[karypm]

Microsoft has maintained a rather rigid business model that isn't consistent with the non-computer centric consumer they derive most of their income from. If I need parts for a '39 Ford then I'm a hobbyist. When I cooked the starter in my '95 Nissan last month I had no problem getting it serviced by a mechanic who put in new Nissan supplied *redesigned* part. Yeah, it's a car, but Microsoft's business model isn't consistent with that of that other OS, Unix. eg: Oracle cuts off old versions of Solaris, but makes the transition to newer versions a matter of comparatively minor upgrades closer to what MS does with service packs. As a stable platform for non-gaming applications I see no good reason to change it. Yet.

[lylejk]

I still run XP in a VM for sandbox purposes in my Win7 OS (Virtualbox). I still use the dependable (and to me the last good version) of Office too (that would be Office 2003). I doubt Microsoft will give away their code for Open Source purposes though. Just wish in one hand and, well, well all know the old saying. lol

[RickStone]

JoshMiller - Constantly "upgrading" your hardware and software is a REAL productivity killer. Not only is there the cost of the OS upgrade, but then usually the ensuing cost of all the other necessary software and hardware upgrades (you often find out that some your mission critical current software and hardware has been made obsolete). You are also usually forced to buy a new computer as you quickly find that the new os and all its "bloatware" won't run efficiently on the old machine. When you add up all the hardware/software costs (plus the time lost getting everything to "play nice") I'd guess that the real cost of an OS upgrade is somewhere around $5,000-$10,000 per employee.

[Tearjerker]

Why isn't Microsoft supporting MS-DOS 3.1 still ? Stupid Micro$oft and their business model based on making money ! They be damned !11!1one!

[scwilliams]

It might be a first for MS but it would definitely help put them back in the game.

[MLStrand56]

Years ago there was guy who consolidated all XP updates into one downloadable package. He even advised which DL's to Avoid & why.

That was when XP was King. Where is he or other XP guru's now?

Moving illegal XP into Open Source, is a natural progression. Mickeysoft won't do it, but hackers will. I support every Open Source code writer who contributes to making XP ETERNAL!!!!!

[bhglennie]

Microsoft spends $billions helping the poor in the Third world and gets a nice tax write-off. Why can't they help the poor here and keep up the security updates- people here not worth helping?

[DrBill]

Why not have Microsoft do what it does best -extract money from the users. Set up a division to handle and service all retirees(XP, VISTA, 2007)for a modest annual fee. Like buying a house, the use fee's keep coming but so does the service.

[GetReal]

In topics involving some aspect of MS windows such as this one. I often see posts extolling the virtues of some variant of Linux, occasionally trying to make a valid point but often clearly just a muckrake or put-down for people using windows.
I want to address this comment to the people who do this. Windows is the dominant OS for both personal and business users. Microsoft is the company that produces windows and annually earns billions for itself and millions for many employees. Microsoft produces a product that is innovative and occasionally reliable (Xp) but the nature of their business is not to pay much attention to user wants >>> irritating a small number of customers constantly. I am sure there are employees at MS who follow blogs, track sales, study industry inventions and trends, etc,. These people sit on committees along side developers inside & outside MS. Overlay this activity with input from their own researchers in computer science, followed by the top tier as an overwhelming requirement to make the big bucks.

So what that very small minority of us who second-guess their efforts or are ticked-off about features added or missing in some new software release, becomes lost in the shuffle and is of no concern.

Eventually we use what is available, often as little as possible, while complaining bitterly, staying with something we know and know that meets all our requirements or under worse case we move to a competing system (apple & linux, etc.). Posting comments on the internet is a vent for emotions - nothing else!

Reality: Apple products are EXPENSIVE and often usable apps are blocked out. Linux is viable but goes against more of our desires/wants as an OS so that we never go beyond a few simple experiments as test.

Example: My previous employment was as engineering technician on a water pipeline & distribution system consisting of near 600 miles of pipeline from 6 inch to 56 inch diameter, 4 pump stations and 3 reservoirs. By my count, each major facility had from 6 to 21 devices running Linux, always with a single application embedded (a controller, server or monitor). In the same facility was typically 3 devices running some variant of Windows from Win-95 to Xp, running MANY different programs.

