"one of the longest living consumer operating systems" Depends on how you select what a consumer operating system is, I guess, and how you determine that it's still living.
XP for consumers: October 25, 2001 - April 8, 2014: < 13 years
POSReady 2009 OS ("not intended for client computers"): late 2008 - today: < 11 years
Debian: June 17, 1996 - forseeable future: > 23 years
If you treat Debian as one monolithic OS, you need to do the same for Windows. Not just XP, but every release. Debian 1.1 is as different from Debian 9 as Windows 3.1 is from Windows 10.
A more realistic comparison would be to include POSReady 2009 in with XP, meaning that XP went from 25-10-2001 to 9-4-2019, which is a rather insane amount of time to support an OS with such broad platform support and use cases. Debian has much more reasonable 5 year support cycles.
On the plus side, you can upgrade for free between Debian versions. Historically that's not been the case for Windows, although they made an exception for Windows 10.
Good point. So when do you need to consider two releases as a different OS? Maybe a question of software compatibility: Does the software that ran on release A also run on release B? How many and which software packages need to break before you consider it a new OS?
For me as a user, I'd go with @GreenReaper's criterion: Can I continue to use my computer by installing available upgrades (to OS and software)?
Would be interested to hear which definition @AntonSilhov had in mind in writing the article.
It's whatever the developer deems is a single release and support window. Debian 5 might be able to (painfully) upgrade to Debian 9, but that doesn't mean Debian 5 and Debian 9 are the same. They have very different underlying libraries and programs. One is supported, one isn't.
Of course, upgrades weren't always easy. But first off, a fun fact - you could fit Debain 0.91 on 3 (base)+23 (dist) 1.44MB floppies: http://www.oldlinux.org/Linux.old/distributions/de... (Personally, I got my first distribution, S.u.S.E. 4.2, on a CD.)
You could upgrade to bo (1.3, 5 June 1997) but it required some manual file replacements: http://archive.debian.org/debian/dists/bo/main/REA... Possibly this process was similar in previous versions - upgrade dpkg, then let it handle it.
Note however that the Pentium Pro, required by Debian 9, was only released in November 1995. It's unclear whether the kernel in the original distribution would support this CPU.
---
As for Windows, you can potentially upgrade from 1.0 (theoretically supported from November 1985 to December 31, 2001) to Windows 10, almost 30 years later. However, reality bites, as you're likely to have to have swapped hardware during that point.
Why? Well, let's talk video, for starters: EGA had only just been released, but the last EGA driver was for Windows 3.1. You could use that in Win95, and the 8194/A driver was even on the CD-ROM version, but it wouldn't be pleasant. Many at that time would have been using CGA (if not MGA); you can fudge CGA to work with early versions of 95 (Chicago), but it's not worth it: https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...
Similarly, VGA was only good enough up to the end of Windows NT or ME - Win2000 and XP required SVGA, although you might get them to launch in VGA mode for emergencies.
More serious issues exist such as lack of necessary CPU instructions - forget the Pentium Pro; the 80386 had barely been released, and would only be required almost five years later with Windows 3.0 (or Windows/386 2.10), bus compatibility and incompatible minimum/maximum storage sizes. So realistically, such a continuous upgrade would never happen on a single system.
3.1 (April 1992) required a 286+; Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (August 1993) required a 386+. You could run Windows 95 with that, too, but you probably wanted a 486.
Not only that but he's wrong in two ways. One, Debian started in 1993, not 1996. Two, it's not the oldest surviving Linux OS, that honor goes to Slackware which debuted a few months before Debian and is still actively developed and used. A side note: FreeBSD has also been around since 1993; its first release was a few months after Debian.
One, Debian was not declared stable until 1996. I'd consider everything before that as a beta, but sure, make it 26 years if you want. Two, I never said it was the oldest, only cited it as an example.
This is how I'd determine whether it's still effectively the same Desktop OS: 1) Does the Debian GUI still look and work the same as it did in 1996 and not require you to retrain your staff? 2) Can you still easily use most 1996 hardware drivers on the 2019 version of Debian? 3) Can you still easily install and run the most 1996 apps (e.g. Star Office 3.1 ) on the 2019 version of Debian?
A "No" for any of these means it's not the same OS. A "Yes" in all means it's effectively the same OS or at least a very compatible OS for real world purposes.
I suspect some major shifts in technology in the next 10 years. We're going to see the death of the OS as a product in the next 5-6 years, the death of x86 in the next 15 years (finally). It's going to be a wild ride.
Sad day for me, I was on the kernel team for XP in 1999-2001 working on ACPI. Later I returned by joining the XP Embedded team where I was from 2006-2011. Great people, good times, sad to see it finally get the lights turned off. Huge chunk of my career.
