Users fight to save Windows XP

Microsoft Corp.'s operating systems run most personal computers around the globe and are a cash cow for the world's largest software maker. But you'd never confuse a Windows user with the passionate fans of Mac OS X or even the free Linux operating system. Unless it's someone running Windows XP, a version Microsoft wants to retire.

Fans of the six-year-old operating system set to be pulled off store shelves in June have papered the Internet with blog posts, cartoons and petitions recently. They trumpet its superiority to Windows Vista, Microsoft's latest PC operating system, whose consumer launch last January was greeted with lukewarm reviews.

No matter how hard Microsoft works to persuade people to embrace Vista, some just can't be wowed. They complain about Vista's hefty hardware requirements, its less-than-peppy performance, occasional incompatibility with other programs and devices and frequent, irritating security pop-up windows.

For them, the impending disappearance of XP computers from retailers, and the phased withdrawal of technical support in coming years, is causing a minor panic.

View: Full Article @ Yahoo News

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows XP SP3 Release Dates

Next Story

Eve Online Source Code Leaked

108 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I honestly don't see why MS would do something like this, but hey, who's gonna stop them. They pretty much do what they want when they want to, so who cares!.

I just wish XP would never be retired as an OS, especially for OEM's, since I've seen nothing but a S**T F***** OS of Vista. It's by far the worst OS I've ever seen released from MS. I have no intention of every switching to it, or installing it on any new PC builds that I do, unitl forced by the one an only MS!

Thanks,

Problem is as I usually find, hardware makers not getting drivers ready for release time.

I do believe Vista was very late in it's release.

Microsoft are also guilty of this also, as some of their hardware doesn't work on Vista (no drivers available) and also
64 bit, something they raved about in 2005.

The GUI in some respects I don't like with Vista.

Why is this a problem? If XP is all that polished, streamlined and don't have ANY bugs, there should be no problem for Microsoft to end support and sale of it... it's perferct, right?
New computer users will buy a new computer, with specs. that are able to run Vista, and they won't miss XP, because they never used it.


Vista needs polishing, but it's a great OS, with even greater possibilities. Give it another year, and it'll be like XP was for us when SP2 came out.

I'd sooner load water into my computers than replace my XP with a copy of Vista, but even I don't get what the fuss is really about here. As many others have stated, if it really means that much to you, just purchase one or more copies of XP now and you're good to go for as long as you like. What am I missing here?

I'm not sure I understand the fuss everyone is making. It's not like Microsoft, by some unknown power, is preventing all computers running XP from booting up or something. You can still run it, you just won't be able to buy a new retail copy. I mean, you could load up Win3.1 if you really wanted, but you don't see people complaining they can't buy a new copy of it.

It's quite simple really: if you really need another copy of XP, buy one now, or STFU.

Yes, my friend just did it last week. A wicked fast Dell with a Core2Duo Processor and 2 GB of RAM. All because his buddy told him he should be running Firefox instead of Internet Explorer. How's that for a compelling reason?

I dual-boot XP Pro SP3 and Vista Ultimate SP1, both 32-bit.

Vista Ultimate works fantastic on my Dell Dim 8400 (which still have the 3GHz Intel P4 with HT! ) which I got as new in July 2004, although before I got Vista I made some hardware upgrades.

Yet, I agree with those that XP is a 7-year-old OS. We need to move on to better times. I bet Microsoft would *still* not be swayed by the "l-users" that continue to fight to save XP, like the 100,000-signed petition - pretty pathetic of that petition starter to do that crap - glad to see MS still refusing to extend sales of XP. I don't think I've seen a "Save 2000!" petition, but I've seen a "Save 98/ME" one like the one here at Neowin - again, it's pathetic of that person who started that crap.

Seriously people, RAM is dirt cheap and you can even get a decent video card like the nVidia GeForce 7300 - XP says that the vid card has 512 MB RAM in it while Vista says that it have 1 GB RAM in it (check the dxdiag via Start > Run). I use Vista and Office 2007 more than XP and Office 2003.

I feel sorry for those "l-users" that continue to fight a losing battle. So much time, resources, and money wasted on worthless petitions and campaigns when instead of doing that, they could've gotten better PCs. And, don't give me that crap about budget issues - they could've gotten 2nd temporary part-time jobs and buy newer PCs that come with Vista.

MS is going to end sales of XP in June 2008. End of discussion, period, case closed.

what kind of possible issues did anyone have with XP at all???? I ran it from beta1 to release and never had an issue. Only issues I EVER had where driver issues, poorly written drivers I might add. If I'm going to upgrade it will be to some Linux distro, I agree 100% that we need to move on but to something that moves forward and not backwards in performance.

