As posted yesterday, InfoWorld has taken it upon themselves to force Microsoft to change its policy of dumping XP out of retail from June 30th 2008, by calling on everyone to sign a petition demanding an extension. Never mind the fact that Microsoft has thus far extended almost every version of Windows past its original "expiry" date, with possibly, the exception of Windows ME!
It has found somewhere in the region of 75,000 people who have yet to buy it, or want the opportunity to buy it whenever they please. I suppose this was to be expected bearing in mind that this is the first ever client version of Windows that is based on the very stable NT core, it can't be compared to Windows 98 which was truly annoying for its lack of stability. Anyone who has XP installed probably doesn't need to upgrade, since the OS operates so well.
How dare Microsoft offer a new OS after 7 years!
It has found somewhere in the region of 75,000 people who have yet to buy it, or want the opportunity to buy it whenever they please. I suppose this was to be expected bearing in mind that this is the first ever client version of Windows that is based on the very stable NT core, it can't be compared to Windows 98 which was truly annoying for its lack of stability. Anyone who has XP installed probably doesn't need to upgrade, since the OS operates so well.
How dare Microsoft offer a new OS after 7 years!
Windows 7 isn't out yet.
probably couldnt be said for ME..
I've lost count of how many times i've said it but i'm just not going to throw away money on extra hardware when XP will use that hardware more effectively. If XP uses half of the RAM that Vista does just to function, and I use RAM intensive applications heavily like VMWare then i'm going to stick with XP. Why blow RAM for the sake of features i've no need for?
XP is plenty solid enough. Reliability seems to be the biggest 'selling' point with Vista but if XP has been 100% reliable for me on my office workstation over the course of a year (I really don't think it has crashed a single time in almost a year!
People keep comparing "XP -> Vista" to "98 -> XP" - but frankly it just isn't that sort of evolutionary leap. 98 was a good product for its time but it was shaky as hell and desperately needed a more modern backend. XP provided it. Vista builds on it, but offers nothing significant or compelling over XP for 95% of users.
On top of that, you want to buy in the 3 year new OS model Steve Balmar said there going to try to get back to.
Part of the reason XP is so great is due to how long it's been out. Vista is starting to get good with SP1 but in 2 years is too soon to "time to move on".
it ain't Aero, and it ain't UAC (since the media already painted it to be more of an annoyance than an asset), and it definitely ain't DirectX 10. developers are still building games using DX9 and until more titles can truly be DX10 "only", then a small percentage will upgrade.
otherwise, there's no reason to move from XP for many many people.
Usually "new" means "better", which in this case for these people it hasn't been - unfortunately "one provider, one god" policy allows them to do whatever they want.
Isn't almost full control of the market grande?
i remember certain people bitching and moaning that windows 98 was better when XP first came out.. now nobody would think that way..
things will change..
i remember certain people bitching and moaning that windows 98 was better when XP first came out.. now nobody would think that way..
things will change..
I really don't see how Windows 98 is better than XP. I've not seen any article raving about 98 was better than XP. I don't think that statement is worth any penny. Vista is better than XP visually. As for functionality and versatility, XP still holds the crown. Vista cripple alot of functionality when trying to make it "easy" for the majority of the consumer market. Many of the versatilities are either taken off the OS or are well hidden inside the OS as an inactive service. Vista use too much memory and has over 100 active services on a clean boot. Upon logging in for the first time, my Microsoft Wireless Multimedia Keyboard reciever/transmitter was giving false lights. The Caps-Lock are never turned on but the lights are on. When I try to turn it off, the lights went off but the NUM-Lock and Function Lock was lit while the screens reports that I now have Caps-Lock turned on. Go figure that. After logged in for the first time, I see that many of the old (and probably outdated) parts are not recognized by the OS. Some of the drivers for the hardware that I own, which they aren't that new, still does not have drivers for it for Vista.
Imo, there is no reason to upgrade to Vista and I completely agree with these guys.
"Why change it for the sake of change" is the big motto.
Especially after being burned from ME.
Maybe things will change once SP1 hits the masses.
Personally, I am waiting on SP1 and after it's been "reviewed", "tested", "torn apart" by the general tech savvy groups, I will look at installing it.
