How feasible is it to use XP after Microsoft stops support?

I was actually talking about third party software, not Windows security updates. While it would be nice if Microsoft passed the torch to another company willing to keep releasing updates, I don't ever expect that to happen. I meant that as long as companies keep writing software that is XP compatible, including security software, then that is all that really matters. In my opinion, when the security software can take care of/block the virus/intruder trying to exploit the hole, then fixing the hole is not really that critical.

Loss of updates is a non-issue to me. I've already been living without security updates anyways, call it a field test, lol. I got tired of slowing my PC down with updates after a fresh install, so I just stopped at whatever update I last slipstreamed into my install disc. Since I haven't messed with slipstreaming in a while, that means I haven't installed any updates since SP3 in x86, or SP2 in x64. I keep my anti-virus/malware/spyware up to date though. So even with all of these well known exploits, I have only gotten the occasional trojan, which gets zapped pretty quickly.

To really blow your mind, I also still use the "worst, most loathed browser that ever existed", IE6! I'm using it right now in fact, with the Google ChromeFrame Addon that lets all of this new garbage work within IE6, lol. I hate the new browsers just as much as the new OSs. Give me the nice clean, classic GUI interface that I have used since Windows 95, or too bad, I won't ever upgrade! Years down the line, I may just stop using the internet altogether if I can't even get on with what I have.

Finally, the comparison with a car can really only go so far, but I would liken the Windows updates to a car manufacturer warranty. Once you pass that 100,000 miles, you are on your own to fix, or live with any defects that pop up afterwards.

Blasted no edit function...that should have been "classic GUI", not "classic GUI interface". Interface, interface, oh-oh, interface, lol.

Funny you mention K.I.S.S., as it is the very motto that I say applies well to XP and not at all to Vista/7/8! No one should toss out the old, simply because it's old. But sadly, many of the newer generations think this way and it especially shows in our treatment of the elderly.

I do not see this as an unwillingness to USE anything, including Win 7. It is an unwillingness to PAY to use (and learn) something new when the OS we have is working just fine for us. I'll go out on a limb here and say that few of us in this forum care much for Microsoft's constant attempts to separate us from our money. I do have a Win7 computer for multimedia software that requires the advanced features, but most of my valuable (to me) old software runs just fine on XP boxes -- and that is not going to change. That said, more of my computers would get upgraded if the OS license was for a user and not for each individual computer. Paying once for Win7 was more than enough. WinXP will continue to live on where it is still working just fine.

Let me count the ways. Just count all the functions that used to be placed in submenus that have been arbitrarily moved elsewhere. Soooo many functions in Win7 are moved from menus that we have come to know practically blind at this point and now they are gone....not to improve functionality, but just because in someone's mind they thought it was more logical to THEM to change the location. I am reluctant to spend time relearning where I need to click to get what I want. You pull down a menu in W7 and the function simply is no longer there. Why? For what reason? How is that thinking of the customer? How does that help me?

It seems to me that they said, hey, we are making these jokers pay for a new product, we'd better make it FEEL like we changed it. My guess is there are plenty of thing below the surface that fix vulnerabilities and such that the User doesn't see and doen't need to, but the DO improve aspects of the OS. Tell me what they are and I'll believe it; they don't need to mess with the superficial stuff just so we will believe we are actually paying for something new. There is nothing more frustrating that opening Control Panel to look for what has been there for the last 10 years and now it's gone and you have to hunt around for a half hour trying to find where some MS programmer on crack decided to hide it somewhere else.

It ain't broke. For all of you who say that 7 or 8 is the way to go for "security", that's crap. Sure, the last "upgrade" I did to Vista really fixed my system and the security used in Vista was continued into 7 and 8.
My software, from an extinct company, won't run on Vista or higher, so I'm locked into XP for as long as I have to support the software that runs on XP. I have moved away from Internet Exploder as a browser and am using a good antivirus and antispam program, but I expect to continue using XP and on the internet for several more years.

I do not see any possibility of making any Microsoft product open source. Since the software is entirely proprietary, we can assume that there will not be any possibility of someone else being able to take over maintenance, either.

