It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionGOGmix: Games that have Windows XP support... elsewhere(99 posts)(99 posts)
(99 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 14, 2017
avatar
richlind33: Corporations that build products designed to need frequent replacement deserve to die -- as painfully as possible.
avatar
Aemony: "frequent replacement"

*checks XP's end of life date*

2014-04-08...

Age of XP at that time? 12 years, 5 months, 14 days.

Time since then (aka today) ? 3 years, 2 months, 6 days.

"frequent replacement" you say? Well, clearly you're correct there in regards of XP and GOG. Let's all raise our pitchforks against Microsoft and GOG for ensuring that XP was possible to use for only 15 years before it needed to be replaced.

But wait, what's that you say? Every Linux distro under the sun has a shorter support life than the age of XP? Well, what are we waiting for, let's all raise our pitchforks against the whole Linux environment as well! Shame on them!

---

Honestly your posts are ridiculous to read. Microsoft didn't build XP to need frequent replacement. The OS suffers from some horrible design and security choices that at the time was common to do everywhere since developers simply didn't know better. The onslaught of the Internet, however, threw every insecure aspect into the spotlight over multiple of years, which is something that Microsoft have been fighting and correcting ever since they begun work on Vista.

And that work of theirs? Well, it was finally completed. After over a decade of fighting it. And you know what took them so long? Backwards compatibility and the sheer complexity of the massive undertaking they took on.

Either you have a completely broken and insecure system running on design aspects and components over a decade old (which every scriptkiddie under the sun can break in under a minute), or you actually move forward while still retaining backwards compatibility with as much as possible until you finally must make the decision to axe the damn thing.

Apparently the job in economics weren't your thing. Do you want to be a security advisor instead? It would probably result in a flood of ransomware similar to the scale of WannaCry every single year, but at least we'll keep the backwards compatibility to 100% instead of the current 80-95%.

Moving forward? What's that?! Bah, what a useless concept! Let's all stand still instead.
You really are a gasbag, m8.

So riddle me this: why is MS trying to force hardware manufacturers to abandon Win 7? Because they're deeply concerned about security? So deeply, deeply concerned that they felt they had to spit in the face of their customers and try to "upgrade" their systems without their permission?

Is that what you think? o.O
Posted June 14, 2017
avatar
richlind33: So riddle me this: why is MS trying to force hardware manufacturers to abandon Win 7? Because they're deeply concerned about security? So deeply, deeply concerned that they felt they had to spit in the face of their customers and try to "upgrade" their systems without their permission?
The Ryzen-block in Win7/8 is quite a thing to behold indeed.
Not sure everyone here knows about it though.
Posted June 14, 2017
avatar
richlind33: So riddle me this: why is MS trying to force hardware manufacturers to abandon Win 7? Because they're deeply concerned about security? So deeply, deeply concerned that they felt they had to spit in the face of their customers and try to "upgrade" their systems without their permission?
avatar
Klumpen0815: The Ryzen-block in Win7/8 is quite a thing to behold indeed.
Not sure everyone here knows about it though.
I haven't been keeping up with that, so please share.
Posted June 14, 2017
avatar
Klumpen0815: The Ryzen-block in Win7/8 is quite a thing to behold indeed.
Not sure everyone here knows about it though.
avatar
richlind33: I haven't been keeping up with that, so please share.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3189990/windows/microsoft-blocks-kaby-lake-and-ryzen-pcs-from-windows-7-81-updates.html
Posted June 14, 2017
avatar
Klumpen0815: .
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3189990/windows/microsoft-blocks-kaby-lake-and-ryzen-pcs-from-windows-7-81-updates.html
Let's face it, the MS "cloud" is a botnet.
Post edited June 14, 2017 by richlind33
Posted June 15, 2017
avatar
richlind33: You really are a gasbag, m8.

So riddle me this: why is MS trying to force hardware manufacturers to abandon Win 7? Because they're deeply concerned about security? So deeply, deeply concerned that they felt they had to spit in the face of their customers and try to "upgrade" their systems without their permission?

Is that what you think? o.O
I am not discussing Windows 7. I'm discussing XP, which this thread is all about. Stop using straw man arguments.

avatar
Klumpen0815: The Ryzen-block in Win7/8 is quite a thing to behold indeed.
Not sure everyone here knows about it though.
That is another complex issue entirely, and one I have always criticized. Their reasoning behind the lock out of flawed, as those OSes aren't even capable of using the features Microsoft uses to excuse their behavior.

The core of the issue is that the newer CPUs supports instruction sets and features unavailable on older hardware. Microsoft don't want to officially provide patches for Windows 7 and 8.1 that makes use of these instruction sets and features. That reasoning is completely fine.

However the problem occurs when they actively block users of the newer CPUs to even get updates without those instruction sets/features for their old OSes. That is a completely different thing than merely not providing updates that makes use of the instructions/features.

