"... no longer secure..."

OpenBSD is secure because it was examined carefully for vulnerabilities. Microsoft makes more money if there are vulnerabilities, and if its older products are considered likely to be insecure.

"... when it no longer boots..."

We have corporate users who do the same thing every day on computers installed in 2004. They don't want change.

"... when none of the software you use will still run on the old OS"

Yes, you and I. But some corporate users do specialized corporate work on software that ran under DOS. It does what they want. There is little call for change.

"... when you have to employ tech staff with out-of-date skills..."

The Windows command line windows are mostly just the old DOS. There is nothing out-of-date.

"... when the software is a dead do-do that nobody wants to touch..."

Lots of people do lots of things that have remained stable for decades.

"Sorry, but everything has an end-of-life."

I talked to a guy who makes a lot of money per hour maintaining Cobol programs on old mainframes. Yes, end of life. But possibly decades from now.

"When you can't log into your damn bank because it's said that IE6 is too old..."

The browsers are updated frequently, of course. And computers connected only to an internal network have no outside internet vulnerabilities, if there are no DVD drives. I talked to a woman who worked at Tektronix who could not send an email from her work computer because there was no outside access.

Should employees be allowed to explore the internet during lunch breaks? Sure, on a separate network in the lunch room.

I have the latest hardware and software, a 24-port gigabit switch, and multiple 3 Terabyte RAID drives. But that's because I make a lot more techological demands than the average person.

I don't feel conflict of interest. Unfortunately, conflict of interest is a big factor in the lives of many people who are involved with computer technology. Their minds are persuaded by what would make them more money.

What I said may be imperfectly expressed. However, we have about 20 Windows XP computers operated by people who are not intense about cooperating. Those computers are guarded only by Malwarebytes and the fact that are all limited users, and we've had no problems.

The point I was trying to make is that, if there is enough attention given, software can be free of vulnerabilities.

Software does not have an "end of life". It continues to do what it always did.

"End of life" is a marketing term used so Microsoft can sell more copies of Windows, apparently. My understanding is that fixing newly discovered vulnerabilities in Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 would be fairly inexpensive.

I've explored the issues concerning Windows XP: Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": Conflict of interest.

WiFi and cell phone reception can be aided by antennas, even antennas that don't have amplifiers.

I wonder what bands are used for the radar. There are limits to what is available.

TV and cell phones: Use an outside antenna, and bring a stronger signal inside. From $29, it says, for the cheapest antenna.

Exactly. And maybe one of the radar makers will secretly start a corporation that makes radar jammers. Eventually all radar will become useless.

And anyone re-painting a wall could put aluminum foil on the wall first.

Most importantly: Some of the automobile radar detectors would probably work as house radar detectors.

It's VERY easy to fix the problem with radar going inside houses. Build houses with aluminum foil on the walls.

In older houses, put aluminum foil on the walls, then more insulation, then drywall. Save money on heating and cooling.

Make a law that says no new houses can be built without foil on the walls.