Example Window 95 is history, it will no work on computers running XP and beyond.Computers as do WinXp, Vista & earlier OS have a projected life cycle, in this case 10 years. After that it will be obolete, mainly, because its in with the new techology phrase, and non- support for the old, its a money making venture & use of resources to kept all working.Manufacturers could careless if XP goes. Old or upgrading programs does not yeld a profit, they are in this business to selling the new Innovations. As early as 2011 I encountered problems with XP, not supporting new programs, thats was a hint......As good as it was I ditched it. Fact the original OS configuration of XP in 2003 is different from XP 2013, it is a newer OS., with 10 years of updates, upgrades, re-configuration with SP 1, 2, 3, and each became a new system. Your original disc won't work, because upon re-installed you must update, with all the updates-recongirations. In April 2014 thats stops! Catch my drift?

...if you go with a major distro like Mint or Ubuntu, the upgrades are free! Yes, no shelling out yet MORE money to people who have it in bucket-loads, only to have their product go obsolete, so you have to shell out even MORE money to stay current: Linux Mint is free and will stay free.
Saying that: I do donate to the cause. I'm not a freeloader... software this good merits our support!

Although a couple of posters have made a rude comment or two, this discussion has been very civilized! You should see what some discussions get to be like.

People genuinely love XP. It's just that simple. Yes, people did complain when some operating systems were discontinued. This is not new. The difference is that this time there are many more people who want to keep the old OS. I happen to agree with them. Microsoft did make some improvements in the newer versions, but they also made some very stupid mistakes. I found XP to be the easiest of all the Windows OSes to use myself. I now have all Windows 7, but I am unwilling to jump to Windows 8. It is nothing like what I need.

Microsoft has been trying to control our private machines and make us all clones of each other for a long time now. It is wrong, and people are absolutely correct to fight it.

Love XP? I remember trying to sell PC's with XP. People were afraid to jump from W98 SE. Yeah XP was called slow, too visual and other nasty stuff. Love was not one of it. It was the news Windows 8. Yeah, Zdnet remembers...

http://www.zdnet.com/windows-8-is-the-new-xp-7000006095/

They love it now. That is what I said. It does not matter what happened back then. What matters is that they love it now. What is wrong with just leaving people alone? You might also recall that it has been said, "if it works, don't fix it." The interface (NOT the underlying system) works very well for most people. Microsoft has no business forcing people to abandon an interface that they are familiar with and that works for them. Anyone who argues with that clearly is out of touch with reality. The underlying system can be completely altered, while still maintaining the same interface, with the same familiar way of doing things. Microsoft just doesn't want to let people do as they like with their own machines.

By the way you sound, it looks like that we have to stay forever with Windows XP. Windows 7 is 100 times a better interface than XP. And tuned to take the advantages of newer processors. You have video, large size photos, animation, and all sorts of multimedia. with XP this is what you will get:

- no new browsers - required now by most commercial sites. If you live outside the US, you will not know.
- no AV program updates
- no patches & fixes
- no new drivers for peripherals
- ancient hardware that would fail anytime (IDE and the rest)
- restrictions on disk size
- Memory restriction to 3.XX GB
- 32 bit mode only

Nobody says that you throw away W98. You can still use in virtually under win 7. However like a lot of people have said, you wont miss it, while you enjoy the latest one with the newer PC's. They are a dream compared to Windows XP.

Whatever said and done MS has made you access to the internet the part of every OS and they have done so again and again with whatever hardware that appears. If you did not have MS, then you would be looking at a 1000 different versions of Linux with no common ease of use - like what you have now with the mobiles with 7 major ones at the last count. MS had to change their software according to new processors and technologies that evolved. The old versions would not jive it.

I've been selling PC's since 1989. And I am still doing that. I don't ask my clients to upgrade every iteration that MS comes out. In fact, I'm not a fan of Windows 8 - YET. You have to admit that once you purchased a XP in 2001, you are still being supported 12 years later by the creator of that program. Give me one darn company that has done that for FREE!

Don't always go after MS, they have done a lot of good and their creator is giving away all his money that he has made from you. Match that!