I have Ubuntu installed on one partition of one home computer, along with at least one install each of Win-2000, Xp, Vista and Win-7. Most are used daily or at multiple times weekly - Ubuntu the least. I don't now know anyone else running Linux or a free distro of anything. Being now simi-retired, I otherwise work free refurbishing computers and see dozens monthly, none setup for Linux or any free OS.

So my point. Overwhelmingly people and business use Windows, to the extent that it is in reality if not legally, a monopoly. So to post anything in a windows forum about Linux or other free systems does little to constructively address the issue under discussion. Please vent in appropriate forums!

[CindySanborn]

im probably like most people and can not afford a new computer and my xp runs just fine. my computer is only 3 years old. i did run to see if it could run windows 7 and i believe it said it could but the price for it is crazy. they should have it cheap or a free download or whatever u do to get it on here. . i have seen in places that r still running xp, so what r they to do change to i guess. its always about money.

[bjbrochu]

I do not think there is anyway Microsoft would do this, but gosh it would be nice if they did.

[cfnordstrom]

You must be kidding? If Microsoft turned XP into open source it would very quickly be picked up by supporters and would therefore be a substantial competitor to Windows 7 and later versions. It is very likely that many would never need to purchase another MS product.

[BenWaisted]

JoshMiller, on 14 April 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

Why would Microsoft continue to pay people to work on projects that generate NOTHING for the company? As an investor in Microsoft (and many other tech companies) I would vehemently object to this strategy.
Good for the free-loaders. Bad for business. I care way more about business than I do that people who can't come up with $350 every decade don't have up-to-date software.

JoshMiller, I hope your stock portfolio is doing well. As to your comment, with all due respect, I would ask you to take a closer look at open source companies such as Google, Oracle, and Intel. All of these companies offer Open Source solutions, yet still manage to make a massive profit margin, and all three are fortune 500 companies. "Open Source" is not the software of "free-loaders", it is a different approach to the development of software all together. Companies that deal in open source software are always a good choice for investors.

"Open Source" software means that the source code open to any that wish to modify it. This does not mean the software is free of charge, it means that the software is free to improve. Such notions help to ensure the legacy of the code, even of the company that originally created the software crumbles to dust. However, open source does not mean freely distributable. It only means if you have been given the rights to use it, you can do so under the terms of the license you acquired the software under. If the software was published under the GPL you are free to modify and distribute the code, as long as you give credit, but any subsequent code you create is subject to the terms of the GPL as well. Yet, there are many "Open Source" licenses that do not adhere to that philosophy, such as the BSD license.

I reiterate, open source enthusiasts are not “free-loaders”. What the advocates of an “Open Source Windows XP” are advocating will not require Microsoft to invest any more time or energy into it, if they see fit to do so. What they are proposing is that XP becomes a community driven legacy Windows Operating environment. This would not hurt Microsoft’s bottom line in fact, it would bolster it; especially if they decided to allow their programmers to offer up some code. The fact is, there continues to be a large XP user base despite Microsoft's best efforts.

Open source is a philosophy, so is closed source. They are not business models. Philosophy may drive a business model, but it does not change the bottom line of any business. Whether you would like to admit it or not, open source software is a highly profitable investment for any business. I am certain many people would be willing to buy a copy of XP, if it were supported. This is not an option, so I hope Microsoft will give open sourcing XP honest consideration.

This post has been edited by BenWaisted: 16 April 2012 - 11:01 AM

[watergate528]

Would make sense for Microsoft to just keep expanding XP make an updated version available for cheap to it's customers.
Of course this wound mean they would not make the MEGA bucks on WIN-7-8.
And no matter what, a large company making the most$$$ is bottom line.
Just look @ cell phones, a frigging joke.
Your new cell phone is an antique in less than a year.
Try and get a 3 yr. old dell phone serviced. They laugh @ you.

[watergate528]

watergate528, on 16 April 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

Would make sense for Microsoft to just keep expanding XP make an updated version available for cheap to it's customers.
Of course this would mean they would not make the MEGA bucks on WIN-7-8.
And no matter what, a large company making the most $$$ is bottom line.
Just look @ cell phones, a frigging joke.
Your new cell phone is an antique in less than a year.
Try and get a 3 yr. old cell phone serviced. They laugh @ you.

