I can see that, I can see many smaller business and homes keeping XP. It still works, AV on it still works, software on it still works, its just updates and security updates that wont be happening. But in a corporate world, there cannot be an unsupported OS, it cannot happen.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Lenovo Passes Apple in U.S. PC Shipments As Worldwide Market Flatlines
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can see that, I can see many smaller business and homes keeping XP. It still works, AV on it still works, software on it still works, its just updates and security updates that wont be happening. But in a corporate world, there cannot be an unsupported OS, it cannot happen.
The place I work for has locations all across the country in over a hundred locations in every state and each location passes hundreds of peoples financial information through the internet on a daily basis. They use a customized program that runs all of this and there is no AV installed anywhere that I could see. It is locked down so that each computer can not access the internet on it's own or run any other programs.
Ok, so your employer is a large corporate like mine. Im surprised they still use XP, but if their IT section decrees that their use of XP is not being impacted by the lack of updates, then that would make sense. My employer is a telco, 5000 employees, internet, intranet, online access by customers to make changes, chat etc is a very open scenario, like many other corporates I would assume.
Ah, alright.
I just had NO clue what you were trying to say... the sentence was structured weird.
Guess again. Not all copies of XP are connected to the Internet and replacing a perfectly working system for semi-automated equipment makes little sense when the down time could be tremendous across thousands of machines nation wide with any little complication. Some of these systems have been running for over a decade now with XP. Management is loathe to replace them any time soon for that reason. They are most definitely NOT all "already" phased out. Don't speak in absolutes about things you can't possibly know. It looks ridiculous to do so.
Which is what the poster then said about his employer, that I agreed with.
Geez, another insulting post. And how many large corporates these days keep their machines of the internet? And how many large corporates keep 10 year old hardware? Thats ridiculous
I think you must consider all "corporations" to be business/banking, information based, type establishments or something. There is no need for a manufacturing plant to put the computers that control the automated machinery on the Internet. All that would do is introduce pointless security risks to something that is locally controlled. Frankly, it would be asinine in many cases with zero benefit. Do you know how many systems use XP embedded on top of that? Just about every ATM in the country STILL uses it (which is why M$ is still supporting it). "Ridiculous" or not, it's the way it is. It's also why most businesses are passing on Windows 8.x. It's not corporate friendly. In fact, our other computers that do have Net access were just replaced in the past 6 months with Windows7 machines (they were also using XP Pro before that despite coming with Vista originally, which was wiped and replaced with XP Pro). Windows 8 wasn't even considered for reasons obvious to many. All our automated equipment uses XP or in a few cases UNIX and it isn't connected to the Internet (only to other intranet sites). It gets semi-regular software updates (for the custom software), but the OS hasn't changed in 12 years. It was using UNIX before that. The automation equipment itself dates back as far as 1990. It's maintained only a daily basis by maintenance department. It gets heavy use and it gets dirty. It doesn't need replaced. You don't replace perfectly working multi-million dollar hardware just for the hell of it. Maintained, each machine can last 30 years or more. Do you know how many computers systems come and go during that time? The machine can physically only operate so fast regardless of the controlling computers. Actually, things could be improved (one modern computer could easily do the job of 5-6 now on some machines), but the old hardware is even stockpiled (some are still using Pentium III CPUs if you can believe it and we have lots of "new" ones on-hand). You can't just change these computers for newer ones since entire systems depend on busses no longer found in modern hardware. Hell, just to go to USB one some of the equipment in the 21st century, serial-bus converters had to be used since many systems require serial ports. These machines have custom hardware systems that can't just be upgraded to USB or Gigabit or Thunderbolt or something. The entire sub-systems would have to be replaced. It's on the drawing boards for a progressive change in the next 5 years or so, but it means replacing tons of hardware on every machine (some of these machines are a quarter of a football field long or longer). The rest of the machine will still be there. You don't change solenoids and belt systems to put in a new computer controller.
