When Will Programs move Away from Windows 7?

[Bill_Bright]

it focuses on sending user data out to be collected, and it has a friggin store.

It does not focus on that and the store can be ignored. Neither are reasons to dismiss it.

If I buy an os, I want it to
leave me alone after that. This thing doesn't, even if you try to block the crap in it.

Sure it does. You just didn't spend any time with it to get it the way you like it.

And I note Microsoft is feeling all the heat about people's privacy concerns. They are much more transparent about what is being sent and really, you need to be more concerned about your ISP, cell phone carrier and Google than you do with Microsoft. And Microsoft is giving users more control over that too. I never see anything about the Microsoft Store on my systems. You might check out Start10.

If Linux does everything you need, then that's great - I wish it did meet the needs of more users. It would put more pressure on Microsoft and Apple. But as you and windwhirl noted, they need to port more apps over. There does not seem to be enough incentive for that.

I hope that Steam for Linux continues to bring more interest to Linux. That does look promising.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Yeah, but not many bother with Linux because there are too many distros for starters.

Most people who investigate Linux end up defaulting to Ubuntu or one of the variants, which are all easy learn how to use, actually use and support just about every example of hardware out there. It is a growing trend and for a good reason.

And small and medium sized business won't even bother with it either

That's not true. There are plenty of businesses than have completely switched over to Linux after having tried it out. They've learned how to use Google and realized that the money spent of Microsofts product would be better spent elsewhere and take time to convert over. Most of those that do keep one Windows machine around just in case they need it.

Even so, with most users knowing how to work with Windows (which tends to be a similar experience, regardless of the version

Have you used Windows 8, 8.1 or 10? Sorry, but those experiences are radically different from everything 7 back.

People are tired of Microsoft's BS and are looking for change.

 

[windwhirl]

Apologies in advance if what I wrote gets confusing at one point or another. Translating my thoughts from Spanish to English it's a little hard sometimes (although it's good practice). Also, I only refer to my experience on PC platforms. I don't really follow as much regarding mobile devices.

Most people who investigate Linux end up defaulting to Ubuntu or one of the variants, which are all easy learn how to use, actually use and support just about every example of hardware out there. It is a growing trend and for a good reason.

I was not referring to users, but software developers. I should clarify, however, since it came to my mind because of your comment, that it is also limited to my experience in a developing country, where almost everyone, from the government to the guy that just wants to play solitaire on his computer, uses Windows. So, in general, software development for other platforms is rather strange, and when it happens it tends to be for a specific, well-known distro (for example, Ubuntu 12.04) or for something that the end-user won't really see (the back-end of a client-server based accounting software, for example).

Regarding users, there is some interest in using other platforms, but lack of apps & games development and porting make it a disappointing experience sometimes, so some users don't really do a permanent switch. At best, they keep a dual boot setup, just in case.

That's not true. There are plenty of businesses than have completely switched over to Linux after having tried it out. They've learned how to use Google and realized that the money spent of Microsofts product would be better spent elsewhere and take time to convert over. Most of those that do keep one Windows machine around just in case they need it.

Well, here in Argentina, most of them (around 69%, according to a 2016 study from the BSA) don't bother paying for Windows licenses. They just pirate them (there was even a Supreme Court ruling twenty years ago that kinda allowed that, since at the time there was no law regarding software piracy). Of course, it's illegal (now) and dangerous (I got tired of telling that to my friends and classmates), but nobody cares until there is a problem or someone comes knocking, with an order from a judge to check for software piracy at work (due to our Constitution, nobody can do anything about software piracy at home, unless there is a profitable activity involved and someone gets caught doing it). And because of how slow the legal system can get, the BSA only goes after the big companies, who are actually smart most of the time and pay for their licenses.

Also, almost all software issued by the government works only on Windows (the few exceptions are all Internet-based, so they're cross-platform). That takes out any line of work related to accounting and taxes, legal professions and customs. Because of that, there is less incentive to build software for other platforms, if the target market for that software are businesses (although there are exceptions), since almost all businesses here end up filing forms and "doing work for the bureaucracy" quite often.

I have seen, however, an increasing amount of people replacing MS Office with Google Docs or LibreOffice. And already most (if not all) Internet-related service providers (web hosting, email accounts, etc.) prefer using open-source software. Although you may find Windows Server as an alternative.

Have you used Windows 8, 8.1 or 10? Sorry, but those experiences are radically different from everything 7 back.