Darn microsoft keyboard.

[mipa]

Two words--software piracy!

If they set it free--millions of Chinese software writers will just steal their ideas blind.

[john3347]

There is one thing that is not being looked at and discussed here. I am still using Windows 2000. This OS lost mainstream support several years ago and lost security update support several months ago. I am actually using this OS to write this comment. It does not need open source, it does not need Microsoft, it just still works just like Windows XP will just continue to work for many years beyond 2014. The antivirus and anti spyware publishers can continue to update their products and the users can use these updated products to keep their computers "clean". The fewer the number of users there are of any given OS, the fewer security intrusions there will be. History has repeatedly proven this. All this comment is saying is that Windows does not even need any open source support to the OS itself, it doesn't need Microsoft support, it only needs to be used. That is what I am doing with Windows 2000 and will continue to do with Windows XP for years beyond 2014. The lack of a single focus would make open source do to Windows XP what it has done to Linux - by geeks, for geeks in hundreds of versions. Windows 2000 or Windows XP does not need this.

[SansOmniscient]

mike6875, on 14 April 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

My8 year old Dell 2400 cannot run Win7 I tried,but it runs XP great and I can't afford a new machine.So what are people like me supposed to do?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

All Microsoft is doing is pulling their employees off 5-10+ year old software support and moving onto something else.

Your Windows XP will continue to run just as it always has.
Your Office 2003/2007 will continue to run as it always has.
Vista, well, Vista never was fixed so I guess that's a dead issue.

People still run 20-30yr old DOS. DOS has long been unsupported, but who cares - if it works.

If, or when you buy a new PC, you'll get all of the new fangled bells and whistles then.

[MichaelPfeiffer]

Excellent Article.

I have 3 old computers in the house running Windows XP and they don't have more than 1GB ram and the highest processor on these computers is a Pentium 4. Upgrading to Windows 7 would not only kill the performance of these computers, but completely waste my time waiting for things to happen. I might have to put Linux on the computers once the XP security nightmare begins.

Microsoft needs to make another OS that is extremely low-cost performance wise leaving plenty of ram and CPU for tasks.

[JamieM]

Mark Gibbs has made an excellent suggestion here (and, yes, I know he is not the first to suggest this type of idea). Others, in their comments, have ridiculed Mark's remarks with arguments that Microsoft never OWED anyone updates or improvements. That is a fallacy. Everyone purchased Windows XP (and every other version), at a premium, with an expectation (both inherent and advertised) that the product would perform in a specific manner, with specific assurance of security to their systems and stored data, and anticipation that this would last for, at least, as long as the hardware it was installed on, continued to function, adequately.
Since those expectations were not met by the initial product, Microsoft did, in fact, promise to maintain and improve its performance and security. This has been done through the various updates Microsoft has offered, over the years. Though the third expectation was, perhaps, an unreasonable one, considering Microsoft’s evident greed and lack of integrity, from the first day Bill Gates founded the company, it is the one that continuing XP users are most disgruntled about. What is “ridiculous” in all of this, is that the marketing and management of Microsoft, did not realize that their software would be installed on computers and operating systems that would eventually be considered “dinosaurs” (Especially when you consider that, according to common scientific belief [not, necessarily, mine], though the dinosaurs were ancient, they were the predominate forms of life on this planet for MILLIONS of years). It was silly for Microsoft to think that their responsibility for the safety and security of their product – which is, as someone else pointed out, the overwhelmingly dominant “life form” in the market – would just disappear after a specific period of time – especially 11 years.
Mark’s recommendation would actually solve, not only the XP users’ dilemma, but could save Microsoft, at the very least, a great deal of lost goodwill and market share. Because, notwithstanding what other commentators experiences have been, I am personally aware of a tremendous number of individuals, and several very large corporations, which already have, or are in the process of dumping Microsoft for their competitors – a few for Apple, but most, for Linux – just to avoid having to face the loss of future support for their established and dependable computer systems. And, despite the opinions of corporate leadership, government analysts, or even the masses, themselves, there is no business that is “too big to fail”. Not even a company as large and entrenched in society, as Microsoft. Just ask the dinosaurs – oh, that’s right, they’re extinct.