Pulling the plug on expired Operating Systems
@Eggcorn Point taken
Talking about owing a piece of history, about 10 years ago a friend of mine had recovered an HP3000 series III (from the 80s) mini computer system... Main Unit the size of a fridge, 640MB drives the size of a dishwasher... Still working, on MPE... What a blast.... on the electrical bill.
I guess I'm now part of history as well.
Thx for your feedback.
Big tech in 2020: We all support the new green plan, watch us doing more backsliding green propagandas that make you feel really good about "us" while we continue polluting the planet for great profits...
Big tech in 2023: We are still fully committed to the new green plan, watch us bricking all your old PC & laptop to fill the beautiful green landscape with fully functional computer hardware...
What so "green" about these new green plan anyway? I have a feeling it's more about sucking all the green dollars from consumer than preserving the green environment to combat the ever so ominous global warming, or whatever climate change that they are suppose to care about. LOL
@dude99 Yeah, don't trust big companies that claim to be the good guys fighting for what's right. It's usually a load of hot air. Trust the ones who give you a good product at a good price!
I just accept that it makes economic sense to upgrade my PC every ten years or so. Performance increases by an order of magnitude in that period.
- 2001 Windows ME
- 2013 Windows 7 64-bit
- 2021 Windows 10 (my current hardware)
I plan to keep using Windows 10. I only upgraded to Windows 10 on my Windows 7 PC because time was running out to do it for free.
Hard disagree. It was true in the 90s weere every few years that difference was so massive to be clearly visible to even non-PC-savvy persons. However that hasn't been the case for almost 2 decades now.
For the average PC user, and their daily usage requirements, a 10 year old PC will not be much different than a 1 day old PC.
The only major difference they would notice is the improve load times from an SSD, and that can easily be added to a 10 year old PC simply by swapping drives.
The hardware has not experienced such great advances in PCs in the last 10 years, apart from having a little more RAM and the generalization of the SSD, nothing that is not possible to upgrade on an old PC.
Of course, the big companies have transferred the obsolescence of the Hardware (practically all PCs last perfectly 10 or more years) to the software (separate printers, with replacement cartridges that cost as much as a new printer).
But still it is inevitable that an OS reaches its compatibility limits with different current computing demands. Windows 7 was released in 2009 and has outlived many PCs, but I think having to replace it now, after 13+ years, doesn't qualify as planned obsolescence, wouldn't be fair. Even if you're using Linux, you'll find that over the years also a certain distro will become obsolete for many tasks, if not updated.
Naturally, for those who use the PC for office apps and little else, they can get by perfectly with an old Pentium with a tube screen, but if you want to be able to take advantage of new web formats, watch movies in a decent resolution, want to play something other than old Space Invaders, designing with realistic graphics applications, without dying while the images render, requires equipment and software to match, despite the fact that some cry out to heaven for having to update their software or hardware, who cannot find VHS tapes for their recorder, cassettes for his Walkman, having to buy a new TV to be able to watch DTT broadcasts, Super8 cameras, etc..
Technologies advance exponentially by giant steps and this makes it necessary to update, yes or yes and we only have to do it in the least traumatic way possible, if we want to take advantage of these new technologies, but this is left to the decision of the needs of each.
@eggcorn: You don't get it. It's not that I'm just "unwilling" to switch OS, it's that I don't have the money, thus time to fix what essentially isn't broken.
I'm not saying that Vivaldi itself is liable to pay me anything, but that someone has to pay me for the time I cannot work, because otherwise I may not be able to afford rent or eat for the week.
@pesala: What you're talking about are updates, not forced upgrades that cost money. There are only very few reasons why old Windows versions couldn't continue to receive patches and the main one is because Microsoft makes money selling new versions. Which makes this planned obsolescence, plain and simple.
There was this whole thing from Microsoft when Windows 10 came out, where they made big statements about Windows 10 being "the last version of Windows" and that it would get patches indefinitely. And yet, Windows 11 came out. Can you take a guess on why?
Also, even if the Vivaldi team are not the ones that made the actual mostly arbitrary decision to stop support, they are still active participants in this system.
@User5765 , you don't have to either, whether it continues to work for your purposes depends solely on your own demands. If it is enough for you to use the PC as you write documents in Word, you can continue using it until the final judgment without problems.
