ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
Home / News & Blogs / Hardware 2.0

7 reasons to stick with Windows XP

By | February 10, 2010, 6:18am PST

Last week a reader challenged me to come up with 7 valid (-ish!) reasons for users to stick with Windows XP rather than upgrading to Windows 7.

Here you go!

  1. Stick with what you know
    Every new OS comes with a learning curve. Sometimes that curve is gentle, sometimes it’s steep. By sticking with what you already know, you’re bypassing the whole learning curve thing altogether!
  2. Certainty
    Installing a new OS is a leap into the unknown as far as hardware and software compatibility goes. If you do your research you can reduce on these unknowns, but you can never truly eliminate them. Even with the best research and testing, it’s possible that something in your hardware and software ecosystem won’t take kindly to the upgrade.
  3. Cost
    While many people like to cling on to the belief that upgrading operating systems will save them money, in the real world this is rarely the case. Not only will the OS upgrade itself set you back a fair few dollars per system, but you then need to factor in other expenses (basically, replacements for anything that ends up not working because of the upgrade).
  4. XP is still supported by Microsoft
    Microsoft will continue to offer what it calls extended support for Windows XP (running the latest Service Pack) up until April 2014. This means that you will still be able to get security updates for the operating system for years to come.
  5. Developers still support XP
    Software developers still support XP, which means you can still find and get updates for software you run on your XP system. Remember, the OS is just a platform for other software.
  6. Upgrade components to stay secure!
    Rather than upgrading your entire operating system in the hope that you’ll be more secure, upgrade old and obsolete software you have installed on your OS instead.
    Secunia PSI is a great piece of kit for ferreting out vulnerable software that’s buried on your systems.
  7. Do you really need to upgrade?
    Think about it. What are you really missing by not upgrading? Again, while the sales literature for Windows 7 looks good, you need to think about how those new features will translate into value for money on the ground.

See, that was easy!

Just to be clear, I could come up with 7 reasons to stick with Vista or upgrade to Windows7 too … :)

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Hardware 2.0”

Topics

Operating System, Secunia PSI, Microsoft Windows XP, Tools & Techniques, Microsoft Windows, Operating Systems, Software, Management, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
Ask a Question Start a Discussion
377
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

Yes and No
LeonBA Updated - 22nd Mar 2010
You're wrong and you're right. Linux isn't necessarily secure--different flavors and distros offer different levels; some are even designed to be insecure (for testing purposes). But out of the box most distros are ahead of XP, and likely 7--and it has the potential to be *very* secure.

Actually security isn't the reason Linux hasn't made headway in the office. Active Directory and the integration it offers have a lot to do with that. Also MS is at a huge advantage because so many enterprise applications (Symantec Backup Exec, Photoshop, etc.) are all supported on Windows but aren't all supported on other platforms--and they integrate better with Windows shops.

I'm with you on sticking with XP, on my Windows boxes--but on my main system, and for what I plan to do long-term, I've dropped MS altogether and switched to Xubuntu.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
better yet
Linux Geek 10th Feb 2010
you can find 100 reasons to switch to Linux.
0 Votes
+ -
And 10,000 reasons not to
bobiroc 10th Feb 2010
NT
0 Votes
+ -
Only need 1 reason not to: It isn't Windows (nt)
ericesque 10th Feb 2010
.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh there are couple reasons
bobiroc 10th Feb 2010
1. No Cost (other than your time)
2. Less targeted by Malware (for now)
3. Hmmm... nope that's about it.
0 Votes
+ -
but....
mgj09 10th Feb 2010
1 No cost?

What about the cost of lost productivity with moving to a completely different platform?

2. Malware?

I agree that Linux is much more secure, but to be far, Windows 7 is more secure than XP.

Just sayin'
0 Votes
+ -
Those are things to defnintely consider
bobiroc 10th Feb 2010
nt
0 Votes
+ -
but...
bruiser2 10th Feb 2010
I think XP is more secure because most exploits have been discovered and patched where as with Win 7 exploits just haven't been discovered yet.
0 Votes
+ -
How true
Crash2100 Updated - 10th Feb 2010
Windows 7 is basically the same scenario as the whole Mac vs. Windows debate. Just as Apple wants you to think that their stuff is a million times more secure than any version of Windows, when it really isn't for the most part. The stuff is simply less popular, so it currently has fewer people finding malicious ways to exploit it.
0 Votes
+ -
That doesn't really make sense
bobiroc 10th Feb 2010
Windows 7 (and even Vista) greatly improved security but it cannot account for people that turn the security off or blindly click on things. You can go into XP and make it more secure by turning off services you do not need and running your user accounts as standard users instead of admins but Windows is still Windows so while there will be new security issues discovered as time goes on Microsoft did improve security. Other OSes are the same which is why you see security updates for them as well.
0 Votes
+ -
I kinda disagree for 2 reasons...
Wolfie2K3 10th Feb 2010
1.) There's that 17 year old vulnerability someone recently found that goes back to Windows 3.1.. If they could find one that one, they can find more. It may not be released until the final week of extended support in 2014 or they may wait until the week after support formally expires just to watch the mayhem.