OMG! Vista is the best! I can't understand why people want to use XP!! It's so old. Like my grandfather! LOL!

We need to move forward people! To the future!


...


Seriously... it is an operating system... from the mountain of mind-numbing posts here you would think Vista is a magical machine that will bring us closer to enlightenment, or something.

While I agree that XP is a great system. but c'mon people, XP is an old system, we need to move forward. Vista might suck after 6 years of developement, but to be justice, it is a better system than XP and is more future proof. I've got no problem if you change to Mac or Linux, but being nostalgic about XP, you are doing nothing but to slow down this industry. Besides, When XP first camp into market, it experienced a lot of critiques, people keep bs about how they'll stick with 2000. Now what, they are all running XP and refuse to change to vista.

I say people are stupid, if more people are supporting vista, microsoft will work harder on optimising Vista. Deny vista and being an conservative ass is not constructive at all.

The thing is, save for DX10.1 gaming, what can you do on Vista that you can't do on XP?
How much benefit did it actually bring to the tasks at hand? Benchmarks actually proved none.
Are the new visual features really worth the performance hit? Are they even used on corporate environments?

You see... although they've implemented the new network layer (also did it on Pre-SP3 after they broke compatibility, it's essentially the same), the new window manager doesn't really prove that useful for the resources it takes, and the services running on multiple layers don't really bring that much extra stability for it's hefty requirements. Other than that, the interface changes are purely cosmetic and don't really impact my opinion.

All in all, strip Vista of the heavy (DWM), annoying (UAC) new features, and you'll end up with XP.
Don't get me wrong, I've got an E6600, I've used Vista for about 3 months on it's full performance, and it ran great, but I don't feel like it's a necessity. I still could use it for gaming and encoding, but the loss of performance became more considerable while multitasking.
It's also less customizable, and the default themes really fail on the aesthetic side compared to what we can find on the forums and deviantArt for XP.

If it works, don't fix it. Even low tier consumers have to understand that such "upgrade" isn't really needed for they day to day tasks.

As a beta tester, I've been using Vista for years now and have been using it as my primary OS since it RTM'd in November 2006. I've never had a problem with it, even on a 4-year-old HP Pavilion desktop (with an upgraded video card). I've purchased 2 Dell laptops in the past 6 months with Vista installed on them, and they are running like champs. I enjoy the experience much more than XP. For people who need every little bit of possible performance from their machines, I can see why XP might be a better option, but for those of us who don't game or do other ultra-heavy tasks, I see no problems with Vista.

I can understand why people want to save XP. I've used vista on more than one pc with more than one different configuration and each one was slow, annoying, and problematic. To be honest, the only plus side i can see to "upgrading" to vista, aside from dx10(which no game requires), would be that the stutter issues nvidia are too lazy(or stupid) to fix in the xp drivers in UE2 games will vanish. But that alone isn't enough to motivate me to move to something which is generally described as what i stated above.

(Blackhearted said @ #27)
I can understand why people want to save XP. I've used vista on more than one pc with more than one different configuration and each one was slow, annoying, and problematic. To be honest, the only plus side i can see to "upgrading" to vista, aside from dx10(which no game requires), would be that the stutter issues nvidia are too lazy(or stupid) to fix in the xp drivers in UE2 games will vanish. But that alone isn't enough to motivate me to move to something which is generally described as what i stated above.
What's "more than one"? Two?

It was slow? What was the spec? People keep saying this, but there's always those who has no problems on 5 year old mid-range hardware - like me.

"aside from dx10(which no game requires)" ... but many games utilize. If a game only "required" DX7, why get DX8?

Aside from UAC, which users should see very little of, very quickly, what really is there to turn people off? (Of course, UAC also wouldn't as much of a problem if the user was educated about why it exists).

(Kirkburn said @ #27.1)
What's "more than one"? Two?

It was slow? What was the spec? People keep saying this, but there's always those who has no problems on 5 year old mid-range hardware - like me.

"aside from dx10(which no game requires)" ... but many games utilize. If a game only "required" DX7, why get DX8?

Aside from UAC, which users should see very little of, very quickly, what really is there to turn people off? (Of course, UAC also wouldn't as much of a problem if the user was educated about why it exists).

All relatively new or atleast modern specced. Such as: Dual core from either amd or intel, 2GB of ram, etc. Each i would spend a bit of time waiting for things to happen. And would generally be sluggish.

"Utilize" is different from "required". Any game i can think of that can use DX10 also has a DX9 renderer too. No game i want to play requires me to have dx10 to run it.

UAC is one of those annoyances, yea. Quite frankley i don't need to be asked about every other mouse click.

