Why?
If it aint broke don't fix it. What new features do the newer versions of windows provide that makes it worth spending money, and worse time to upgrade?
I don't use it myself but I know a TON of people on XP and the computer works fine, they use openoffice, a browser, and a few games.
Computers used to get faster all the time, that's not true anymore. They are now appliances - you use them till the break, instead of upgrading all the time.
Microsoft often places restrictions on their tool chain for marketing rather than technical purposes and if you're a commercial software outfit you should be very wary of using their tool chain for that reason.
Let me illustrate: first of all, I did not choose that platform directly (though if I could, I would, it is very hard to beat Visual Studio once you get into it), the branch we're in did. This is not some allround web/mobile app but a dedicated high performance desktop application that targets eg the automotive industry. And it's commercial. So if a big player (think Bosh/Siemens) asks you for software that runs on XP, you deliver it, simple as that. The other option is loosing them as a client, which would be about the worst mistake you can make in a startup you have to live from. And by far the easiest way to deliver what we need is by using Visual Studio, don't even try to deny that.
Btw another thing about automotive and other huge industries is the typical life-cycle of a product (which in turn is used to produce other, erm, products) is waaaay longer then your typical application. Hence, XP still kinda lives there in some places. Also a lot of the hardware used there is built to last, e.g. your typical National Instruments ADC easily lasts 25 years. Which sometimes leads to (sometimes rather bad) decisions like 'well, then the software should keep on running for 10 years straight from now with no updates. And that again adds to the reasons why XP is still around.
Like web developers charging for ie6 compatibility, push your true costs of supporting XP to XP - if the conundrum "should we pay $200 more for software X or we can get Windows 8 and it's $200 off the software" seems like an easy answer given no other software in the picture.
not really an option at the moment. We really thought about it, but then we were like 'it's only for one more year'. And then something else came along, see my other comment below.
It is not as if software spoils.
OpenBSD's latest significant version was less than 3 months ago
>Perl 5
5.18.2 was released this year
>XHTML
1.1 was released a bit more than four years ago
The fact of the matter is that old, unupdated software holds everyone back.
If your software is completely isolated and self contained, sure, there's no practical bitrot.
But the Internet changed the software world - software rots out in the wild.
The last time I upgraded my Fedora box (with fedup) I spent most of the duration working uninterrupted, then had the upgrade perform itself over lunch. The last time I did it on Ubuntu, I worked throughout the process, only having to stop for the reboot required to switch between major kernel versions. Minor kernel changes happen without rebooting.
I know you probably live on another planet, but, here on Earth, I've been using Linux and BSD since before Windows Vista was launched and I can tell you it has always worked much better than Windows on the same hardware. I'll give you I am not an idiot and I will not pick hardware that is not supported under Linux because the manufacturer doesn't want it to be, but, so far, my experience has been very nice.
Every once and then I use Windows - I've been assigned Windows computers on several occasions - and I always notice how convoluted, absolutely illogical and inconsistent an operating environment it is, with scars that lead back to its predecessor, that half-assed copy of CP/M. It's only suitable for human consumption because humans have been subjected to it since the early 90's and have adapted to it. Any human who has been freed from this torment will resent deeply having it forced upon them again.
Every OS has its warts. There's no need to trash talk software, it can't hear you.
Why would anyone want to know where the program installs? I want to run programs, not look at them with a filesystem browser.
> And you can't say that BSD and Linux don't bear scars of their predecessor, a half-assed copy of AT&T Unix
It's more like AT&T Unix and BSD evolved together. There was a point when AT&T was selling BSD software with the copyright notice removed. And, if we are building copies, it's much better to be a copy of Unix than of CP/M.
> Any time I have to hit the command line to do something that should really have a proper GUI over it
I can't imagine what kind of activity you were trying to perform...
It's not trash-talking software. It's pointing out its warts.
My computer can run the newest version of Windows but I have a Windows XP/Win 7 dual boot setup. I keep Windows XP around because of old games from the Win9x/WinXP era which do not work (correctly) on newer Windows versions. Unfortunately, there is no WindowsBox (i.e. a DOSBox equivalent) yet. I have tried virtual machines but the experience was not positive. They are for running old office apps, and tend to fail miserably at running DirectX games.
Give me a break, we have to look to really the bottom rung classes of 3rd world countries to find people unable to scrape enough money together over a decade to buy half-decade old hardware needed to run a copy of Vista they would inevitably pirate.
Anyone in a first world country with internet access can find old PCs capable of running more than XP on craigslist or the local equivalent for literally a couple of dollars. Anybody without internet access won't be getting any support anyway.
Seriously, machines from 2009 are half a decade old at this point, they are cheap as dirt.
You "need" XP for your games? Well fine, keep it around, but expecting free support for that is nuts. Talk about a first world problem...