Given its history of moving deadlines at a moment's notice, it hardly seems surprising that Microsoft is keeping Windows XP alive even longer than expected, but its latest move looks particularly bad for Vista.The apparent decision to allow OEM computer sellers to offer disks that downgrade installations of Windows Vista to XP until the end of July next year clearly bumps up against the period when Windows 7 might be released.
Microsoft had previously said it would end the scheme next January, but the continued lack of demand for Vista appears to be behind the change of heart.
If the move is confirmed, it's yet more bad news for Vista, as XP users may have the option to skip the unloved OS entirely and move straight to Windows 7.
View: TechRadar
Economically (and this is the language Microsoft speaks) you are completely right. But in terms of technology XP is behind and that should be good enough reason to kill it off in a perfect world.
You can add just about everything that Vista has to XP. Vista was primarily eye candy. Maybe if it had what was originally promised to be in it, but they just took out too much to make it anything of a real change.
You can add just about everything that Vista has to XP. Vista was primarily eye candy. Maybe if it had what was originally promised to be in it, but they just took out too much to make it anything of a real change.
The same could be said of Windows NT. Why don't you stick with it? (What took you so long to get here and blather, btw?)
That statement alone shows how little you know about Windows Vista, please do not ask me to list the actual technical changes because you probably would not understand them.
You can add just about everything that Vista has to XP. Vista was primarily eye candy. Maybe if it had what was originally promised to be in it, but they just took out too much to make it anything of a real change.
The same could be said of Windows NT. Why don't you stick with it? (What took you so long to get here and blather, btw?)
Oh please. NT (4) didn't have USB support, device manager, any official ability to upgrade DirectX past version 5, etc. There were many, many reasons why upgrading from NT would have provided genuine, practical benefits. Going from XP to Vista hasn't provided a "killer reason" for many people, and I say this as a Vista user who even though I enjoy using Vista, I can see why people might want to stick with XP.
You can add just about everything that Vista has to XP. Vista was primarily eye candy. Maybe if it had what was originally promised to be in it, but they just took out too much to make it anything of a real change.
Vista is NOTHING but crappy eye candy at that, and a ton a totally useless "are you sure you want to that" popups. Not to mention needing almost a super computer to run the trash!
MS should be sued for publishing such garbage and while I'm at it, I just tested the beta IE8 out yesterday. What another POS!! It's so screwed up, it locks/hangs windows explorer up constantly even.
MS is SO FAR off the mark on everything they do now a days, it's no wonder I've mainly migrated to Linux, for the most part.
It's a beta. Sure perhaps not as polished as Google's betas but it's still a beta.
It's like people have totally lost rational thought when it comes to computers these days.
Thats incorrect. Fact is, by staying with XP, they are holding back technology. Some games have already started using DX10, which IS better than DX9. Yet if Microsoft continues to baby the XP owners, technology will never advance.
Kinda like Nvidia not adding DX10.1 support, because they are intentionally trying to hold back technology (they have this stupid idea they are getting back at ATI). Its been proven by several websites that DX10.1 is much faster than DX10 for games using AA.
I can guarantee anyone here, that as long as they continue to support XP, no one will buy any future version of Windows, including their next version. I suppose we all could be running Windows 3.1... wouldn't that be great.
This 'news article' is merely a speculative bash based on a Reg article.
Vista will be dubbed "Oops, our bad, here try Win 7".
Vista will be dubbed "Oops, our bad, here try Win 7".
Vista is "rock solid" for me also. And your comment is complete BS.
Yup... Go to the source and click the "apparent decision" link.
Now with this recession in the us, they should consider that the ppl wont waste money on stupid thing likes an OS... Please dont get mad, its true.
I guess the sales will be low, then? It's possible people will suddenly stop buying Apple products or even food. I don't see it happening, though.
The problem is that "many people" don't believe that. There's a small chunk of Neowin users and a bunch of bloggers whose job depends on them attracting anyone with a mouse and web browser to their site for ad revenue.
He probably meant to say whinging - it's a well known British word (and maybe used elsewhere.. I don't know) that pretty much means whining.. but often used when talking to a kit or something - like "Stop your whinging!!"
More like third or forth.
Some would say it is thinly-veiled attempts at bashing "Vi$ta" that are the epic failure... That and the habit said bashers of dropping stinkbomb comments like this and not bothering to come back to babysit them...
Some would say it is thinly-veiled attempts at bashing "Vi$ta" that are the epic failure... That and the habit said bashers of dropping stinkbomb comments like this and not bothering to come back to babysit them...