Last edited:
If you read my post to the OP of that point, you will have seen that I accepted his reasoning. Unless in your opinion, non internet uses of XP machines is extremely common and widespread, and not a very small minority as I would expect. And no I didnt bother to read your long winded post
I guess you wouldn't know since you refuse to read more than a sentence in two (I'm guessing your teacher must have loved you in English classes when it's expected one to be able to read not only one small paragraph, but entire books.
)Let me shrink it down. Yes, I believe XP is still widespread in automation and manufacturing and kiosks (e.g. many ATMs still use XP embedded to this day).
I guess you wouldn't know since you refuse to read more than a sentence in two (I'm guessing your teacher must have loved you in English classes when it's expected one to be able to read not only one small paragraph, but entire books.
Let me shrink it down. Yes, I believe XP is still widespread in automation and manufacturing and kiosks (e.g. many ATMs still use XP embedded to this day).
Geez, your altitude speaks for itself. Why should I waste my time reading a defensive and rant based post, where manners are not part of your mindset, and you did not even read my one liner that I ave now written twice. \
Do you think I disagree that non Internet uses of XP exist? IMO they are quite minimal overall. Overall means overall. If you wish to state a use case where it is widespread and probably 90%, that is irrelevant, unless the prevalence of XP still being in use OVERALL is widespread.
The first one you have listed, these are not a mac's:
https://system76.com/laptops/model/galu1
http://www.pugetsystems.com/nav/traverse/standard/customize.php?sys_id=47
This is the only one I checked on.
So because it's expensive it's cheaply made? If it cost less it wouldn't be cheaply made? Your logic is bad and you can't provide any better built option so I'm gonna guess you have no idea what you're talking about.
I think you ought to look up the definition of "cheap" because it's clear he does know what he's talking about relative to price. Obviously, you won't, so I'll do it for you:
Definition "Cheap": a. Relatively low in cost; inexpensive or comparatively inexpensive
The key words there are "relatively" and "comparatively". If something costs $2000 and uses $600 worth of parts and labor and distribution with a profit margin close to $1400, it's relatively cheaply made compared to a computer that cost $1600 for the same things and still costs $2000. It is thus clear that you are the one that has NO IDEA what you're talking about since you clearly believe "cheap" to be a constant factor, when in fact it is relative to the cost to build the product. A $2 million home that cost $200k to make is cheaply made relative to the selling price being asked. That doesn't make it "garbage" which you appear to think is the definition of cheaply made.
Thanks for clearing that up. I forgot that was the only meaning for cheap and that when someone says cheaply made they never mean poor build quality. Glad you were here to fix that misconception.
Yes, cheaply made implies poor quality. The other way to describe what was intended is expensive, which implies a higher cost than expected, if same parts used
Another thing to consider is that Apple doesnt JUSTmake Macs and sell them. If that was all they did, I am sure the prices would be less, but they have a lot of people designing iOS and OSX, and new products, and the integration of everything, so given the OS on smart devices and Macs is free, and the above, I feel any premium is worth it. It isnt a premium with no benefits
It actually implies inexpensive or comparatively less expensively made than another product. It does not always imply "poor quality". If you look up cheap, there is NO mention of "quality".
Cheap may or may not be poor quality. It may just be a good deal and/or the result of economies of scale. I once bought a vinyl record for cheap that is now worth over $300. It is no longer cheap. It was never poor quality. It is simply in high demand due a large number of fans now desiring the item. It may have very well have been cheaply made in a mass production facility (e.g. CDs typically cost less than 10 cents to manufacture; that is cheaply made, but that doesn't mean they're poor quality in that the music on them will remain more or less error free for greater than a lifetime if not grossly mishandled. Vinyl records are made of a type of plastic. Stored properly, they will last a very long time as well). Similarly, as the above dictionary examples shows, "cheap fruit" does not automatically imply the fruit is bad quality, only that it is a relative bargain.
The original reference is whether a Macbook's perceived value and/or quality matches its retail price. Is a Macbook Pro worth ~$2000 or is it more of an ~$800 computer that Apple grossly overcharges because it believes it can? If Apple reduces manufacturing costs by a large factor yet keeps retail prices the same and pockets the difference as more profit, it becomes more cheaply made, yet it has nothing to do with quality or value of the product itself, only whether the consumer feels it's worth the price to them. Macbooks in general have always been overpriced as far as the hardware goes. Most Apple fans console themselves of this with terms like the "Apple tax" implying it's the price they pay to use OS X (short of a hack setup). Costs of production have nothing to do with it (i.e. they may or may not be "cheaply made"). It's what Apple feels they can charge and still maximize profits.
