Microsoft extends Windows XP's stay

Bowing to pressure from customers and computer makers, Microsoft plans to keep Windows XP around a little longer.

Large PC manufacturers were slated to have to stop selling XP after January 31. However, they have successfully lobbied Microsoft to allow them to continue selling PCs with all flavors of Windows XP preloaded until June 30, a further five months. Microsoft also plans to keep XP on retail shelves longer and will allow computer makers in emerging markets to build machines with Windows XP Starter Edition until June 2010. The move indicates the continued demand for the older operating system, some nine months after Windows Vista hit store shelves.

"This allows the installed base of Windows XP users more time to manage the transition to Vista, which is important for some smaller companies with limited resources," Paul Moore, senior director of mobile product marketing for Fujitsu, said in a statement.

Dell also said it support's Microsoft's decision. "We believe the additional time will help some customers to prepare for the transition from XP to Vista," the company said in a statement. Microsoft, for its part, sought to downplay the impact of the move, disagreeing with the notion that there is still strong demand for XP.

News source: Cnet News.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

AOL Working On Patch For Instant Messenger Vulnerability

Next Story

Serious vulnerability found in Gmail

21 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I like XP, it does everything I need it to, plus I like the classic theme. An OS should be transparent to the user, not all in your face with flashy eye candy and special effects. It's the programs that are important, and XP runs them all just fine.

I'm not an OS whore as I started out with Windows ME and had to run it for two years before I could get XP but this hit the nail on the head for me:

The way they marketed it; with "Flip3D" as the front page selling point and overhyping its release is the reason why it has been recieved badly by some; in my opinion at least. However, this does not mean that the OS itself is poor. If they had said something similar to "the underlying code has been re-done to provide a more secure system" and left out alot of the "You can make it have a Sidebar!!!" it would've been seen much better.

I use Vista on this one computer at work and it's tiresome. It's so unintuitive and makes me feel like everything is more complicated than it needs to be. I end up going back to the XP ones.

I think people need to stop looking at this as if it is Windows ME. This is not a interface update with a couple of multimedia features added in. It has a different kernel, a new API and overall the structure has been redefined. Microsoft will not be putting Vista out to pasture. It is the future of Windows (period). If you don't like this, there is always Linux or OSX. Windows XP extra licenses are only being provided to allow vendors to sell more hardware. This does not change the fact that at the moment, XP is a second tier system (bugs, updates). The once vaulted XP Sp3 has essentially been killed and will only be a service roll-up for existing hotfixes, elect. Once SP3 is released, Windows XP is officially done. There won't be a true SP4 or SP5.

It is obvious that Microsoft has little interest in XP. It won't matter what consumers think and, or expect. The only two things guiding them are market dynamics and corporate America. The XP OS had a good life from 2001 to 2007. A full six years. This would be like having Windows 95 fully supported in the year 2001.

It is simply time to move on whether that be Vista, Linux, OSX or some other OS of your choice.

I wouldn't mind Vista so much if there was solid driver support for it. As it stands, half the hardware I want to install either doesn't have driver support for Vista or it has flaky driver support. That, and I don't like what they did to the UI. If they would make all the menus and dialogs revertible to a Win2k or WinXP style, I'd be willing to use Vista as a primary OS. Becasue I don't run an OS for it's eye candy.

I mainly use vista (sometimes I boot up linux depending on what I'm doing) and have to agree with your opinion. Only after using an XP system after becoming familiar with Vista I realised how different they are.
I'll admit that microsoft made an annoying move by removing several useful tools from the system but it is definatly the future of Windows. The way they marketed it; with "Flip3D" as the front page selling point and overhyping its release is the reason why it has been recieved badly by some; in my opinion at least. However, this does not mean that the OS itself is poor. If they had said something similar to "the underlying code has been re-done to provide a more secure system" and left out alot of the "You can make it have a Sidebar!!!" it would've been seen much better.
Some points people seem to forget:
The abilities of the removed items can normally be achieved in alternate ways if you're in desperate need for them. e.g. File context menus->Registry edit.
People seem to forget UAC can be turned off.
Newer OSs nearly always require newer hardware.
Vista is pre-SP1 - XP is SP2. Compare the pre SP version of XP to Vista and you'll see how much worse XP was at this stage.
Drivers are for other companies hardware; the reason there are fewer is because Vista hasn't been around for 6 years.

Finally, new hardware and software will slowly force XP out as the OS will be unable to support it when its development stops, despite efforts by XP entusiasts for its continuation. That'll be when XP "is broke" and needs to "be fixed" with Vista for those still wanting a Windows OS. Rather than complaining that XP is better, they'd be better off suggesting or coding improvements for vista to make their lives happier when they're finally forced to change.

This was an unavoidable result of Microsoft's attempt at the next great OS, which didn't live up to expectations. If Vista SP1 doesn't resolve its numerous issues then I suspect that it'll die and get passed up for Microsoft's next OS...is there a sequel to failure in the works?

"This allows the installed base of Windows XP users more time to manage the transition to Vista," - lmao, think again, ms. :P

Stability and reliability isn't the issue with Vista though.

It's the fact there is so much crap there - so much is done differently.

Not just different as in "just because its different doesn't mean its bad" - but actually because it's different in a BAD way. Design choices that make no sense, commonly used features REMOVED for no apparent reason, parts dumbed down, intrusive switch to "all search, all the time" interface at the same time making the standard file management a lot less intuitive. Deciding for a user what folders should display, with no easy way to make it stop.
Generic "Access Denied" messages without telling the user as to WHY they are denied (usually new NTFS permissions for folders that don't Administrators full write access to every folder any more).