First of all, the "100 times better interface" is not something I want nor need. The 100 times worse interface in XP is more than enough. There is an XP version for 64 bit. I thought you knew that... I happen to have it. Restrictions on disk size?!? I currently use 2x1TB SATA disks+1TB external mobile drive on my XP system. Doesn't seem to have a problem... The 3.25GB restriction is... well... for 32 bit. However, it is most unlikely that on a XP system you'll ever need more! Regardless of what you do with it. The "100 times better interface" needs more than 3.25 GB of RAM... As to the ancient hardware... Let me put it this way: on my first computer, a 386, I had no HDD failure. Gave it away as I purchased it. On my second, a 586, also no failure. On the third, a Barton 2000, 1 HDD failure, 1 video board failure. The fourth was a Dual Core - one MB failure, 2 HDD, 1 video, 1 RAM. The fifth is this one I have now... A QuadCore AMD. So far, 2 HDD failures, 1RAM, 1Video. In about 1,5 years. What does that tell us? Obviously the quality and resilience of components decreases. In time. As a matter of fact, my 386 costed me about 3 times more than the QuadCore. It's obvious, components manufacturers don't invest that much in quality components, since they will become obsolete sooner. Besides that, there are a lot of second hand components on the market at cheap prices. I'm sure I'll be able to 'patch up" my old computers a long time from now! As a matter of fact I have and still do that for family and friends. Nope. Just for the eyecandy... it's not worth the money!

People have a right to make their own decisions. Stop trying to force your own ideas on everyone else. Microsoft has never given anything away for free. Microsoft is not angelic, and stop pretending they are. You are simply angry that I wrote the truth.

And incidentally, I have Windows 7, not XP. You would know that if you read anything instead of getting angry and having a fit.

I said it wasn't heated, but you are certainly trying to turn this into a fight. I won't pay any more attention to you.

"If you did not have MS, then you would be looking at a 1000 different versions of Linux with no common ease of use..."
Um, you only use one of them at a time -- it's pretty easy to use -- but then, maybe having choices isn't a good thing?

And...

"their creator is giving away all his money that he has made from you. Match that!"
*ALL* his money? Really? Would he give *me* some, then?

I suspect you are not.

You ask why no big fuss over Win 95, Win 98 and Win Me ...

Did you ever use Win 95 or Win Me? The only purpose I ever found for Win ME was when a Win 98 install became corrupted, you could upgrade the machine to Win Me and then revert back to Win 98 and the problems in Win 98 would be fixed ...

Most likely the biggest reason no one cried about the others is that they were 16 bit OSs and everyone wanted a 32 bit OS. We had had 32 bit computers for quite some time, but the only two commercially available desktops which could use it were Windows NT - partially - and OS/2. We had had 32 bit processors starting in late 86. Over ten years later, users did not have a 32 bit OS except for those who were fortunate enough to use OS/2. We started seeing 64 bit CPU's in desktops sometime in 2003. I can't remember if Win2K was fully 32 bit, but I don't think so. I am pretty sure it was still dragging along a fair bit of 16 bit functions. So XP, was released in ,late 2001, 5 years after the first 32 bit processors hit the market.

Why would we care about a 32 bit OS, I hear you ask. RAM! With a 16 bit OS you could access a whopping 640 Kb of RAM. By implementing extended memory, you could fake it up to around a meg. I don't know about you, but I spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how to get driver X and component Y to run within those constraints and still have enough RAM to run your programs. Finally having a 32 bit OS brought the RAM limit up to a whopping 4GB! (Well, 3 and change, really). Going to 64 bit OS charges that up to 192 !GB! of ram in professional versions of Windows 7, 8gb for the home versions. This was a huge plus to the world of computing and probably one of the biggest reasons people weren't unhappy to wave good by to Win9x/WinME. ... Well, that and the need to reboot Win 9x at least 2-3 times a day. I was very fortunate. My brother provided me with a Compaq 386DX with the math-co and 12 MEGS! of memory. As I was using OS/2, I could use that type of memory long before all the 16 bit'ters could get access.

Last line, 3rd paragraph was supposed to say 15 years after 32 bit processors hit the market with 64 bit processors entering the mainstream about two years later./