Other problems i've had with it would be with say...Drivers and Networking, for example. With XP i could plug right up to a router, wired, and have it pick it up and work right away. Last time i tried that with vista i had to literally work to get it to pick it up. And then it refused to see any computers on the network with nothing inhibiting that.

And on the drivers front there's that one case where, no matter what i tried, it refused to take the updated drivers and would always revert back to the old. Even though the ones i were trying to install were meant for it and newer. As well as i was logged as admin and let it though uac and so on.

You know, I bet this 'Captain555' will end up with a rusty pickup truck full of ancient computers. He'll have a sign posted next to the open bed of the truck that says "Technology you won't find anywhere else!" The only people clueless enough to be suckered in would be -- you guessed it -- baby-boomers! For some reason, the Indian guy from Joe Dirt comes to mind. "So, you got anything that explodes or does something fancy? Nice GUI, killer sound, or at least a slick visual style?" "No, just XP. You know, Snakes and Sparklers." Okay, so I improv'ed a bit, but you get the idea.

Because the consumers are a bunch of tards who still spend half an hour looking for the ANY key before finally giving up and calling tech support. I'm tired of infested, insecure, broken, slow, trojan-laden machines from 2001. Its time to move forward, and I don't care whether the average user knows that they're running a secured operating system with limited privledges - its enough that they are forced to do it.

Because the company will do what's best for the company. This is called business. Believe it or not, most businesses are in it to make money. Apparently there is not a good business case to keep selling XP.

I can only imagine the horror of running CAD with Vista at this point in time. Maybe in a few years, but for now it can't touch XP.

Oh noez... the M$ fanboys have cranked up their vista excuse machine yet again.

Face it fanboys, vista is still a steaming pile, SP1 made no difference, your comparisons to the early days of XP are moot since XP was nowhere the steaming pile that your beloved vista currently is and has been since the beginning.

(James Riske said @ #22)
Oh noez... the M$ fanboys have cranked up their vista excuse machine yet again.

Face it fanboys, vista is still a steaming pile, SP1 made no difference, your comparisons to the early days of XP are moot since XP was nowhere the steaming pile that your beloved vista currently is and has been since the beginning.

See? I told you all the Vista whiners would cry. :)

There is nothing wrong with Vista. It's either your computer, or it's you.

I don't know which I'd prefer. Excessive disk thrashing, or Code.Red/Sasser/Blaster. Take your pick.

(but I'd expect another post full of bull**** from you)

(rm20010 said @ #22.2)
I don't know which I'd prefer. Excessive disk thrashing, or Code.Red/Sasser/Blaster. Take your pick.

(but I'd expect another post full of bull**** from you)

I'm not the one full of anything, but then again, I seem to be able to get my OS to work with my hardware...

I don't recall you ever asking the Neowin Vista community for help... irrelevant

(GreyWolfSC said @ #21.3)

I'm not the one full of anything, but then again, I seem to be able to get my OS to work with my hardware... :rolleyes:

I don't recall you ever asking the Neowin Vista community for help...

*slaps head* I was talking to original OP, my bad...

I had a friend of mine recently purchase a brand new Dell Business Computer (for his home, though) and he had them install Windows XP on it. I asked him (it has an Intel DuoCore, 2 GB of RAM, very fast machine) why he got XP instead of Vista, and he said a buddy of his told him that Vista was junk. Come to find out, his so-called 'buddy' knows little if nothing about computers, but said that he'd be better off running Firefox instead of Internet Explorer. I told my friend, I'm running Firefox in Vista, so what's the big deal.

He now realizes that he made a somewhat bad decision buying a brand new screaming computer and slapping a 7 year OS on it. All because you got a bunch of ignorant people out there thinking they know something. This 'buddy' of his has never even touched a computer with Vista. But his computer is too slow to run it (it's about 5 years old) so he jumps on the Bash Vista Bandwagon. What I don't understand is why the folks at Dell wouldn't have at least recommended he get Vista instead of XP. Probably because they're tired of dealing with 1,000s of ignorant people who think Vista is a piece of junk, and XP is the end-all be-all of operating systems. It's a really sad thing...

That's what most of these people are- "ignorant buddies" that frequently use words like "bloat" and "incompatibility" are akin to parrots. They don't know what they are saying, but they've heard it before, so they repeat it.

Thank you for people who actually have intelligent, informed opinions. Everyone has a "buddy" that will just jump on that bandwagon. Its "the thing to do"..

XP will still be available, you'll just have to install it yourself if buying PCs with pre-installed operating systems is what you're into.