Everything we use requires time for care and maintenance, nobody pays us for this time. It's not a matter of money and running a new OS doesn't take that much time, so you can keep working, customizations can be done on the fly.
It's certainly a nuisance, but sooner or later it's inevitable. It happens with all the other things we use and want to make the most of, not just computing. If they offer us the possibility of working with them faster and more efficiently, apart from making it more secure to use, it is worth spending time installing and customizing it.
Valid since we exchanged our typewriter and slide rule for our first PC.
@Catweazle I am using a 10 year old processor, and I can run Resident Evil 8 at 60 FPS 1080p with medium to high settings.
The idea that a 10 year old PC can barely play Youtube is just laughable.
@catweazle: What your saying doesn't really apply, though, because upgrading Windows is not really an objective improvement and a step forward in technology. Especially on older hardware, where the whole bloated system eats up all the RAM and runs at approximately 11 FPS.
It's as if I had to replace my perfectly working, finely tuned typewriter for a needlessly bulkier model that is too heavy for my desk, stripped of all the modifications I made to my old one, only because the manufacturer decided it wouldn't provide me any sheets of paper for the old model anymore.
Also, sure, in an ideal world, everyone would be able to afford the time and money for maintenance, but here in the real world, some of us just don't. Especially not for the kind of "maintenance" that is purely artificial and doesn't actually improve or fix anything.
@User5765 , It is not true that W10 uses more resources than W7, ok, it spends a few megabytes more, but this is irrelevant in computers less than 10 years old. As a general rule, if it works well with W7, it will also work with W10. There are even netbooks with W10.
Here's what it takes to upgrade to Windows 10 on your PC or tablet:
Latest OS: Make sure you're running the latest version—either Windows 7 SP1 or Windows 8.1 Update.
Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster processor or SoC
RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) for 32-bit or 2 GB for 64-bit
Hard disk space: 16 GB for 32-bit OS or 20 GB for 64-bit OS
Graphics card: DirectX 9 or later with WDDM 1.0 driver
Display: 800 x 600
Bloatware to eliminate are in every Windows since Win 95, Only there are telemetries you must eleminate, but this also isn't a great problem, most you can make in the settings. Easier using the GodMode, or with apps like Optimizer (FOSS)
@catweazle: Well, you're just wrong here. Windows 10 is definitively much more bloated. I tested fresh installs of both in a VM. Can you guess which one ran fine and which one like crap, even with RAM and GPU allocation maxed out?
Also, Windows 7 uses 8 to 10 GB on the hard drive, while 10 occupies 18 to 20GB.
@User5765 , I've edited my post al respect, running W10 in a VM isn't the same as running it directly. In VM you're running two OS at the same time.
W10 isn't more bloated as all other Windows before, only it has certainly more telemetries, but as I said, you can eliminate them. not a big problem for an user with some experience.
Windows naturally doesn't say much about how to do it in its documentation, but even so, it allows you to do it leaving W10 as the OS as it is, without more. More complicated only in W11, where this is already almost impossible, but this problem arises soon within 3-4 years.
Interesting reading through the Comments on this thread (to which I've added a few myself) and see the number that are from Linux users recommending that OS as a replacement.
Last week I posted a piece called "Linux: What's the big deal?" on my Vivaldi blog Stuff by Travellin' Bob (travellinbob.vivaldi.net) that, as the title suggests, asked for some pointers about Linux and its popularity, from a strictly layman's perspective as I am a technical illiterate.
No idea how many people have read it (if any) - there has been zero response. It would be nice if some of the Linux advocates on this thread would be kind enough to have a read and add some Comments......I've been toying with the idea of switching for a couple of years already but never found anyone to give some simple advice.
@User5765 When you put it that way, you have a point: The computer manufacturer should have given you a straightforward way to switch to an OS that will continue to get security updates. By not doing that, they're arguably renting a computer to you instead of selling one.
That said, it is your responsibility to properly back up your files! It's something you should be doing regularly, not just something you do when it's time to update the OS.
@TravellinBob So, Bob, You can't find a blow-by-blow comparison of Windows and Linux because there are over 100 Linuxes and only one Windows.
So here is what I can tell you from my own experience with a (very) few Linux distros:
If Microsoft burned down tomorrow, I would adopt Linux in a heartbeat, never look back, and dedicate myself to the learning curve. And that's the thing - the learning curve.
