• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

XP Forever?

For POSReady XP, Microsoft is committed to supplying support until the end of 2019. I'm surprised that the author didn't mention it. I still get security updates to XP and MSE about once a week on average.

Although my main systems run Linux and BSD, I do have XP installed in a few places. A lot of vulnerability issues can be handled by careful network needs analysis. Does a particular machine need to be connected to the Internet, or will no connection or a intranet connection do the job?

Remember that Stuxnet was introduced, not over the Internet, but by a smuggled-in USB pen drive. Simple physical security measures should have prevented that. One could also question of the SCADA systems running those cetrifuges actually needed USB. I suspect that someone smuggling in a USB pen drive now will find no place to plug it in.

Software vendors such as Microsoft assume that you'll eventually just throw away the hardware you're using. Maybe they have little choice, but I can't honestly say that my web browsing and email usage has greatly changed since I was using Win2K. Web sites have gotten ever more bloated, as has the software used to view them. But has the information exchange been greatly enhanced by the bloat? I'm not so sure.
 
Yep. With a lot of these systems there is no advantage, and sometimes real disadvantages, to "upgrading". The OS won't get changed until whatever hardware/software it supports is also completely replaced. Microsoft is afraid the same thing will happen with Windows 7, which is partly why they are trying so hard to shove it up everybody's butt.

Of course all the kids these days can't even imagine not bowing down to their corporate overlords while sining "upgrade, upgrade, upgrade... because security!" (while clutching their blue blankie)

It's not even like the old days when new versions brought new useful features. These days every time I encounter an "upgrade" I have to ask myself "what have they taken away now?".
 
SomeGuy said:
It's not even like the old days when new versions brought new useful features. These days every time I encounter an "upgrade" I have to ask myself "what have they taken away now?".
Click to expand...

Of course every one else complains about the "bloat".....

.. read the article, interesting, but having watched some one try to use XP on a minimum spec machine fond the assertion it will run on lower spec hardware some what amusing.. It might install, but pretty useless... One of the things that have changed is that Microsoft now quote minimum specifications that are "usable"...
 
g4ugm said:
Of course every one else complains about the "bloat".....

.. read the article, interesting, but having watched some one try to use XP on a minimum spec machine fond the assertion it will run on lower spec hardware some what amusing.. It might install, but pretty useless... One of the things that have changed is that Microsoft now quote minimum specifications that are "usable"...
Click to expand...

How low is low? I run XP on a PIII (1.4 GHz) and it does fairly well, browsing not with standing. Not too bad with Firefox however. A few years back, maybe 2002/3, I had an IBM Thinkpad T22 which came with W2K. Somehow or another, I was able to upgrade to XP, and it ran pretty good. The net wasn't near what it is today and a person had a little more patience with it. On the other hand, I have a Pentium D setup (single core) and it barely get along. The beauty of XP is that it's rock solid and a great gaming platform - no 'gotchas' The only problem you might encounter is maybe an errant third-party driver for this or that.
 
Take away?!?! I agree but I see they add drivers to Win8 and 10 that AREN'T necessary but causes fans on laptops to run at JET speed. When they're disabled the fan resumes normal speed. I've tried adjusting power settings but until I disable the driver it keeps going. They keep installing an AMD Radeon HD graphics driver on my laptop that's NOT needed. Bloatware STINKS!

Sorry for my tangent.
 
g4ugm said:
Of course every one else complains about the "bloat".....

.. read the article, interesting, but having watched some one try to use XP on a minimum spec machine fond the assertion it will run on lower spec hardware some what amusing.. It might install, but pretty useless... One of the things that have changed is that Microsoft now quote minimum specifications that are "usable"...
Click to expand...

I have a Dell Latitude C840 with 1 gig of RAM on Pentium 4M that is for my network configuration machine to configure switches in closets but it will still the surf the web fast enough for me to look stuff up while I am in a closet.
 
Agent Orange said:
How low is low? I run XP on a PIII (1.4 GHz) and it does fairly well, browsing not with standing. Not too bad with Firefox however. A few years back, maybe 2002/3, I had an IBM Thinkpad T22 which came with W2K. Somehow or another, I was able to upgrade to XP, and it ran pretty good. The net wasn't near what it is today and a person had a little more patience with it. On the other hand, I have a Pentium D setup (single core) and it barely get along. The beauty of XP is that it's rock solid and a great gaming platform - no 'gotchas' The only problem you might encounter is maybe an errant third-party driver for this or that.
Click to expand...


they copy the ms page i.e.

•Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
•At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
•At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
•CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive
•Keyboard and a Microsoft Mouse or some other compatible pointing device
•Video adapter and monitor with Super VGA (800 x 600)or higher resolution
•Sound card
•Speakers or headphones


never let it be said they allow the truth to get in the way of a good storey.....
 
stangman517 said:
Take away?!?! I agree but I see they add drivers to Win8 and 10 that AREN'T necessary but causes fans on laptops to run at JET speed. When they're disabled the fan resumes normal speed. I've tried adjusting power settings but until I disable the driver it keeps going. They keep installing an AMD Radeon HD graphics driver on my laptop that's NOT needed. Bloatware STINKS!

Sorry for my tangent.
Click to expand...

Driver updates are causing some problems. you used the hide tool?

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3073930
 
Well, I agree, that's pretty low. You can get XP to run on a 486/133 for sure if you install it first on at least a Pentium machine's HD. But that's all bar bet stuff. The point is, XP runs real nice on later day machines. The major catch is if you can snag the XP drivers for your particular chipset.
 
The mention of SCADA in the article was interesting, but how much does "real work" depend on Windows XP? For example, are you aware that more than a few CNC rigs run on CP/M or MS-DOS? And the reasons are eminently practical. You can pay $250K for a new EDM rig, or buy a used one for less that $50K. Both will get the job done and have parts available, so which do you choose? Heck, I've seen some rigged up running from PCs hooked up to the machine's paper tape input that are still going strong.

I sometimes wish the consumer market had the same level of practicality.
 
I still use XP on three of my utility systems. These systems are seldom networked. One of the systems has a multi-purpose printer and it's 2.1 Ghz Barton CPU is quite spritely. One gigabyte of memory and half a terabyte of hard drive space doesn't hurt either. Just a general-purpose system with few frills (and no upgrade nag screens!)
 
That machine matches one of my machines that I use for programming devices. It's an old ASUS A7N266 board. I picked up an Athlon XP-M 2800+ for a couple of bucks, made a couple of bottom-of-socket changes to the motherboard and squeezed about 2.1GHz out of it. With a gig of DDR and a 330GB IDE drive, it actually does quite well, considering that the system was about to be recycled by a friend.
 
Agent Orange said:
I have a Pentium D setup (single core) and it barely get along.
Click to expand...

Pentium Ds are dual core chips, hence the "D". They're not true dual core designs though, it's basically a pair of Pentium 4 dies under the heatspreader. Celeron Ds are single core only though.

Agent Orange said:
Well, I agree, that's pretty low. You can get XP to run on a 486/133 for sure if you install it first on at least a Pentium machine's HD. But that's all bar bet stuff. The point is, XP runs real nice on later day machines. The major catch is if you can snag the XP drivers for your particular chipset.
Click to expand...

Actually, XP won't run on a 486 at all. Even if you install it on a Pentium machine and migrate it over, it still won't run. 486 CPUs are missing CMPXCHG8b and CPUID, which are required for XP to work. You can get XP to run on a 486 machine though if you install the 62 or 83 MHz Pentium Overdrive chip. I can't recommend it though because it's painfully slow, I know because I've done it before.

Another chip that XP might run on is the Cyrix Cx5x86, because that chip is essentially a gimped Cyrix 6x86. I can't test this though because I don't have one or a motherboard that would accept one.

Another hurdle you have to overcome is that you need 64 MB of RAM minimum if you want to actually install XP on the 486 machine, which many early 486 boards can't get anywhere near. Later 486 boards with PCI slots and 72 pin SIMMs can usually get up to this amount. I had a PC Chips motherboard that could go up to 256 MB (4 x 64M 72 pin SIMMs.)
 
GiGaBiTe said:
Pentium Ds are dual core chips, hence the "D". They're not true dual core designs though, it's basically a pair of Pentium 4 dies under the heatspreader. Celeron Ds are single core only though.
Click to expand...

Not entirely correct.
There are two generations of Pentium D.
The first generation (Smithfield) was a single die (which makes it as 'true' as the Athlon X2s/Opterons, which were no more than the logic of two single-cores copy-pasted on a single die either, and had no advantages over two dies connected on the same socket, or even a dual-socket system in the case of AMD. The first CPU actually designed specifically as a dual-core die is the Core Duo, which exploits the single-die by sharing the L2 cache with both cores, rather than having the two cores communicate via an FSB or Hypertransport link, even if internally).
The second generation (Presler) was the dual-die solution.

See them compared here: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-announces-pentium-ee-955,1946.html
 
stangman517 said:
Hello Dave.

Neh not using he show/hide tool. I'll investigate it more. Have you used it ok?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I haven't found the need too, I downloaded and tested it and it seems to work OK. There is supposed to be an update due in November which I think might big a big test of MS's forced update strategy. The other "trick" to delay updates is to only use a Wireless connection and set it to "metered".... I alos wonder if it will include the tool...
 
GiGaBiTe said:
Pentium Ds are dual core chips, hence the "D". They're not true dual core designs though, it's basically a pair of Pentium 4 dies under the heatspreader. Celeron Ds are single core only though.



Actually, XP won't run on a 486 at all. Even if you install it on a Pentium machine and migrate it over, it still won't run. 486 CPUs are missing CMPXCHG8b and CPUID, which are required for XP to work. You can get XP to run on a 486 machine though if you install the 62 or 83 MHz Pentium Overdrive chip. I can't recommend it though because it's painfully slow, I know because I've done it before.

Another chip that XP might run on is the Cyrix Cx5x86, because that chip is essentially a gimped Cyrix 6x86. I can't test this though because I don't have one or a motherboard that would accept one.

Another hurdle you have to overcome is that you need 64 MB of RAM minimum if you want to actually install XP on the 486 machine, which many early 486 boards can't get anywhere near. Later 486 boards with PCI slots and 72 pin SIMMs can usually get up to this amount. I had a PC Chips motherboard that could go up to 256 MB (4 x 64M 72 pin SIMMs.)
Click to expand...

Note that this is why I put it in the "bar bet" category. Also, there's tons of action on trying to accomplish the feat spread all over the web.
 
g4ugm said:
Of course every one else complains about the "bloat".....

.. read the article, interesting, but having watched some one try to use XP on a minimum spec machine fond the assertion it will run on lower spec hardware some what amusing.. It might install, but pretty useless... One of the things that have changed is that Microsoft now quote minimum specifications that are "usable"...
Click to expand...

This was my experience with running XP on a P166MMX with 80 MB of RAM, back in 2009:

 
Chuck(G) said:
The mention of SCADA in the article was interesting, but how much does "real work" depend on Windows XP? For example, are you aware that more than a few CNC rigs run on CP/M or MS-DOS? And the reasons are eminently practical. You can pay $250K for a new EDM rig, or buy a used one for less that $50K. Both will get the job done and have parts available, so which do you choose? Heck, I've seen some rigged up running from PCs hooked up to the machine's paper tape input that are still going strong.

I sometimes wish the consumer market had the same level of practicality.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression new CNC rigs had the ability to get files directly from CAD (something an old controller running DOS can't do).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top