Google dropping Chrome??? Or just Chrome for XP?

[Alaric]

While reading about XP here http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/windows-xp-apr-2016-report.html a particular statement kind leaped off the page at me.

Then, I tried Chrome. Here, we have a conundrum. Google has ceasing support for Chrome last month, and that's partially one of the reasons I wanted to test the browser and see how it works. Apart from the yellow warning, it was all good. Fast, smooth, no issues. But the question is, how will it behave in the future. We shall see.

It occurred to me mid sentence that the author may have just been referring to XP support for Chrome, a much likelier scenario, but he didn't make that real clear. Can anybody here clarify/verify this?

 

[TheCheat]

While reading about XP here http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/windows-xp-apr-2016-report.html a particular statement kind leaped off the page at me.



It occurred to me mid sentence that the author may have just been referring to XP support for Chrome, a much likelier scenario, but he didn't make that real clear. Can anybody here clarify/verify this?

Google Chrome is no longer supported on XP and Vista.

 

[M@rk]

Its about Win XP :/
Sadly.
Win XP is really good for laptops and ultrabooks (Im reffering to the cheaper ones) but not many programs support it anymore.

 

[Mr.Scott]

Chrome still works on XP, they just won't be updating it anymore. Been like this for months now. I still use it. Works fine.

As for programs supporting XP, there are more than you think. XP will still be in use as long as there is hardware out there that it will run on.

 

[M@rk]

Chrome still works on XP, they just won't be updating it anymore. Been like this for months now. I still use it. Works fine.

As for programs supporting XP, there are more than you think. XP will still be in use as long as there is hardware out there that it will run on.

But Alot of regular user programs are not updated on XP and its hard to find a version that will work and have pretty much all the features the new versions have
One example is skype.

 

[Mr.Scott]

But Alot of regular user programs are not updated on XP and its hard to find a version that will work and have pretty much all the features the new versions have
One example is skype.

Grandma doesn't skype. Grandma does e-mail. There are a lot of grandma's out there. XP is familiar. People like familiar. See where I'm going?
Business machines like XP. Business owners like not having to upgrade every single piece of equipment because their custom XP programs don't work on it. It costs them a lot of money to upgrade. See where I'm still going?

 

[Alaric]

Google Chrome is no longer supported on XP and Vista.

Vista, too? Isn't 7 basically a tarted up Vista? (Well, fixed and improved) I thought the kernel was essentially the same?

 

[M@rk]

Grandma doesn't skype. Grandma does e-mail. There are a lot of grandma's out there. XP is familiar. People like familiar. See where I'm going?
Business machines like XP. Business owners like not having to upgrade every single piece of equipment because their custom XP programs don't work on it. It costs them a lot of money to upgrade. See where I'm still going?

Yeah.. Just didn't heard about companies using XP here (israel) after 2010 or so,
Also grandmas do use Skype my grandma use Skype to communicate with other grandmas xD

 

[TheCheat]

Vista, too? Isn't 7 basically a tarted up Vista? (Well, fixed and improved) I thought the kernel was essentially the same?

Given Vista has support until April 11, 2017 -- I too was surprised to find that chrome was no longer supported on the OS.

I have to wonder if google didn't find it cost - effective to continue to support an OS with so little market share (3.65%)

 

[Mr.Scott]

Yeah.. Just didn't heard about companies using XP here (israel) after 2010 or so,
Also grandmas do use Skype my grandma use Skype to communicate with other grandmas xD

You grandma is ahead of the curve.
There are major company's here that are still using Win98 and 2000.

 

[M@rk]

You grandma is ahead of the curve.
There are major company's here that are still using Win98 and 2000.

Well, I guess I get it now.. Its not cost efficient and nessecery to change to a new os cause most of these companies use the same programs anyway and upgrading the os will be a waste of time and money.
And I heard from my teacher that its more money efficient to buy new PCs every 3 or 5 years, cause the failure of one or more PCs might result in a big profit lost that may be worth more than buying new PCs.

 

[c627627]

Firefox still supports Windows XP, and so does Microsoft with security patches until 2019. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2019 because Windows XP has a major user base both home and corporate, especially with older people...

 

[petteyg359]

Moving goalposts aren't worth following.

 

[Ben333]

You grandma is ahead of the curve.
There are major company's here that are still using Win98 and 2000.

Who uses Win 98... seriously? I'd Like to know And please be specific!

And my grandma is ahead of ME... She's 80. Completely computer novice. Has an iPhone, iPad, and Win 7 desktop. Skype, facetime, takes digital photos, prints, uses iTunes....

 

[Mr.Scott]

Who uses Win 98... seriously? I'd Like to know And please be specific!

Specific? Fine. How about Bausch & Lomb. Their DAC lathe systems are still on Win 95. They make medical grade devices with those, IE: contact lenses. So is the whole vacuum coating division. You know what they do there? Make smart bomb guidance lenses.

Companies that have specific custom one off software will not change anything unless they absolutely have to. Wanna know why? Because any change in any SOP in an ISO company has to go through all trials testing again before approval and certification. It is compounded in a company that makes and ships worldwide because the same has to be done in every country they deal with. How much do you think that costs them?, just to upgrade to an OS that they don't even need, and that their software won't run on anyway.

 

[DaveB]

No, businesses hate XP. Some individual users may be very attached to it, but I guarantee you the businesses they work for absolutely do not want to keep those systems on XP any longer than absolutely required to replace whatever outdated application requires XP.

The don't actually hate XP, they had to move on to Win 7 when MS stopped issuing security updates for XP. Too much risk for businesses not to have protection.

 

[Mr.Scott]

No, businesses hate XP. Some individual users may be very attached to it, but I guarantee you the businesses they work for absolutely do not want to keep those systems on XP any longer than absolutely required to replace whatever outdated application requires XP.

Sorry, but that's not the truth. Obviously you know nothing about big business.

- - - Updated - - -

The don't actually hate XP, they had to move on to Win 7 when MS stopped issuing security updates for XP. Too much risk for businesses not to have protection.

What you're not understanding is that these systems are not connected to the outside. There is no need for security upgrades when it never sees the outside world.

 

[petteyg359]

Moving goalposts aren't worth following.

 

[Mr.Scott]

Obviously you know nothing about context... There's a MAJOR BIG HUGE MASSIVE difference between using an outdated and insecure OS for isolated physical control systems and using an outdated and insecure OS for a user desktop, given the OP in this thread is talking about Chrome. You DO NOT install Chrome on those control systems.

Nice cover, but the topic has drifted off to why would anybody still use XP. Try to keep up.

 

[c627627]

I think the problem on this topic is that people project themselves and so the background of their criticism is that "they" don't use "dead" operating systems... so nobody else should, for the same reasons "they" don't.
But people out there use machines for specific limited purposes, and for them, there is no justification to abandon Windows XP.

I personally like Windows XP because from it, I can image any other OS, because Windows XP doesn't use BCD so imaging other partitions is easier from Windows XP.
Windows XP will be part of my multi-boot as long as there are workarounds to install it on future motherboards.


I have a difficult time asking any questions about this on the forums, because people automatically assume I use Windows XP for daily use and their replies to my questions are peppered with criticism (in)directly aimed at *anyone* who uses Windows XP... for any reason.