I've used this metaphor before to describe the issue (a bit flawed, perhaps, but generally works):

Think that you have a HD TV. Well, that HD TV is capable of viewing both SD (low definition) and HD (high definition) material. Your TV will not use the HD features when watching a SD stream, obviously, and sources that transmits SD (VCR, DVDs etc) doesn't care about the HD aspects of your TV since they're completely unaware of those.

Now think that you buy a newer HD TV. This HD TV is almost completely identical to your old HD TV albeit with a few new HD features added beside the "old" HD features. This TV is still able to view SD content from your old VCR and DVD as your old one.

Now here comes the crux: How would you react if your TV manufacturer restricted your access to SD material simply because they don't want to provide HD features to that SD material? "Well... my SD sources (VCRs, DVDs) aren't even aware that my TV has HD features..." you might ask, and you're absolutely right. But the TV manufacturer doesn't care. They restrict your access to SD content for absolutely unrelated reasons.

SD - Windows 7 / 8.1, and its updates
The new HD TV with the new features - newer CPUs

A bit flawed, but the core of the metaphor (completely unrelated features the source isn't aware of nor can even utilize) is the same.

So yes, Microsoft is entirely in the wrong with that. However that isn't exactly comparable to this situation.

Edit: Jeez, that metaphor have multiple issues with it now that I reread it. Ignore it beyond the core aspect of it.
Post edited June 15, 2017 by Aemony
Posted June 15, 2017
avatar
richlind33: You really are a gasbag, m8.

So riddle me this: why is MS trying to force hardware manufacturers to abandon Win 7? Because they're deeply concerned about security? So deeply, deeply concerned that they felt they had to spit in the face of their customers and try to "upgrade" their systems without their permission?

Is that what you think? o.O
avatar
Aemony: I am not discussing Windows 7. I'm discussing XP, which this thread is all about. Stop using straw man arguments.
Uh huh...
avatar
Klumpen0815: The Ryzen-block in Win7/8 is quite a thing to behold indeed.
Not sure everyone here knows about it though.
avatar
Aemony: That is another complex issue entirely, and one I have always criticized. Their reasoning behind the lock out of flawed, as those OSes aren't even capable of using the features Microsoft uses to excuse their behavior.

The core of the issue is that the newer CPUs supports instruction sets and features unavailable on older hardware. Microsoft don't want to officially provide patches for Windows 7 and 8.1 that makes use of these instruction sets and features. That reasoning is completely fine.

However the problem occurs when they actively block users of the newer CPUs to even get updates without those instruction sets/features for their old OSes. That is a completely different thing than merely not providing updates that makes use of the instructions/features...

So yes, Microsoft is entirely in the wrong with that. However that isn't exactly comparable to this situation.
You know, for someone that isn't discussing Win 7 because it's a strawman, it sure does look like you're discussing Win 7. lol
Post edited June 15, 2017 by richlind33
Posted June 15, 2017
avatar
Aemony: I am not discussing Windows 7. I'm discussing XP, which this thread is all about. Stop using straw man arguments.
avatar
richlind33: Uh huh...
avatar
Aemony: That is another complex issue entirely, and one I have always criticized. Their reasoning behind the lock out of flawed, as those OSes aren't even capable of using the features Microsoft uses to excuse their behavior.

The core of the issue is that the newer CPUs supports instruction sets and features unavailable on older hardware. Microsoft don't want to officially provide patches for Windows 7 and 8.1 that makes use of these instruction sets and features. That reasoning is completely fine.

However the problem occurs when they actively block users of the newer CPUs to even get updates without those instruction sets/features for their old OSes. That is a completely different thing than merely not providing updates that makes use of the instructions/features...

So yes, Microsoft is entirely in the wrong with that. However that isn't exactly comparable to this situation.
avatar
richlind33: You know, for someone that isn't discussing Win 7 because it's a strawman, it sure does look like you're discussing Win 7. lol
My reply to you where entirely regarding XP, as in topic. My reply to Klumpen0815 were off topic and discussed Windows 7 since he brought it up, which prompted me to explain why it's not comparable to this topic (XP).

Are you unable to have two separate conversations with two strangers on-going at the same time?
Posted June 15, 2017
avatar
richlind33: Uh huh...

You know, for someone that isn't discussing Win 7 because it's a strawman, it sure does look like you're discussing Win 7. lol
avatar
Aemony: My reply to you where entirely regarding XP, as in topic. My reply to Klumpen0815 were off topic and discussed Windows 7 since he brought it up, which prompted me to explain why it's not comparable to this topic (XP).

Are you unable to have two separate conversations with two strangers on-going at the same time?
Actually, I brought it up, and you told Klumpen that it isn't exactly comparable, which of course is true, but I never said or implied that it was "exactly" comparable.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionGOGmix: Games that have Windows XP support... elsewhere(99 posts)(99 posts)
(99 posts)