Merchants must: “Ensure that all system components and software are protected from known vulnerabilities by installing applicable vendor supplied security patches. Install critical security patches within one month of release.”
But maybe there are no security patches? In which case, they would not need to be installed! That said, good luck if your insurance requires PCI compliance and you get hit by a known vulnerability
As someone who works for a major POS vendor, the vast majority of posready devices still out there aren't connected to the internet. Legacy software on private internal networks.
At a guess, it's more complicated than changing a single registry setting this time.
Of course, you could always order an evaluation kit and try it for yourself - it does mention activation is not required, thought I don't know if that applies to the evaluation version:
Oh, and it says right there: "This full-functional, installable version is 180 day timebombed." Of course, if it's for emergencies, or you can deal with reinstalling (or rearming?) twice a year...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
Back to Article
JanW1 - Thursday, April 11, 2019 - link
"one of the longest living consumer operating systems"Depends on how you select what a consumer operating system is, I guess, and how you determine that it's still living.
XP for consumers:
October 25, 2001 - April 8, 2014: < 13 years
POSReady 2009 OS ("not intended for client computers"):
late 2008 - today: < 11 years
Debian:
June 17, 1996 - forseeable future: > 23 years
baka_toroi - Thursday, April 11, 2019 - link
Debian released many versions since 1996 and most are not supported anymore. What are you smoking?jordanclock - Thursday, April 11, 2019 - link
If you treat Debian as one monolithic OS, you need to do the same for Windows. Not just XP, but every release. Debian 1.1 is as different from Debian 9 as Windows 3.1 is from Windows 10.A more realistic comparison would be to include POSReady 2009 in with XP, meaning that XP went from 25-10-2001 to 9-4-2019, which is a rather insane amount of time to support an OS with such broad platform support and use cases. Debian has much more reasonable 5 year support cycles.
GreenReaper - Thursday, April 11, 2019 - link
On the plus side, you can upgrade for free between Debian versions. Historically that's not been the case for Windows, although they made an exception for Windows 10.JanW1 - Friday, April 12, 2019 - link
Good point. So when do you need to consider two releases as a different OS? Maybe a question of software compatibility: Does the software that ran on release A also run on release B? How many and which software packages need to break before you consider it a new OS?For me as a user, I'd go with @GreenReaper's criterion: Can I continue to use my computer by installing available upgrades (to OS and software)?
Would be interested to hear which definition @AntonSilhov had in mind in writing the article.
jordanclock - Friday, April 12, 2019 - link
It's whatever the developer deems is a single release and support window. Debian 5 might be able to (painfully) upgrade to Debian 9, but that doesn't mean Debian 5 and Debian 9 are the same. They have very different underlying libraries and programs. One is supported, one isn't.GreenReaper - Friday, April 12, 2019 - link
Of course, upgrades weren't always easy.But first off, a fun fact - you could fit Debain 0.91 on 3 (base)+23 (dist) 1.44MB floppies:
http://www.oldlinux.org/Linux.old/distributions/de...
(Personally, I got my first distribution, S.u.S.E. 4.2, on a CD.)
Instructions were provided for upgrading from Debian 0.93, which shipped in March 1995, to 1.x versions:
http://archive.debian.org/debian/dists/buzz/main/R...
This probably relied on dpkg, which was publicly introduced in 0.93:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/1995/msg0...
...although it existed in 0.91 - this states that manual upgrades from 0.90 would *not* work:
http://www.oldlinux.org/Linux.old/distributions/de...
You could upgrade to bo (1.3, 5 June 1997) but it required some manual file replacements:
http://archive.debian.org/debian/dists/bo/main/REA...
Possibly this process was similar in previous versions - upgrade dpkg, then let it handle it.
Upgrading from 1.3 to 2.0 also required manual work due to the libc5 -> libc6 transition:
https://www.debian.org/releases/hamm/HOWTO.upgrade
And APT wasn't included until 2.1 (slink) in 9 March 1999:
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history...
Note however that the Pentium Pro, required by Debian 9, was only released in November 1995. It's unclear whether the kernel in the original distribution would support this CPU.
---
As for Windows, you can potentially upgrade from 1.0 (theoretically supported from November 1985 to December 31, 2001) to Windows 10, almost 30 years later. However, reality bites, as you're likely to have to have swapped hardware during that point.
Why? Well, let's talk video, for starters: EGA had only just been released, but the last EGA driver was for Windows 3.1. You could use that in Win95, and the 8194/A driver was even on the CD-ROM version, but it wouldn't be pleasant. Many at that time would have been using CGA (if not MGA); you can fudge CGA to work with early versions of 95 (Chicago), but it's not worth it:
https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...
