The forced retirement of Microsoft's Windows XP is set--with some exceptions--for Monday. To quell XP separation anxiety and the rancor of seething Vista haters, Microsoft has agreed to offer Windows XP updates and security patches until April 2014. However, PC retailers such as Dell have pretty much stopped selling computers preloaded with the venerable OS. XP's disappearance has stirred much conversation. In fact, more than 200,000 people signed a petition to keep XP--a campaign championed by our sibling publication InfoWorld. In the long run, though, Microsoft refused to yield to the entreaties of XP-philes.
View: The full story @ PCWorld
Because as much as XP is liked, and Vista has it's flaws, keeping XP going is only slowing down any progress Vista could be making if developers were forced into using Vista
So in a way, Good Riddance AND Sad Farewell
Because as much as XP is liked, and Vista has it's flaws, keeping XP going is only slowing down any progress Vista could be making if developers were forced into using Vista
But forcing people into using a particular OS is horrid, particularly if the cost of upgrading can't be substantially justified. Pressuring people into using an OS they'd prefer not to is no way to bring progress, particularly if there are certain issues with the successor.
Now I understand Microsoft obviously wanting to push Vista, and I think Vista is a fine OS once you get used to it, but if the market is still clamoring for XP then wouldn't it make good business sense (as well as valuable PR) to just continue selling it? Don't tell me it'll be too much work supporting both Vista AND XP for the powerhouse corporation that is Microsoft.
Because as much as XP is liked, and Vista has it's flaws, keeping XP going is only slowing down any progress Vista could be making if developers were forced into using Vista
But forcing people into using a particular OS is horrid, particularly if the cost of upgrading can't be substantially justified. Pressuring people into using an OS they'd prefer not to is no way to bring progress, particularly if there are certain issues with the successor.
Now I understand Microsoft obviously wanting to push Vista, and I think Vista is a fine OS once you get used to it, but if the market is still clamoring for XP then wouldn't it make good business sense (as well as valuable PR) to just continue selling it? Don't tell me it'll be too much work supporting both Vista AND XP for the powerhouse corporation that is Microsoft.
Just because it is not being sold that is NOT forcing anyone to upgrade. You ALWAYS have the choice to keep what you have.
Because as much as XP is liked, and Vista has it's flaws, keeping XP going is only slowing down any progress Vista could be making if developers were forced into using Vista
But forcing people into using a particular OS is horrid, particularly if the cost of upgrading can't be substantially justified. Pressuring people into using an OS they'd prefer not to is no way to bring progress, particularly if there are certain issues with the successor.
Now I understand Microsoft obviously wanting to push Vista, and I think Vista is a fine OS once you get used to it, but if the market is still clamoring for XP then wouldn't it make good business sense (as well as valuable PR) to just continue selling it? Don't tell me it'll be too much work supporting both Vista AND XP for the powerhouse corporation that is Microsoft.
No one is forcing you to use Windows. If you don't like it then move to a Mac, or Linux.
Because as much as XP is liked, and Vista has it's flaws, keeping XP going is only slowing down any progress Vista could be making if developers were forced into using Vista
So in a way, Good Riddance AND Sad Farewell
This is such a line of BS, it isn't even funny. Shouldn't even be worth commenting on either but WTH!
Vista started out with so many more flaws than XP did and STILL has WAY more issues than XP did after this amount of time, that MS knows better than cut off support for XP before another OS will be due for EOL supoort!
In fact, with MS's total lack of third party drivers before releasing the final version, they should've been sued just for releasing such a POS!!
Vista started out with so many more flaws than XP did and STILL has WAY more issues than XP did after this amount of time, that MS knows better than cut off support for XP before another OS will be due for EOL supoort!
In fact, with MS's total lack of third party drivers before releasing the final version, they should've been sued just for releasing such a POS!!
Agreed, vi$ta has so many issues that there are even commercials about it on tv, pretty sad really, an OS known mostly for its problems.
Absolutely shocking that one of Microsoft's competitors would advertise against Vista. That's not even Marketing 101, that's basic real world understanding.
Do you even know what Vista is or do you jump on the bashing wagon for the heck of it?
Absolutely shocking that one of Microsoft's competitors would advertise against Vista. That's not even Marketing 101, that's basic real world understanding.
Do you even know what Vista is or do you jump on the bashing wagon for the heck of it?
Crying and moaning about the facts regarding vi$ta only serves to prove that you have issues yourself and that you are a mentally challenged fanboy
Have you even seen the vi$ta bashing commercials? they are based on fact with claims such as "vi$ta has so many problems".