Seeing that the folks in Redmond are extending downgrade rights to XP even more, with vi$ta swiftly heading toward its 2 year birthday, is nothing short of a thinly veiled admission that vi$ta is an epic failure of embarrassing proportions.
I happen to agree. Ever since I moved to vista ultimate, I have had no issues with the OS. Plus, when I work on my customers computers (xp, linu
Alienware M9750
Dual 8700GT Nvidia (SLI)
Dual 350 Gig drives (Raid0)
4 Gig Ram
Intel Core 2 Extreme
Some would say it is thinly-veiled attempts at bashing "Vi$ta" that are the epic failure... That and the habit said bashers of dropping stinkbomb comments like this and not bothering to come back to babysit them...
Seeing that the folks in Redmond are extending downgrade rights to XP even more, with vi$ta swiftly heading toward its 2 year birthday, is nothing short of a thinly veiled admission that vi$ta is an epic failure of embarrassing proportions.
As I said, the only epic failure of embarrassing proportions is your attacks. Why don't you go find something productive to be angry about? Still haven't made it to 100%?
Completely agree, the amount of times I go to people's houses and fix Windows XP because of these problems.
Windows Vista does not have these problems or at least it is a lot less likely to happen because of the security features built-in.
I challenge anybody to run Windows XP bareback for six months and use it properly on the Internet, and anybody use Windows Vista in the same way I guarantee Windows Vista will stay the cleanest operating system.
It is only the people that have no idea what they are talking about that are advising more people that have no idea what they are listening to ruining Windows Vista.
Rhetorical question: Of the 140 million, how many times did the customer say to the sales person "Please, install Vista on my machine, I heard it's a good operating system." as opposed to "Just give me a computer, the newest thing you got."
I'm willing to bet most people just think "Microsoft Windows", much like "I have a Mac". Don't overestimate the intelligence of Joe 6 pack with regard to computers and can distinguish the difference between XP and Vista.
And judging by the amount of time it took vi$ta to get to 18.33% maybe in another 4 years it will be even with XP.
Dude, your own data shows that Vista is rising as XP declines at almost the exact same rate! That means to me that Microsoft has pretty much lost no market share. You obviouly don't understand how to read a simple chart. Do you really think Microsoft expected every user that had XP to instantly go buy a new copy of Vista? They know the average user doesn't do that. Most people get a new OS when they get tired of their old computer and go buy a new one. If you can infer anything from this data it's that Apple's share increase was pretty underwhelming. Perhaps more people switched to Vista instead of a Mac than they want to admit.
Another predictable reply from you lol
And I never said microshaft was losing market share, I simply showed you the epic failure of vi$ta and I provided evidence to prove it.
Sure I don't think that people should run out and buy vi$ta as soon as it's released, or even windows 7 for that matter, but almost 2 years later and the numbers prove that people are STILL not rushing out to buy it and I would wager that the bulk of the 18.33% comes from OEM's who forced vi$ta onto pc buyers.
Now maybe you should go back and read the chart again, remember, almost 2 YEARS and your beloved law-breaking monopoly giant is still unable to bring its latest os to the forefront of today's computing, why? because it's a steaming pile, after almost 2 years and a service pack later it should be at the very least a 50/50 share but it's not, nowhere close, and that just drives you fanboys insane while everyone else laughs at you all <guffaw>
Here, one example. May 14, 2003.
9x->XP *was* a significant upgrade, but... was XP at 50% here? Nuh uh.
Honestly though. What do you people really gain by laughing and thinking Vista's a failure? Whether it's XP, Vista, or Win7 in the spotlight, MS wins either way. Unless there's a *mass* move to Apple boxes, which I haven't seen yet.
Here, one example. May 14, 2003.
9x->XP *was* a significant upgrade, but... was XP at 50% here? Nuh uh.
Honestly though. What do you people really gain by laughing and thinking Vista's a failure? Whether it's XP, Vista, or Win7 in the spotlight, MS wins either way. Unless there's a *mass* move to Apple boxes, which I haven't seen yet.
Thanks for this post as it further shows the epic failure that is vi$ta.
A quote from the article you cited:
Vi$ta doesn't even have 1/3 of the market share after 20 months, not even 20% LMAO!
Vista is not a failure, just like any other Windows version wasnt (Yes, including Windows ME) Everyone has gone out and bought it/came prebuilt with their system.
