I was in a discussion here recently about 64 bit and how much memory people had in their machines these days.

A somewhat unrelated topic is that Microsoft are in the process of dumping XP.

Now all those old desktop boxes with only 500k of memory will increasingly migrate in containers to Africa, like the discarded mountain bikes, and old banger cars. When they get here they have traditionally had XP installed, since that is readily available for free - legal or not.

Microsoft might do itself a favour in the long term if instead of just dumping XP, it started from the Wine code, and made an XP lookalike Linux distro. That way, the old boxes would have an extended life, Microsoft would have goodwill from a lot of users, and would not have to spend a lot of money keeping the old OS, the spammers would be blocked in their process of taking over all those unprotected XP machines, and lots of young African girls and boys could learn to program in D ;=)

Steve

On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 04:31:01 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:
> I was in a discussion here recently about 64 bit and how much memory people had in their machines these days.
>
> A somewhat unrelated topic is that Microsoft are in the process of dumping XP.
>
> Now all those old desktop boxes with only 500k of memory will increasingly migrate in containers to Africa, like the discarded mountain bikes, and old banger cars. When they get here they have traditionally had XP installed, since that is readily available for free - legal or not.
>
> Microsoft might do itself a favour in the long term if instead of just dumping XP, it started from the Wine code, and made an XP lookalike Linux distro. That way, the old boxes would have an extended life, Microsoft would have goodwill from a lot of users, and would not have to spend a lot of money keeping the old OS, the spammers would be blocked in their process of taking over all those unprotected XP machines, and lots of young African girls and boys could learn to program in D ;=)
>
> Steve

Perhaps of interest:
http://www.reactos.org/
http://zorin-os.com/

On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 08:07:12 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 04:31:01 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:
>> I was in a discussion here recently about 64 bit and how much memory people had in their machines these days.
>>
>> A somewhat unrelated topic is that Microsoft are in the process of dumping XP.
>>

>
> Perhaps of interest:
> http://www.reactos.org/
> http://zorin-os.com/

Mmm, interesting, but I don't think either of them are the right thing.

I used the term XP lookalike by accident. I should have said XP clone or replicate or something.

The Linux kernel must be powerful enough these days to support complete replication of XP functionality

Steve

On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 11:20:14 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

> I used the term XP lookalike by accident. I should have said XP clone or replicate or something.
>
> The Linux kernel must be powerful enough these days to support complete replication of XP functionality

ReactOS targets exactly that.

But I still don't follow. Modern Windows software that would run on XP is getting extinct, and even if it would run on XP, it's unlikely that the boxes you mention would suffice anyway.

If you're talking Linux, why not just use Linux?

On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 11:20:14 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:
> On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 08:07:12 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>> On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 04:31:01 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:
>>> I was in a discussion here recently about 64 bit and how much memory people had in their machines these days.
>>>
>>> A somewhat unrelated topic is that Microsoft are in the process of dumping XP.
>>>
>
>>
>> Perhaps of interest:
>> http://www.reactos.org/
>> http://zorin-os.com/
>
> Mmm, interesting, but I don't think either of them are the right thing.
>
> I used the term XP lookalike by accident. I should have said XP clone or replicate or something.
>
> The Linux kernel must be powerful enough these days to support complete replication of XP functionality
>
> Steve

My question would be: why bother? Why not just use linux?

People who can't afford modern machines or expensive proprietary software is a market that linux caters for (almost) uniquely well already.

On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 12:20:14 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

> If you're talking Linux, why not just use Linux?

To people who can just about manage to use outdated software on XP, it's probably a big deal to switch to Linux. And is that outdated version of Quickbooks available to run under Linux?

You are living in a different world, so don't just assume that the knowledge and availability of equipment that you are accustomed to exists elsewhere.

I was being semi-sarcastic, since as far as I'm concerned, Windows could die tomorrow. What I said was that Microsoft might be doing themselves a favour in the long term if ...

Steve

On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 12:20:53 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> My question would be: why bother? Why not just use linux?
>
> People who can't afford modern machines or expensive proprietary software is a market that linux caters for (almost) uniquely well already.

John,

Please see my answer to Stanilaw.

Steve

On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 18:04:44 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:
> I was being semi-sarcastic, since as far as I'm concerned, Windows could die tomorrow. What I said was that Microsoft might be doing themselves a favour in the long term if ...

I understand your point but I don't see this happening anytime
soon. Because how Microsoft will tell to their inverstors (and
hardware vendors) that they will continue provide XP (or somewhat
equivalent) instead of forcing sales of the new Windows?

Matheus.

On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 18:04:44 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:

> To people who can just about manage to use outdated software on XP, it's probably a big deal to switch to Linux.

That doesn't have anything to do with the OS. It's a mentality problem.

> And is that outdated version of Quickbooks available to run under Linux?

There's GnuCash, but I wouldn't know all the details, I don't use either. What I do know is there are alternatives except for very specialized software. It comes down to willingness to explore and/or switch.

> You are living in a different world,

You keep repeating this as if no one in this NG understands what you're saying. Respectfully, I'll say that you are wrong. I know all too well what it is to not have access to the latest greatest hardware or money to buy that new slick hoptoshop or whatever. Not to mention not having an affordable and stable Internet connection. I hope I don't need to go down the chain to more meaningful problems.

You're being dismissive just because people most of which you can safely assume to be younger than you disagree with you.

I'll repeat myself just to clarify: even if it so happened that XP continued its life, in the near future you won't be finding any software that would run on it. At least not proprietary software. Outdated hardware is not the only issue here.

On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 21:05:01 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
> On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 18:04:44 UTC, Steve Teale wrote:
>
>
> You keep repeating this as if no one in this NG understands what you're saying. Respectfully, I'll say that you are wrong. I know all too well what it is to not have access to the latest greatest hardware or money to buy that new slick hoptoshop or whatever. Not to mention not having an affordable and stable Internet connection. I hope I don't need to go down the chain to more meaningful problems.
>
> You're being dismissive just because people most of which you can safely assume to be younger than you disagree with you.
>
> I'll repeat myself just to clarify: even if it so happened that XP continued its life, in the near future you won't be finding any software that would run on it. At least not proprietary software. Outdated hardware is not the only issue here.

I take your points.

Thanks
Steve