Now, is it worth the switch from XP to Vista? In my opinion: no. Not yet, at least.
On my machine, XP is faster. I can make it as secure as Vista (you have to know your way, though) and even less anoying because it doesn't have UAC.
And altough I have a score of 4.2 in Vista, I still use XP as my main OS. As a matter of fact, I replaced Vista SP1 with XP only yesterday (again).
Not to mention XP is way more skinnable and customizable than Vista is right now. I have to use Windowblinds if I want to use Luna Element or other awesomely, insanely good visual styles, and even then, Windowblinds screws up my WLM main window. Aero quickly tires me, and also do the nice animations (yes, they do look fine, but having animations decreases my working capabilities). And if I disable them, then I guess I come down to XP, GUI-wise.
But then again, doesn't make a difference if MS support it or not, I don't use Windows Update or anything.
No, many consumers feel: "How dare Microsoft not offer a vastly improved new OS after 7 years!", like they promised. Guess when you have an almost monopoly, you simply don't have to respond to the market. Competition breeds innovation, and Microsoft doesn't have much to challenge them anymore. *sigh*
Why?
Why can't you have only 1 XP (maybe 2 XP)?
I also don't really like Vista, but then again I didn't really like XP over 2000.
XP is very stable (well kinda I still get BSOD
Unlikely
Heard of ReactOS you have not?
http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html
ReactOS® is an advanced free open source operating system providing a ground-up implementation of a Microsoft Windows® XP compatible operating system. ReactOS aims to achieve complete binary compatibility with both applications and device drivers meant for NT and XP operating systems, by using a similar architecture and providing a complete and equivalent public interface.
If you're currently using XP, stick with it. If you're buying/buidling a new pc, there's no reason to not get Vista.
I bet a lot of the people who say Vista sucks have either 1) never used vista 2) haven't looked for updated drivers 3) never patched their apps when they went to the new OS after the company released patches for their junk code they should of wrote right to start with... dont know how many apps stored files in admin locations or other places you need admin rights to get to (stupid idea! and not microsoft's fault)
yeah really, compared to the hundreds of millions of windows users... I'll quote comcast on this... "only 1th of 1 percent of the users..." [complain]
If you like Vista, then use it. If not then use XP and stop bitching about it.
I could go on but I guess there is no way of pleasing the MS bashers or the undercover MAC Fanboys. There is always going to be something that they are going to pick at.
To finally be on topic, I'll say this: There is no critical flaw in Vista. Vista is just fine. So MS will not spend the money to keep XP around and thats the way it should be. People are just stubborn are just like the XP bashers in 2001. MS should not give in to the people's whining. They have had 7 years to buy XP and if they dont have a copy by now then they are just SOL. Get over it XP is going to die and I will be happy when it does.
Do you have any devices that aren't compatible with XP?
Do you have any devices that aren't compatible with XP?
Obviously if the OS is still in wide use they are going to keep it updated with new device compat. So if that was the only thing you get with a new OS then no theres no point. But that is never the case so it doesnt really matter if there arent any compat problems with new devices in the previous OS.
What do you mean? They don't work in XP? Only in Vista?
More like they found 75,000 geeks who hate Windows Vista for absolutely no good reason.
-Spenser
Also don't need upgrade my 286.
I pretty much hate Vista, but still let XP go, 75k isn't going to do anything at Microsoft, especially when according to MS they've sold 2+ million copies of Vista.
I pretty much hate Vista, but still let XP go, 75k isn't going to do anything at Microsoft, especially when according to MS they've sold 2+ million copies of Vista.
Try 100+ million
95 - 98 - 98se - ME - skipped 2000 because it wasnt made for gaming - xp - vista after sp1. SP1 made a big improvement over the original.
XP had the same growing pains. Except now there is far more hardware and software that needs to be supported and it's all up to 3rd parties to do it.
No, businesses don't need to upgrade. Hell my business still has some Windows 95 machines and only recently upgraded to Windows XP on the bulk of the systems. If it does what you need why switch? Businesses need to keep costs down.
Personally I like Vista x64. It's stable and fast and I have no problems. But my hardware has good drivers so i'm set. It seems Nvidia chipsets are still the worst for Vista due to poor drivers. Intel and ATI seem to be the best in terms of Vista drivers.
And with no support to back up this "fact" makes your statement an "opinion".
who said i was having a problem ? why assume im complaining ? im quite happy running itunes listening to music , whilst playing UT3 all maxxed out with 60FPS and running a disk defrag. LOL I use to be a big AMD person but ive held out for over 6 months waiting for AMD to release something on par with the q6600. When the phenoms came out i was disappointed with the benchmarks to say the least. The point is allthough Vista is a desktop OS the resources and Hardware it requires to run is on par with a heavy duty server. Throw enough resources at it and it runs fine.
Last edited by andy2004 on 19 Feb 2008 - 22:44
Which version are you running? 64bit or 32bit. My understanding is that 32bit only recognizes up to 3.5GB of RAM. Also, I thought that the more memory you have, the more Vista will load into RAM.
This kind of poor marketing reminds me of the BS that Disney pulls on a regular basis by releasing certain movies for a limited time before "going back to the Disney vault". Why not simply put every movie they've ever made out there available for sale at all times? It simply makes no sense.
There are still development and support costs. If you sell an OS then people want to call support, and they also have to patch it.
Fact is this is how software has to be done, otherwise companies would eventually pay so much money supporting old crap they'd be unable to do anything.
There are still development and support costs. If you sell an OS then people want to call support, and they also have to patch it.
Fact is this is how software has to be done, otherwise companies would eventually pay so much money supporting old crap they'd be unable to do anything.
Then simply do what some other software makers do and continue to offer older versions with the understanding that it will no longer be supported. To this day, you can still download pretty much every version ever created of Linux, but you won't get much if any support for it. The same goes for many utility programs.
There are still development and support costs. If you sell an OS then people want to call support, and they also have to patch it.
Fact is this is how software has to be done, otherwise companies would eventually pay so much money supporting old crap they'd be unable to do anything.
Then simply do what some other software makers do and continue to offer older versions with the understanding that it will no longer be supported. To this day, you can still download pretty much every version ever created of Linux, but you won't get much if any support for it. The same goes for many utility programs.
If they do that, then people won't bother to buy the new version which the company wants the majority of the public to use instead of buggy old software. And it is not only in the IT industry this occurs. Car makers stops making old cars after a while because they want people to move on to new "better" vehicles (that abides to any new industry laws).
XP Minimum System Requirements:
• PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
• 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
• 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
• Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
• CD-ROM or DVD drive
• Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
My guess is that people want to stay with XP is because the hardware requirements were so low. Maybe not at the time it was released but we have seen so much advancement in the hardware side, and Vista is a great OS if you take the time to learn it.
Isn't that what makes computers fun? Learning about the latest in software and hardware. If you ask me XP was a great OS, but it's time has passed.
Long live Vista Ultimate
No, I'm afraid not. In the present Universe, that is simply an opinion.
Wait, isn't XP (Home, Professional, Media Center Edition, etc.) based on the NT core too? If not, why in the world is XP also known as NT 5.1? In that case, XP Home would be the first client Windows OS based on the NT core, wouldn't it?
Wait, isn't XP (Home, Professional, Media Center Edition, etc.) based on the NT core too? If not, why in the world is XP also known as NT 5.1? In that case, XP Home would be the first client Windows OS based on the NT core, wouldn't it?
Yes XP was the first home OS based on the NT kernel... Vista is the second...
Long Live New Shell!
What... You can't shell out the damn money to get Vista, or can't afford a new computer. Sad really.. I would love to end support for XP now so that I don't have to listen to people bitch and moan about XP... It sucks, it really does. Wasting your time on a 7 year old product is really dumb, much less using older Windows Versions any better.
Get a job.. get a life... XP won't be around forever. Seriously.
What gets me is why no one complained about ending support for older products such as Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000.
Obviously, Microsoft will adopt a rather aggressive strategy in order to maximize consumer migration to their latest operating system. Is it wrong of them to do so? In my opinion, outphasing XP is a quick and dirty solution for a problem that obviously goes very deep into the core of Vista itself, but a solution nonetheless.
