Apple bars WinXP users from iCloud Microsoft isn't the only company denying equal online footing to Windows XP users. Apple will not give PC users access to iCloud – its great digital locker in the sky – if their machines are running Microsoft's aging but still popular Windows XP. Tucked at the bottom of the iCloud announcement, Apple says you'll need a PC …
I'm getting confused with The Register.
In Matt Assay's article he was saying "We haven't banished operating system lock-in, in other words. We've just renamed it "cloud." [1]
But now this one is saying we can actually use iCloud on Windows Vista and 7? Just not on Windows XP... So where is the lock in?
Which one of you is not right? This is all very confusing.
Please agree on something and be consistent about it. I have enough fragmentation in my life.
[1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/09/public_cloud_lock_in/
I like to play Doom, and on XP ZDoom was perfect for this. But then I made the mistake of "upgrading" to Vista and then to 7, and ZDoom on my machine gives garbled graphics on both. Trying other Doom ports hasn't helped -- most of them won't run at all on my setup.
If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it, lest you break it.
At least I think it is sparks because it seems you guys have one hell of an axe to grind against Apple righ now. I can respect if you guys don't agree with all of their decisions, but at the end of the day I can't escape the feeling you guys are being unrealistically hard of late. XP is three revisions back, and the better part of ten years old. If any company starts moving their newest features to a newer OS, I don't think any of us can blame them. Heck, Microsoft is the one who made xp and they are practically done with it. Lighten up the tone guys.
I recently bought a new eMachines (Acer) netbook with XP installed on it. Why would I not expect a reasonable life from this without having to shell out for another OS that would be marginal on the hardware.
Actually it also has Ubuntu on it, with XFCE and definitely not Unity or Gnome 3.
Now if only Apple can get iTunes 10 to work properly on the Windows 7 64 Bit version...
The installer incorrectly identifies the OS as being the 32 bit version, and installs the 32 bit version, which then refuses to run correctly, freezing, corrupting iOS devices, and other fun stuff. As a result the only machine that correctly syncs my family's iOS devices is my ageing XP desktop.
Software validation appears to be a thing of the past...
"Microsoft was the first to stick it to Windows XP users with Internet Explorer 9. The latest version of Microsoft's browser, released this year, does not – and will never – run on Windows XP. Microsoft is trying to steer people towards Windows 7. And rightfully so."
Really? So I should have to pay Microsoft for an overpriced OS, just to keep my otherwise fully functional dual core, 2 gigs of ram, runs like a champ XP pro box "up to date?" How about I do so when they refund me the full cost of XP, since it clearly was the least long lived component in my system? The box does everything I ask of it without breaking a sweat (another, newer machine was long since acquired to take over it's original task, so now it mostly does email, web, hulu, youtube, etc. - and all at the highest resolution/bitrate the service supports) - why on earth do you feel that it is "right" that I may be forced to leave XP in order to have simple compatibility?
No, either XP was fit for purpose, in which case I shouldn't /have/ to upgrade while my hardware can still compete with (or just simply beat) most of the low end "Made for Windows 7" boxes, or it wasn't, in which case the upgrade should be free. Of course, considering the age of my hardware, I /could/ just buy a new unit that comes with Windows 7, and send my old one off to some third world country to be "reprocessed." It would cost more, I'd have a slower computer, and I'd have the piece of mind of knowing that there was a not insignificant chance I helped poison a third world worker today, but I would (probably) send less money to Microsoft than a straight up upgrade, and have new, warrantied equipment. Oddly enough, in my own home where there is no business pressure to keep the machines as reliable as possible, I'm more interested in keeping my working gear going for as long as the hardware is both reliable and competitive.
I'm not going to overly complain about third party devs - most of them work within the framework that is provided to them. However, I am disappointed in both Microsoft and now Apple for their treatment of this rather popular platform.
-d
Eh? You ramble makes no sense
"So I should have to pay Microsoft for an overpriced OS, just to keep my otherwise fully functional dual core, 2 gigs of ram, "
No, but should microsoft / Apple support a decade old bit of software?
No.
No, either XP was fit for purpose, in which case I shouldn't /have/ to upgrade while my hardware can still compete with.....
This makes no sense.....
How is that decade old tv, picking up freeview without any add ons?
You decade old car have sat nav built in does it?
Your decade old boiler as good as new one?
It's obsolete, so get over it.
And yes I have several XP machines, but I don't DEMAND that everyone supports and develops for it.
Send to be recycle by third world?
WTF?
Ebay? Charity? Freecycle?
The vast majority of those are on a corporate PC where, if their local IT is any good, they won't be permitted access to such trivia anyway.
Most of the rest in all likelihood could not give a toss for a variety of reasons - i.e. they are Vista/W7 refusenik geeks (not exactly iCloud's target market), or they have another machine, or they live in the third world and have more pressing things to worry about than getting access to Jobs' new playpen for rich idiot westerners. Etc., etc.
Microsoft trying to steer people towards Windows 7 is "rightfully so" but Apple failing to support a 10 year old OS that's EOL in a couple years is a "dropped ball"?
Microsoft wants to push people off Windows XP because that forces people to upgrade, and most of them will end up with a newer Windows OS. More profit for Microsoft!
Apple doesn't have such a motive, though leaving behind half the potential PC users is an issue that potentially reduces profit, as you point out . However, iCloud is only beta, and who is it who plays around with beta software? Early adopters. Exactly the type who isn't still using Windows XP!
Maybe they'll support XP with the release version of iCloud, maybe not. But the fact Microsoft is trying so hard to get people off XP probably enters into their decision of whether it is worth the effort to support it with a brand new product.
>Microsoft is trying to steer people towards Windows 7. And rightfully so.
They can stuff off, XP runs on the hardware I use and runs all of the applications I need to use. I ran the 7 upgrade check and basically I would be up for updating my hardware with changes to most of my software and I would be chucking my film scanners out.
But when it comes to it, there is on way I'll put anything into a cloud outside of my control.
My Canon 2710 Slide Scanner had drivers for NT4 and could be made to work with Win2K and Adapatec drivers which could be made to work with XP with minor annoyances only.
Today I have Win7 in a virtual machine on OpenSuSE for my newer Win Only stuff and the good old Canon scanner on the host with VUEscan. Best of both worlds!
MobileMe Control Panel for Windows that currently syncs calendars etc with Outlook 2007 and 2010 has an annoying niggle ... It doesn't work with 64-bit Outlook 2010.
If Apple are dropping XP support because they are looking to "the future" then they need to make sure that iCloud works with 64-bit Office as well as old skool 32-bit versions.
Microsoft's official advice to OEM resellers is that they should use the 32-bit version of Office even on a 64-bit OS, to avoid incompatibilities with the *many* third party plug-ins that exist in the Office marketplace. If you have a problem with 64-bit Office, then you've been mis-sold, or mis-bought.
He has a point, I wouldn't say it's irritating though. MAC *is* an acronym that is used in computing; Media Access Control. If you don't know what that is, of for that matter the difference between an acronym and a contraction (*Mac*intosh), then you really shouldn't be posting here. On second thoughts, keep doing it. It makes it much easier to spot the idiots that haven't actually got a clue what they are talking about.
"The latest version of Microsoft's browser, released this year, does not – and will never – run on Windows XP. Microsoft is trying to steer people towards Windows 7. And rightfully so."
Win7 is a fix of Vista.
Vista and Win7 are mainly about eye candy. They offer no significant advantage to XP users, Win7 appears to be a marketing effort to compete with Mac OS.
MS has lost the plot. Also many high end computers even up to 9 years old are powerful enough to run Win7 apart from Graphics. The Graphics architecture is Stupidity. DirectX was bad, but at least it was really only to make migrating DOS like games easy (rather than Open GL or Win GDI based). Direct 3D is worse.
No-one needs IE 9, so that's not important.
Apple don't care about 40%+ of people running XP because they think people should run OS X. (which is priced cheap because it's only licensed for overpriced and Locked Apple Appliances).
To be fair, OS innovation died a long time ago.
XP covers 99% of what people want in an OS. Vista did a lovely job of shaking up the underlying hardware APIs, but the end user benefit was negligible.
MS (and others) make a lot of money from OS's, so they need to do something new.
However, I completely disagree that DirectX/3D are bad - maybe you're thinking back to the DX3 days when MS were catching up with the emerging 3D market? Nowadays, they're streets ahead of OpenGL (as painful as that is to admit), but they have the massive disadvantage of being platform-dependent.
OpenGL is a reasonable multi-platform solution, but it's been playing catch-up to D3D since about version 8. In terms of features and API, that is.
Personally, I like Win7, but the big things I like are simply usability improvements that *could* have been applied to WinXP if MS could have made the same margins from it.
I don't begrudge them a new OS, though; if I owned an OS I'm sure I'd want to constantly improve it as well - Linux and OS X do exactly the same.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Sticking to the APIs available in XP is hardly limiting for most software and if you are writing the interface to an internet-based service (like iCloud or IE9) then it takes *real* effort to arrange for the code not to work on XP.
In Microsoft's case there's a clear, if not terribly worthy, incentive for them to make that effort and (since IE9 brings in no revenue) no great downside if people ignore the product as a result.
In Apple's case it is harder to see the rationale. They've just turned their backs on precisely those Windows users who hadn't rushed to upgrade and who therefore might have been persuaded to try a non-MS platform.
This post has been deleted by its author
As opposed to this year's fresh, insecure, virus-riddled piece of crap?
If you look at the holes being patched through Windows Update, there's not much to choose between XP, Vista and 7 in terms of the number of patches they get. Furthermore, if properly managed, XP is no more virus-prone than a Linux or FreeBSD box. The annual black-hat conference has given up on their contest to crack the bare OS because even the very best can't do it now. Viable cracks now depend on having some flaky Adobe plug-in being used whilst surfing the web as root.
I can see Apple's point - there's always going to be an extra cost in building and supporting software across multiple platforms*. Why go to that expense for a diminishing (albeit still popular) target audience?
* It's always possible that it will actually run on XP, but that Apple won't offer any support. How different that would be from the Win7 position, I can't say.
Well Lord Jobs is not allowed to simply say this is for Mac boxes and fondleslabs only or the monopolies mob would be down on him like a ton of wotnots, so by denying XP users he can wipe a bloody huge amount of the "opposition" in a stroke.
What's the problem here? It's only a network storage space, surely? I wouldn't expect this to be too hard to allow clients to store data regardless of platform. Next thing I can imagine is him denying RIM and Android clients unless they are using the latest bleeding edge O/S for those platforms. Apple will keep moving the requirements up and up to keep the "riff-raff" out.
Job's can be a right bottle'n'glass sometimes!
> Its not a harddisk in the internet, more like a sync service between different devices.
No. It's more like a local NAS that doesn't use the fast local network but instead uses the slow expensive internet. There should be a beefier version of the AppleTV that manages this sort of thing for you and avoids using the most expensive storage and transport options available.
I agree that generally one would need new systems to support new services, but there comes a point when the system you have is more than powerful enough to do everything you need, including handling new services that are only doing old things but in a cleverer way.
I think we're reached point.
XP could easily support a client that will listen for file transfers or initiate them. All iCloud does is be a bit clever about transferring deltas of the right files among many devices.
I suspect that iCloud could work with XP, it's just that Apple won't officially support it which is fair enough, it's their choice. They could put in an OS check in the iCloud client of course, but there's no technical reason why it couldn't work.
Until MS decide to break backwards compatibility by changing the format of exe files or dropping support for 32-bit, they will have trouble getting rid of XP.
For many people XP is good enough. It's not great, and could really do with some of the core Win7 security, but it does the job very well.
Same goes for Office 2003 and many other programs that one feels are constantly updated to add features no-one uses just to sell upgrades.
> Same goes for Office 2003 and many other programs that one feels are constantly updated to add features no-one uses just to sell upgrades.
I have office 97, I can't see anything that later versions offer that would ever make me pay for them (I was given a legit office 97 disk and license, if I didn't have it, I would be happy with abiword.)
As far as Windows 7 goes, it's much nicer than XP, however I have an XP pro license, it's not that much nicer to be worth paying for (I mostly use RDP anyway and the onboard graphics system is pretty poor.)
> It was designed for an age before multiple cores were a common thing
Multiple cores were common on more serious PCs in the 90s. Some of these PCs even ran the OS that would eventually become Windows XP.
Your new consumer shiny thing is probably not nearly as new as you think it is.
"Simple fact is that XP is too old. It was designed for an age before multiple cores were a common thing"
NT was designed for up to 32 cores right from the start in the late 80s. You might as well argue that the Linux kernel (only slightly younger and based on a design from 20 years earlier) was designed for a bygone age and we should all be chucking our penguins in the bin.
This is what Apple says for iCloud:
"Some features of iCloud require iOS 5 on iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod touch (3rd and 4th generation), iPad, or iPad 2, or a Mac computer with OS X Lion or a PC with Windows Vista or Windows 7 (Outlook 2007 or 2010 recommended). "
What part of "Some features" did you miss?
The article should be rephrased "Apple bars WinXP from some features of iCloud."
But yeah I can see that's not as good for link bait.
If you are a windows user, the current Version of Windows - 7 and previous version - Vista is supported.
If you are a Mac user, the current version - Snow Leopard and previous version - Leopard are not supported. Only the not yet available vapourware Lion is supported (which doesn't look worth the upgrade).
So Windows users get it free, Mac users have to pay $29 to upgrade to a dodgy new OS which will typically take 6 months to get stable.
It's still much less than what Windows users paid for either Vista or Windows 7, even if they got it from their OEM.
In fact Mac users could pay for 3 upgrades with the sort of money Microsoft asks for the Windows 7 upgrade and still have money left over.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/30/windows7_oem_pricing/ or see Windows 7 Upgrade costs.
No it doesn't, Apple still issues patches for at least two previous versions for free. If you think Lion is not a big change from the previous you obviously don't know much about OSX.
Plus doesn't Microsoft charge over £80 to upgrade from Vista to WIndows 7 which was released just 2 years later?
OSX Lion is vapourware?
VW is a promise of software that has never appeared and is unlikely to. OSX Lion betas have been doing the rounds for last couple of months and it's about to go on general release in a week or two for download, so where's the vapourware come into it?
Really if you want to troll the fanbois you need to come up with something better than this!
Generally the consensus on the reg is that windows biggest downfall is its attempt to move forward while supporting almost all legacy apps and platforms.
So, Microsoft are trying to cut lose old OS's in favour of the new supported platforms.
Now, Microsoft are still in the wrong... Lot of conflicting opinions going on here.
Nobody says you cant use windows XP, but you will not be able to use newer technologies where XP is unsupported. Sounds fair in my book.
If Microsoft cleared 3rd world debt, i wonder what problems you all would have with that.
Microsoft - Because in most peoples eyes, they can do no right.
This is a bit of a bugger, since my netbook uses Windows XP. As far as I remember Win XP was MS's salvation in the netbook market since it had a small enough footprint to allow it to run on the reduced resources of a netbook.
Netbooks started out as Linux devices but then (as far as I remember) got taken over by Win XP systems.
So does that mean that the iCloud won't run on such netbooks? Would Win 7 run on a Samsung NC10?
It also runs fine* on my EeePC901 and some anoraks have it running on an EeePC 701!!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* Well it would if I could get the GFX driver issue sorted out, I know other people have it working fully, but I cannot get the Intel drivers to work.
(Still prefer XP for most things)
Now we're holding Apple responsible for the fact that Microsoft was unable to produce an acceptable new OS for eight years following XP's 2001 release, and that it's customer base so suspects and loathes its more recent products that they choose to run a ten-year-old antique?
No doubt Apple will fail to consider the needs of those using 300 baud modems as well. Get the tar and feathers.
This is a dumb move in my opinion and for several reasons.
Most of all we're talking about an /currently supported/ OS. Just check the facts for yourself:
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/
The support will end at 2014, so that leaves XP users at least 2 years worth of support in the form of security updates and other aspects. I can understand that MS focuses Explorer 9 on Vista and higher. I'm not sure how everything is setup but I can imagine that the libraries which are available on Vista and higher are different than those on XP (and I'm not merely talking .NET versions). So to invest money in trying to "back port" something isn't that illogical or, IMO, unreasonable.
But disallowing access to an Internet service "because".. Maybe Apple fears that their cloud will become too clouded and start falling down from the sky due to the extensive heat on it.
IOW; maybe its not as versatile and robust as being claimed and they needed ways to cut down on the possible load on it somehow...
Should people still not be cautious of cloud services in general? (Given recent history of Amazon's EC2, etc)
I feel like tech reporting has now become inherently more like the political spectrum of news "gathering"...with general supporters on both sides of an argument arbitrarily flinging poo at each other.
(Too bad there's no monkey icon)
> Apple will not give PC users access to iCloud .. if their machines are running .. Windows XP .. this means that almost half of all PC users will not be able to access iCloud.
What about Linux users or is this just a two pony contest ?
--
Did someone else own the iCloud moniker and recently sell it to Apple?
"Xcerion announced the launch of icloud, the world's first free online computer"
http://linux.sys-con.com/node/912496
`Xcerion provides CloudMe.com (formerly known as icloud.com), the worlds leading "Cloud OS" '
http://se.linkedin.com/in/danielarthursson
XP is so old and tired nowadays, it looks like a dated piece of **** too...
Being a tech enthusiast i like to keep up to speed with the latest software (& hardware) - surprised at people on this site arguing the other way!
Move with the times or get left behind - i personally wouldn't touch an XP disc with a barge pole (unlike the first poster who i presume is still at home with a Commodore VIC20 sitting in the lounge plugged into a CRT via an aerial lead and a tape deck!) ;)
I really don't get it. Sure it looks a little prettier and has a badly implemented form of sudo.
Beyond that, it looks and acts pretty much like it's more ancient counterparts. Some consumers are so willing to add to landfills with really no good justification. XP for good or bad is what's out there. The only thing that Apple will do by forcing people away from XP (or Linux for that matter) is to encourage more people to give more money to Microsoft and Dell.
Apple should be eager to help liberate people from Microsoft in any way they can rather than helping to keep the Microsoft hegemony entrenched.
"Being a tech enthusiast i like to keep up to speed with the latest software (& hardware) - surprised at people on this site arguing the other way!"
Let me explain. We like shiny toys too, but the day job is "getting stuff done with non-shiny kit" or "writing software for non-shiny kit" or just plain "helping people who never asked to use a f@!<ing computer in the first place".
"Microsoft is trying to steer people towards Windows 7. 'And rightfully so.'" What an ignorant comment. There are few technologically sound reasons to move from XP to Win7 if the systems you have supports the software it runs and you are comfortable with that system. Comments such as your "And, rightfully so." comment are ignorant and mere serve to give cover to a faux elitist attitude that allows Microsoft to bully its customers into purchasing a new operating system, which of course, necessitates a new hardware platform. More money for corporations when a person's system may serve them well both functionally and technologically. Of course perhaps you are not ignorant at all. Perhaps you prefer lining the pockets of corporations unnecessarily because it brings more ad revenue to your publication. We just don't know. Care to clarify?
I don't understand these comments 'lining the pockets of the corporations' - they make a good product, you want to buy it, so you buy it.
if you want new shoes you go and buy a nice pair - am i lining the shoe manufacturers pockets - yes probably, but i wanted a nice shiny new pair of shoes.
much like i want a new shiny windows 7 computer etc etc - it's 1 product in a world of products and if you're interested in it, then 'buy into it' .
how boring would the world be if, in 2050, everyone was still using XP because the business-sense of a manufacturer thought "well, XP does everything we need, we may as well just give up now and go home..."
Business. Go Microsoft, Apple and whoever else is selling stuff to make a bucket load of money, keep the money flowing, the economy moving and technological innovations coming - i love it and am happy to pay for it.
That's how I read it. There's no need for eye-rolling, though. Just make a list of all the must-have features that were added in Win7 and then imagine the kind of person who wouldn't be interested in any of them. (Or save yourself the effort and just imagine someone who isn't wowed by eye-candy and doesn't like having to relearn where everything is.)
OK I have 17 computers in the building - they are all running Windows XP - half of the software on them won't run on Windows 7.
I don't understand what people have against WindowsXP - fine it is an old system but that's the best part - it is stable, it runs everything I want to it run and it doesn't crash.
Take my weather station computer - it is connected to an Oregon WMR928NX via RS232 it runs weather display to store the data the station pushes down the cable.
The computer also has a Boltek Lightning Detector PCI Card and is running Astrogenic's Nexstorm software to store realtime lightning strikes it detects.
This ageing computer has only 512mb RAM and is running an AMD Athlon something or other - the machine stays up, online for months at a time - only rebooting if MS send it a security update at 3 in the morning. http://www.bordersweather.co.uk/wxabout.php as of writing "It has been running for: 36 Days 22 Hours 29 Minutes 49 Seconds".
There is no-way that machine would be online and stable for son long under Windows7 - not a chance in hell.
Then we come to viruses - in the last 2 months 7 people have come to me with machines that are buggered - I can only assume there is a new virus doing the rounds that is particularly deadly because every one of these machines has the same fault - they won't progress past the POST splash screen. I have seen HP, ASUS and Dell machines with this problem - all of them are running Windows7. All except the HP one are completely dead (as you can't even get into BIOS setup or a boot menu - I can see no way to attempt to reflash the BIOS) - 1 out of every 20ish times it makes it past the HP logo and tries to load Windows and then bluescreens complaining about a different error each time. Now this issue may well afflict Windows XP machines too - but I know loads of people with XP who have never had this problem so far.
Until such time as upgrading to a new operating system does not mean upgrading all the hardware in the computer - I will be sticking with Windows XP - it's safe, stable and reliable. Before the discs disappeared for good - we bought a few dozen copies of WinXPMCE so we will be alright for a good while yet.
Sounds a bit like Skype. All the clients to this whizzy service are proprietary and closed source software. Which means you have no way to know what it does, what information it collects about you or the use to which this data and network access are put. If I have no reason to trust a service which locks me in and imposes arbitrary restrictions upon me like that, why should I use it if better alternatives exist ? Open and published APIs and protocols are another matter, users of any OS are free to implement the software they need to access it themselves and if this is open source those who can read source code can verify what it does without needing expensive reverse engineering.
Geez, Microsoft were slammed for being anti competitive and yet Apple is able to get away with making perfectly good kit useless with some of their own "inventions". A colleague of mine has just bought an iPhone - should have warned her I know - and can't use it with her perfectly adequate and functioning G4 iBook because it cannot be upgraded to the latest version of pussycat which is required to run that pile of guano called iTunes. Why would anyone want to continue their relationship with Apple after being so royally shafted like that? Get real you sad Apple devotees and stop buying those overpriced and soon to be obsolete white goods.
Apple and Microsoft and choke on it. My XP equipped Toughbook isn't going anywhere any time soon. I don't require iCloud for anything. I don't buy music from iTunes and I don't have an iPhone or iPad so I won't need to synch any music or photos between one device and another. Swallow hard, Mikersoft and ape-le
>> "I'll have to spend the money I was going to spend on iCloud on a 500 gig external disk instead..." #
>>
>>Posted Friday 10th June 2011 13:18 GMT
>
> It's free numbnuts.
Local storage capable of filling in for this Cloud service is "dumpster diving" material.
Mobile products fail to take advantage of such crufty gear out of choice rather than a genuine limitation. Apple's problems on the road are entirely self inflicted.
I already use Dropbox - what do I need ICloud for. It works with my WinXP virtual machines, as well as my Linux, Mac, Win7 laptops (plus my husband's android tablet). Like many of you, I prefer not to store sensitive information there and the free space is more than adequate for the data that I want to share amongst my laptops / tablet and (in some cases) with other people.
I would rather use a service that works with all my computers / gadgets and also enables me to share data with others, without worrying about what operating system they may be using.
I should add that I have no particular axe to grind in talking about Dropbox - it just happens to be the one that I use. There are many other similar services that also offer free cloud storage and useful data sharing functionality. ICloud is not breaking any new ground and providing an inferior service that excludes so many potential existing customers.
I would guess that ICloud doesn't work with Linux or Android either? Anyone know?
All operating systems, including systems not designed for home users (which cost a lot more, and implications of applications running etc can become very troublesome), eventually leave support of their vendors. This is applicable no matter what platform OS you are using, the fact is, Software gets outdated.
Until recently, I was running a 64bit XP. Unfortunately, there were just too much Software I could not run, and too many drivers I could no longer update.
I’m now running a 64bit Windows 7, and personally find fewer problems than that I previously had on XP (Not including compatibility problems). The OS utilization of the PC is indeed more than XP… but this is relative and put next to technologies available at release of both OS’s there is nothing to worry about.
And if it makes you feel better you can apply the classic view.
My feeling are, anyone hell bent on sticking with XP probably doesn’t give a rats a$$ about the icloud anyway.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