People are tired of Microsoft's BS and are looking for change.

I used all three. My own experience tells me that almost anyone that had Windows 8 or 8.1 automatically went and and begged for Windows 7 or XP (I got that request more than once). And since Windows 10 has an actual Start menu, sometimes it surprises me how little most people could care about everything else (gamers are an exception to this, mostly because of performance and compatibility issues that may arise). Power users and IT-related workers are way more aware of any change in the UX, and they either take advantage of it or hate it.

Regarding Windows 10 specifically, there isn't much of a care for privacy issues, even less now that there are settings that at least seem to control how much data goes to Microsoft and third parties. Although I hear some people getting worried about it from time to time.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Apologies in advance if what I wrote gets confusing at one point or another. Translating my thoughts from Spanish to English it's a little hard sometimes (although it's good practice). Also, I only refer to my experience on PC platforms. I don't really follow as much regarding mobile devices.

Oh man, I meant no offense to you at all. The quotation and remarks were offered only as perspective and insight based on observations and experiences I've had. Additionally, your english is very good. So no worries, really.

Regarding Windows 10 specifically, there isn't much of a care for privacy issues, even less now that there are settings that at least seem to control how much data goes to Microsoft and third parties. Although I hear some people getting worried about it from time to time.

That might be a cultural thing. Generally, a good portion of the populace here in North America know that identity theft is a problem(and can be a huge mess to sort through) and are very protective of their privacy as a result. Not only that but common place information can be used against people in malicious ways people don't often see coming. Being very strict about privacy and digital security is always better than being sorry later. Argentinians may not have the same risks due to the way things work there and thus not needing to have the same concerns.

 

[windwhirl]

Oh man, I meant no offense to you at all. The quotation and remarks were offered only as perspective and insight based on observations and experiences I've had. Additionally, your english is very good. So no worries, really.

That might be a cultural thing. Generally, a good portion of the populace here in North America know that identity theft is a problem(and can be a huge mess to sort through) and are very protective of their privacy as a result. No only that but common place information can but used against people in malicious ways people don't often see coming. Being very strict about privacy and digital security is always better than being sorry later. Argentinians may not have the same risks due to the way things work there and thus not needing to have the same concerns.

**EDIT: No offense taken. I figured that I had to explain why our points of view showed such difference, since I took for granted that it was all the same everywhere, which is not the case. Also, I still remember my English teacher drilling in my head that a single sentence could change it's meaning completely just by swapping one word for another. And sometimes, an alternative meaning or possible implication of what I'm writing completely goes over my head.
END EDIT.**

Thankfully, this whole "I-don't-care-about-privacy-stuff" is changing for the better here, although it's a really slow process.

Regarding identity theft, it's really rare for such a thing to happen outside situations such as your passwords getting stolen or discovered by someone else (with all the possible consequences of such thing happening). The IDs we use "in real-life" for legal procedures and formalities these days are specially made to be unique and hard to fake or copy (they're digitalized, although they don't have any chips or NFC technology, only a barcode; they have the usual array of anti-counterfeiting feaures, like optically variable ink, holograms and the like; if you get a new one because you lost the original ID or changed your home address, it shows it is a new one and the original is marked as unusable in the databases; and they are made only by the government, they're not crafted by third parties).

Besides, unless there is something other than money involved, most criminals prefer to just go rob someone or take you by surprise when you walk out of the ATM (people here don't really trust the banks much, after what happened during the years 2001-2003, and prefer to keep the money "under the mattress")... faking your identity in the bank is nearly impossible if you want to take lots of money (they check your ID, they have to receive authorization from the manager and they know who owns which account, sometimes by heart, without looking at the papers).

In USA you use your Social Security number as ID and don't really show any paper or card, right? Or it was like that until sometime ago? And that's why anyone there gets paranoid about telling it to someone. That may have caused people to be more wary of giving any information at all to someone else.

 

[StrayKAT]

I've had my credit card numbers stolen 3 times.

No, it's not because I go to pr0n sites or anything else out of the ordinary

 

[lexluthermiester]

In USA you use your Social Security number as ID and don't really show any paper or card, right? Or it was like that until sometime ago?

While this is off-topic, it is interesting. SSN's are not used as common ID's anymore. Drivers licenses are used for that generally. I personally use my passport as it's good everywhere, for nearly everything, is difficult to commit fraud with and very difficult to counterfeit.

I've had my credit card numbers stolen 3 times.

