffected by any of the windows malware/spyware floating around out there. Windows is FAR more secure than it was in XP, it still has a ways to go to match the security of a properly configured linux box.