anat0l
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Posts
- 11,704
XP for computers is great.
All of our internal programs work on XP, If you want to use other versions of windows you have to load the patches. PIA
Why don't they sell XP still on new computers instead of having to get it installed and costing more cash.
If you want to run XP, run it on computers with older hardware. New hardware will **** itself with XP. Either that or you'll be wondering "why the **** did I buy this PC with this spec just to run it at sub-par capacity".
If you have specific internal programs, they always only work with the OS which existed in mainstream at the time. Same thing with Win 95 / 98 applications when XP came out. Oh, the horrors....
Of course, most programmers could use a kick up the backside for learning how to handle memory better. That'd cut most of the cross-version problems at least in half, and even further after you consider how easy it would be to refactor and recompile for new OSes.
XP is genuinely turning into a dinosaur. If you need it, fine. If you like it, fine. Don't get me started on IE6; thank goodness IE8 is a compromise (because IE9 is better but it won't run on XP).
Oh, and all versions of Windows need updates when you fresh install them. XP needs SP3, Windows 7 is SP1. Plus all the security patches. Ubuntu has kernel and various patches. Virtually every program on every platform now has a "Check for Updates" button. I use App Store on my iPod touch to update apps on average 2-3 times per week (and I don't own a stellar number of apps either). Thank goodness iOS version updates are few and far between because that in itself is a time expensive and incapacitating operation.
To be honest, in programming terms the patch approach is not a bad one in theory. Version control of all sorts is a more sophisticated microcosm to patching. Where it goes haywire is when managers believe it's an excuse to push out software as fast as possible which is substandard and then they say, "Well, we can always just roll out a patch later; after all, end-user based bug diagnosis is much more effective than in-house testing."