MC and others agree to pay for extencded updates.

| Tens upon tens of million of PC are still running on Windows XP.
|
| Probably true.
|

The latest figures are about 40% of all PCs. But
that's a measure from popular online sites. It doesn't
count the vast number used in businesses, ATMs,
(https://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...o_Windows_ XP)
corporate PCs that don't go online, and people who
don't visit typical measuring locations. For instance,
I know a 91-y-o woman who does email and plays
a lot of solitaire. She's running XP on an HP. She
probably doesn't get counted. Then there's China,
where XP is still common. Probably most poorer countries
are running mostly Linux or XP. I think it's safe to say
that stat counters undercount XP systems, and that
in total XP is probably the most-used OS in the world
at this point.

On the bright side, MS will sell you support for a mere
$200 until 4/2015 and another $400 to get you to 4/2016.
No doubt the Peruvians, Bangladeshis and Chinese
rural villagers are breathing a sigh of relief at that news.

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
| Presumably, if a hex editor rather than just viewer, _changing_ that
| byte won't make it run ... (-:
| --

Afraid not. The entire file structure is different.

I didn't really think it would (-:!
[]
If there were such a thing as a 16-bit BMP (maybe
there is?) it would have 2 bytes for file size, 2 bytes

I think there must be - wasn't Windows 3.1 largely 16-bit, and that had
Paint (which only worked with .bmp, at least up to '9x if not XP). And
even if that _was_ 32b, I remember DOS images, which weren't all in some
compressed format (mostly .gif then).

Actually I'll look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP_file_format talks
about the header being 14 bytes, so I think that settles it.

for data offset pointer, 2 bytes for width, etc. So if
you tried to open that file on a 32-bit system the
32-bit values derived from the file header would be
nonsense, because the software reading it would be
looking for 4-byte numbers.


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Get off my turf!" screamed Pooh, as he shot at Paddington.

On 3/22/2014 9:07 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:
If there were such a thing as a 16-bit BMP (maybe
there is?) it would have 2 bytes for file size, 2 bytes

I think there must be - wasn't Windows 3.1 largely 16-bit, and that had
Paint (which only worked with .bmp, at least up to '9x if not XP). And
even if that _was_ 32b, I remember DOS images, which weren't all in some
compressed format (mostly .gif then).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF#History

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8 Pro w/Media Center

Has anybody heard about any customer backlash on this? (referring to this
new age, cloud based subscription model for software - where there is a
trend toward cloud based software, and you can't even get or install a new
local version of software anymore (Office 365, latest Adobe Photoshop, etc)

Paul wrote:
micky wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:27:26 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

Customers like Morgan Chase and some other big banks have agreed with
MS to pay for extended secuirty (and other?) updates for XP, after
April 8, when security and other updates are scheduled to end.

Yes. They'll make the patches. But they won't let
the general public get them. Your purchase has "expired".

Well my question is, How long before someone in the computer dept. at
one of these banks etc decides to distribute the patches for free, or
profit? Will they have a unique id? They don't now, do they?

Anyhow if he and someone from another company compares their two
versions, they should be able to find the unique id and de-unique it.

Yes, but your hypothesis is there is some compelling value
to these updates. How do you know that ?

The AV company providing tools to such an "extended support" customer,
will be covering the OS whether the patch is in place or not. If the
"extended support" customer cannot get protection for WinXP, they'd
have to switch out of it anyway. Maybe move to BeOS or something :-)

A support story, needs both patches and an AV strategy. In a business,
it isn't good enough for your IT department to apologize, when nobody
can work. There has to be a more complete support picture.

And Microsoft will be working, behind the scenes, pushing developers
to use .NET 4.5, so nobody can buy software for their WinXP machines.
So on the one hand, you bought your "extended support", but Microsoft
is still working to make your WinXP as in-compatible as they can manage.
And .NET 4.5 and other changing strategies, is how they'll do it.

But is there that much software that is so indispensible (or irreplaceable
with other alternative programs) that it even needs NET 3.0 or above? (I
could almost make the case for NET 2.0, but I agree that version is at
least
handy to have for a few apps).

Imagine if the very next Microsoft Office, doesn't support WinXP.
I can see a few sad faces in the IT department then. Or a few
Linux/LibreOffice converts. There are many forces pulling on the
situation, all at the same time. More destructive than constructive
forces.

