Unlike some other promises lately, you really can keep your Windows XP. The fact that Microsoft will no long be supplying bug fixes and patching security holes does not mean you cannot continue running Windows XP. The fact that Windows XP was always a huge security hole and technically is a crappy operating system is reason enough to abandon it.
There is no mandate to change, but you really ought to make a change. I will explain why.
I need to start with a short history minute. Bear with me. It really does make a difference.
Windows XP started life in the late 1990's and was built around the Windows NT kernel, which was what replaced the old Windows 9x operating systems. While XP was released in 2001, it's guts started in the late 1990's. That alone should give techies pause for concern.
So the operating system is now going on 13 years old from release, but the technology underneath is going on 17 years old.
What does that mean to you?
It means that 17 years of technical advancement in operating systems are missing from XP. It means that manufacturers don't even consider XP compatibility something they need. It means that finding drivers for new hardware will go from being difficult to impossible. It means being isolated technically on that operating system.
You can continue to use Windows XP, if you don't mind being stuck in the past. I know there are some die-hards out there that think XP was the best thing since sliced bread and refuse to give it up. But they are the exceptions. Let's call them exceptional people. Think of them as the people who refuse to fly in them thar new fangled flyin' machines.
And now you decide that since you are not a historian and you are not wanting to leave yourself open to hackers turning every XP installation on the planet into a great big spam bot, what should you do about it?
Most people won't really think the choices through. Most people will just go buy another computer with whatever Windows operating system is on it. Most likely that will be Windows 8 or 8.1 now. Then they will complain and whine and end up pining for the old days because they come to the realization that Windows 8 and 8,1 both suck.
So other people will try to hunt down someone still selling computers with Windows 7 or look for copies of Windows 7 to buy. That option is drying up as Microsoft is desperate to sell copies of Windows 8.x regardless of what users actually want.
What should you do?
Here are your options: 1) stick with XP anyway, 2) find Windows 7 PC or OS, 3) take the plunge to Windows 8.1, and 4) abandon Microsoft Windows and all its spyware, bloatware, NSA backdoors, random lockups, and ugly interface.
There is a number 5, the "other" option. More on that toward the end of this.
While option 1 may work for the next few months, it will soon start to give you definite reasons to abandon it. Once the hackers no longer have Microsoft plugging holes, the own the OS. So with Windows XP ending life, you should definitely be dumping Windows XP. Therefore 1 is not really an option.
A lot of people I talk to have already gone option 2 and still more are trying to locate Windows 7 machines and OS to buy. If I had to live in the Windows world, I would personally go this route. My company is sticking with Windows 7 for the foreseeable future because so much software they rely on breaks with Windows 8.
Windows 7 has the best backwards compatibility with Windows XP and probably the most solid OS Microsoft has ever produced. That means it fails less than XP, but that does not mean it does not fail. My Win7 work machine has crashed numerous times and with all the anti-virus, anti-malware, and security software my company installed, my PC spends about a quarter of its time just checking things.
The bottom line is this: if you don't have a reason to stick with Microsoft Windows - like some critical piece of software that will only ever run on Windows OS natively - don't take option 2 or 3.
Quite a few people have decided to go for option 3 either because they couldn't find a viable option 2 or because they just gave up on trying. Some people, and heavens it really is a small minority of people, actually like Windows 8.1 and they choose option 3 or have already chosen it.
The problem with option 3 is that even Microsoft sees the failure of users to switch to 8.1 and that causes them heartburn. So much so they are already forming its replacement. Will the tiled interface disappear? Who knows. But think of 8.1 like you do Vista and you get the idea. Just don't.
Now, if you are those types that really don't need to live in a Microsoft world - meaning almost all home users - you can ditch Microsoft Windows entirely.
There really are other operating systems despite what Microsoft and your MS fan-boys tell you.
So if you think you might be interested in option 4, there are more options than just Apple Mac. What are they you ask? I shall tell you.
The most common choice seems to be Apple Macintosh and for good reasons. They build really, really, good hardware and their operating system is rock solid. If you open up a typical mid-range laptop running some kind of Windows, it's a nightmare of wires run this way and that and things seem fragile. Open up a Mac laptop and it looks like real engineering went into it.
