Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 8th Apr 2014 15:38 UTC
Windows

It's finally here. After 12 years, 6 months, and 12 days on the market, Windows XP has hit its end of life. It will receive its last ever set of patches on Windows Update today, and for the most part, that will be that. Any flaws discovered from now on - and it's inevitable that some will be discovered - will never be publicly patched.

How bad is this going to be? It's probably going to be pretty bad. By some measures, about 28 percent of the Web-using public is still using Windows XP, and these systems are going to be ripe for exploitation.

I never liked Windows XP (I used BeOS during XP's early days, and Mac OS X and Linux during XP's later days), so I'm glad to see it go. This terrible operating system should have died out years ago.

Thread beginning with comment 586719
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

I tried to use BeOS right after Windows 98, but it wouldn't let me install it on the shiny new AMD system I built back in 2002, because it only worked on Intel iron.


Sorry, but I have to call bullshit on that one. I have under my desk right now, an AMD Duron based machine from 2001 that runs BeOS quite happily. The integrated graphics aren't supported, but the ATI card I put in it works fine with an updated driver from BeBits. BeOS R5 always worked on AMD in my experience; the only limitations are too much RAM and too fast CPUs, and the latter can cause issues on Intel as well as AMD processors.

Reply Parent Score: 3

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

BeOS R5 always worked on AMD in my experience; the only limitations are too much RAM and too fast CPUs, and the latter can cause issues on Intel as well as AMD processors.


Actually, you had to patch it to run on AMD processors - maybe you were using a pre-patched BeOS PE derivative (BeOS Max for example usually came pre-patched).

Reply Parent Score: 3

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Interesting, because my R5 retail disc installs on that Duron system today and I didn't patch anything; it's how I've got BeOS on it in the first place. My R5 disc came as a bundle with GoBe Productive.

I do remember having to patch for later generation Athlon XP machines, long after Be Inc. was gone. But I've never had to patch for this Duron machine.


Edit: Just found this, from tycomsystems.com, and it confirms what I said:

BeOS for Intel Architecture is compatible with all truly Pentium-compatible processor(s), including the following:

Intel Celeron
Intel Pentium (133MHz or higher recommended)
Intel Pentium MMX
Intel Pentium Pro
Intel Pentium II
Intel Pentium II Xeon
Intel Pentium III
Intel Pentium III Xeon
AMD Athlon
AMD K6, K6-2, K6-III
Cyrix 686MX, 686GXm (but not the M1)
IDT WinChip C6, WinChip 2
Rise mP6

BeOS should run on any truly Pentium-compatible processor, whether it's on this list or not. As long as it is an Intel Pentium or true clone, it should work.


Edited 2014-04-09 10:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

You only had to patch the kernel for Via C3, Transmeta Crusoe, Athlon XP with Palomino core or newer with diskprobe (swap the line GenuineIntel... "CentaurHauls" for VIA CPU, "GenuineTMx86" for transmeta, and "AuthenticAMD" for AMD CPU's) If his duron is of the Spitfire line (remodeled Thunderbird Athlons) it would run fine without patching, even BeOS 4.5 as the kernel still accepted the redundant but still in the older CPU's id "AMDisbetter!" that can be found in K5 and some very early k6 (ceramic pcb)

Reply Parent Score: 3

Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Had 1.5 GB, couldn't run neither BeOS 5 nor ZetaOS. If too much RAM becomes a 'limitation', better get rid of such an "operating system". Especially considering the prior case "640K is enough"...

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Which is why Haiku exists. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

The speed issue when the CPU ran faster than 2147mhz was due to the RTC (real time clock) getting out of sync.

Reply Parent Score: 3