The list goes on and on for annoying crap. To top it all off, system requirements are about four times higher than for XP.

+1

Xenomorph said,
Stability and reliability isn't the issue with Vista though.

It's the fact there is so much crap there - so much is done differently.

Not just different as in "just because its different doesn't mean its bad" - but actually because it's different in a BAD way. Design choices that make no sense, commonly used features REMOVED for no apparent reason, parts dumbed down, intrusive switch to "all search, all the time" interface at the same time making the standard file management a lot less intuitive. Deciding for a user what folders should display, with no easy way to make it stop.
Generic "Access Denied" messages without telling the user as to WHY they are denied (usually new NTFS permissions for folders that don't Administrators full write access to every folder any more).


The list goes on and on for annoying crap. To top it all off, system requirements are about four times higher than for XP.

I will grant to you that the interface of Vista is different. This is the new paradigm at Microsoft, the user interface lift that you've seen with Vista and Office. About every decade or so, they radically change the design of their UI. The first real change came in 1985 to 1987, the second in 1995 with Windows 95. The current Win95 UI was valid through XP with only slight modifications being made to the UI.

Vista represents a new generation of software. The real target audience is a new generation of high school and college students and not those of us in our mid twenties or later. I think the idea with Vista is to copy as much as Unix as possible (permissions, run by default as not admin, caching memory) because they saw the faults with the current design of NT being exposed to daily assaults on the internet. It is true that you could secure a Win2k and XP box but it involved a lot more steps than Vista (and my only claim is that Vista is more secure by default).

As for problems with Vista. I have two. One, network performance when running multiple networks is worrisome. Two, the drivers provided are by default and through vendors leaves much to be desired. The will be addressed in SP1 and is semi workable in the recent hotfixes. The second is not really Microsoft's fault. Businesses are being required to write better drivers and many are simply not up to the task (at least in x64). They also have to keep profits in mind, and this often requires them to abandon the current range of hardware every four years. An example would be Visioneer no longer offering a driver compatible with Vista for my 9020 scanner.

Overall I am sort of satisfied with Vista. It is slight more stable, has better power management, a workable search, a nice mainline interface and a number of options that simply were not available in XP. That being said after having used it since the release date I do get a little nostalgic for the classic interface and a more simplified approach that the earlier NT releases took (less services, less registry activity, and yes, less resources consumed overall).

+3

Xenomorph said,
Stability and reliability isn't the issue with Vista though.

It's the fact there is so much crap there - so much is done differently.

Not just different as in "just because its different doesn't mean its bad" - but actually because it's different in a BAD way. Design choices that make no sense, commonly used features REMOVED for no apparent reason, parts dumbed down, intrusive switch to "all search, all the time" interface at the same time making the standard file management a lot less intuitive. Deciding for a user what folders should display, with no easy way to make it stop.
Generic "Access Denied" messages without telling the user as to WHY they are denied (usually new NTFS permissions for folders that don't Administrators full write access to every folder any more).


The list goes on and on for annoying crap. To top it all off, system requirements are about four times higher than for XP.

Xenomorph said,
Stability and reliability isn't the issue with Vista though.

It's the fact there is so much crap there - so much is done differently.

Not just different as in "just because its different doesn't mean its bad" - but actually because it's different in a BAD way. Design choices that make no sense, commonly used features REMOVED for no apparent reason, parts dumbed down, intrusive switch to "all search, all the time" interface at the same time making the standard file management a lot less intuitive. Deciding for a user what folders should display, with no easy way to make it stop.
Generic "Access Denied" messages without telling the user as to WHY they are denied (usually new NTFS permissions for folders that don't Administrators full write access to every folder any more).


The list goes on and on for annoying crap. To top it all off, system requirements are about four times higher than for XP.


+4

Glassed Silver:mac

Well, on my lappy (E1505, 2 gig ram), I'm going back to XP for a while. I've had Vista on here for 6 months, and
the wireless problem continues, something I NEVER had with XP. If you put the computer to sleep, while on a wi-fi
network, wake it up on a different wi-fi network, it either takes forever to recognize that you are on a totally different
network, or, it will connect with "limited connectivity". You either have to turn off the wi-fi or reboot the computer to
fix it. One thing I DID like was the improved sleep mode. Other than the wi-fi problem, which could be a Vista or
Dell problem, I didn't have any problems with Vista, but, I am off & on different wi-fi networks 7-8 times a day and it's too much of a pain to have to turn off the wi-fi or reboot the computer.

Oh, it will come through eventually, but why should it take so long to get there to begin with? Especially after they delayed the release so many times. MS WON'T be getting in my pockets over Vista though.

It just goes to show that Microsoft have made leaps and bounds with XP making it their first stable and reliable (Client) OS after the 9x era.. Same goes for Windows 2000 which also proved to be a reliable platform.

Hopefully Vista will come through after Service Pack 1 and finally take the place of Windows XP on reliability.

Neobond said,
It just goes to show that Microsoft have made leaps and bounds with XP making it their first stable and reliable (Client) OS after the 9x era.. Same goes for Windows 2000 which also proved to be a reliable platform.

Hopefully Vista will come through after Service Pack 1 and finally take the place of Windows XP on reliability.

+1, XP is IMO a good OS, which is why people are taking up an "If it ain't broke..." attitude.

However I think Vista may well have to wait until SP2 to displace XP.