It's a fact fanboy, vi$ta is STILL full of problems, like it or not.
Horrid? Kind of a strong word, don't you think? No one is forcing anyone to do anything. No one has to buy a particular OS, and if that's how you view it was, why weren't you clamoring for the last 6 years when all you could buy was Windows XP and not Windows ME, 98, 95, or 3.11? C'mon. XP was an excellent OS, especially since it lasted longer than any other put out by Microsoft and was improved with Service Packs over the years. But it's time to go. Windows Vista is a superior OS, and I know, I've worked a lot with both and I'm now running Vista Business. There aren't really and valid issues with the successor, Vista. Or are you not even running it? All companies want to push their new product. That's not horrid, that's business. Car manufacturers come out with new models every year, but they're not selling cars from 7 years ago just because it was a really good model and everyone liked it.
Absolutely shocking that one of Microsoft's competitors would advertise against Vista. That's not even Marketing 101, that's basic real world understanding.
Do you even know what Vista is or do you jump on the bashing wagon for the heck of it?
Crying and moaning about the facts regarding vi$ta only serves to prove that you have issues yourself and that you are a mentally challenged fanboy
Have you even seen the vi$ta bashing commercials? they are based on fact with claims such as "vi$ta has so many problems".
It's a fact fanboy, vi$ta is STILL full of problems, like it or not.
Quit your bitching, learn to use the letter S and grow the **** up. Seriously.
Take your trolling somewhere else. Vista is a good OS and theres enough posts by members to prove it. So please... GTFO
Absolutely shocking that one of Microsoft's competitors would advertise against Vista. That's not even Marketing 101, that's basic real world understanding.
Do you even know what Vista is or do you jump on the bashing wagon for the heck of it?
Crying and moaning about the facts regarding vi$ta only serves to prove that you have issues yourself and that you are a mentally challenged fanboy
Have you even seen the vi$ta bashing commercials? they are based on fact with claims such as "vi$ta has so many problems".
It's a fact fanboy, vi$ta is STILL full of problems, like it or not.
You're an idiot. Someone should slap your parents for conceiving you. Must've been a mutated sperm.
it's funny, i'm sure most of the people on this forum use vista because the toolbars are see-through.
And the cosmetic stuff is pretty nice, too.
I've just got a new laptop with Vista on and I have had no issues with it so far. Enjoying it
Yes, Virginia; you *can* run Vista (and run it reasonably well) on XP-generation hardware. It simply requires care in selecting that hardware.
We switched over to Vista right after it's launch. None of us 4 users want to leave Vista and go back to XP. I must admit that running Vista after XP was really not much of a performance "oh WOW!" experience. Vista SP1 was a welcome addition. I had no major beefs with XP Home and likewisw Vista Home Premium has been good to us.
So....I neirther say a sad farewell or a good riddance..but more like a tip of the hat to XP for years of service and an open arms welcome to Vista that has been stable and more appealing than XP..visually and performance wise both.
My $.02 worth
Charlie in Mississippi
That's the best reason too? XD
Wait, what were we talking about again?
Computer builders probably have a whole bunch of license on the shelves that they can use. I have probably enough for a year or so. My suppliers told me they stock up too. I'll keep buying as many as I can for as long as I have money for that. Unlike big company like Dell, Acer, Hp, ... I don't have a contract with MS, so I can still sell PC pre-loaded with XP for as long as I want, even after their deadline of Jan 2009.
So XP is not dead, MS is abandonning it, and it's up to us to keep it alive.
Most computers with a year or two will have 4gigs of memory or more. Even the $200 computer you buy at Walmart. The same can be said of multiple cores. XP does support up to eight cores (2 physical processors)... though it does not have the level of optimization that Vista has. Further, XP is limited to 3.5gigs of memory (realistically). You could move over to x64 XP, however, that system has a number of compatibility issues that x64 Vista does not have. I hope you bought x64 licenses when you purchased your OEM supply (external from Microsoft).
I not sure in what kind of world some of you guys live in. My typical customer, doesn't want the toy that Walmart sell with Vista. They want a PC that allowed them to do e-mail, surfing and word processor. And they want XP. Half of the PC I sell are P4 3G or Athlon 3500+, 1G Ram, 80G HD, XP Home. Their P3 just blew up and they are on top of the wolrd when they see the speed these have. That's all they care about.
80% of PCs users out there don't even know what x64 is.
3+ gigs of ram is only needed to run Vista. XP happily runs on 1 gig.
Most computers with a year or two will have 4gigs of memory or more. Even the $200 computer you buy at Walmart. The same can be said of multiple cores. XP does support up to eight cores (2 physical processors)... though it does not have the level of optimization that Vista has. Further, XP is limited to 3.5gigs of memory (realistically). You could move over to x64 XP, however, that system has a number of compatibility issues that x64 Vista does not have. I hope you bought x64 licenses when you purchased your OEM supply (external from Microsoft).
You missed one thing: If more people switch to Vista, it will become a bigger target for viruses and spyware, we won't need much in the form of security updates
Actually, I dual boot Vista and XP. Framerates for games on XP are much better, but sometimes theres DX10 features I want to check out.
I not sure in what kind of world some of you guys live in. My typical customer, doesn't want the toy that Walmart sell with Vista. They want a PC that allowed them to do e-mail, surfing and word processor. And they want XP. Half of the PC I sell are P4 3G or Athlon 3500+, 1G Ram, 80G HD, XP Home. Their P3 just blew up and they are on top of the wolrd when they see the speed these have. That's all they care about.
80% of PCs users out there don't even know what x64 is.
Again, Microsoft will support XP until 2014 (sorta, kind of... maybe). I am guessing they will for serious patches. Just don't expect to run IE 8.5 or 9.0 (it will for
Do you honestly think that two years from now (2010) a typical PC users is still going to be using a Pentium 4 with 1gig of memory? Things change. Most computers I see today are at least dual core with 2gigs to 3gigs of memory. These are simple whitebox PCs and not custom niche boxes.
The comment that I made about Walmart is that they have Dell boxes with Core 2 Duos with 3gigs of memory, 512mb GPU, 500gig SATA and a DVD writer for about $799. You can get the same system (roughly) in laptop form for less than a grand... though the hard disk is smaller. The system includes a 720p wide screen LCD (desktop) and the laptop has a 17" WD... 720p capable.
Second, the computer you are talking about would be perfectly fine with Vista. You don't need 2gigs of memory on Vista to surf the web and create documents. If you need media features upgrade to 2gigs ($30 dollars). The one real area Vista suffers is high-end gaming, I will grant you that. The trouble here is that you can just throw extra hardware at the problem. You can have dual quad cores with 8gigs of memory or more likely a very high-end dual core CPU with about 4gigs of memory. At the very most that will cost you is about $1300 "white-boxed." A quad core system with a good GPU and massive disk will cost you probably $399 in two years.
Again, there might be a market for what you do. If there is... good. In fact, great! I am just suggestion to be careful and know the market turn around. I guess I just don't see the market for XP that you do. I think currently the only real market is the ultra portable, which might disappear as well in about a year.
3+ gigs of ram is only needed to run Vista. XP happily runs on 1 gig.
How much is two gigs of memory? I can get 4gigs of memory for less than a hundred dollars. Provided that your motherboard supports it... why is this even an issue? For what it is worth... I have seen Vista run on a gig and still multitask fairly well.
That's the whole point, they don't want Vista. They want XP. Because they are comfortable with it and don't want to learn something else.
And if MS doesn't want to give IE 8 or 9 to the XP crowd, I'm sure Mozilla will be more than happy to provide a version 4 or 5 of Firefox.
That's the whole point, they don't want Vista. They want XP. Because they are comfortable with it and don't want to learn something else.
And if MS doesn't want to give IE 8 or 9 to the XP crowd, I'm sure Mozilla will be more than happy to provide a version 4 or 5 of Firefox.
What I was trying to say is because of market dynamics (look at previous Windows releases) it doesn't really matter what they want. New hardware will be introduced that simply will not be supported on XP. The operating system may be supported until 2014, but it really won't. It's simply a talking point to get people not to jump ship to another platform. Again, why I cited a Walmart PC that has dual cores and 3gigs of memory is because this is the baseline of a standard system.
Two years from now, it will be very common to see an inexpensive PC with 8gigs of memory. Are you going to sell them a system that only supports 3.1gig to 3.5gigs (directly). Sure, you could sell them x64 XP, however, it has software limitations. What about when they can't run the latest devices because they lack drivers.
Sure, you can give them Firefox (which I fully support), but many individuals like IE for the same legacy reasons that many cite... it is familiar. The software that is released from Microsoft... which they will want will not run. Than what?
People will move to Vista when it becomes comfortable to do so. If this takes Windows 7 (i.e. WinVi SE) so much the better. When you have a quad core with 8gigs for a few hundred dollars two years from now... it simply won't matter anymore. At this point for many the performance has not caught up due to limited, outdated hardware, but that will change. Sure there will continue to be legacy system, but the majority of purchases will be in support of new hardware... this is where the majority of money is made. Only large corporations to sell security updates and maintenance. Either way, it doesn't matter because Microsoft will not fully support you.