Again, if you don't know technology and simply rate how something looks, then you have no use for Vista. Otherwise, under the hood, Vista is a amazing improvement.
Every PC we receive now comes with Vista pre-installed.
We put Windows XP on eevry one of those machines.
Until we certify that all of our 1000+ applications run troublefree on Vista, XP will remain the norm. It will still be a few years until Vista get's adopted.
The company I worked for previously had over 150k machines. It took them over 5 years to introduce XP. How long do you think it will take to introduce Vista?
Big companies don't just run out and install the latest OS on their machines without properly testing them, and the testing phase can take eyars.
Now apply this on a global basis, how many of those 140 million copies are really being used? What does this tell you?
I don't think Vista is a fail, but it takes time to be adopted. You can't expect to launch a new OS and have everyone go out and replace what they got with that one. This only works for the average Joe who "wants a PC to surf and read emails" and to those people that always want the latest thing.
Give it another 2 years and that graph will look a lot different.
Yeah, it might make it to 25% lmao!
Full Disclosure:
I run 3xXP desktops, 1x Vista laptop, 1x Linux machine
Yeah, it might make it to 25% lmao!
I have no idea where that graph came from, but why did you not include XP's performance the first two years it was out if you wanted to say Vista was underperforming compared to XP for the first two years?
Yeah, it might make it to 25% lmao!
Is there an Ignore function I could add you to?
Yeah, it might make it to 25% lmao!
Is there an Ignore function I could add you to?
Just patiently wait for the "hammer" to make its move.
I like how this guy thinks a statement like "Vista is a failure" is a *fact*. Last time I checked, 'facts' that have just as many rebuttals countering them aren't facts.... just stinking opinions.
I've got nothing against Vista, I'm still using XP because the last time I upgraded it was easier to stick with XP for a number of reasons - software issues, I know it's stable (haven't used Vista enough to be able to judge it on it's stability). It was also easier for the family PC keeping it on XP because that's what my parents are used to. Next big PC upgrade will probably see either Vista or Windows 7 getting installed.
.snip.
What compatibility problems? I went from XP 32bit to Vista 64bit, which is about a bigger jump as you can get, and every single peice of software I've tried to run (with the exception of really old stuff, like stuff with 16bit installers etc) runs like a dream.
.snip.
What compatibility problems? I went from XP 32bit to Vista 64bit, which is about a bigger jump as you can get, and every single peice of software I've tried to run (with the exception of really old stuff, like stuff with 16bit installers etc) runs like a dream.
So, because you don't have any problems, does that mean that nobody else will? Can you garantee that all the software we use at the company will run fine on Vista?
That's a question for the IT staff at your company. Assuming they can actually do their job, that is.
Yeah, they can do their job. But testing all the apps to guarantee to the customer that they will work takes a lot of time.
You don't just slap Vista on all the PC's and roll them out.
There is a difference between the individual person and companies upgrading to a new OS, and remember that companies make a huge chunk of the general Vista sales.
But will Balmer in charge now, I remain skeptical about Windows 7. I have my main pc using Vista Ultimate and while it's fairly stable there are some issues with it and also it doesn't work with my laser printer due to lack of drivers from HP.
I have 3 other pc's 2 of them are still using XP.
But nothing like what has happened with Vista, because Vista has far too many real problems.
But nothing like what has happened with Vista, because Vista has far too many real problems.
Like?
But nothing like what has happened with Vista, because Vista has far too many real problems.
Like?
UAC. Dumb users are just going to hit contiune anyways... and disabling it means you're completely defenseless.
Thats my only gripe left with Vista... all others have been taken care of in SP1.
And that's the fault of Vista and Microsoft....how?
But nothing like what has happened with Vista, because Vista has far too many real problems.
Like?
Constant hard drive thrashing, enormous and unreasonable memory usage during idle, slow as molasses start times, slower performance in games vs. XP, tons of bloatware that most people don't need or want, the list is staggering and endless.
But nothing like what has happened with Vista, because Vista has far too many real problems.
Like?
Constant hard drive thrashing, enormous and unreasonable memory usage during idle, slow as molasses start times, slower performance in games vs. XP, tons of bloatware that most people don't need or want, the list is staggering and endless.
Well you know what those guys with the green/gold member names will say don't you - get more hardware, or that you're telling FUD. There's no WAY Microsoft might have actually made an OS requiring far more resources than it deserves.
People refusing to believe other people's experiences just because they don't match their own, is a typical human failing.
And that's the fault of Vista and Microsoft....how?
My point is... it's a useless feature. Dumb users are going to click on it anyways... regardless.. and for advanced users like us.. just wastes our time.
I can't speak for Linux.. but in OS X I've maybe seen that prompt 1 or 2 times a month... it's not as annoying as it is on Vista.
People refusing to believe other people's experiences just because they don't match their own, is a typical human failing.
Let's see:
Yes, there's disk thrashing. Does it always occur? Nuh uh. For the first few minutes after bootup, yes.
Enormous nemory usage? Yes. For some benefit? You bet. Unfortunately there are a few bugged apps who leak memory and end up triggering the Resource Exhaustion Prevention dialog (a.k.a. almost low memory dialog).
Slow start times? Possibly, the first few times around. The next few times? It gets faster.
Slower performance in games? Yes. Back in 2007. Can you please do a F5 on your statistics?
Bloatware? Such as...
I'll come clean and state that my Vista experiences have not been 100% positive the past two years. Now they are, fortunately.
Seriously, some of you still cling onto early 2007-era arguments as if they still hold water almost a year and a half later.
People refusing to believe other people's experiences just because they don't match their own, is a typical human failing.
Let's see:
Yes, there's disk thrashing. Does it always occur? Nuh uh. For the first few minutes after bootup, yes.
Indeed. It's mainly due to superfetch which I admit to being a very useful feature. Would be nice if the REASON for the disk thrashing was made clearer though - it's a product of a useful feature, but few people know this. If Microsoft communicated this better, we would have less of an issue with complaints.
The greater memory is mainly due to superfetch, but the problem is that it doesn't scale down particularly well. If a machine doesn't have that much physical RAM (eg. 512 MB), superfetch kills the RAM. Since superfetch makes best use of systems with a lot of RAM, really if it was smart it should only enable itself on 1GB or over systems, so that with 512MB Vista because more or less like XP, which would make it more palatable. I know you can modify how superfetch works via registry, but most people don't know how. Smart defaults like this would have been better.
Yes, to a point. Plus hibernation/standby helps fill the gap in many cases, but it's still the slowest of all operating systems.
When you are borderline on performance with a particular game, the balance tends to tip towards XP and away from Vista. With really powerful systems, the opposite is true.
Disk space for one. Yes yes I know hard drives are cheap these days, but when it comes to notebooks/netbooks, size of the OS can be a major factor.
Seriously, some of you still cling onto early 2007-era arguments as if they still hold water almost a year and a half later.
I use Vista every day. I like it. That's not to say that I don't appreciate the opinions of other though, but as far as I'm concerned, all operating systems suck ass so I make the best of what's available.
I agree as well. Sometimes Superfetch doesn't back off in a game. :/
I think they (MS) thought a bit ahead of themselves and assumed by the time Vista hit its prime (let's just assume it's around now), the new systems will have least two gigabytes of memory. To an extent, that's true today. But unfortunately that does little to calm the angry persons with Vista Capable stickered systems which hold 1 GB or less of RAM.
If you're talking about leaving the system be and not maintaining it, then Vista holds a boot speed faster than an unmaintained XP system. But with third party defraggers XP's boot can be very fast.
On the other hand Vista is more prone to services refusing to exit on shutdown, so sometimes shutdown takes forever for me. Nowadays I sleep my system so this is more of a non-issue now.
Mmm... I guess I'll have to agree. My laptop suffers a bit for gaming in Vista, but my rather high end desktop experiences barely any noticeable impact.
Just one side effect of preferring a disc image-based install over extracting individual CABs to the hard drive. Install time is much faster, you no longer need the original disc to enable/disable Windows features, but it's all at a cost of disk space.
One thing MS should also add into Windows 7 is a space indicator showing how much of their disc is being used by restore points/shadow copies. For some 15% of the partition's size is too much for System Restore.
You made good points though overall.
However, I know that most IT departments are just whiny and refuse to change anything. Heck, my university's IT department still uses IE6 on most computers even though it won't properly display most web pages anymore.
Most IT departments aren't whiny, they're being realistic, because changing 500 machines to a new o/s requires a lot of effort. Imagine the support for 500 people ringing up saying "I can't find 'X feature'". That's just one example!
I work at a number of workplaces, none have Vista, nor any intention to get it. That's just the way it is - for now.
Companies dont like change. Its not that the operating system isnt good enough, its a fine OS, its just that there is no reason to upgrade. Same with home computers, the average computer user's common behaviour is:
1. Internet (eBay, Facebook, etc.)
2. Email
3. Games
They'll have their XP based system, and it will do everything for them, heck, they probably dont even realise what Vista is, so why would they upgrade?
