21–30 of 63 posts
Still think Microsoft should open source XP. They have no interest in developing it despite user demand, let someone else take over.
They have no interest in developing it
So... where did Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1 come from, if not "interest in developing Windows"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How else do you test on IE?
Ah, ok. I use browserstack, but I see your point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious, why are you using XP in a vm instead of just using Linux?
How else do you test on IE?
Edit: meaning, why are you limiting yourself to just XP. I realize that was unclear.
Still think Microsoft should open source XP. They have no interest in developing it despite user demand, let someone else take over.
User demand? You mean the people saying "develop and give us free updates forever because we don't want to pay you for Windows new edition"? They have no interest in developing it So... where did Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1 come from, if not "interest in developing Windows"?
Yep, those people.
> So... where did Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1 come from, if not "interest in developing Windows"?
Not developing the XP branch, that people are still interested in (as this article demonstrates).
Still think Microsoft should open source XP. They have no interest in developing it despite user demand, let someone else take over.
Do you really believe there is any sort of significant demand for XP? Maybe you could make an argument for 7, but really the almost 13 year old Windows XP?
Well, I RTFA, so yeah, I do.
Still think Microsoft should open source XP. They have no interest in developing it despite user demand, let someone else take over.
Do you really believe there is any sort of significant demand for XP? Maybe you could make an argument for 7, but really the almost 13 year old Windows XP?
Most users probably use all the Windows-es exactly the same way. An acquaintance of mine was actually complaining that Windows 8 was too different.
Of course, security is a different story.
I personally still prefer XP, as I can tell you that Windows 7 is a horrible HD-eating monster, while Windows XP has a small footprint, and it's very lean.
Note - I'm a Linux user, by the way.
Many XP systems cannot be upgraded to another version of Windows, at least officially the hardware isn't adequate. On the other hand there was a huge opportunity to switch these systems to Linux if there had been a savvy distro with a little cash and a business model. But I fear that bus has left the station.
Overall Windows 8.1 is faster and more usable, with the BIG exception of the screen's 1024x600 resolution being unsupported in Metro (which made getting Windows 8.1 interesting). Intel has a hack to show a "larger" resolution in that space. Once Windows 8.1 was loaded I gave the laptop back to my Aunt. She'll probably never think about the Metro side of things (she'll use it as a large start menu for her traditional Windows apps) so that will be fine. I'll probably throw some more memory in there and it'll work for the next couple years.
Still think Microsoft should open source XP. They have no interest in developing it despite user demand, let someone else take over.
Still think Microsoft should open source XP. They have no interest in developing it despite user demand, let someone else take over.
Wouldn't open-sourcing XP be sort of meaningless unless they also open-sourced the Windows NT kernel, which Vista, 7 and 8 also run on? I can't imagine that happening.