Similarly, VGA was only good enough up to the end of Windows NT or ME - Win2000 and XP required SVGA, although you might get them to launch in VGA mode for emergencies.
More serious issues exist such as lack of necessary CPU instructions - forget the Pentium Pro; the 80386 had barely been released, and would only be required almost five years later with Windows 3.0 (or Windows/386 2.10), bus compatibility and incompatible minimum/maximum storage sizes. So realistically, such a continuous upgrade would never happen on a single system.
GreenReaper - Friday, April 12, 2019 - link
...in fact, 3.0 would still work (though probably not ideally) on an 8086:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.0#System_r...
3.1 (April 1992) required a 286+; Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (August 1993) required a 386+. You could run Windows 95 with that, too, but you probably wanted a 486.
Duckeenie - Thursday, April 11, 2019 - link
Every time the words operating system are mentioned some head banger shows up to display his confirmation bias.Boring...
kaidenshi - Thursday, April 11, 2019 - link
Not only that but he's wrong in two ways. One, Debian started in 1993, not 1996. Two, it's not the oldest surviving Linux OS, that honor goes to Slackware which debuted a few months before Debian and is still actively developed and used. A side note: FreeBSD has also been around since 1993; its first release was a few months after Debian.JanW1 - Friday, April 12, 2019 - link
One, Debian was not declared stable until 1996. I'd consider everything before that as a beta, but sure, make it 26 years if you want.Two, I never said it was the oldest, only cited it as an example.
lyeoh - Friday, May 17, 2019 - link
This is how I'd determine whether it's still effectively the same Desktop OS:1) Does the Debian GUI still look and work the same as it did in 1996 and not require you to retrain your staff?
2) Can you still easily use most 1996 hardware drivers on the 2019 version of Debian?
3) Can you still easily install and run the most 1996 apps (e.g. Star Office 3.1 ) on the 2019 version of Debian?
A "No" for any of these means it's not the same OS. A "Yes" in all means it's effectively the same OS or at least a very compatible OS for real world purposes.
DECwest - Friday, June 25, 2021 - link
Actually none come closer to XP lifespan, some of "LTS" OSes lifespan:RHEL 6: 10y (2010-2010 or 15y (-2025 by Oracle)
Solaris 10: 13y (2005-2018)
OS/2 Warp 4: 10y (1996-2006)
PCDOS 7: 8y (1995-2003)
FreeBSD 4: 7y (2000-2007)
Ubuntu: mostly 5y
shabby - Thursday, April 11, 2019 - link
Google should take note in os support from ms.LordSojar - Thursday, April 11, 2019 - link
I suspect some major shifts in technology in the next 10 years. We're going to see the death of the OS as a product in the next 5-6 years, the death of x86 in the next 15 years (finally). It's going to be a wild ride.Threska - Friday, April 12, 2019 - link
Never the death of consumers as cash cows. MOOOOO!Reflex - Thursday, April 11, 2019 - link
Sad day for me, I was on the kernel team for XP in 1999-2001 working on ACPI. Later I returned by joining the XP Embedded team where I was from 2006-2011. Great people, good times, sad to see it finally get the lights turned off. Huge chunk of my career.DanNeely - Thursday, April 11, 2019 - link
Does this mean any businesses still using it for their cash registers are no longer in PCI compliance?GreenReaper - Thursday, April 11, 2019 - link
Merchants must: “Ensure that all system components and software are protected from known vulnerabilities by installing applicable vendor supplied security patches. Install critical security patches within one month of release.”But maybe there are no security patches? In which case, they would not need to be installed! That said, good luck if your insurance requires PCI compliance and you get hit by a known vulnerability
abhaxus - Saturday, April 13, 2019 - link
As someone who works for a major POS vendor, the vast majority of posready devices still out there aren't connected to the internet. Legacy software on private internal networks.ltcommanderdata - Thursday, April 11, 2019 - link
I wonder if a similar simple way to get POSReady 7 patches on consumer Windows 7 versions exists to drag out it's EOL?GreenReaper - Thursday, April 11, 2019 - link
At a guess, it's more complicated than changing a single registry setting this time.Of course, you could always order an evaluation kit and try it for yourself - it does mention activation is not required, thought I don't know if that applies to the evaluation version:
USA (and general download): https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.a...
Europe, Middle East and Asia (physical copy): https://www.msembedded.biz/en/embedded-software/wi...
GreenReaper - Thursday, April 11, 2019 - link
Oh, and it says right there: "This full-functional, installable version is 180 day timebombed."Of course, if it's for emergencies, or you can deal with reinstalling (or rearming?) twice a year...