We are not even close to been there yet. You really think Intel or AMD will come with a new chipset next week and not included drivers for XP. Think again.
You keep bringing back the 8 Gigs machine. Beside hardcore gamer, nobody need 8 Gigs in a PC. So in 2 years from now a 8 Gigs might be real cheap, but one with 2 Gigs will be cheaper and there will a market for the 2 Gigs machine.
I not sure in what kind of world some of you guys live in. My typical customer, doesn't want the toy that Walmart sell with Vista. They want a PC that allowed them to do e-mail, surfing and word processor. And they want XP. Half of the PC I sell are P4 3G or Athlon 3500+, 1G Ram, 80G HD, XP Home. Their P3 just blew up and they are on top of the wolrd when they see the speed these have. That's all they care about.
80% of PCs users out there don't even know what x64 is.
ROTFLMAO
This is such a stupid comment but i can't stop laughing hahaha!
no, but seriously, its probably true
Win 3.11 to Win95 was great
Win95 to Win98 was good
Win98 to Win2k was beyond great
Win2k to WinXP was good
WinXP to Vista was so bad I went back to XP
I always love to use the "bleeding edge" and I always run beta OSes when I can. I was running Whistler way before XP came and I was running Longhorn before Vista. but for some reason I ended up not using Longhorn anymore because it didn't have anything over XP that made it worth running (the early betas had the cool sidebar which you could combine with the taskbar). So far I ran Vista SP1 for 6 months and I ended up going back to XP and I don't see myself going back to Vista.
They are very similar, but for good reasons. Stability, performance, etc... both great versions.
Win 3.11 to Win95 was great
Win95 to Win98 was good
Win98 to Win2k was beyond great
Win2k to WinXP was good
WinXP to Vista was so bad I went back to XP
I always love to use the "bleeding edge" and I always run beta OSes when I can. I was running Whistler way before XP came and I was running Longhorn before Vista. but for some reason I ended up not using Longhorn anymore because it didn't have anything over XP that made it worth running (the early betas had the cool sidebar which you could combine with the taskbar). So far I ran Vista SP1 for 6 months and I ended up going back to XP and I don't see myself going back to Vista.
I had very similar experiences with Windows versions, also starting way back in 1993 with Windows 3.11.
They were all great but when WinMe rolled around, it was so bad with drivers and compatibility that I had to go back to Win98.
They are very similar, but for good reasons. Stability, performance, etc... both great versions.
I guess why I brought it up was that I purchased Win2k and then felt a bit cheated when XP came out. I sort of felt that Microsoft could have released a service release or roll-up that provided the new shell and some of the extra features. I did, however, go out and buy XP Pro like most people did in the weeks following its release.
Win2k...WinXP - almost no difference... you could argue different markets, but XP had a Pro version. It had only a minor kernel revision (though some important changes) with almost the same user-land.
WinXP...WinVi - very, very different... you could argue that it is far worse, but the point is that it is very different.
features new to XP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_...ower_management
features new to Vista:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Vista
You can of course get the majority of these features in XP with add-ons, but you can't get the true interface or kernel improvements.
WinXP...WinVi - very, very different... you could argue that it is far worse, but the point is that it is very different.
That in a nutshell is the biggest problem with Vista. The step forward was to large. For you and I, we can probably cope. But most users they can't.
There should have been another version in between XP and Vista. A baby step to bring the people forward without desoriented them.
WinXP...WinVi - very, very different... you could argue that it is far worse, but the point is that it is very different.
That in a nutshell is the biggest problem with Vista. The step forward was to large. For you and I, we can probably cope. But most users they can't.
There should have been another version in between XP and Vista. A baby step to bring the people forward without desoriented them.
Again, however, you could make the same statements about Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. This was clearly a more radical change. The move between Office 4.3 and Office 95 was very similar.
Now, let's turn this into a Vista bashing discussion like we always do!
They stopped selling it? Big deal, you can get it for free!
but like people have said, its not over yet
Neowin came out while XP was in beta, and has helped promote and support it throughout it's lifespan so far.
Service Pack 3 for Windows XP just came out, which not only updates and fixes a lot of things, it also brings system files up to date. In Help > About in Windows Explorer, it says Copyright © 2007 Microsoft Corporation. I have found both IE7 and Windows Media Player 11 to run quick and smoothly as well.
It was a really good decision on Microsoft's part to increase the support life. I will still to one degree or another be using XP for the next five years.
