I know that XP is near its end.
I also know that there are newer operating systems (just the ones from
Microsoft).
I know that security is a factor which might bring people to upgrade at some
point.
True, if XP is now longer supported, hackers and other people can possibly
find holes in the security systems.
And true, not every antivirus program can protect you from such attacks.
However, the viruses are not the only danger when it comes to using the
internet. Criminals who manipulate websites to not directly target your
computer but to record or capture the communication the moment it leaves
your computer are more dangerous.
If you are on a manipulated website and whatever interactions you have with
that site (be it loggin in, doing money transfers or whatever) might be
captured without the need of actually cracking some form of encryption.
I think that there is a term for such indirect attacks: "man in the browser"
or something like that.
And I also think that it has not to be limited to the web browser itself.
But that is the extend of that.
Fact is that such types of attacks might be a bigger problems.
Such is not a form of direct attack where the fact that you have an outdated
system might mean nothing.
If the transfered data is redirected away from the route it is supposed to
take, you can't see it right now.
And if such a form of attack happens, it is totally of no consequence
whether you used XP or Windows 8.1.
And I am sure that this is not the point some people tried to originally
make.
I am all for better security systems for my computer, but I need to get a
manual which explains to me the (probably not knowledgeable) user what I
should do and what I shouldn't do.
Since XP users had their let's call it "Classic" design and programs, they
might be confused or might be afraid of things like Modern UI in Windows 8
and higher.
I won't say that everyone won't be able to adapt in time if they want to,
but who will tell them the inns and outs of Windows 8 compared to XP (if
your last operating system was XP).
These are of course only examples.
And let's not forget that Microsoft loves to drop a lot of programs out of
their systems without replacements or with suboptimal replacements.
This is just for as an argument, but I will adress them shortly.
XP has Outlook Express.
I have no idea if it is a bad program (security related) or if it is
horribly outdated for an E-Mail program.
It however does its job.
Vista had Windows Mail which according to my mother (she is sighted) is like
a newer version of Outlook Express with some new features and some altered
ones.
Then there is Windows 7 which still has a Windows Mail program with its own
folder, but it is totally disabled and effectively unusable.
Then back in the day (near the initial release of Windows 7( it was strongly
suggested that users who had first switched from Outlook Express to Windows
Mail should switch again to Windows Live Mail, which is free, but now longer
a part of Windows itself.
The same goes for Windows Movie Maker.
Windows Movie maker is a tool for actually editing or recording videos.
But Windows Live Movie Maker is not a "new version" of Windows Movie Maker.
The newer program is part of Windows Live and more for sharing your videos
or for publishing them on video sharing services.
But enough of that.
There is another interesting thing I'd like to mention here, allthough I did
not experience it myself.
I read that the rather old Bavisoft games wouldn't work on Windows 7.
I of course have no idea why or which component(s) might be missing.
I know that several developers mentioned that VB6 or other older
technologies are outdated and that there are replacements for them.
But I as an end user are not in the position to force the developer
(Bavisoft in this example) to make their games compatible with Windows 7.
If Bavisoft were still around, I could ask them nicely if they would be so
kind as to do something.
But if they would refuse I still would have a bought product which I could
not use.
True, it would be the developer's fault, but is this reason enough to
purposefully drop older runtime components from Windows just because the
developer product is outdated?
I mean, look at Jim Kitchen's games.
They use the VB6 runtime.
On XP most of the runtime files should be present by default.
On Windows 7 they are not "just because the system is newer".
At least it looks this way from the viewpoint of the end user.
Luckily the main installer for the game can install the runtime files on
newer Windows versions.
But would it have been hard for MS to not remove the components in the first
place?
Obviously installing them yourself doesn't destroy your Windows right away.
And why should the users of third party software be punished with
incompatibility if it would have been these software developers who should
have upgraded their development technology in the first place?
And which "standard" end user knows this?
You play your audiogame on XP where it runs fine after you installed it.
Then you get a new computer and install your game on it with seemingly no
problems.
And then you want to run it and get some error stating that component x is
missing or such.
Not every blind user out there has had enough training or the knowledge to
understand what this might mean at least in the beginning.
And then they might find out that the games they once bought are practically
useless because their new operating system won't run them.
Of course it is not always this way, but this might be some reasons why
people might be reluctant to upgrade if they think that their operating
system is stable enough.
And probably because they already know how to use whatever they need for
their daily interactions with it.
A new system forces them to learn new things and some might not want to for
whatever reason.
I am not saying that their stance is right or that it is completely wrong.
This depends on lots of things.
However it is a fact that every new version of Windows drastically alters
the design without any form of control of it except with third party tools
(Classic Shell).
And I will gladly tell you that I personally know enough sighted or visually
impaired people who would happily use Windows 8.1 if they still had menus
instead of ribbons in the Explorer, a Start button which actually opens the
Start Menu and more design options to actually choose or customice the look
of their Windows.
Surely a newer browser with more security holes fixed is not what people
complain about.
But I think that this is enough of this topic.
This was what I personally had to say.
And one more thing:
My mother is sighted and she uses a Windows 7 laptop and it crashed more
often than my current XP computer.
I am not sure whether her laptop is crap, or if it is the fact that she has
a Windows 7 DVD which was shipped with the laptop instead of a clean one
which she could have bought separately.
We had to reinstall everything on that machine yesterday.
---
Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected].
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to [email protected].