2.) XP wasn't designed to be as secure. At least with Vista and 7, Microsoft made a conscious effort to make the entire platform secure.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Linux? Secure? LOL!!!
Dr.Who Updated - 10th Feb 2010
"I agree that Linux is much more secure, but to be far, Windows 7 is more secure than XP."

Linux is NOT secure by any stretch of the word. You should do a little homework on the statement you just made. It's the whole reason Linux isn't in the office-place and never will be. The only company to ever "secure" anything like Linux was Novell when they bought Unix7, stripped it to the bone and recompiled it into Novell Server 1.0. But no one has tried it since. Gee, I wonder why?

NOT!

And Windows 7 is what Vista was supposed to be! But I'm sticking with XP64 until the wheels fall off! There is no GOOD reason to switch unless you like starting over with a new computer and a fresh OS. But then you must like throwing money away too.
0 Votes
+ -
Show us this homework you speak of
tmsbrdrs 10th Feb 2010
In other words, you just made a claim that goes completely against every other claim made about Linux by anyone with any kind of credibility. Now prove it.

Either that or stop posting idiocy.
0 Votes
+ -
Quick and easy Linux security
Isocrates 11th Feb 2010
Jack Wallen (2010), Quick and easy Linux security, Ghacks.net, retrieved 2010, Feb 11, from http://www.ghacks.net/2010/02/02/quick-and-easy-linux-security/

LinusSecurity.com, (2010), Guardian Digital, Inc., http://www.linuxsecurity.com/
0 Votes
+ -
Yes and No
LeonBA Updated - 22nd Mar 2010
You're wrong and you're right. Linux isn't necessarily secure--different flavors and distros offer different levels; some are even designed to be insecure (for testing purposes). But out of the box most distros are ahead of XP, and likely 7--and it has the potential to be *very* secure.

Actually security isn't the reason Linux hasn't made headway in the office. Active Directory and the integration it offers have a lot to do with that. Also MS is at a huge advantage because so many enterprise applications (Symantec Backup Exec, Photoshop, etc.) are all supported on Windows but aren't all supported on other platforms--and they integrate better with Windows shops.

I'm with you on sticking with XP, on my Windows boxes--but on my main system, and for what I plan to do long-term, I've dropped MS altogether and switched to Xubuntu.
0 Votes
+ -
just sayin
tmsbrdrs 10th Feb 2010
Windows 2000 is also more secure than XP, so is Windows 98 and 95 for that matter due to the relatively low market share.

Yes, Linux is more secure by far. That's not the only reason to use it but it most certainly is one of the reasons.

Also, you'll have a harder time switching someone to Vista or Windows 7 than you would switching them to Ubuntu or SimplyMepis. If you give someone something that seems slightly familiar, they'll get lost much more quickly than if you give them something less familiar.
0 Votes
+ -
Say what?
Lester Young 10th Feb 2010
Your credibility went into the toilet when you said Win2k, Win98, and Win95 are more secure than XP. Then it went into the sewage treatment plant when you claimed that it is easier for an XP user to learn Linux than to learn Vista or 7. Too bad, because there is a case to be made for Linux being more secure than XP (but not Vista or 7).
0 Votes
+ -
@Lester Young
tmsbrdrs 10th Feb 2010
yes, it's easier for an XP user to learn Linux than to learn Vista or Windows 7. I did it, no training, no linux nerds around, no handbooks to follow and no outside help. I'd been using Windows since I first began computing and had run it until one year ago when I decided to switch.

My mom learned how to use Linux. This is a woman who couldn't even turn on my Nintendo when I was a child and she's learned Linux.

My aunt is learning Linux. She'd never touched a keyboard before 3 months ago and she's learning.

Say whatever nonsense you want about my "credibility" but I have plenty of proof walking around me.

I could sit down at a Vista/Win7 machine and most likely learn it in about a week. My mom or my aunt? They'd be lost.