I'm not sure why anyone would actually *need* anything better than Office
2003 (or perhaps Office 2007 or 2010) (with that dumb ribbon) to do *actual*
work. :-)

And who really wants or needs to go to Office 365, with that lousy MS
(cloud based) subscription model? (also like the latest versions of
Photoshop and some other Adobe products, as I recall).

I'm hoping that this MS and Adobe annual software subscription model falls
flat. Unfortunately, I doubt if it will however, as some probably believe
they have to have the latest versions of everything. (and we're not talking
about needing cutting edge Hollywood video editors here!)

(mail copy of my answer to your observations)

===

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" a écrit dans le message
de news: ...
In message , rogergonnet
writes:
Tens upon tens of million of PC are still running on Windows XP.

Probably true.

In 2013, more than 320 million machines were bought. In 20 years or so,
perhaps 2 or more billions were fabricated, many of them working on XP. It
s
therefore probable that XP is still running on some 200 million PCs, most
owned by poorest people, not by Morgan Chases and their equivalent.

Probably true, though you don't give a source for your figure of 10% (nor
for your figure of 2+ billion for that matter).

indeed, it's because it's impossible to determine; so, the best guess could
be circa...

Cutting so many people from any security regarding their computers is
insane, **criminal**, dangerous, and but for big bankers and companies
that I don't care of since they can buy new machines, I consider that
Microsoft should be sued and sentenced dor FRAUD in organized gang.

(I think you mean care *for*.) On the other hand, MS is a business not a
charity (see below), and _they_ have no obligation to support an
(arguably) 13-year-old product for which they are getting no money for
doing so.

certainly, but then, they could offer a pay line and free services for poor
countries individuals.

There is nothing to stop you trying (the suing) if you wish (-:.

Nowhere any clients having bought a new or an older pc running on XP has
been informed that his machine will become the prey of such a gang.

No-one has bought a new XP PC for some time. What people selling older
ones tell their purchasers is not under the control of MS.

Worse, only the poorest people who have no money to buy a new one or
buy
a new system shall be the victims of the gang.

That has always been the case, and not exclusive to computers; "the poor"
usually can't afford the most economical (or safest) cars, can't buy
product (any - food, household ...) in the economical larger pack sizes,
and so on. I've never heard anyone seriously suggesting that the
responsibility for this situation lies with the manufacturers.

It's quite different here, since MS can do that for little money, while say,
changing your old car motor or important parts costs a lot to the
manufacturer.


Still worse, XP was running more or less okay, while the three next ones
like Seven has neve been even able to install correctly, and now, Eight

Now, I fear, you're showing some ignorance/prejudice. Millions of Vista,
7, and 8 systems exist and are working fine.

I don't felt so. Vista was so bad that MS got seven few times later,
(decried by many as an aberration for desk or laptops) is still worse, as
far as it seems.

Lots of people (especially those used to older systems) don't _like_ the
default user interface of 8 (including me, for that matter, though I've
not given it a fair run); that doesn't mean it doesn't install correctly
though.

yes, it installs, but well, it is bad for older users, as you say --


And since Bill Gates, the richest man of the planet is supposed to have
large charities sums to give, stealing them the security of their machines
is doing the exact reverse of what he pretends to be.

Two points: 1. He's not "stealing": that implies taking away something
they have. (Rolls Royce are not stealing from me by not giving me a car.)
2. I think the costs involved are in a significantly different sphere than
even Bill's millions (though I'm not sure about that). (Oh, and 3. Bill no
longer runs MS.)

you're right. I'm using it as I feel, since it was'nt possible some years
ago, to guess that MS would cut access when the machine was BOUGHT WITH IT
and that ir still runs okay!


It's a real shame.

If at least, MS was offering a symbolic low monthly sum to pay to keep the
pc's updates, it would still do lots of money of such an offer.

_Now_, I think you're talking - though not if only symbolic; it would have
to be sufficient to actually cover the costs. There is a suspicion that
the majority of those running XP wouldn't pay even just a nominal amount,
though, in many cases on principle. (Not sure how I'd feel about it,
though I might go for it.) There's also the matter of how they'd ensure
only those paying get the updates.

indeed, so that's why I estimated that MS should keep on to give the updates
to everybody, partilularly poor people from poor countries.

When we buy an automobile, of a house, it certainly can be repaired,
restored, etc, even later; buy here, MS proposes you to stop using any

In the case of a car, once certain critical parts are no longer available,
you're f*d, unless you have oodles of money - and not just the mechanical
parts (for which you need to find skilled engineering manufacturers), but
things like the engine management unit and ABS controllers. (There's a
small company behind where I work who will reverse-engineer those - not
just to provide support after the manufacturers, they also claim that the
ones they produce are actually better; however, they don't come cheap!)

I had a very rare -cheap- car years ago, and though only 171 of this sort
were sold in France, it was still possible to get parts, sometimes not
"original ones"...

external link with an XP PC, otherwise you're at risk of seeing your PC
vandalized by crazy or dishonest whatever.

Remember that it's not the builder that's doing the attacking in this
case. If your car or house gets broken into, and it still only has the
security (locks, immobilisers, cameras, ...) it came with when it was
made/built, would you blame the original manufacturer/builder (unless they
gave a guarantee of the relevant number of years)?

That XP is older than the next systems, well, it's the same, but as long
as
it has no big destruction of its HD, or screen, it should be updated, or
else, and all the private individual owners should receive these for free.

Paid for by whom? It costs _something_ to create them.

yes? But MS is immensely rich. So it had to give what is needed and was
PAID, okay, when clients bought the machine, with MS included most of times.



Basically, _I_ wish they'd just fixed and enhanced XP (actually, 98) for
ever, but I can see why they work as they do, and don't consider it evil
as such. I only consider it evil when they cross the line into actively
working against older whatever, and even then only when it's done out of
spite: if some new feature just isn't programmed in such a way that it
will work on everything back to Windows 3.1, _that_ isn't evil as such.

I understand your vewpoint; it's not mine. I don't care, particularly , to
pay for a destestable system like 8, which seems to present large problems
to old timers... used to XP, seven or so. I'd prefer to pay a bit for the
updates till my machine with it cease to run.



"micky" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
Customers like Morgan Chase and some other big banks have agreed with
MS to pay for extended secuirty (and other?) updates for XP, after April
8, when security and other updates are scheduled to end.

Because thousands, tens of thousands? of ATMs still run XP.


Acc to NPR news but I'm sure you'll see it everywhere before the day is
out.


Acc. to "computing", Britain's NHS are paying some millions to keep some
aspects of XP supported too. This is not _necessarily_ a waste of public
money; it _may_ be a prudent measure as part of an overall upgrade
strategy. (Without knowing quite what aspects they're paying for the
maintenance of - IIRR, the article didn't say - I can't comment.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

...Every morning is the dawn of a new error...

"Mayayana" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
| Tens upon tens of million of PC are still running on Windows XP.
|
| Probably true.
|

The latest figures are about 40% of all PCs. But
that's a measure from popular online sites. It doesn't
count the vast number used in businesses, ATMs,
(https://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...o_Windows_ XP)
corporate PCs that don't go online, and people who
don't visit typical measuring locations. For instance,
I know a 91-y-o woman who does email and plays
a lot of solitaire. She's running XP on an HP. She
probably doesn't get counted. Then there's China,
where XP is still common. Probably most poorer countries
are running mostly Linux or XP. I think it's safe to say
that stat counters undercount XP systems, and that
in total XP is probably the most-used OS in the world
at this point.

On the bright side, MS will sell you support for a mere
$200 until 4/2015 and another $400 to get you to 4/2016.
No doubt the Peruvians, Bangladeshis and Chinese
rural villagers are breathing a sigh of relief at that news.

bwhahaha!!

In message , rogergonnet
writes:
(mail copy of my answer to your observations)

Thanks for putting that line in; some people who send both don't.
(Newsgroup copy is all I require though.)
[]
(I think you mean care *for*.) On the other hand, MS is a business not a
charity (see below), and _they_ have no obligation to support an
(arguably) 13-year-old product for which they are getting no money for
doing so.

certainly, but then, they could offer a pay line and free services for poor
countries individuals.

I'm pretty sure they (and others) _do_ offer paid support. As for the
free service for poor countries, nice idea, but again, they're not a
charity, and (a) it would still cost them quite a bit (as it would be
general support, not the bespoke one like the paid-for one), (b) how
would they ensure only the deserving got it.
[]
That has always been the case, and not exclusive to computers; "the poor"
usually can't afford the most economical (or safest) cars, can't buy
product (any - food, household ...) in the economical larger pack sizes,
and so on. I've never heard anyone seriously suggesting that the
responsibility for this situation lies with the manufacturers.

It's quite different here, since MS can do that for little money, while say,
changing your old car motor or important parts costs a lot to the
manufacturer.

Well, they did it - for I suspect rather more than little money (cost to
themselves; there's never AFAIK been _any_ cost to users) - for 13
years.

Still worse, XP was running more or less okay, while the three next ones
like Seven has neve been even able to install correctly, and now, Eight

Now, I fear, you're showing some ignorance/prejudice. Millions of Vista,
7, and 8 systems exist and are working fine.

I don't felt so. Vista was so bad that MS got seven few times later,

I've still not heard any suggestion that in the majority of cases there
was any problem installing it, which is what you said. Whether people
liked how it runs is a different matter.

(decried by many as an aberration for desk or laptops) is still worse, as
far as it seems.

Lots of people (especially those used to older systems) don't _like_ the
default user interface of 8 (including me, for that matter, though I've
not given it a fair run); that doesn't mean it doesn't install correctly
though.

yes, it installs, but well, it is bad for older users, as you say --

OK - you're changing what your complaint is, though (-:
[]
you're right. I'm using it as I feel, since it was'nt possible some years
ago, to guess that MS would cut access when the machine was BOUGHT WITH IT
and that ir still runs okay!

MS aren't stopping it running. (Which I suspect they perhaps could!)

It's a real shame.

If at least, MS was offering a symbolic low monthly sum to pay to keep the
pc's updates, it would still do lots of money of such an offer.

_Now_, I think you're talking - though not if only symbolic; it would have
to be sufficient to actually cover the costs. There is a suspicion that
the majority of those running XP wouldn't pay even just a nominal amount,
though, in many cases on principle. (Not sure how I'd feel about it,
though I might go for it.) There's also the matter of how they'd ensure
only those paying get the updates.

indeed, so that's why I estimated that MS should keep on to give the updates
to everybody, partilularly poor people from poor countries.

For how long - for ever? How long do you think they _should_ support it?

When we buy an automobile, of a house, it certainly can be repaired,
restored, etc, even later; buy here, MS proposes you to stop using any

In the case of a car, once certain critical parts are no longer available,
you're f*d, unless you have oodles of money - and not just the mechanical
parts (for which you need to find skilled engineering manufacturers), but
things like the engine management unit and ABS controllers. (There's a
small company behind where I work who will reverse-engineer those - not
just to provide support after the manufacturers, they also claim that the
ones they produce are actually better; however, they don't come cheap!)

I had a very rare -cheap- car years ago, and though only 171 of this sort
were sold in France, it was still possible to get parts, sometimes not
"original ones"...

If someone else came along offering support for XP ... though, like your
spare part makers, I'm sure it wouldn't be for free ... (Are you in
France then?)
[]
else, and all the private individual owners should receive these for free.

Paid for by whom? It costs _something_ to create them.

yes? But MS is immensely rich. So it had to give what is needed and was
PAID, okay, when clients bought the machine, with MS included most of times.

For how long?


Basically, _I_ wish they'd just fixed and enhanced XP (actually, 98) for
ever, but I can see why they work as they do, and don't consider it evil
as such. I only consider it evil when they cross the line into actively
[]
I understand your vewpoint; it's not mine. I don't care, particularly , to
pay for a destestable system like 8, which seems to present large problems

Your choice not to.

to old timers... used to XP, seven or so. I'd prefer to pay a bit for the
updates till my machine with it cease to run.

It's just a matter of how long they should provide this, paid or not,
for diminishing returns.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

...Every morning is the dawn of a new error...


"-- " denotes the start of a signature; normally that line and what
follows shouldn't be quoted. (Good software will trim it automatically
in replies and followups.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Saturday night telly is one big noisy party to which not only have I not been
invited, but I don't want to be. - Alison Graham in Radio Times, 18-24 June
2011.