From where I stand, Windows Vista essentially is the new Millenium Edition - a visual refurbishing for the most part, with some gimmicks in the bag and a few tricks up the sleeve that could warrant an upgrade for some users (DirectX 10), but lacking in any real innovation and "from-scratch-freshness" (WinFS anyone?). I can certainly see why some people are appalled that it took Microsoft more than half a decade to come up with this.
Vista's role is to fill the gap between the old MS flagship, Windows XP (the Windows 98 of our time) and their new one, Windows 7, which (hopefully) shall arrive sooner than many expect, and will actually offer something that is truly new.
So XP is not dead yet and by the time the next Windows OS is released I dare say many more will return to its hallowed turf.
Windows XP deserves a metal, best operating system, stable, compatible, and fast. Now it is done.
Windows Vista deserves an eye candy metal, and the operating system that took forever to be released.
Next operating system please.
I love Vista on the 65' HDTV it's amazing. But touch screens would solve the issues, the market is ready for touchscreen technologies to take a bigger step in. With things like the Wii being imbrased in full a touch screen computer system and HDTV system would run the market. HP has just a solution at Office Depot, now I'm no supporter of HP so Dell and Sony better have something coming out soon! Sony had a desktop 21' w/Pen LCD touch screen system out years ago but they couldn't sell it for $2,300. But now is the time a system like that for $1899 would be perfect given the Tablet Notebooks with SVGA+ screens are just now coming out at $2799
Microsoft is doing what we ask them to. They are fixing all the things wrong with XP but people forgot what they disliked about XP when it came out. Linux user complain about the start menu being to big so they fixed it but now the OLD people hate vista how it is now. I think the search at the bottom is the most amazing tool there is. If that was voice controlled and you could seach by voice everything indexed you'd be set.
You can't get to touch sceens and away from keyboards if we don't get away from XP. Windows Vista is the path to the next generation of human interaction. Hardware accelerated desktops are required for 3D monitors coming to market. It also allows for desktops and now laptops to run HD on the desktop or to a large HDTV. My laptop can display HDMI with sound to my 65' HDTV at 1080P with ONE cable. It came with a remote built-in to control Media Center. I am very happy with Vista and so is my family. We have with Vista and Xbox 360 the things people have been complainning about for years. Why can't my Pictures show upright on the tv so I can show my friends. Why do we have to huddle around a small 19' screen? I vote Vista and let XP sink with the Oldies. It's our turn to take over and lead the world to a better place. These people are just happy to have cars and something to do their taxes they've given up on progress. This is why America is lossing to China. Wake up America!
Last edited by Jbenisek on 20 Feb 2008 - 03:02
I've never heard such BS in all my life. Scared brats? Scared of what exactly? No, these people who want to remain using XP are people with freaking common sense who don't see the need to bust open their wallet and reward Microsoft for delivering a substandard product YEARS LATE. Why is it so hard for you to understand? It's nothing to do with 'fear' of a new OS (i'm willing to bet i've spent more time tinkering with new / different operating systems than quite a few people who consider themselves to be Vista "power" users on this site thanks very much!
I'm all for good solid argument why I should be dumping XP and moving to Vista but have yet to hear one single convincing argument - all I get are insults telling me i'm apparently stuck in the "stone ages" or i'm (as you put it) a scared little brat.
I think rather than saving XP, they're probably going to release a newer version of Vista (on top of SP1) at no extra cost to users with a lot of the things people are complaining about, or imagining is something to complain about or reason to not use Vista. I think all the add-on packs (Windows 95 Plus!
I've worked in quite a few big companies and gov't offices. Many of these are "the" push for a new OS adoption. Many are on Windows 2000 and even with all the technical work I've done, the computer and OS don't need upgrading. And if the OS still functions as people *need* it too, what happens with all the older computers when people find Vista isn't fast enough for their perfectly good Pentium 3? Landfill??!!
MS really needs to make an OS do a lot more with less resources - memory and HDD. Many OSes aren't very good at this and its a tough problem to solve. Maybe time to break "Windows" and stat anew.