I also wish they would increase the sales deadline. I fix computers on the side and many users, to the joe average user to grandma to gamers want to downgrade from Vista to XP. It will be much harder to fulfil these requests now because I will have to search around for legitimate retail copies.
I was really, really hoping - along with many of my experienced I.T. collegues, that the sales deadline would be extended even further. I think I'm going to order another few copies of Windows XP before this deadline. If anyone from Microsoft is reading this, please do what you can to extend the sales of XP. If not, there will not be another penny from my pocket spent on Windows until Windows 7 comes out.
From a personal perspective... I believe the operating system that deserves protected status is not XP, but rather the aforementioned Win2k. It was more stable, the way it was deployed often made it more secure and it did not have product activation (mostly). It used less resources, though in truth it did less stuff. This in my mind makes it a perfect candidate.
This is not to say that I have not been disappointed in Vista at times. There have been a number of performance issues, hardware compatibility and software that simply does not run. I, however, want to look forward. A number of the more important features that are available is Vista, simply are not in XP or at best (use a half hearten third party approach).
How much do you want to bet on this?
Has anyone here ever taken a second to skim through the 'signatures' on those petitions? It's laughable. It reminds me of the retards voting for American Idol, somehow.
It didn't really have any serious compatibility issues in 2006, and the last time I even saw a program that wouldn't work with Vista was...gosh, probably early last year.
Hog? Not really. I mean, unless you like to waste your RAM. Me...I spent money on it, I want it used.
And why would talk of Windows 7 say something? There's always talk of the next version of Windows, and it's being released in a time frame that's appropriate for Windows (XP -> Vista was a bizzare time frame. 2-3 years is average).
Microsoft extending support is telling us something? To be honest with you, Microsoft didn't extend support. It has been 2014 for years. It has been 2014 since before Microsoft even announced the XP cutoff date.
Jeez, some people will gripe about anything.
Vista is, by design, more secure than XP could ever hope to be.
People just don't like change. Deal with it huh.
i will continue to use it until 2014.
ive never had a blue screen crash with XP unlike windows 98. XP is not a resource hog, those people who say it is are eather running it on way under spec systems or have just to much running in the background. you know they type who have every im app on startup, toolbars etc. installed proberly full of spyware and virus's.
http://news.cnet.com/Users-cling-to-old-Mi..._3-5121458.html
Percentage of desktops with XP:
"Windows XP, the most current version of Windows, was found on just 6.6 percent of the machines." i.e. in enterprise
"Consumers are also still widely using Windows 98. Google reported that 29 percent of searches done in September came from machines running Windows 98, as compared with 38 percent from Windows XP-based PCs and 20 percent from Windows 2000 machines."
Why not move:
"Most (Windows 98 users) are probably like me and do not intend to be coerced into spending several hundred dollars every three years or so," he said in an e-mail.
I used to work for a tech support company and when I would get calls
with someone using win98, Me, I would be totally at a lost. I mean come
on. How cheap are you? I move to the newest OS because they all offer
a better, faster, more stable way of working with the hardware. With
the advances in web technology and hardware (wireless), why wouldn't
you want to take advantage of the latest and greatest.
I used to work for a tech support company and when I would get calls
with someone using win98, Me, I would be totally at a lost. I mean come
on. How cheap are you? I move to the newest OS because they all offer
a better, faster, more stable way of working with the hardware. With
the advances in web technology and hardware (wireless), why wouldn't
you want to take advantage of the latest and greatest.
That would be my point. The study was conducted in 2003 to show that over two years later a majority of users had not moved over.
blah blah no one is forcing you to use vista blah blah.. oh stfu.
**** I'm drunk..
I like how that is written as though it's a huge number. In this context, it's pathetically small. It's little wonder MS decided to press on. Again, typical Internet rebellions. Everyone is interested until they have to lift a finger. Then it becomes too much trouble.
Luckily for us, ZP took advantage of that. However, all users that migrated to XP were forced to wait for working versions of many favorite programs, like antivirus, drivers, utilities and more.
This is the same Vista has, without the benefit of having a previous version to build upon like Win2k.
XP is very good at what it does, make no mistake. But Vista does a lot of different things, that is what people like. Not just XP is better at this, Vista its better at that...Nonsense.
I do think that 2014 is too much. Security is much important, and sadly, those using XP won't see more updates.
Deja vu happened when I bought a Vista PC last year. It didn't work good for the first few months, but is functioning the way I want it to right now.
I'm predicting that once Windows 7 comes out, people will be like "I miss Windows Vista
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.