OEM is the obvious initial route, Microsoft can get some inroads without really doing the work because OEM partners are shipping the OS for them.
It's going to take some time for Vista to start rolling, but the only thing I wonder is that is it going too slow; considering their choice of release year for Windows 7?
Who should be feeling sorry for who?
Who should be feeling sorry for who?
/facepalm
So it's Vista's fault your hard drive failed? Did you back up your data like it recommended?
Before you gripe about Vista, tell me how other operating systems behave in similar situations?
I have just realised why it was posted, the author by his own admission in his profile.
- Apple (I'm a fanboy)
Stop trolling.
Here at Neowin we are about 208860 members. Why dont all of us pitch in, say that we use and want support for Windows 95 and see if Microsoft does it? Signing a petition...
Support old OSs = No.
Same reason why people would want to support Windows 95; It simply just works.
"Common users" don't do anything else except internet browsing, IM, email and YouTube videos.
It would just be intresting to try it out. All of us asking for Windows 95 support and see if Microsoft gives.
No, it doesn't. Windows 95 was never a very stable OS, and it simply cannot run on today's hardware, period.
No, it doesn't. Windows 95 was never a very stable OS, and it simply cannot run on today's hardware, period.
Windows 98 SE/ Windows 2000/etc; Whatever old OS that is stable that suits you.
Come on keep on signing; Maybe Microsoft will reinstate support for these too!
Steven
(and no, i don't want to known).
Haha, well said
It's just that the operating system impedes my use of the computer, on a repeated basis.
XP does as well, but to a lesser extent, and most changes from 2000 to XP were easily disabled.
Vista's new "Network Center" is not helpful in any way for managing network configurations.
The UAC still prompts on terribly inane situations, but disabling it pops up "UAC is disabled" warnings from the "Security Center".
The in-place expanding start menu (and explorer sidebar) is next to impossible to navigate, unlike the relatively simple cascading menu.
The search seems to index the drive at inopportune times, killing performance on even MS Word.
They've removed the icons from the major items in the start menu, killing any hope of at-a-glance navigation.
There is no way to elevate a command prompt from a command prompt, forcing me to quit, find the admin cmd setting, and run it, then re-navigate back to where I was.
The auto-hiding menus require extra steps to access basic program features.
The lack of consistent UI elements is off-putting and doesn't help either.
My preference is to Ubuntu, Mac OS X or XP.
If Microsoft addressed Vista from a workflow perspective, and cleaned it up, steamlined the OS preference settings and core apps, then we'll see.
The UAC still prompts on terribly inane situations, but disabling it pops up "UAC is disabled" warnings from the "Security Center".
The in-place expanding start menu (and explorer sidebar) is next to impossible to navigate, unlike the relatively simple cascading menu.
The search seems to index the drive at inopportune times, killing performance on even MS Word.
They've removed the icons from the major items in the start menu, killing any hope of at-a-glance navigation.
There is no way to elevate a command prompt from a command prompt, forcing me to quit, find the admin cmd setting, and run it, then re-navigate back to where I was.
The auto-hiding menus require extra steps to access basic program features.
The lack of consistent UI elements is off-putting and doesn't help either.
1. Vista's new "Network and Sharing Center" has made configuring file and printer sharing such MUCH easier than XP ever could, among other things.
2. UAC prompts me when I modify or attempt to access folders I'm not supposed to be in, when I make system changes, and installs apps. So far, it's doing what I expect it do: protect my system as a side effect of LUA. I do wish UAC was a bit more flexible (see #6).
3. I HATED the cascading menu. I prefer knowing I won't lose my place looking for an app I want to use. Search comes in handy as well.
4. I haven't noticed the indexer kicking in and affecting my PC performance. Maybe if it was indexing at full speed, I'd agree with ya, but that don't happen unless your PC is idle.
5. Huh?
6. I'll agree with you there. That's been one of my FEW pet peeves about UAC. While Start++ helps, it doesn't seem do the job like I'd want it to.
7. Not sure what you mean there.
8. Some of the inconsistent UI elements don't bother me that much, but Windows 7 is looking to remedy that.
I'm kinda impressed there's still flame wars about the thing. You'd think people would have chosen their side and moved on by now.
I'm kinda impressed there's still flame wars about the thing. You'd think people would have chosen their side and moved on by now.
<shrugs shoulders> no different than the passion which people seem to use to explain why their chosen browser is better than any other. It often is very infantile as what can be the subtle differences between one OS or another, for some people, should not be so divisive. Similar arguments can be found in the hardware camps with the tiresome ATI / Nvidia jibes or, when AMD had a viable and competitive option, between AMD / Intel.
Unfortunately all the anti-Vista bashers who post on the internet, never have even tried Vista. So they go around spewing their lies about it.
Vista is a great operating system, and it works great. I've had far more problems with XP than I ever have had with Vista x64.
/I think I hate the Vista Cheerleaders even more than the Vista bashers. It's just software, get a life.
1. The task manager in Vista is essentially useless, its hit and miss as to when it wants to work for killing a process.
2. The memory management in Vista is horrendously bad. If I have my Torrents going, Nero burning a Disc, Winrar unpacking an archive at the same time.... to a different disk, slide show city.
3. Windows explorer in Vista is slow as hell, not to mention it likes to crash on occasion.(Not that that didn't happen in XP but it happens more often in Vista- to its credit Vista handles Win Explorer crashes better than XP did!)
4. Whats up with the control panel? I thought they were supposed to be making it easier to navigate through, every time I have to uninstall something I can never remember where the Add/Remove Software Icon went to.
5. The 'All Programs' tab in the start menu has become a bitch to navigate.
6. It takes forever for the system to restart probably due in part to Vista's poor handling of tasks and process's- [See #1]
In closing, I'd like to say that if you think there's nothing wrong with Vista, then you're not using your system as a power user would and the machine is not being pushed very hard at all. It seems to me that Vista runs great when there is no strain on it, but as soon as its loaded down with multiple programs and tasks/processes it *%^& the bed!
I tell you all that I'd still use XP if I could get Dx 10 on it to play games. And someone replies and tells me about how it can be done without having to screwup the OS to do it.
2. personally I'd blame Nero! but I cannot be sure of that, and burning disks and extracting archives are usually quite intensive, not to mention showing pictures!
3. depends on the computer and what is running in the background (including if you've ever been infected with a trojan)
4. personal choice. It didn't take me very long to get used to, but thats just me.
5. the search bar helps, and its always in alphabetical order. But, again, see 4
6. I had that with XP anyway, but see 3
And using vista is an advantage if 7 turns out to be bad
p.s see 4
2. The memory management in Vista is actually pretty damn good. The problem you're experiencing is related to the hard drive being the bottleneck in that situation.
3. I find it just as fast as it was in XP and it rarely crashes for me.
4. It's MUCH easier to navigate for me. I never have issues finding what exactly I'm looking, and Search comes in handy in the situations where either I'm just lazy or can't remember what I'm looking for in the CP.
5. I find it MUCH easier. No more accidentally clicking outside to lose my spot, or even open the wrong program...
6. That's entirely up the amount of app's you have installed. Works the same as in XP. Clean install = FAST restarts. Add more to your system and of course it's gonna get slower.
I'm a power user and I clearly don't have the same experience as you do. Perhaps, since you're a "power user" yourself, you should figure out why the problems you're experiencing are there and eliminate them. Vista does have some tools to assist you.
Ontopic: A Reg article meant at doing exactly nothing (Well, Generate ad-revenue). Says nothing, Means nothing. People with use of Vista are already using Vista a long time ago, And people who decided not to buy Vista (hopefully from the right reasons, but probably not judging by the vocal minority here in Neowin as a representative of public opinion) are still using their previous Microsoft OS, Be it XP or 2000 or (god-forbid) 9x\ME.
Last edited by Skyfrog on 07 Oct 2008 - 18:42
Makes dick all difference to me if Microsoft support it or not.
The anti-Vista bashers here, I can pretty much guarantee they will never upgrade to Windows7 either. Microsoft is a long ways from offering another New windows anyways.
They bash Vista because they think it justifies their not upgrading to it. When in fact Vista is far better than XP.
Amazing, not only that everyone dislikes Vista for the very same reason but that you happen to know the reason. I wish I could read minds over the internet like that. Then you follow up with your own personal opinion which you present as a fact. Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
Do you lose sleep knowing there are some people in this world who don't embrace Vista with the same amount of passion? I, myself, use XP and don't care if people use 2000, XP, Vista, 9x, or DOS. It doesn't make my computer experience any less or more enjoyable what others say about XP. What bugs you so much about people not wanting Vista?
I'm excited to see what Win 7 will bring to the table. I want to upgrade from XP someday.
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.