Windows XP source code has leaked

Correct, but does anyone really care? Many of us will have died from old age long before ReactOS actually produces a UI without crashing! It seems to me that even if the team used ideas from XP, by the time they implemented them and tried to disguise the fact, that it would be so old and irrelevant no would care. Probably not even Microsoft.

I would love ReactOS to succeed but the only version that I've managed to get working on my various test machines is about four years old. All the newer versions, and like all those before my one and only working version, simply crash.

How modern? And what hardware models? Was the newer hardware Win 7 compatible or later?

I wish you'd be more specific and tell us how as it's never worked for me even after mucking about with different PC hardware and various different AHCI and other drivers.

The same goes for Mac. Mac has "textEdit" and "Notes" apps but it handles formatting, is slower to launch and is more of a Wordpad clone. For Paint, their Preview tool is terrible. I just want to take a screenshot, paste it in a file, maybe add a red circle or square and save it as png. Quick and fast.

Examples of this are comparatively well known but it seems to me it's really not relevant here. In those instances it's extremely unlikely that said institutions would have access to even the majority of the source code let alone all of it.

All they need are API hooks and or various security code that's relevant for their purposes, etc. If I were the Microsoft person responsible for interfacing with these banks, I'd do what I've done with unrelated stuff, which is to tell them just sufficient to do the job (that's to say only on a need-to-know basis).

Also, as I've mentioned ages ago, a few years back I visited a factory with a very expensive 5-axis industrial milling machine (I was told its value was about $300k). I was very surprised to see that it was still running Windows 2000—and that's something I'd definitely notice immediately, as W2K has always been my favorite Windows version.

When I asked the engineer in charge if they were going to upgrade Windows 2000 to a later version, he said without any hesitation whatsoever that they definitely would not. Moreover, without further prompting, he said that the machine had a design life of 25 years which meant that it would be in operation until at least 2025 if not longer.

He added that I wasn't the first to ask this question and went on to say that upgrading was irrelevant as W2K was still fully fit for purpose.

What is even more surprising is what I saw at a brand new industrial plant that I visited even more recently. This time the company was a large international operation with various plants across the world that is involved in the manufacture and assembly of heavy industrial equipment and parts. One of the reasons I was visiting the factory was that the plant was brand new, in fact tooling setups for some of its operations still had to be fully commissioned.

What I saw there were literally dozens of PCs still running Windows XP! The PCs were integral to the company's factory automation in that they controlled various industrial equipment and processes most of which were all brand new (after all, it was a new plant).

Here too, I quizzed the engineer in charge of showing me around about the use of the now very-dated XP on the company's PC. His reply was that by using XP in the operation of the new plant would ensure that this plant would still be identical with their other plants across the world and that this was strategically very important for many reasons, especially so at times of maintenance and breakdowns (as they could call on common practices and procedures already in use across all of their plants worldwide).

He added that whilst they still had considerable stocks of normal commercial PCs that were hardware compatible with XP, they nevertheless were aware of the potential that at some future point they might run out of 'normal' XP machines. To solve this potential XP/hardware obsolescence problem, they had an easy long-term solution, which is to use mobos that are normally used for industrial control processes (embedded systems, etc.) and there is no shortage of ones that are compatible with XP (in fact I've catalogs that have hundred of similar boards, so many in fact that it's a pain to differentiate or select the best board for one's application). Incidentally, many IT people have never seen these boards due to their niche nature. Even I think it strange that so many types of x86/64 PWAs exist as I can think of better or more appropriate processors for embedded systems, TI, Motorola and ARM chips for instance).

If anyone thinks old Windows technology is actually obsolete then let them think and think again. It's only naive or disinterested Windows users who are cajoled or coerced by Microsoft into upgrading Windows and those forced by default to do so when they buy new PC hardware who actually concern themselves Windows upgrades.

Of course it's only we IT professionals who are permanently preoccupied with OS upgrades and worry about such matters—not to mention the fact that we live in a perennial state upgrade-itis and always have security matters/patches permanently ingrained in our minds. The fact that we think this way lulls us into believing that most PC and smartphone users similarly think this way but in fact nothing is further from the truth. Moreover it's only a very small percentage of 'normal' PC users who ever bother to give their OS a second thought and that's only when it's a means to an end. Others including many industrial users are much more pragmatic and sanguine about upgrading and only do so when they absolutely must—and never at Microsoft's whim or wish.

Like it or not, expect to see ancient museum-piece versions of MS Windows still in use for decades to come.