I love reading comments from people foaming at the mouth about how awesome Vista is, and how anyone who can't see that is either stupid, or running obsolete hardware. I run top end hardware, and tried Vista for about three months. It had a lot of features that I liked, and it was real purdy to look at, but ultimately, it was slow as hell compared to XP, and didn't really offer anything outside of the visual effects that I liked over XP, most of which can be accomplished with third party apps, allowing me to perform tasks such as open explorer without waiting for ages for Vista to get it together. In summation, I don't hate it, it just doesn't run very well, and there's no real reason why it shouldn't, it's just poorly written.

I have the lowest end Core 2 Duo the 6300 (well the lowest when it came out) and 1 GB of ram when Vista came out and Vista performed like a champ. From a cold boot to getting into explorer I could open explorer windows and programs right away. As soon as I log in I can click IE7 and it pops on the screen in an instant with all the background programs/services starting up. In XP I had to wait a few seconds to go straight to IE7. I dont know what "top end hardware" you were using but my average setup was fine.

I now have 4 GB of ram because i will make the jump to Vista 64 bit soon and give that a try.

Exactly what are you referring to as "top end hardware?" Vista runs no more slowly than XP on good hardware. I'm also curious as to what you're using to determine how fast it is. Suggestion is a powerful thing- you have been told Vista is slow, so your subconscious tricks you into thinking it.

i say we kill XP totally and fix up Vista more. That way if anyone wants a new PC anytime soon they'll have Vista and it will work great because Microsoft would be focused on it. If people who already have XP want to keep on using it then nobody is forcing them to upgrade. Nobody said MS would also stop making patches and updates either... let's move our focus forward shall we?

Microsoft wouldn't have to do this if Vista was able to sell itself. The bottom line is that no business case has been made to change from XP to Vista. It all comes down to a simple question:

How will Vista help me increase my revenue or reduce my expenses?

Bean counters want tangible numbers, especially in these lean economic times.

Right on.

There's a lot of people that have a warp view of the PC market. They keep forgetting that more than half of the PCs in the world are use for business. And from the rest, 90% can't afford a Code 2 duo.

"minor panic"? Is the world ending?

No? Just the retail availability of an obsolete operating system?

WHEW! For a second there I thought we were "fighting" for something worthwhile!

Im going to stick with what works for me, and thats XP. Ive had Vista, Ive been very unhappy with the bloated feel to the ui (with no way to switch parts off). The technology is good but its all under a big uncustomisable blob. Going back to XP was like having a detox.

Vista its a standard for new PC, so removing XP from them its a good thing, anyone that have old pc like myself that come with XP just stay with it, for vista to run well you should have a processor over 2 ghz dual core, over 2 GB of ram, and a decent video card. Since most PC come with integrated obviously everything will run slower.

XP was unstable at the beginning and some stayed at windows 98 for gaming but in the end everyone moved on, the same will happen with vista, at least some people will wai for windows 7.

I just wish people would stop spreading the misconception that Vista needs some super computer to run. I as well as tons of other people are using Vista Ultimate on a low end computer without any slowdown whatsoever. My computer is a 2.5ghz celeron with 1gb ram a low end video card. Most if not all computers now are over 2ghz and they all come with at least 1gb of ram.

There is no need to continue to scare people into not getting Vista by just saying they will need to spend hundreds of dollars to upgrade their computer just so they can run Vista. Its annoying.

sigh, i really can't wait until june, mabye these few whiners will give up and deal with the fact that microsoft can do whatever it wants. and isn't going to listen to a tiny minorty of people that have weirdly strong opinions about an operating system.
i'm suspect microsoft would rather you all just go away to linux or whatever so that they don't have to keep getting the bad publicity.

Maybe I'm alone in my confusion, but I'm not sure I understand the point of this campaign. Their demands are both unrealistic and pointless!

Microsoft should not be forced to support an old out of date product. The cost of doing so will be expensive as they will have to continue deveopment on a retired code branch for starters...

But don't these people who want XP actually still have XP? What will they loose when MS takes it off the shelves? I mean being serious, if they care that much about XP and believe they must have it on their next machine (which is a future guessing situation on when and if that will occur) they can simply buy a few copies now and store them up.

If this campaign has any steam I think they should buy a ton of XP licenses and become a license seller or something...

No one in the software industry keeps old versions of their software on the sheleves. That' just the nature of the beast as they say (as the costs of doing so is too expensive).

Excellent points. Try convincing these XP-embracing nuts of that and you'll just get blank looks. Logic does not apply when it comes to suggesting that someone accept a change.

I think you guys are completely missing the whole point. Maybe you're spending too much time looking at your navel. The world doesn't revolve around Halo 3 and WOW.

There's a whole other world of computer users out there that I can tell you about because I'm a computer builder.

Ever heard of baby-boomers ? Well they're out there and they represent the biggest market in the last few years. These people want to look at the weather on the internet. Keep in touch thru e-mail with their kids and grand-kids. Look at few pictures on MySpace or something like that.

These people don't need a Core 2 Duo, 2 Gig of RAM and a bloathed Vista that ask them questions that they don't understand.

My biggest sellers are small pc with a Sempron 3200+, 512 Mb of RAM and a 80 Gigs with Windows XP. This is all these people need and that's all they want. My business is based on that. I'm the alternative to the big store where every PC offered has Vista.

The day I have to sell only PC with Vista, my business will take a big dip, because then I can't compete for price with the ilk of Dell and companies. I can't buy Core 2 Duo by the 1000.

How many computer builder out there are just like me ?

SO yes, I want to be able to keep buying OEM and CAO license of XP. And that's logic that is much better than yours.

(Captain555 said @ #10.2)
I think you guys are completely missing the whole point. Maybe you're spending too much time looking at your navel. The world doesn't revolve around Halo 3 and WOW.

There's a whole other world of computer users out there that I can tell you about because I'm a computer builder.

Ever heard of baby-boomers ? Well they're out there and they represent the biggest market in the last few years. These people want to look at the weather on the internet. Keep in touch thru e-mail with their kids and grand-kids. Look at few pictures on MySpace or something like that.

These people don't need a Core 2 Duo, 2 Gig of RAM and a bloathed Vista that ask them questions that they don't understand.

My biggest sellers are small pc with a Sempron 3200+, 512 Mb of RAM and a 80 Gigs with Windows XP. This is all these people need and that's all they want. My business is based on that. I'm the alternative to the big store where every PC offered has Vista.

The day I have to sell only PC with Vista, my business will take a big dip, because then I can't compete for price with the ilk of Dell and companies. I can't buy Core 2 Duo by the 1000.

How many computer builder out there are just like me ?

SO yes, I want to be able to keep buying OEM and CAO license of XP. And that's logic that is much better than yours.

Here's a new sort of logic:

Isn't it funny how everything those baby boomers want a computer for can now be done with just about any WiFi-enabled PDA? Heck, even a $130 Sony PSP (let alone a low-end iPod Touch) can do that stuff. So why are we letting the desktop computing market revolve around this demographic? They have a brand new market that's practically perfect for them, and lets them take their computing experience with them anywhere they go.

Desktop computing has become so powerful and feature-packed that it would make much more sense for the experience to target high-end users. Ditch the dead weight of the baby boomers and let them discover the more affordable world of pocket computing.

(Captain555 said @ #10.2)
I think you guys are completely missing the whole point. Maybe you're spending too much time looking at your navel. The world doesn't revolve around Halo 3 and WOW.

There's a whole other world of computer users out there that I can tell you about because I'm a computer builder.

Ever heard of baby-boomers ? Well they're out there and they represent the biggest market in the last few years. These people want to look at the weather on the internet. Keep in touch thru e-mail with their kids and grand-kids. Look at few pictures on MySpace or something like that.

These people don't need a Core 2 Duo, 2 Gig of RAM and a bloathed Vista that ask them questions that they don't understand.

My biggest sellers are small pc with a Sempron 3200+, 512 Mb of RAM and a 80 Gigs with Windows XP. This is all these people need and that's all they want. My business is based on that. I'm the alternative to the big store where every PC offered has Vista.

The day I have to sell only PC with Vista, my business will take a big dip, because then I can't compete for price with the ilk of Dell and companies. I can't buy Core 2 Duo by the 1000.

How many computer builder out there are just like me ?

SO yes, I want to be able to keep buying OEM and CAO license of XP. And that's logic that is much better than yours.

Really your not making a worthy argument on why Microsoft should keep selling XP licenses...

If your business depends on having XP in stock for a short while longer then why don't you buy up a lot of XP licenses? Or work with your local competitors to buy a lot as a group? As you can buy them today and sell them tomorrow...

To argue that more advanced technology is something people don't need is a misnomer really. Do those same people need an AMD Sempron 3200+ when those same tasks would be fine on a Pentium 3 or Pentium 2? All that matters is whether or not the technology is cheap enough to make it a good price to performance trade off. The costs of various Core 2 chips are low enough to make you replace Semprons in your business very easily...

Why are you not selling boxes using Intel Pentium D chips? You can get those for ~$80USD!
Why are you only shipping 512MB of RAM? You can nab around 2GB of DDR2 for ~$30USD!

It seems to me either you're not running your buisness well my good friend...

We are already stocking the XP licences (don't worry I know how to run my business). But then why should I give some of my cash flow to Microsoft. Every week, I buy new licences, they're cheaper then the week before. See the pictures.

I have 10 models of PCs built and available at all time in my showroom. From the small one to huge Gaming Rig. Guess which one I sell the most ? You guessed right. Most people will take the lowest machine I have because it's the cheapest. Even if it's only $20. That's all they need and that's all they want.

That's how you run a business, you give people what they want. Not what you think they should have. And usually, that's what they walk into the store with in their hand, their old Pentium 3 that just blew up.

Pentium D for $80, that's too expensive for me. The point is, I buy at wholesale price. But Dell get it even cheaper then me.

(Captain555 said @ #10.5)
We are already stocking the XP licences (don't worry I know how to run my business). But then why should I give some of my cash flow to Microsoft. Every week, I buy new licences, they're cheaper then the week before. See the pictures.

I have 10 models of PCs built and available at all time in my showroom. From the small one to huge Gaming Rig. Guess which one I sell the most ? You guessed right. Most people will take the lowest machine I have because it's the cheapest. Even if it's only $20. That's all they need and that's all they want.

That's how you run a business, you give people what they want. Not what you think they should have. And usually, that's what they walk into the store with in their hand, their old Pentium 3 that just blew up.

Pentium D for $80, that's too expensive for me. The point is, I buy at wholesale price. But Dell get it even cheaper then me.

Of course the object of a business is to give people what they want and not what you dictate they want, but the nature of the industry in which we work revolves around constant change. Chips are refreshed every 6 months and etc. Unless you haven't been running this shop for more than the lifetime of XP you should be well aware of these shifts. New OSs are inevitably released and consumers always hesitate on upgrading only to be forced to by the software vendor. Just like any other software product. Ahead doesn't sell Nero 7 anymore...

The numbers I gave were numbers I know are available to me as a general consumer. I'm sure you could obtain Pentium D chips at a far better rate than I could. The underlying point is the same though; when the price of newer tech drops to be in the same price range as an older technology it only makes sense to offer the newer technology.

Here's the best question for you (and those behind this petition)... Would you still be willing to advocate MS continue to sell XP licenses if they double or tripled the cost of those licenses? Or to some other measure increased the cost of the license to recoup the additional costs they will incur to keep it on the shelves?

If you're stockpiling XP licenses now I'm sure you'll be more than fine and there is no need to bother arguing to Microsoft. At some point Vista will make more sense than XP to you and your customers. Be it when hardware vendors convert to releasing more Vista compatible hardware than XP compatible hardware or something else occurs, but it will occur. As a result, you don't need an infinite supply of XP licenses.

If you're in the "wait until Windows 7" camp then I'm going to reckon you've lost your mind, but to presume you're in that camp is presumptuous and not something I'm keen to do.

I don't even want to think about Windows 7.

To answer the question, NO, I don't want an increase in price. But then I'm not convince there is a cost to MS to keep XP available. No matter what, they will keep on supporting it, they announce the support would be keep until 2014. They can't turn off the activation server. So what would be the additional cost ?

As far as the technology, I buy a bit of everything available to offer a wide and diversify choice. the Sempron 3200+ was just an example. Right now they are widely available thru the channel I buy from for dirt cheap price. Next month they might not be available. I might have to buy some Athlon LE-1600 which are already pretty cheap. The point is I will always buy some of the cheapest piece of hardware I can find, as long as there is a need for it. If I have to put Vista on a machine, I won't be able to do that.

I know, I, myself, doesn't weight very much in the balance with MS. But I still would like to keep XP for as long as I can use it to stay competitive with the dirt cheap Vista equipped Acer or HP that Radio Shack is selling. XP give me a chance to be the alternative choice.

(Captain555 said @ #10.2)
I think you guys are completely missing the whole point. Maybe you're spending too much time looking at your navel. The world doesn't revolve around Halo 3 and WOW.

There's a whole other world of computer users out there that I can tell you about because I'm a computer builder.

Ever heard of baby-boomers ? Well they're out there and they represent the biggest market in the last few years. These people want to look at the weather on the internet. Keep in touch thru e-mail with their kids and grand-kids. Look at few pictures on MySpace or something like that.

These people don't need a Core 2 Duo, 2 Gig of RAM and a bloathed Vista that ask them questions that they don't understand.

My biggest sellers are small pc with a Sempron 3200+, 512 Mb of RAM and a 80 Gigs with Windows XP. This is all these people need and that's all they want. My business is based on that. I'm the alternative to the big store where every PC offered has Vista.

The day I have to sell only PC with Vista, my business will take a big dip, because then I can't compete for price with the ilk of Dell and companies. I can't buy Core 2 Duo by the 1000.

How many computer builder out there are just like me ?

SO yes, I want to be able to keep buying OEM and CAO license of XP. And that's logic that is much better than yours.

I am also a system builder. The majority of my clients prefer XP and do not want to move to Vista. About, say, 15-20% of my client-base are Vista users. Sure, Vista is a lot like XP was when it came out--just not as intrusive or bloated as Vista is in it's current state. I agree with all your points about the baby boomers not wanting the complications of Vista. A lot of my clients are baby-boomers as well.

Hardcore PC users, especially the younger crowd, can tend to act a bit elitist about PC use and what it should be. They just have to realize that they aren't the only ones who use PC's.

I, myself, have Vista and XP on dual boot and I jump between them every so often to keep up to date and to test various programs and usability. Vista is a bit more clunky, but that has a lot to do with how much they bloated the OS this time around. It is slowly leveling out as technology improves, but the majority of the bloat and unnecessary things are still in the OS and not easy to get rid of for the regular user.

"Add new features! Fix bugs! Upgrade security! But wait, can you do all of that on a six-year-old OS? I'm not quite ready to move on yet." Anybody able to follow this logic? Right, there is none. I'm sure the executives at Microsoft are collectively rolling their eyes at this point. For once in my life -- and I never thought I'd hear (see) myself say it -- I agree with them.

I've had Vista since March of 07 and never had a problem except of third party apps like my HP printer nad Zone Alarm. Granted, I got Vista with a brand new HP Pavillion. You'd think HP would have had their printer drivers updated but I guess it wasn't important to them. Eventually HP and Zonelabs both updated their products but not for months after Vista was released to the public.

People, remember that there are more PCs that can not work with Vista than Vista Ready PC out in the world. And most people who use PC just for browsing, maybe doing some writing and etc. do not want to buy completely new PC just to run new operating system, which even costs more. People need it, o Windows market share is going to fall even faster.

I completely agree that for the new PC you should get Vista, it works fine with new ones, but old ones like from 2000-2005 still can not run Vista or can, but completely in wrong way... But those PCs still does they job good in some fields and for that you don't need new operating system.

So let people choose.

And those people already have XP, so why does it matter that they won't be able to buy it, when they already HAVE it? The vast majority of people get their OS when they get their new PC, and all new PC's will be more than capable of running Vista.

(FloatingFatMan said @ #4.1)
And those people already have XP, so why does it matter that they won't be able to buy it, when they already HAVE it? The vast majority of people get their OS when they get their new PC, and all new PC's will be more than capable of running Vista.

Yeah but there is a different market for these UMPCs. People who are buying these aren't choosing them over a desktop, they are choosing them alongside or instead of a desktop.

(HalcyonX12 said @ #4.2)

Yeah but there is a different market for these UMPCs. People who are buying these aren't choosing them over a desktop, they are choosing them alongside or instead of a desktop.

Yes, and MS have already said there will be a version of XP still available as OEM's for those UMPCs.

(HalcyonX12 said @ #4.2)
Yeah but there is a different market for these UMPCs. People who are buying these aren't choosing them over a desktop, they are choosing them alongside or instead of a desktop.

Haven't Microsoft already stated that XP Home will continue to be made available for these low power low cost PCs?

(TCLN Ryster said @ #4.4)

Haven't Microsoft already stated that XP Home will continue to be made available for these low power low cost PCs?

No, they are extending XP into a new SKU for these UMPCs. If they're willing to go to that much trouble for such a small percentage of the market, then why not give an extra hand to their many desktop users?

(HalcyonX12 said @ #4.5)
No, they are extending XP into a new SKU for these UMPCs. If they're willing to go to that much trouble for such a small percentage of the market, then why not give an extra hand to their many desktop users?

A new SKU? Source?

Would you ask Microsoft to keep selling Office 2003, Adobe to keep selling the CS2 suite? Though the situations are not identical, they are not all that dissimilar.

Emmanuele Silanesu, National Retail Manager for ASUSTeK Australia, told apcmag “we’ve been working with Microsoft on a special condensed version of XP which has just passed the R&D tests this week”.

link

It's funny, these crabs in the bucket who try to pull you back down when you're getting up, I mean if these people looked like such fools, why would you need to come along and point it out? You think you need to prompt people to laugh at them?

(not a serious post, just trying to make a point of how silly these types of comments sound)

All that aside, the story's poll makes a good point, choice is always good, and MS is always advocating choice. Between choosing Vista and XP, MS would get money either way, and also foster consumer trust that they won't pull the rug out of under their feet when MS's users actually ask MS to support them. MS is always saying that commercial software has the advantage of support, and these users are trying to make themselves heard. MS are extending XP to the UMPC platform and even working on it further to customizing it into a new SKU that they will have to support because they felt there was strong enough demand, and this is for a machine that doesn't even have 1% of the market of machines that are capable of running Windows. So come on, MS! Listen to your mainline desktop users!

Microsoft canceled 98 and 2k when xp came out, just like they are doing to xp now that vista is out. Give me a break dude. If microsoft is forcing people to upgrade now, then they did it in the past too.

(sirgh0st said @ #3.6)
Microsoft canceled 98 and 2k when xp came out, just like they are doing to xp now that vista is out. Give me a break dude. If microsoft is forcing people to upgrade now, then they did it in the past too.

Yeah but people weren't asking for their old OS back, and at least when ME was out there were other options at the time. It's not about MS's forced upgrades, that has always been the case. This is about people wanting to actually keep running an earlier version longer than they provide support for it, despite the demands from their customers.

Indeed, it's time to move on - when did SP2 for XP come out? 2004? That was the only time I can remember a SP adding any sort of features.

As far as Vista, the best experience comes out of running it on computer that originally came with it - I used to run XP Pro on a Celeron 433 and 288 MB of RAM, better than the minimum specs, but still far from a smooth experience.

Yet no one remembers how wishy-washy XP was when it came out (and all it was was 2000 with eye candy). I like XP, but Vista is just a bit better, and has features I would miss now that I've gotten used to them - better networking and the Search box on the Start menu go a long way for me.

(Ficman said @ #2)
XP needs retired, Vista's got its issues no question... But so did XP when it came out... :blink:

finally someone who sees what XP was back then

(Ficman said @ #1)
XP needs retired, Vista's got its issues no question... But so did XP when it came out... :blink:

so XP (not really any issues now), or Vista (issues now), how about retire XP when Vista has got rid of the issues?

(dev said @ #5)

so XP (not really any issues now), or Vista (issues now), how about retire XP when Vista has got rid of the issues?

Exactly. I remember how many issues we had with XP in 2001/2002, and Vista isn't all that different. I'm sure Microsoft will eventually add the same amount of polish and performance that we'd like, but the point is: It hasn't happened yet!
Why can't we retire XP when the issues with Vista have been ironed out? Give it a few more years of sales and support!
When Vista matures, then most people will transition willingly!

(Flae_qui said @ #3)

finally someone who sees what XP was back then


Did people miss Windows 98/2000 as much as they miss XP right now?

(Ficman said @ #2)
XP needs retired, Vista's got its issues no question... But so did XP when it came out... :blink:

We had a choice whether or not to upgrade to XP and at what time. We had this choice for years. Microsoft, in its self-serving greed is attempting to extort users into paying for Vista! Microsoft is withholding XP from the market even though there is a huge demand for it! It is forcing Vista upon customers through OEM preloads!

I think the DoJ needs to look into this. Microsoft is back to its OEM preload extortion schemes again.

(toadeater said @ #2.8)

We had a choice whether or not to upgrade to XP and at what time. We had this choice for years. Microsoft, in its self-serving greed is attempting to extort users into paying for Vista! Microsoft is withholding XP from the market even though there is a huge demand for it! It is forcing Vista upon customers through OEM preloads!

I think the DoJ needs to look into this. Microsoft is back to its OEM preload extortion schemes again.

Haha! You think it's antitrust to discontinue a product? Meanwhile Best Buy, Wal-Mart, and the local computer shops here can't keep Vista in stock. It sells out regularly. It is quite evident from the crap that HP and other OEMs put on their computers that there is no 'extortion' going on. Abacus, dude. You have totally lost your mind and should not be around electrical components.

(GreyWolfSC said @ #2.9)
Haha! You think it's antitrust to discontinue a product?

It is when you're a monopoly and you force OEMs to preload that product.

Meanwhile Best Buy, Wal-Mart, and the local computer shops here can't keep Vista in stock. It sells out regularly.

So you say. Do you regularly hang around all these stores checking up on their stock?

(toadeater said @ #2.10)
So you say. Do you regularly hang around all these stores checking up on their stock?

It's called shopping. Some people look at other things besides what they went to the store for. I also noticed Wiis are sold out constantly still, or don't you believe that either?

No fight or panic here!

Maybe on the NEXT version of Windows, they'll get it right, as far as topping XP, but they sure didn't this time!

Even a hacked, super lite version of Vista that I acquired, is a PITA/POS!!
Also have legit copies of Home and Ultimate, which are just as big a PITA/POS!
Just my opinion.