The modern Mac operating system is built on a version of Unix, the venerable operating system that has been around since 1969. Does that mean its a relic? An antique? A dinosaur? Heck no! It means it has about 45 years of maturity into it.
Unix has adopted new technology into the kernel and operating system ever since its inception. It was designed from the ground up to evolve. Because of that, it is very stable and very solid. That is why for decades the majority of corporate and then Internet servers ran Unix. It has only been supplanted recently by installations of Linux which are based on the design of Unix. Linux and Unix even share a lot of code.
The Mac user interface is also highly touted - I personally detest the "one menubar to rule them all" paradigm of MacOS but that's just me - and for good reason. It doesn't randomly lockup like Windows does. Oh it can and will from time to time, but its so infrequent there are not Internet memes built around it (think "blue screen of death").
Also, if you want to do multimedia, a Mac is the way to go as the application software for multimedia processing is abundant and world class on the Mac.
And there's ever other kind of application you would ever want to run, except maybe those made for PC games. Let us not forget to mention that the number of security risks on a Mac is a tiny fraction of those on any Windows operating system.
But Mac is not the only choice. There are two other highly credible options: Chromebook and Linux.
Recently the sales figures for Chromebooks indicated they were outselling Windows 8.1 and for good reason. They boot in 7 seconds. Yes, 7 seconds. They are extremely stable, impervious to viruses - they can be affected by web sites that target the Chrome browser, but even that risk is tiny compared to Windows. They are self updating, they don't have bloat, and they are simple to use.
What's the downfall of Chromebooks? They don't work like typical desktops. If you are used to installing apps from all over the place - and getting viruses with them - it will seem quite strange. You install Chrome apps only and typically everything you do is in the cloud.
This does not mean you have to stay online the whole time. They work offline as well though some apps you may install only work with a connection.
I have a Chromebook and my middle school age daughter does as well. We browse the web, write documents, create presentations, create spreadsheets, make drawings, edit photos, play music, play videos... everything you would want to do. We love our Chromebooks.
The final option is actually my personal choice: Linux. I am writing this note on Linux Mint as we speak. Linux has the same benefits of the Mac OS, but not the hardware. It has many of the same benefits of the Chromebook, but takes 15-30 seconds to boot. And it has a rich set of applications, most of which are entirely free. That's right, free. It's the cheapskate's great thrill.
Linux laptops kind of look and feel like Windows 7 laptops, but the user interfaces in Linux are cleaner, better featured, more stable, and did you notice I said "interfaces" and not just "interface". That's right, you can have a number of different user interfaces. You can even have most of them installed at the same time and switch which one you want to use when you login.
Like the Chromebooks, you can do nearly everything you would ever want to do in software. They are still lacking the top-end games but that will change as well now that Valve (makers of Steam game delivery platform software) have announced they are putting their full force behind SteamOS which is based on Linux.
Linux is THE choice for powering supercomputers, the lion's share of Internet servers, innumerable scientific installations and research labs, and exists as the primary or secondary operating system on a growing, but still small, fraction of the world's desktop and laptop computers.
The major downfall of Linux is that there are few vendors that sell Linux preinstalled on systems. So you have to have a machine or buy a machine and install it yourself in most cases. And that can be simple and done in under 30 minutes, or you could be in that 10 percent where the hardware isn't exactly supported out of the box and it is frustrating and takes hours or days. Most of the time it's a piece of cake. Other times it's sauerkraut.
So what does all this mean now that you had the stamina to read all this? Allow me to share some suggestions with you so you can determine for yourself what you want to do.
Ask this question of yourself: is there some piece of Windows software i can't get along without and there are no alternatives on other operating systems?
If the answer is yes, consider going the Windows 7 or 8.1 option. But if the answer is no, use this as the opportunity to learn something new, get something better, and have fewer frustrations.
Ask this question of yourself: do I do much more than browse the web, send/receive emails, write documents, view and edit photos, social networking?
If the answer is no and that is about all you do, you are a great candidate for a Chromebook or Linux, depending on how you want to go about it. Chromebooks setup themselves and are really, really easy to use and maintain. Linux can be a little harder but gives you way more OS power than you probably need... until you need it.
Another question to ask yourself: do I do a lot of multimedia or do I want to?
If the answer is yes, get a Mac. Just go get a Mac.
How about this: I just want it to work, but I want full power.
If the answer is yes, get a Mac. Again, just go get a Mac.
And finally: do I want to expand myself and learn how things work and do I want to be able to customize my operating system 3.5 million ways?
If the answer is yes, download a Linux distro and start the ball rolling. You can even install it alongside XP or any other operating system. if you don't know which distro to get, stick with either Ubuntu or Linux Mint until you do know.
At this point the question of "compatibility" comes up. People often ask "Is Mac/ChromeOS/Linux compatible with Windows?"
The answer is no and yes for each of the alternatives.
In basic terms, nothing is compatible with Windows. But because of the extensive technological support of the alternatives, they don't have to be compatible with Windows.
But regarding application compatibility, the answer is often yes. When it comes to applications there are two ways you can make or break compatibility. First, if the same application runs across multiple operating systems, like Firefox, Chrome, Skype, and a lot of others. These applications are definitely compatible.
There are some applications you will not find on other operating systems. For example, you will only have the option of Google's Chrome browser on a Chromebook. That's just how it is. You will not get much Microsoft software running on anything besides some apps that were ported to a Mac.
There are a number of specific applications where the software writers were simply not capable of creating their software to be what's called "cross-platform" - able to run on multiple operating systems - or they may not have had the business case to justify any perceived increase in costs to do so.
However the real test of compatibility is in the file formats. What do I mean? Every application you use that reads, creates, or otherwise uses files has to be programmed to understand the file format, or how the file is constructed and which bytes go where. File formats are the real test of compatibility.
With Microsoft Office, the company went out of their way to keep their file formats as incompatible as possible. That is not an overstatement. They really did. And just when other companies were getting the .doc and .xls file formats figured out, Microsoft changed them again with .docx and .xlsx and although these file formats are published as a standard, that is in name only. They buried proprietary format specifications in their standard to prevent other companies from being able to freely use them.
Again, that is not an overstatement. That is why if you live in a Microsoft world, use Microsoft Office, and think the only document format ends in "x", like .docx and .xlsx, then you are effectively trapped in that Windows world. Go back and look at options 2 and 3.
Yet even those formats are being picked apart. Applications such as LibreOffice have made huge advances in being able to read and write those proprietary Microsoft file formats. Many other applications have as well.
Most users don't have huge libraries of proprietary document files. They have some. And most of the time most users are more concerned with their other file formats, such as the file formats used for video, music, and photos. And when it comes to that, no worries. Nearly every music, image, and photo format used on Windows is already being used on the other operating systems.
Being a Linux user, I have yet to find any non-encrypted file format I could not use or convert on a Linux system. And since Macs share a lot in common with Linux, the same can be said for that platform.
So rest assured, for most of you, all your files will be accessible and usable on Mac, Chromebook, and Linux. Not all, but most.
Remember I mentioned that option 5? One thing that occurs to me is with the onslaught of mobile devices, do you really need a traditional desktop or laptop at all? Can you do all you need to do with a mobile tablet? For a lot of people, that is truly a workable and arguably better option.
Whether its an Apple iPad model, a Kindle HD model, or some other tablet, today's top tablets are certainly not your traditional PC but they can do most of the same things, and in some cases, more.
So if a tablet seems something you may be interested in, if you intend it as a replacement, do not go low end on tablets. Because it is such a lucrative market right now, a lot of low-end - meaning cheap - tablets are being produced. Just stay away from them, they aren't worth the hassle. Shop around and get a good deal.
The Apple tablets will typically be the most expensive, but they are very nice. Android tablets, which are the world's majority of tablets today, come in a wide range of prices and performance. Shop them to find a good mid-range or higher-range model. There are some Linux tablets to be found and they are an alternative for those who like to break away from the pack.
That's it. It's a lot of words, but I think they are useful words.
If anyone has any specific questions, contact me. I would be glad to offer my assistance in helping you determine your personal computing needs so you can decide what you want to do.
Copyright 2014, Kevin Farley (a.k.a. sixdrift, a.k.a. neuronstatic)
