Coffeehouse Thread

66 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Conversation Locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.

Why is XP Support for .NET 4.5 not happening?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    devSpeed

    @davewill:You are most likely correct. When I found out that SQL 2012 didn't work on XP I went and read the notes on 2008 R2 SP1. I haven't deployed it yet to my 5 xp customers that are using our .net 4.0 application. There is nothing in the notes about XP so I assumed they had dropped support there also. I guess I read to much into it. Windows 7 isn't in those notes either but it is supported. I will edit my original statement.

  • User profile image
    kettch

    , ZippyV wrote

    *snip*

    • You seem to forget that a new version can introduce new bugs.

     

    Also, if they decided that they were going to support 4.5 on XP, then their ability to detect bugs would then be diluted. So, not only could they introduce new bugs, but they wouldn't be as effective at tracking them down.

    I don't think people realize how complicated it is to test even the smallest things. Have a look at the test labs sometime. They have thousands of machines with different configurations running bajillions of tests. It annoys me when I think about even what it takes for somebody in a small shop to successfully roll out a change, and then hear people insist that somebody the size of Microsoft should make a certain change, because it's "a really simple thing to do".

  • User profile image
    davewill

    @devSpeed: Its confusing.  The downloads for SQL Server 2008 R2 Express with service pack are different still.  Seems that R2 is caught in the middle of what appears to be a divergence of server and client core OS parts.  I'm sure the SQL group has to scratch their own head many times a day.  Thanks for the followup.

  • User profile image
    Vaccano

    @elmer

    Furthermore, o/s version and the age of the hardware it's running on, tend to be closely linked, as most people (and businesses) don't perform major version upgrades on hardware, they replace hardware with new versions loaded.


    But consider that because of the problems with Vista, many venders were selling new computers with XP on them up till 2008-2009.  For many users those machines still have several years on their life (average 5-6 years for a business use machine (emails, word processing and such)).

    @Zippy - My particular situation has closer to 80% xp installs.  But I am not arguing for my situation.  Microsoft cannot made decisions based off of me.  I am saying that the market share of XP is still so high.  And the damage caused to XP by this .NET release is extreme.  To do that to such a large amount of users (and by extension developers) is crazy.

    @spivonious
    We were doing that until about a year ago.  Happily we have stopped now.  However, it will still be several years before we get "off" xp.


    @Kettch - I never thought of it as easy.  But if it applies to a fourth of the market, it is the right thing to do.

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    , Vaccano wrote

    @elmer

    *snip*
    And the damage caused to XP by this .NET release is extreme.  To do that to such a large amount of users (and by extension developers) is crazy.

    What features of .net 4.5 do you need?

  • User profile image
    Vaccano

    @ZippyV

    What features of .net 4.5 do you need?

    The features that I personally need are beside the point of this discussion.  One person (or company) does not matter to Microsoft in the large scheme of things.

    But if you must know, I mostly want to not get stuck on an old IDE.  I cannot upgrade to Visual Studio 2012 because it requires .net 4.5.

    I also would like to use the non-CTP version of Async and Await.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    Vaccano:   really the "problem" is that   XP was already kept running longer than it should have.

    look back to the "Longhorn reboot" and the push to get the huge XP service pack out.

    while at the time it was the right thing for MS to get the security fixes for XP out it also meant that the release of what became "Vista" was much delayed.  so really Vista and WIndows 7 were both late getting out and many folks got locked into the XP OS far more than they should have.

    while i have my own concerns with the upcoming WIndows 8 i do tell anyone still using XP they really need to update unless they have a very very special case and then they should not look for new features, just maint on old code.

     

    when windows 95 came out it was the end of the windows 3.1 era.

    this is the end of the xp era, time to move on.

  • User profile image
    elmer

    , spivonious wrote

    Don't underestimate IT departments. We buy new Windows 7 machines, wipe them, and put XP on with our volume license. I really hope that the pending end of security updates forces us on to Win7, but I think we'll keep using XP until hardware vendors stop making drivers for it.

    Once Win8 is released, new machines will be sold with Win8, and then available for downgrade according to Win8 downgrade rights.

    I haven't seen details of the Win8 downgrade rights yet, but previously they allowed downgrade to previous 2 versions... i.e. Win7 downgrade rights currently entitle use of XP.

    It will be interesting to see if this is rolled forward as downgrade rights to Vista, and hence eliminating downgrade rights to XP.

    Of course, how much attention anyone pays to such a limit (if even imposed) would be another matter.

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    @Vaccano: If you stop assuming that 4.5 will fix bugs that won't be fixed in 4.0 then you can use VS2012.

  • User profile image
    davewill

    @ZippyV: He seems to need to progress along in the toolset and the toolset is not covering the breadth of what he needs to produce.

    Going back to VS 2003 for a month and doing all the same stuff you do today (but more productively in VS 2010) as a test.

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    , davewill wrote

    ...

    Going back to VS 2003 for a month and doing all the same stuff you do today (but more productively in VS 2010) as a test.

    I feel your pain. Had to maintain an ASP.NET 1.1 web application for ages, and that got me back to VS 2003 over and over. They should include that as a valid cause for medical use of controlled substances.

    @ZippyV: actually, there's an easier way: VS2012 can use VS2010 solutions without upgrading. One can always create the solution in VS2010 (on a machine not tainted with .NET 4.5), then develop with VS2012 targeting .NET 4. In the remote case where you get a bug during testing that doesn't repro in VS2012, it's always possible to go back to the VS2010 machine and debug away.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    Extended support means that Microsoft is still releasing security patches for XP. It does not mean that they are still making software for it.

    Anyway, this post is a bit of a rant.  But it is just driving me nuts that Microsoft is not supporting the most used Operating system on the planet.  They should wait until usage dies down (like they did with Windows 2000.  It was at 8% when they dropped it from .net 3.0.)

    Microsoft was only incorporated in 1982. This means that Windows XP was released a full third of a lifetime ago for Microsoft.

    How many other companies do you see supporting products from that long ago? Do you see Ford actively hurting their sales of new cars by selling parts for 1967 vehicles? Do you see Apple supporting any of the Power-PC based machines they sold in 2001? Do you see Google still looking like this?

    Generic Forum Image

    The long story short is that (in the judgement of WinDiv in Redmond) was that pushing Windows XP SP3 and IE8 to Windows XP was a tragic mistake that encouraged users to stick with XP rather than putting in place an upgrade strategy for business. This combined with relatively lack-lustre take-up of Vista has really pushed Microsoft back from being far-and-away the top technical company in 2004 to merely one of the top in 2012.

    Consequently, and I can't emphasise this enough, Microsoft are actively trying to kill XP, just like they are trying to kill IE6. They see it as damaging their sales of newer PCs, and they actively encourage products, third-party vendors and businesses to drop support for it.

    That is why .NET4.5 isn't coming to Windows XP. It's not for any technical reason - it's because Microsoft see supporting customers on Windows XP as actively undermining their profit margins through Windows 7 sales, and since Sinofsky's department are currently beating the pants off of DevDiv in sales, Sinofsky is winning in the board-room to get Visual Studio, .NET and other critical DevDiv technologies to move to being newest-two-platforms-only.

    Like it or hate it, that's Microsoft's policy; and for those who don't like it, the sad fact is that even with a 10-year support, Microsoft supports its products for more than twice as long as the nearest competitor in the market; Apple, and nearly 10 years longer than the oft-cited-alternative, Linux.

  • User profile image
    Vaccano

    @figuerres -  I agree that XP is been kept running longer than it should.  But that is because Microsoft failed so hard with Vista.  

    But "should" does not change the fact that a quarter of the customers developers create apps for are running Windows XP.

    @Zippy - Assuming?  Please go take a look on connect at the list of bugs that have been resolved and closed as fixed for .net 4.5.  If you find even 5% that say they will be fixed in .net 4.0 as well, then I will be astounded.

    MS is not planning to fix any of these bugs in .net 4.0 (at least as far as they have announced anyway).

    Here are the links to the full lists of bugs (there is no way to filter on Fixed as apposed to External, Won't Fix etc, but there are plenty of fixed items in the list.)

    @evilDictaitor


    ...pushing Windows XP SP3 and IE8 to Windows XP was a tragic mistake that encouraged users to stick with XP rather than putting in place an upgrade strategy for business.

    Microsoft are actively trying to kill XP, just like they are trying to kill IE6.


    I agree with you.  What is making me upset is that they are making me pay for their mistakes.  I want them to find a way to kill their products that does not cause me to have to suffer for their mistakes.

    They messed up with Vista, they messed up with the SP3 and IE8.  This has resulted in the prologed life of Windows XP.  This FACT is there: A quarter of all machines in North America are using it.  Developers should not have to take the hit (in either lost customers or extra development and support costs) for Microsoft's mistakes.

    Making developers suffer because they have caused XP to live longer than it should have is NOT the right way to force out XP.

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    , Vaccano wrote

    @figuerres -  I agree that XP is been kept running longer than it should.  But that is because Microsoft failed so hard with Vista.  

    ...

    *snip*

    I agree with you.  What is making me upset is that they are making me pay for their mistakes.  I want them to find a way to kill their products that does not cause me to have to suffer for their mistakes.

    They messed up with Vista, they messed up with the SP3 and IE8.  This has resulted in the prologed life of Windows XP.  This FACT is there: A quarter of all machines in North America are using it.  Developers should not have to take the hit (in either lost customers or extra development and support costs) for Microsoft's mistakes.

    Making developers suffer because they have caused XP to live longer than it should have is NOT the right way to force out XP.

    Seriously, the Vista alibi is getting old. Whatever opinion you have on Vista, the hard numbers tell you that business users are still massively excercising their downgrade rights today (ask yourself how is it possible that 80% of your customers are still on XP, three years after Windows 7 was released).

    That's not Vista, it's companies running poorly written software that doesn't run in Vista+ that it would cost way too much to fix. They are squeezing the most out of their investment, that's understandable, but they are the ultimate reason why XP is still around. Vista, SP3, IE8: that's utter BS.

  • User profile image
    Vaccano

    @Blue Ink:

    Really, I don't care what the real reason is for XP's prolonged life.

    All that concerns me is the fact that it HAS been prolonged and Microsoft has failed to manage it into an end of life scenario.

    The fact still remains that a quarter of all machines in North America are running XP.  Developers are now faced with the choice of lost customers or higher development and support costs.

    Because Microsoft failed to manage THEIR platform's lifespan they are going to just make developers cope with the pain of their failure. 

     

  • User profile image
    kettch

    @Vaccano: Ok, so they've been enabling all of these users, companies, and developers for a lot longer than is healthy. Should they just continue to enable them forever? There's a lot of folks that would just continue to use XP indefinitely. Or, should they encourage them (for their own good) to move along.

    I don't think it's only about selling new Windows licenses, but how much it costs to dispense the methadone *cough* errr, maintenance on XP. Yeah...maintenance...that's what I meant to say. There are costs not only for Microsoft, but for the customers. The longer the users procrastinate, the more expensive the switch will be.

    All that concerns me is the fact that it HAS been prolonged and Microsoft has failed to manage it into an end of life scenario.

    No, they are doing a decent job of putting it into end-of-life. No new updates, no new browser releases, and no development platform updates. That sounds like reasonable stuff to do.

    What do you suggest they do to get people off of XP?

  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    , Vaccano wrote

    @Blue Ink:

    Really, I don't care what the real reason is for XP's prolonged life.

    All that concerns me is the fact that it HAS been prolonged and Microsoft has failed to manage it into an end of life scenario.

    The fact still remains that a quarter of all machines in North America are running XP.  Developers are now faced with the choice of lost customers or higher development and support costs.

    Because Microsoft failed to manage THEIR platform's lifespan they are going to just make developers cope with the pain of their failure. 

     

    Dude, you are wasting your breath.I am glad that there is no longer support for XP, as a decade is long enough, and that operating system is decrepit, when you look at new hardware and the possibilities available.

    As Aldous Huxley writes "rolling around in the muck, is not the best way of getting clean". If you listed to Jason Zander, they have shaved off terabytes in their Visual Studio 2012 builds.

    I don't mean this impolitely, but the world has moved on, it is about time you did. If you choose not to, then that is your problem, not ours or Microsoft's!

     

  • User profile image
    Vaccano

    @vesuvius, @kettch - I would be very happy to "move on".  I don't like supporting Windows XP.  I run on Windows 7 and would be happy to never have to code for XP again.

    But despite your arguments, there are still at least a full quarter of ALL MACHINES out there running XP.  Microsoft needed to have a quicker end of support for XP (all support) to make the kind of move they are making.

    I want my company to move off XP (and we are heading in that direction).  But it will be a while still, and the staticstics show I am not alone.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.