Back on topic, this is why privacy and digital security are so important, that has happened to me as well. It's why I will not trust Windows 10 until I can find a method to fully secure it on an ongoing basis. Right now it's "iffy" and I will not trust "iffy". Some people don't care. I'm one of the people talked about earlier in the thread who, for the reasons of privacy and security will likely be moving to Linux permanently in regards to online presence. It's not coming yet. Will make the final choice when 2020 rolls around. Until then I'll continue to enjoy Windows 7 because it can be secured.

 

[natr0n]

Don't know if anyone mentioned this. Hospitals and doctors offices use windows 7 and some equipment still uses xp or earlier. I'm pretty sure support wont end for many more years.

As for firefox it uses ESR on WindowsXP. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/

 

[Easo]

Run XP securely while connected to the Internet? We (my co-workers and me) actually do that, because our boss won't pay for Win7 licenses (forget about paying for XP support). Of course, our work setups are hardened through Group Policy, the antimalware software is set to paranoid and we do bother to follow basic IT security guidelines. So it's not like we're running it without a care in the world (running an accounting firm and filling tax returns every day, so we're rather careful all the time, considering the delicate information that we handle.)

But I'd still prefer to run Windows 7 or, even better, Windows 10. The most ancient apps I use at work were built using Visual Basic 5.0, and they still work fine on Windows 10. The computers use Ivy-Bridge Core i3s with 4 GB of RAM, so it's not like I'd be pushing them to their limits (and we only use the standard Office apps and the browser most of the time). But try telling that to my boss. I still haven't been able to convince him of getting a new carpet for the main office, and the current one has holes the size of an E-ATX case...

It will bite your boss sooner or later (moneypinching is understandable and common, of course). Do understand this - anything similar to WannaCry, using unpatched attack vectors will be your end. You cannot avoid everything by hardening.
P.S.
I hope you are not EU based, or the GDPR will screw you hard.

 

[windwhirl]

It will bite your boss sooner or later (moneypinching is understandable and common, of course). Do understand this - anything similar to WannaCry, using unpatched attack vectors will be your end. You cannot avoid everything by hardening.
P.S.
I hope you are not EU based, or the GDPR will screw you hard.

Oh, no. Argentina doesn't have anything like that yet. I mean, there is an agency for Personal Data Protection, but unless you're a big company and your clients are well informed about it, it doesn't really affect you. Besides, in my line of work you need to access personal data kept on the tax office servers, so for accounting and tax filing and returns you need to have such access. Still, I'll keep trying to scare my boss away from WinXP...

 

[Bill_Bright]

That's not true. There are plenty of businesses than have completely switched over to Linux after having tried it out.

I agree. And note many have migrated to Chromebooks with Chrome-OS, which is Linux based too.

My own experience tells me that almost anyone that had Windows 8 or 8.1 automatically went and and begged for Windows 7

And that was a knee-jerk mistake. Windows 8.x is actually a great OS if we properly define a operating system's primary job as, "facilitating communications between the various hardware components in order to run our required software safely and securely."

IF W8.x had looked and felt more like W7 (or even W10), it would have been much more favorably received. If Start8 or ClassicShell had been readily available the same day W8 was released, many, if not most W8 users who failed to give W8 an honest chance would have stuck with it.

The W8 developers actually did a great job. Their work, sadly, was demolished by blundering marketing weenies and poor executive decisions to shove a totally foreign and unwanted UI down users throats - with no easy way (without 3rd party help) to bring back the familiar Start menu and W7 desktop UI.

I hope you are not EU based, or the GDPR will screw you hard.

Oh, no. Argentina doesn't have anything like that yet.

It should be noted that all member countries of the United Nations are required by UN Charter to protect and respect the IP Rights of other member countries. So the laws are there. Whether a country chooses to fund the resources to enforce those laws in another issue altogether.

 

[windwhirl]

I agree. And note many have migrated to Chromebooks with Chrome-OS, which is Linux based too.

And that was a knee-jerk mistake. Windows 8.x is actually a great OS if we properly define a operating system's primary job as, "facilitating communications between the various hardware components in order to run our required software safely and securely."

IF W8.x had looked and felt more like W7 (or even W10), it would have been much more favorably received. If Start8 or ClassicShell had been readily available the same day W8 was released, many, if not most W8 users who failed to give W8 an honest chance would have stuck with it.

The W8 developers actually did a great job. Their work, sadly, was demolished by blundering marketing weenies and poor executive decisions to shove a totally foreign and unwanted UI down users throats - with no easy way (without 3rd party help) to bring back the familiar Start menu and W7 desktop UI.


It should be noted that all member countries of the United Nations are required by UN Charter to protect and respect the IP Rights of other member countries. So the laws are there. Whether a country chooses to fund the resources to enforce those laws in another issue altogether.

Indeed, Windows 8 was a failure because of the UI (except perhaps on tablets). Internally, it was an improvement over Windows 7, and, what's most important for me, I felt that the Store was a way to finally keep almost all my apps up to date. Of course, that also failed, due to most games devs preferring Steam, and other developers using their own update channels and methodologies.

Then again, Microsoft has followed tradition here. Windows ME (fail), Windows XP (success), Windows Vista (fail), Windows 7 (success), Windows 8.x (fail), Windows 10 (success? not completely sure, but a failure it is not)...

Regarding IP rights, if you mean copyrighted software, there are laws now that protect them (the Arg. Supreme Court ruling allowed piracy because there was no law for that at the moment, after the law was approved, the ruling was corrected in favor of copyright holders), along with updates to the Codes that punish cybercrime and related offenses specifically. However, the enforcement of copyright law is mostly up to the copyright holders, if they have the patience to go through all the legal procedures and formalities (which could take years at worst).

 

[Bill_Bright]

Regarding IP rights, if you mean copyrighted software...

By IP (intellectual property) rights, it is not just about copyrighted software but also songs, movies/videos, works of art, and other "published" materials.

And yes, W10 is definitely a success - though not near the "quick" success Microsoft was hoping for. Depending on which statistics site you believe, W10 has surpassed W7 in market share, or is not too far behind and slowly gaining.

I suspect one of the biggest reasons W10's gains in market share has been so slow is simply because W8 left a bitter taste in many users mouths.

 

[windwhirl]

By IP (intellectual property) rights, it is not just about copyrighted software but also songs, movies/videos, works of art, and other "published" materials.

And yes, W10 is definitely a success - though not near the "quick" success Microsoft was hoping for. Depending on which statistics site you believe, W10 has surpassed W7 in market share, or is not too far behind and slowly gaining.

I suspect one of the biggest reasons W10's gains in market share has been so slow is simply because W8 left a bitter taste in many users mouths.

Oh, I thought you meant specifically software. In general, we have had copyright laws for nearly a century (since 1933, with some patents law from 1896 as predecessor). However, only at the end of the year 1998 the law was updated to include software.

And yes, Windows 8's reputation kinda made things difficult for Windows 10.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Windows 10 (success? not completely sure, but a failure it is not)...

It's not been the success Microsoft was hoping for. Windows 10 adoption rates are abysmal in comparison to much more successful versions of Windows. While not a complete failure, it can hardly be classified as a success.

 

[theFOoL]

To this Day I still prefer Windows 7 on most of my Computers since most Apps run on it but I have Windows 10 on my main Computer. Just that for now games are mostly developed for DirectX 11 and not 12 yet but only a Few

 

[windwhirl]

It's not been the success Microsoft was hoping for. Windows 10 adoption rates are abysmal in comparison to much more successful versions of Windows. While not a complete failure, it can hardly be classified as a success.

People are happy with Windows 7 (dare I say XP?), and after what happened with Windows 8, they won't upgrade just because they can. Also, there isn't yet something exclusive to Windows 10 that can make anyone think "OK, I'm upgrading and to h*ll with Windows 7".

Businesses are even more careful about this, so they won't upgrade until the IT staff say that everything will work fine.

It could take around three to four more years for Windows 10 to reach XP's peak (around 80%), but may not get there ever, depending on how the mobile market evolves and if macOS or Linux change the trend somehow (?).

 

[eidairaman1]

I'm really surprised this is still a thing

 

[theFOoL]

People are happy with Windows 7 (dare I say XP?)

Well HA If they made it where the DirectX Version was Upgradeable then there'd be no Windows but XP

Was it where Windows 98 had a Downloadable version of DirectX 9 at one point? like just a small update pack if I recall...

 

[windwhirl]

Well HA If they made it where the DirectX Version was Upgradeable then there'd be no Windows but XP

Was it where Windows 98 had a Downloadable version of DirectX 9 at one point? like just a small update pack if I recall...

