A stripped down version of XP can be about 100MB, not including other software; At least last i checked with VirtualBox and the like.

I know of one place that includes DosBox and Windows 3.11 with games that it needs for compatibility for so you can just up and run it. But if there's going to be a big need for XP to run certain games, having a standardized image and as a separate install (and then COW the drive when you use it, and mount a separate game image) would be preferred, rather than having to lug around a 200MB image with every installer (like DirectX and other runtime dependencies are lugged with every installer)...

I never said they should add the image to the installer... heck, I don't even say they should keep the Win xp image public.
I just said they should spend the one time effort of creating it in the first place, and then use it to launch an automatic process.

Considering Windows XP is going to be under copyright/ownership for the next 100 years (LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG after it's out of use, and probably long after GoG goes out of business) i wouldn't recommend it either. Getting licensing for it is out of the question, and it going into the public domain or going free is out of the question too; So i totally agree with you, that's a legal issue they shouldn't touch.

However if there is an image they can reference for use and make installed images (and COW files) for said images, that would totally work. (Much like making emulators that require official ROMS and you can get the ROMS legally via another way, Atari800 heavily comes to mind)

Read again what I said. A client, such as Galaxy or Steam, remove the need for an installer. If the client works on the system you are using you can download the game and theoretically run it even if it isn't supported, where as if the installer doesn't work on your system, you can't even install it.

Indeed? What a news! So why every game page on GOG says "Works on..." and "Minimum system requirements" and not cleanly and clearly "Systems supported"? At the same time, when you're browsing the main catalogue you may specify the system and tick XP field there... The field for the OS that should NOT be supported anymore but that is still present in site menus... I fail to understand the secret meaning of all of this.

In all the rest of the world "Minimum system requirements" means namely the same - minimum requirements to hardware and software to run a program in question, and only on GOG it means something else...

GOG changed from Good Old Games to simply GOG on March 2012, so on January 2013 it wasn't Good Old Games anymore.
Nowhere does Minimum system requirements means minimum required. It always means minimum supported. Thus the countless replies on many different forums for many different things that state (in various forms) "You can try to run it on that, but we don't support it", be it power requirements for an electrical appliance, fuel source for a vehicle, or computer hardware for software.
And the reason why they state it that why is to avoid confusion. A "The game will only be supported on systems meeting the following hardware requirements, but you may be able to get it running on lower specs as well" would have people pestering them with a ton of "Can my system run it?" questions, which all have the answer of "We don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. Try it and see".

Hmmm i'm reminded of a post or video where someone got Borderlands to work on anemic video hardware on low settings and 320x240 resolution. Apparently it worked well, although you couldn't read anything :P

Good luck if there's a missing redistributor that can't be installed on XP, however.

System requirements are the configuration that a system must have in order for a hardware or software application to run smoothly and efficiently (from Techpedia).

So now you could take an endeavor to count GOG games that run much more smoothly and efficiently on XP while having Windows 7 indicated as Minimum Requirements.

Sincerely, I don't see any reason to continue this aimless debate. GOG changed forever, it changed to worse in all that concerns community and support, transparency and honesty, rushing headlong after Steam sales numbers. This really makes me feel very sad. It could be a beautiful story but it came to an seemingly inevitable conclusion, when people are now in the Shadow of the Big Money.

So be it. It was a good try, GOG.

Is this an appeal to authority? Not sure.

Add to that the fact that "smoothly and efficiently" is very subjective. WinXP listed 233MHz as minimum processor speed and 32MB of RAM, yet it could run on a machine with 20MHz and 32MB RAM. Not to mention running Win7 on 128MB of RAM.

Either way, think of system requirements what you will. The fact remains that no matter how they call it, minimum system requirements is the minimum you need to get support, not run it.

Even if I am ranting because I am unsatisfied I would still try to keep my arguments factual. Otherwise I could just rant about nearly everything even if it's my fault. The OP was basically accusing GOG when he received the response he got from support saying that it's bad business practice while the only thing that has happened here was that the OP ASSUMED GOG would work different. If there is somebody to accuse it's the OP for having wrong expectations.

Since GOG DOES sell the games in question, the legitimate way would be to buy there and backup the installers instantly. Many on GOG do this and they all have no problems.

This is simply wrong. It's true that not every downloaded game is a game not sold but that's still often the case. Whenever I download a game illegally which is available legally and which I also would be able and willing to pay for it's a lost sale for the store/the owner of the rights. It's a different case if the game in question is not offered anywhere at all.

I did say this? Sorry but I fail to see this in my posts. However in my opinion this is true for nearly every digital product since people in general do make digital products to earn money.

The moment you buy the game GOG is giving a guarantee that it will work on your system. So download it and backup it - problem solved.

Of course - in fact nearly nobody is reading those EULAs. But all distibution stores work in a similar way. So logically thinking alone should tell everybody that an updated game at sometime might not run anymore an the actual system. It does not even matter if you change the OS - just change your graphic card and you might have bad luck. There is no such thing as a liefelong guarantee that the game will run forever. To raise the chances backup the game that is working.

Then he was wrong here already. The game and version he downloaded after he bought it was compatible and GOG is giving a 30day money backk guarantee if it does not work. (No ToS reading required here - it's on the main page) so if his game for whatever reason would not work anymore after 30 days it's simply bad luck. Again: there is no guarantee that a game will work forever - be it because of updates or changed hardware. Both might be possible and every logical thinking person should realize this.

Unfortunately that is NOT enough. A VM behaves different than a real system and you also won't be able to try different XP friendly hardware on it.

As I noted here, WinXP's true marketshare is likely higher (0.91% according to StatCounter, 4.61% according to NetMarketShare) and more than that reported for Linux - which no-one seems to object to GOG consuming their support resources on.

Yes, backing up installers is a sensible idea - but those with large collections (I have over 700 games with GOG) aren't necessarily going to have the terabytes of storage on hand. And since GOG does not offer the courtesy of flagging updates with a "Breaks XP Compatibility" flag, there's no way to know without testing each and every update - again a problem for those with large collections.

GOG could address this issue in a simple, sensible way by including the last XP-compatible version in the Extras section of affected games. They could address the issue of the current version of Galaxy.dll breaking games that would otherwise work fine on WinXP by providing a dummy DLL (which would remove Galaxy capability, but likely of far less importance to affected users). However it's clear they won't unless enough users complain (and raise support tickets) over it.

Also consider that what happens to XP today, will happen to other versions later. I'm sticking with XP for the forseeable future (due to general and strong dislike for the UI and structural changes made since, plus having a lot of hardware and software that would no longer be supported) but anyone running Win7 should consider themselves on death row given GOG's recent actions.

Well, then so what about Win7 support that is ceased now, eh? Ah, I see, some of the GOG staff still have a Win7 machine, how wonderful (*irony*)...

I'm forced now to think that some of them still have a DOS machine if they sell DOS games... Oh, they have DOSBox attached (a free application, mind this!), cool...

Polaris Sector developer was forced to name a Win7 as a minimum requirement by Slitherine publishers although the game runs perfectly on WinXP (it's predictable when we see DirectX 9 as a requirement...).

WH40K Armageddon developers confessed that the game will run on WinXP if you change 2 hex numbers in EXE.

Two. F***ing. Hex. Values.

And there are many other examples.

That's all I have to say about the war in Vietnam (c). Do not reflect on it, just install Win10 and buy more remasters.

Oh, and don't forget to wash your hands! It's the best possible way to fight the 'viruses', of course (safe for anti-virus software!).

Dude, you're being a real plonker. You've not only dragged a thread a year out to sea back to the sands to pound it some more, over something which everyone else had made peace with (The death of an OS some 6 years ago.) Even if software cutoffs are more hypothetical than a hardline cut, hardware cutoffs are real. New CPUs won't boot Windows XP, graphics cards, memory modules, wifi modules and more simply won't be compatible. And that's simply not accounting for various motherboards either; for example if a motherboard doesn't have a legacy boot mode.

To you I suggest maybe giving Linux a try and putting Windows XP back in the grave where it belongs.