Absolute fresh code, built from the ground up, a la Mac OS 9 - OS X transition. It saved Apple, and look at OS X now.
But good luck in that regard when it comes to MS. People and businesses have the whole kitchen sink plus their balls invested in software that runs on current Windows code. I've suggested in the past that MS scrap every current Windows paradigm there is and rethink the game, and to that end, institute a comprehensive transition process that will ease users and businesses into the new model.
Maybe there's hope for Windows 7.
Absolute fresh code, built from the ground up, a la Mac OS 9 - OS X transition. It saved Apple, and look at OS X now.
[/quote]
Yeah, its not like its a new idea and it sure as heck is not an easy task. It was easy for Apple because they didn't and don't have a million developers programming for legacy hardware in enterprise/commercial applications.
Home and most SMBs I'm sure don't care about backwards compatibility. And most offices I've worked in, yes had legacy apps too, need basic business driven systems - word processing, accounting, HR type driven apps. As long as they can still access data, who cares?!! Likely doesn't matter if new OS breaks the camel's back.
I think starting with these customers on the transition is a good place to start. I'd like to benefit as early as possible. I feel instead of getting a Windows experience it more like a revolving door ... with Windows of course
EXACTLY. This is a point I tried to make way back when Vista first came out (December 2006.. wow.. seems like a while ago now!
Absolute fresh code, built from the ground up, a la Mac OS 9 - OS X transition. It saved Apple, and look at OS X now.
[/quote]
Yeah, its not like its a new idea and it sure as heck is not an easy task. It was easy for Apple because they didn't and don't have a million developers programming for legacy hardware in enterprise/commercial applications.
Home and most SMBs I'm sure don't care about backwards compatibility. And most offices I've worked in, yes had legacy apps too, need basic business driven systems - word processing, accounting, HR type driven apps. As long as they can still access data, who cares?!! Likely doesn't matter if new OS breaks the camel's back.
I think starting with these customers on the transition is a good place to start. I'd like to benefit as early as possible. I feel instead of getting a Windows experience it more like a revolving door ... with Windows of course
I also think Microsoft should take a good hard look at how Apple transitioned everyone. There may not have been a lot of devs on the system but there sure were a lot of creative types using it. Apple didn't just kill off OS 9 either. They slowly transitioned everyone over the course of 5 years (you could run classic apps in OS X [PPC] until Leopard).
I really just wish Microsoft would kill the DOS integration. My company uses an in-house app through DOS and EVERYONE hates using it. It's time to force everyone to move on.
Windows 2000 Pro was built on a very stable NT core. NT Workstation was also built on the NT core but it's stability is questionable. XP was just the first client for ALL users built on the NT core as NT and 2000 were targeted towards business.
That's why I can't understand the clamor for keeping XP on the shelves of stores. You don't see people wanting to keep Office XP and Acrobat 6 in stores, why this seven year old OS? This is the problem with 75,000 sentimentalists.
"I suppose this was to be expected bearing in mind that this is the first ever client version of Windows that is based on the very stable NT core"
umm NT workstation was a client and guess what it was based on the NT kernal, as was 2000..
There is nothing wrong with Windows Vista, especially on 2GB of RAM, but even if you have 1GB - like me - there is still hardly anything wrong with it and it is usable! My laptop running Vista has probably crashed just as much as my computer running XP did. I have had no driver compatibility issues and the visual effects are MUCH better on Vista than on the boring, repulsive XP!
Why should they continue support? It's the customer's faults for not upgrading sooner and listening to idiots who bash Vista rather than the people like us who use it and have no problems.
There is nothing wrong with Windows Vista, especially on 2GB of RAM, but even if you have 1GB - like me - there is still hardly anything wrong with it and it is usable! My laptop running Vista has probably crashed just as much as my computer running XP did. I have had no driver compatibility issues and the visual effects are MUCH better on Vista than on the boring, repulsive XP!
Why should they continue support? It's the customer's faults for not upgrading sooner and listening to idiots who bash Vista rather than the people like us who use it and have no problems.
At least someone has a brain. Cheers!
Sorry about the rant here but felt it was necessary.
Last edited by 0-Neo-0 on 22 Feb 2008 - 03:56
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.