ANY premium is worth it? So ... if Apple charged 10k for a Macbook pro, that premium is worth it? Wow.
Stupid reply, enough said
----------
In the context of IT, the word cheap implies poor quality.
Hence the use of the words "does not always indicate" above. I'll highlight the two important things below since I know you can't be bothered to read more than a few lines of text.
My problem with all too many comments on these forums and elsewhere these days is that people talk in absolutes far too much. They assume what they do and maybe their friends (who are probably their friends because they think alike) ALL do things the same way and therefore any other idea is ridiculous. I just posted to a thread about absolutes regarding how Launcher sucks (I agree it does as-is, but I think it could be made useful with some improvements) and then goes on about how gestures are what OS X is "all" about. I don't use gestures in OS X (not even on my MBP save the scroll and 2nd button ones which are almost required to even use the trackpad) so I don't see how OS X is "all about gestures". They didn't exist in the first several iterations of OS X and aren't required today and I don't miss them or even think about them being there. I prefer using a mouse (and not a "magic" one). The point is that the poster thinks everyone uses gestures and track pads and that OS X is special because it has gestures. Hey, if you like them and trackpads, that's great, but it's not "all about them". I like OS X because it's UNIX-based, free from most forms of Malware and constant security updates and looks much nicer than Windows to boot. Logic Pro had a lot to do with getting one at one point as well. Changes to the user interface may or may not be welcome, but it's not all about one feature.
Sadly, OPTIONS seem to becoming a more rare thing out there when technology makes it easier than ever to implement. The one thing I really did like about Linux was the vast array to GUI choices that were all over the map. I had fun playing with all kinds of odd setups from command line only (which can expand to multiple screens and tabs to create a text-based multi-tasking environment that was actually useful. Plus getting on the Web with only a command line environment is just plain geeky cool. I had a Matrix-movie themed setup with Black Box that was just freaky cool looking (if you like the Matrix movie anyway). The bad parts were a lack of certain apps I use all the time like iTunes for a whole house multimedia setup and other Apps like Photoshop cannot simply be replaced by the Gimp. I also didn't like the packaging methods use to do software on various setups. In other words, it was fun to play with, but not really practical for my needs.
There is no reason Apple couldn't have left the original Aqua theme as an option along with the former gun-metal look, etc. and let the user simply select their favorite. Frankly, I thought OS9's window frame look was pretty darn cool looking and with a few additions, it would make a nice retro-theme. But Steve didn't like options. He liked knowing everyone's desktop looked more or less like his (god complex). I had hope that things would change for the better after his death, but I haven't see any indication of that thus far.
There are plenty of people in the Windows world that would like more options as well including having just a button to make Windows 8.x look/behave like 7, but with the improvements under the hood intact. Change for change's sake isn't always good and letting people do things their preferred way is always a nice thing. If we wanted conformity, we could have just let the Germans win WWII. Everyone would have eventually looked alike, acted alike and thought alike under pain of death (whether they could help it or not). Oddly, most people thought that was a bad idea at the time. The fact that certain elements in society are pushing for conformity once again instead of celebrating differences is disturbing to me every time it happens. No, I don't have to Facebook or Tweet. Maybe I don't like rap or hip-hop even though the music industry is trying to kill rock and shove it down my throat. Political parties offer me extreme left and extreme right and no ability to choose issues one at-a-time or candidates that represent my views on those issues. I get a party agenda and little else. It's ridiculous, but then so is calling that guy's reply "stupid" just because you disagree with it.
And so is making a rash assumption that because I don't agree with you, your state factually that I could not be bothered reading more then a few lines of text.
You have just done what you complain about me doing.
Moving on, nothing to see here
It's simply based on your past behavior and statements so there's nothing rash about it. You've made your refusal to read longer posts quite clear: