|
|
|
|
|
by krrrh
3060 days ago
|
|
Except Microsoft officially stopped supporting Windows XP in 2014[1], and they had already extended support much longer than they had wanted to because XP was so long-lived and customers pushed back against having to upgrade to Vista. Vista support completely ended last year, and mainstream support for 7 ended in 2015, and 8.1 last month[2]. If you upgraded that decade-old computer to a secure OS then it will almost certainly run terribly. It's fine to run Photoshop 7 on an old PC that's not connected to the internet, but how realistic or useful is that? Under the old desktop upgrade model it's easier to run an unmaintained OS, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Edit: Obviously running a lightweight linux distro is an option for the more technically minded, and it would be great to see projects like https://www.postmarketos.org become more widespread for extending the life of tablet and phone hardware. [1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-ca/help/14223/windows-xp-en... [2] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/search?alpha=W... |
|
If I chose to put Windows 10 on my 9 year old desktop, it'd run better than Windows 10 on the laptop I bought a year ago as a netbook-style machine. Anything that can run Windows 7 well can run Windows 10 well, and machines that would be well-suited to Windows 7 weren't uncommon a decade ago.
But that's all beside the point. The point is that having a single source for software to run on a piece of hardware, and not having control over access to your software, puts a hard upper limit on how long a device will be useful. It's more practical to do something useful on the 18 year old Windows 98 machine I've got at home than my iPod Touch that's half that age. My Android tablet is just a couple of years younger; it's still a useful device because I can keep around backups of apks, download software from project pages, or add one of several app stores that still provide working software.