Windows 7 approaches end of life

in microsoft on 2014-08-27 20:52 (#2QWN)

Prefer Windows 7 to Windows 8? Too bad: you're not far away from not having the choice, for some editions. Some wholesalers are already reporting they will no longer be getting Windows 7 Home Premium or Windows 7 Ultimate after October:

Windows 7 Home Premium and Windows 7 Ultimate will be EOL on 10/31/14. Please note: This is ONLY Windows 7 Home Premium and Ultimate editions -- NOT Windows 7 Professional. Windows 7 Professional will still be around for the foreseeable future... No EOL date has been issued on Pro as of yet.
If you have customers that will require Windows 7 Home Premium beyond 10/31/14, please plan ahead. We may purchase Windows 7 Home Premium & Ultimate up until 10/31/14, but once that date has passed, Microsoft will no longer sell the item. At that point - what we have left in-stock is final! Please also remember that downgrading from Windows 8 Core to Windows 7 Home on system builds will no longer be an option after this date, either.

Extended support for Win7 is available until January, 2020. But given how hard it's been to get people to move to Win8, you can only imagine Microsoft is looking forward to pulling the plug on 7 Pro as well.

mainstream vs. extended support (Score: 3, Informative)

by seriously@pipedot.org on 2014-08-28 06:50 (#2R2Y)

Mainstream support just means no more Service Pack, whereas extended support is what matters: security patches.

Even Home editions have extended support until 2020, so no worries yet for all our windowers friends (although it seems they must have the latest SP installed to get the extended support).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2014/07/10/microsoft-windows-7-mainstream-support/

Re: mainstream vs. extended support (Score: 1)

by rocks@pipedot.org on 2014-08-28 14:31 (#2R72)

We use Win7 at work. Win7 seems to have LTS status similar to WinXP -- I tend to ponder whether it will be Win8 that loses Microsoft's attention first given 8's uptake issues in the general marketplace.

Yes but (Score: 2, Funny)

by hyper@pipedot.org on 2014-08-28 08:36 (#2R3Z)

When will XP finally "die"

Can they afford this? (Score: 1, Insightful)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-08-28 09:53 (#2R4C)

XP had been declared "EOLed" quite some time ago, but Microsoft had to extend the period many times. I'd not be surprised if the same happened with Windows 7 (unless they soon bring a Windows 9 that people actually like).

Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 3, Interesting)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-08-28 10:20 (#2R4N)

I was thinking the same. I actually quite like Win7 and would prefer it over WinXP if I'm installing on a machine with enough space. I'm amazed at how many more gigs on the harddrive Win7 requires. For virtual machines and such I still prefer XP and for some stuff I even try to install Win2000, which is pretty light in comparison.

Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 3, Insightful)

by nightsky30@pipedot.org on 2014-08-28 11:33 (#2R5A)

It amazes me how exponentially crazy the size of OSes have grown as well, especially Windows. I realize there is added functionality in each new version (ok, this could be argued :D), and increased resolution in packaged images, but why the many GB in increase? Why the bloat? Linux seems to be outgrowing the CD now with many mainstream distros requiring a DVD (if you don't count minimal CLI installs), but would it kill to focus more on efficiency in software size and even function?

Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 2, Funny)

by wootery@pipedot.org on 2014-08-28 13:21 (#2R69)

Mac solution: occasionally dedicate a new release to slimming-down, rather than adding features

Linux solution: lightweight distros (Fluxbuntu, Lubuntu, Puppy, DSL)

Windows solution: ...? I guess you could buy an Xbox One, or a Windows Phone :P

Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-08-28 18:31 (#2RB3)

Linux distros are giving you a lot more than an OS, as is Windows. The install media's size isn't what you should be worrying about.

What you should be worrying about is the system resources to require to actually run the OS. Linux in general will still run on an i486, and with a Pentium 2 or so, you can even run X. Windows 7 takes HOW many GIGABYTES of RAM?

You can go for a minimal install of Linux or Windows if you want a small hard drive footprint, but the bloat is in the resource requirements to run.

Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 4, Funny)

by hyper@pipedot.org on 2014-08-28 10:57 (#2R4Z)

Ha.There's a good poll topic. "What will it take for you/your company to embrace Windows 9 as the primary OS?"1. Nothing. We have Linux / other2. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Just, no. Never. Ever. Ever.3. Nothing. Waiting for Windows 10.4. Only when xp/Windows 7 is no longer an option5. Start menu 6. No start screen7. No Metro8. Price = free9. Removal of Windows 8 mouse gestures hot spots and related annoyances10. When there is absolutely no other choice11. Over my dead body12. When required by those who hold the purse strings13. When Windows 9 can be modified to look and act like Windows 7/XP14. I don't care15. CowboyBrian chooses my OS for me

Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 1)

by hyper@pipedot.org on 2014-08-29 04:09 (#2RHH)

Bah. Editing on mobile there. LF are stripped.. and html on a phone is difficult :)
I was hoping for more suggestions ... anyone else have a beef with Windows which would need to be resolved before it is acceptable?

Re: Can they afford this? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-08-28 18:28 (#2RAW)

Got citations on the "many times"?

I knew of once that was a particularly problematic hole within a week or so of EOL, but nothing since then outside of support for those who pay (through the nose) for it, like the IRS (your tax dollars at work!).