As of now, however, that's much less of an issue than it once was. Reason being, you and I have been learning Windows for 30 years or better, but at the same time, Windows (and to a lesser degree, Linux) has been learning us. MS has iteratively changed Windows to adapt to human nature, intuitions, motor control systems and nervous system, as least insofar as they can understand such things, but at the same time, so has Linux. And as people are people the world over, the traits of the two kinds of systems, graphical user interfaces, color pallettes, keyboard and mouse usage, etc. have tended to converge in the two systems. Windows is (a little) like Linux now, and Linux is (a lot) more like Windows now. Hence, the culture shock of moving from one to the other is getting to be pretty much minimal.
One does have to learn some different command structures, operative habits, update expectations, but it's not at all traumatic. The trick is, to find a system which is not jarringly different from Windows, which contains a fair amount of third-party software so that online content like audio and video can still be consumed. etc., and documents in familiar formats can also be opened, edited, saved, etc.
For these purposes, I have tried some lesser-known Linux distros that claimed to be comfortably familiar for Windows users, and found that they were anything but. But after some poking around I found I could be quite happy with Linux Mint or ArchLinux Manjaro Cinnamon, the latter being all the more attractive because its default browser is Vivaldi. So its authors work extra hard to coordinate insofar as practicable with the Vivaldi crew to keep the system and the browser humming along smoothly with each other. Further, Manjaro is more resource-thrifty than Mint in my experience, and snappier on more meager hardware.
But there are some caveats. There are some kinds of software whose authors simply never bothered to build anything that would work in Linux - like Quickbooks for instance. It only works on Windows and Mac. Also of course, there are none of those MS Office apps that work on Linux. LibreOffice does of course, and so does my preference, Softmaker Free Office (which is a ton lighter and faster than LibreOffice and actually more format-compatible with the MS stuff). You also have to find substitutes for things like Photoshop or any Corel software (like paintshop) etc., etc.
Long story short, there's just no reason NOT to use Linux unless you have some PARTICULAR software or content that has no Linux-friendly version, that you simply must use for reasons known only to you. I could literally fire up the Linux box to my left here and do all my work and keep all my clients happy for a week or better. Never miss a beat. But when I had to update my books or send invoices, I would have to slide back over to this machine and open Quickbooks. Cuz there's no version that works on Linux.
But then, there literally is NO Linux distro that spies on you. So that's pretty kewl.
And of course Chrome OS basically doesn't work at all for many purposes unless you are wired into the Borg via the internet, because it lacks the resources to support a full suite of actual working software. So, no.
So I am sure I haven't anticipated all your questions, and I'm a Linux noob myself so there's much I don't know. But as old-and-set-in-my-ways (pushing 70) as I am, and as plugged-in to Windows as I've had to be, if I ever retire, I'm probably going to shift my focus to Linux, learn it in earnest, and be skillful with it before I take my last breath.
@Ayespy , I quite agree with this observation, apart from some details, such as the language used in the commands in Windows and Linux (necessary use in Windows very little and in Linux also less and less), extensions of some files and their handling, something easier in Windows.....
A current distro does not require a learning curve that can be defined as such (I at least did not have any problems in the past with Kubuntu, with which I immediately felt quite comfortable).
In any case, currently 99% of our use of the PC is online, where the environment is the one offered by the browser and where the OS is irrelevant, it is also irrelevant for the use of graphic applications, editors, office apps, games, etc. (of this there are also more and more of the latest generation for Linux).
In summary, the user does not have to worry about difficulties regarding a change from Windows to Linux based on certain differences at the level of system management, since how many times is it necessary to tinker with the UI and the functionalities of an OS, once configured and with the apps that are needed?
Thank you for this detailed article.
I found it very informative.
I copied some of it and will come back to it later.
@Ayespy Thanks! That's possibly the best response I've ever had to any questions, theoretical or otherwise, about Linux (and that's with all due respect to others who've been good enough to contribute their time and opinions).
We're in the same age bracket, so no doubt have many similar difficulties and concerns about all this modern stuff - I remain a fountain pen and nice paper for letters man, myself, and it's annoying when people still respond to me by email!
Anyhow, you've given me something to chew on, so thanks for that!
This post is deleted!