As for the rest of your post. http://www.realtime-websecurity.com/articles_and_analysis/2007/06/vista_vs_linux_vulnerabilities.html
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=533

In other words, the only claim I've ever seen that Windows is more secure than Linux comes from Microsoft and those who think paying for software automatically makes it better.
0 Votes
+ -
What version of linux
bobiroc 11th Feb 2010
There are so many. Sure some are relatively easy to use and some users may not know the difference but your outrageous claims that Vista or Win7 are so much different than XP that people are too confused to learn it is just FUD. I upgraded my Mom and my Sister to Windows 7 and both of them picked up right where they left of. It is still Windows and has the same basic feel as Windows has had since before XP. Sure some things are slightly different but if your Mom or Aunt would be lost in Vista or Win7 then I cannot believe your claims that Linux was easier for them.
0 Votes
+ -
@tmsbrdrs: Has your mom ever....
Lester Young 11th Feb 2010
...had to hack the sound stack of Ubuntu to get it to recognize a sound card? Has she ever had to configure CUPS then assemble a driver from components downloaded from a Linux site and an Asian support site to get a printer to work? Has she ever had to convert an RPM package to install an application or driver she wanted? Has she ever had to install and wade through Compiz to find the one setting necessary to get the native multi-desktop feature to work properly on her machine? Has she ever lost window functionality, been kicked from an application to the login screen, or had shutdown hangs after an update? Has she ever had her boot configuration changed by an update and had to tweak it from a shell? Those are all things I experienced with Ubuntu. After a while, I decided it wasn't worth the bother. To say that Vista or 7 present greater challenges for a new user is laughable.

And the only people who say Linux is inherently more secure are.....Linux fanboys. They have to invent a conspiracy theory that Microsoft systematically doesn't report about 60-80% of vulnerabilities to tilt the balance in favor of Linux.

Linux patches fast, but they patch sloppy. And a bad patch can bork your machine worse than malware. I've never had a Windows update screw things up like some Linux updates.
0 Votes
+ -
@Lester Young
Isocrates 11th Feb 2010
You wrote, "I've never had a Windows update screw things up like some Linux updates."

I agree. Windows updates produce far worse issues than Linux updates for my family and me. One happened just recently. After Microsoft updated a few things on a Patch Tuesday, it was necessary to do a System Restore to before the update on my wife's computer, my son's computer, and my computer to get Windows to function, again. Then, I blocked the offending patch and reinstalled Microsoft's updates.

We have never had a Linux update cause a problem like that. Actually, I do not recall any Linux update causing the issues you described nor have we had the issues with any version of Ubuntu that you described. I recommend fearful Windows users, such as yourself, try a LiveCD of Linux Mint. You will be very pleasantly surprised.
0 Votes
+ -
Isocrates, System Restore is easy enough for a child...
xuniL_z Updated - 14th Feb 2010
for starters. That's why it's there, for cases when something goes wrong. It has your system back to working order in 5 minutes entirely painlessly, which can't be said for Mr. Young's problems.

But your post is too vague. What were the updates for and which was the offending update and why did it cause a problem?
Did you ever consider user error? I've never had a Windows update cause *any* problem whatsoever to any of my many Windows systems, nor any client that is under my ultimate responsibility.
With WSUS the only patches that go out are critical updates, and anything else, such as new versions of IE, Service Packs etc. are handled on an as needed basis.
But at home my machine is totally loaded with all MS programming software imaginable and most all widely used tools (some are free, open source tools which are great, I've nothing against open source software per se)

Point is, you have a localized problem and we need details of what patch caused the problem and then some details about how your machines are setup. You could be looking any number of problems that have nothing to do with Windows, so it's best to be sure before reporting as such.
If you are sure, my apologies but please give the detail to make people aware.
There are billions of Windows users and this site and any like it should be a community of people that are helpful to each other, so vague references to some non-heard of Windows update problem comes off as anti MS rhetoric.
does that make sense?
0 Votes
+ -
@Lester Young
tmsbrdrs 28th Feb 2010
Actually, no she hasn't. She's never had ANY problems running Linux, though I can't say the same about Windows.

She used to use my little brothers Windows machine, constantly complained about the popups (porn ads from game sites), the slowness (viruses, also from game sites), the fact that she couldn't properly do a search since all the results were hijacked (again, game sites).

She'd come and use my Ubuntu machine and her only problems were trying to remember to use Firefox instead of IE (he used firefox but she'd gotten used to clicking the blue E).

Along the same line, I recently replaced a neighbors machine with one running Xubuntu 9.10. She was thrilled to learn that she wouldn't need to defrag, clean the cache, run an AV scan constantly or worry about remembering some huge serial number or even where it's posted on her machine.

For 99.9% of users (you apparently being the exception), Linux just works.
0 Votes
+ -
Linux saves me time, lots of it
The Mentalist 10th Feb 2010
Not having to keep fiddling with a broken system could save you time too.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
No it doesn't. You're a liar.
ericesque 10th Feb 2010
Linux is synonymous with broken to anyone who has ever used it. Why do you continue to propagate this BS?
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
How do you know
Wintel_BSOD Updated - 10th Feb 2010
Did you epically fail when you tried to use it?

Or is it the unknown and you are afraid of it?
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Why are you in such bad mood?
The Mentalist 10th Feb 2010
Does the sight of your favorite inflatable doll, punctured, bother you that much?

Poor Gloria Holes always getting punctured. I guess you can still fix her a few more times, right?
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Notice the name...it explains it nt
fr0thy2. 10th Feb 2010
nt
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Don't know about the broken but the other part is correct - nt
TheBottomLineIsAllThatMatters 10th Feb 2010
nt
0 Votes
+ -
No, You're a lair.
Tsingi 10th Feb 2010
Meet me at recess, I'm gonna pound you!
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
@Wintel @mentalist
ericesque 10th Feb 2010
@Wintel
I used Ubuntu on and off from Warty to Jaunty. I've tried several other distros including Fedora, Open Suse, Knoppix, DamnSmall, Arch, and others--though I didn't end up coming back to those like I did Ubuntu. I probably know as much or more about how to get Linux to work than any of the poser fanboys raving about it on ZDNet.

For years I wanted so badly to leave Windows and go Linux full time. Ubuntu made it seem a tangible goal. It wasn't. Every update was a new battle. Things that used to work stopped working. Things they promised would start working didn't. Every update I had to find a new way to get my unsupported wireless card working because the old fix no longer worked. Flash support, media support, hardware support... it was a toss up every 6 months.

Then Microsoft gave me a free copy of Vista Ultimate. All my hardware was supported out of the box! I'd forgotten how nice that was. Any media file I threw at it would play! How convenient. I had several browser options that all supported Flash! BONUS!

Vista, regarded as Microsoft's worst OS ever, is simply better than Ubuntu-- which, is in turn, regarded as one of Linux's best distros. It was only after I finally remembered how easy Windows has always been that I realized the only reason I wanted to go to Linux was for geek cred. What a waste of time...

@mentalist
Made you look! AND you're a moron.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
What's this obsession of yours with inflatable dolls, EconoMentalist?
Coogol 10th Feb 2010
It's not the first time you use it (pun intended) in a response of yours...
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
That's a follow through of the worst kind Eric.
The Mentalist Updated - 10th Feb 2010
Your 'arguments' are going from bad to worse. As if it was not already too obvious to everyone now you confess your connections to M$. You are a paid Shill working for M$.

Your recent reply amounts to what some describe as "to crap a fart" or, to put it kindly, "a follow through of the worst kind." Thanks for doing it in front of everybody, you just made my day. Thanks!

P.S. Better start doing some laundry on your own or your mom will finally be able to validate her suspicions.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
What's wrong with YOUR Linux?
becabill 10th Feb 2010
I've been using Ubuntu for two years now because windows keeps breaking. Ubuntu hasn't yet, hasn't crashed or locked up and hasn't been infected or invaded. I miss some things about windows but not that!!!
0 Votes
+ -
Using it now on 4 machines, still not broken
tmsbrdrs 10th Feb 2010
Of course, your argument is. After all, by not having a single broken system in my household, I just proved the opposite of your claim and since your claim relied on every single Linux user agreeing with you....well, I guess you're just SOL.
0 Votes
+ -
@ericesque
tmsbrdrs 10th Feb 2010
Very strange that I, having only used Linux for a year, can not only get every single installation I try to work perfectly, out of the box, install Flash with every browser I use, including several not supplied through the repositories, and that you, claiming to know more about how to get Linux to work than I do, had so much trouble every six months.

I've gone through two distribution upgrades on my main machine and several fresh installs for neighbors and for other machines on my network. All are currently working and will continue to work without an issue not involving a dead motherboard or dead hard drive.