I think Win98 received a DX 9.0c update (?) during 2006... Heck, Microsoft gave that OS two or three more years of support than originally planned because a lot of people didn't stop using it. Same with Windows XP, but it doesn't seem likely that it will happen again for Windows 7. The upgrade from 7 to 10 is less complicated (privacy issues and UX annoyances aside) than it was from Windows 9x to XP (a 16/32 bit hybrid with pieces of DOS and Windows 3.1 code to a full 32-bit NT-style OS) or from Windows XP to Vista/7 (lots of changes in Windows internals).

 

[Solaris17]

Run XP securely while connected to the Internet? We (my co-workers and me) actually do that, because our boss won't pay for Win7 licenses (forget about paying for XP support).

Just incase you simply arent aware, but even the millions companies spend for MS to come out with reactive (read not proactive) security fixes to XP and even best practice like you are doing will not stop the vulnerabilities XP has simply based off of how the OS works on a core level. What you are doing in the industry is called reducing the attack surface but that is not to be confused with "I made it safe now".

The landscape has changed and XP simply is not viable. Anyone that preaches otherwise is mis directed. It does not simply boil down to profit margins and program compatibility. Tools of all kinds good and bad evolve. People, companies and teams that use outdated OSs are jaded and should put there votes into changing current technology instead of taking the stubborn route and remaining behind because it is convenient if they dont like something new.

XP was created in a world where the personal computer didn't do much and most couldn't even afford one. The world revolves around technology now and its not a stretch to say it is legitimately dangerous to the lively hood of those connected to those systems to run it.

 

[theFOoL]

If SEE here you could install XP programs in 98

Retro: Running XP Apps In Windows 98

Oh wait here's the video I watched a few months ago. Windows 2000!

Windows ME?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What.....THE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Windows ME in 2015? - KernelEx and Opera

 

[eidairaman1]

I think Win98 received a DX 9.0c update (?) during 2006... Heck, Microsoft gave that OS two or three more years of support than originally planned because a lot of people didn't stop using it. Same with Windows XP, but it doesn't seem likely that it will happen again for Windows 7. The upgrade from 7 to 10 is less complicated (privacy issues and UX annoyances aside) than it was from Windows 9x to XP (a 16/32 bit hybrid with pieces of DOS and Windows 3.1 code to a full 32-bit NT-style OS) or from Windows XP to Vista/7 (lots of changes in Windows internals).

They made direct X integrated like how internet explorer was and received a class action suit by the EU for ie integration.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Just incase you simply arent aware, but even the millions companies spend for MS to come out with reactive (read not proactive) security fixes to XP and even best practice like you are doing will not stop the vulnerabilities XP has simply based off of how the OS works on a core level. What you are doing in the industry is called reducing the attack surface but that is not to be confused with "I made it safe now".

This is so completely incorrect I simply don't know where to start. Let's all just agree to disagree on that one.

The landscape has changed and XP simply is not viable. Anyone that preaches otherwise is misdirected.

Same as above..

 

[Bill_Bright]

I agree in part with Solaris on his first point, and completely on his second.

Microsoft can make XP secure for everyone if they had any incentive to do so. But they don't and why should they? That OS has been superseded 4 times now. Microsoft is a company that needs revenue and profits to pay its employees and invest in R&D to stay alive. There's no profit is maintaining XP - in fact, any money spent on it is a loss. Any organization (for profit, non-profit, charity, government, etc.) leader who directs resources at avoidable money pits would be fired - if not criminally charged for fiduciary mismanagement.

And he is correct when he says anyone who preaches XP is viable is misdirected and is misdirecting - at best only fooling himself. At worse, putting others in jeopardy. The ONLY exceptions are (1) if the XP box is used as a stand-alone computer (not connected to any network) or (2), the XP box is totally isolated on the network or only connected to a "closed" (no Internet access) network, and where no user is able to attach any external devices (infected thumb drives, for example) to that system that were exposed (directly or indirectly) to the Internet.

If securing XP was still as easy as suggested, those governments and organizations who were misdirected by their IT people and failed to upgrade from XP would not be stuck paying Microsoft $millions every year for "Custom Support" to keep their legacy XP systems secure (and note that was back in 2014 with the prices going up each year!).

Anyone claiming they can easily secure XP and make it safe for Internet use is either fooling themselves, or a total fool for not marketing their solution - for they surely would be multimillionaires overnight.

If you still have an old XP system that refuses to die and you don't want to put Linux on it, I say turn it into a NAS. That's what I did. Isolate it from the Internet in your router and restrict access to and from it for your other connected devices.