Perhaps you should think twice about claiming such proficiency in the future. After all, after a year, apparently I've made more progress than you have after several.
0 Votes
+ -
Your problem
sehamon 12th Feb 2010
The funny thing about linux verses windows is where to lay the blame. Windows is a commercially developed operating system, so if it doesn't work, you complain to or about microsoft. Linux is a community driven os, a product of the hard work of individuals giving of their own free time. So if something doesn't work in linux, its your own damn fault, learn how to use the product your downloading, quit being a leech, and provide some useful feedback to help make things better. So, until you try and fix it yourself, you have not right to complain. And if you can't fix it yourself, its only because of your own ineptitude. That's why people don't like linux, because they actually have to think for themselves
0 Votes
+ -
@sehamon
bobiroc 12th Feb 2010
Is that how it is. If you have a problem while using Windows blame Microsoft and if you have issues with Linux blame yourself. Wow, with that kind of attitude no wonder people are not flocking to the free operating system. Your post is a bunch of BS. Users issues exist on all OSes and by your claim Linux is perfect and has no issues at all. There may be a few distros geared towards the desktop and the end user but overall it offers less hardware support and less software support and that is the plain truth. People want an OS that will work with their hardware and software and too many it is not worth the risk that linux may or may not work with their hardware.
0 Votes
+ -
Hum I use both Win7 and Linux and I fiddle less with Win than I do
fr0thy2. 10th Feb 2010
with Linux...so see the street goes both ways
0 Votes
+ -
Not in my case
The Mentalist 10th Feb 2010
windows simply couldn't deliver what I needed so I kept fiddling with it.
0 Votes
+ -
Absolutely Right
hantoyo1@... 10th Feb 2010
I used and am still working with both Ubuntu 9.04, 9.10, and OpenSuse 11.2. None of these open source OSs deliver what they claim. But of the three, I do like OpenSuse the most, but above all, Windows just simply works.... Why can't open source??
0 Votes
+ -
@The latest Shill to come by: That is not both ways, you are not agreeing.
The Mentalist 10th Feb 2010
Hint: Adding a bit of truth to the mix could do wonders for your (yet nonexistent) credibility.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
As if EconoMentalist's credibility was up there!!!
Coogol 10th Feb 2010
nt
0 Votes
+ -
sure I fiddle more with Linux
tmsbrdrs 10th Feb 2010
Of course, I have to fix it much less than Windows.
0 Votes
+ -
Gee I don't have that problem
bobiroc 10th Feb 2010
My computer at home has been running 24/7 for over 5 years and the last time it was off was when I was out of power for 18 hours. Haven't had a crash, BSOD or Virus in longer than 5 years.

The systems that "break" at work are bound to happen when you manage 2500+ computers but very little software issues other than end users messing with settings or getting crapware installed like tool bars and such. When you deal with Students that try to do things they are not supposed to this tends to happen no matter what the OS because they mess up the iMacs pretty frequently too.
0 Votes
+ -
Linux saves me time?
bryonhowley 10th Feb 2010
This very true because with Linux I would not be able to do most of the things I do with Windows!
Play the latest games, they do not have a Linux version.
Play HD Movies with full DXVA(Hardware Acceleration)

So that leaves surfing the web and maybe listen to music although since most all of my 60gig worth is in .wma format I would not be able to do that out of the box with most disto's and that leaves out DVD and Blu-Ray movie playback also!
0 Votes
+ -
I can play all that without a hitch, with format convertion sometimes
The Mentalist 10th Feb 2010
Except for blue-ray, which none of my players doesn't support, I can watch/listen to pretty much everything in Linux.
0 Votes
+ -
@The Mentalist
Rama.NET 10th Feb 2010
you are lying. I see you always here on ZDNet. Where do you get to work,
listen to music or watch movies. wink.
--Ram--
0 Votes
+ -
Drawbacks
steveh99 11th Feb 2010
Sounds to me like you have drawbacks in all OS's
0 Votes
+ -
That is why we dropped Linux at work for Windows 7
GuidingLight Updated - 10th Feb 2010
The great experiment failed. We (and the consultants) spent more time trying to get Linux to do 2 thirds of what we were accomplishing with WindowsXP.

We made the dicision to dump it all in December. We have converted three quarters of the company back (forward actually) to Windows 7.

It should be finished in about two weeks.

The problem: too much fiddling with broken Linux system .
0 Votes
+ -
Funny, The London Stock Exchange dumped Windows and moved to Linux just ...
The Mentalist 10th Feb 2010
... to stay in business.
  • Flagged

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix