Windows XP gets another six months

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

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Online Music Avoids Rate Hike

Next Story

Apple accuses web design school of using their logo

122 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

are they pushing back xp, so that vista goes at a later date too, so that they have more time to work on windows 7?

(carmatic said @ #33)
are they pushing back xp, so that vista goes at a later date too, so that they have more time to work on windows 7?

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.

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?

TC17

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.

Offtopic: Ah, The usual amount of assfire-babel from Jamse Riske and Foub. None with any proof or facts involved, To be exact. Wonderful, Wonderful trolling guys. Come back next Winter, You can defend Vista when Win7 hits the market.

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.

Hmmm, well here goes..... as for why I don't like using Vista, though I bash on for the benefits of DX10.

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.

^1. Task manager wasn't much better in XP in that repsect, you just have to right click on the application, click go to process and kill the process form the process tab.

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 tho hopefully it will not get so much bad press and we won't have to endure this discussion again.

p.s see 4 :P

1. That same problem exists in XP, too.
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.

Just got a new laptop for college and vista premium 64 bit with sp1 is running perfectly. No problems or complaints at all.

(kalam_ said @ #28)
Just got a new laptop for college and vista premium 64 bit with sp1 is running perfectly. No problems or complaints at all.

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.

That's right, every single person who has said something negative about Vista has never even used it. Trust TC17, he knows.

/I think I hate the Vista Cheerleaders even more than the Vista bashers. It's just software, get a life.

Vista was released nearly two years ago - January 07 if you're counting the official release and November 06 if you're counting RTM and OEM releases.

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.

(GFree678 said @ #27)
Vista was released nearly two years ago - January 07 if you're counting the official release and November 06 if you're counting RTM and OEM releases.

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.

I've used Vista, and I want to like it, I really do. For me, the issue isn't with speed or compatibility at all.

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.

(cyberdrone2000 said @ #1)
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.

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.

(jme621 said @ #25)
and all the bashers of vista think 7 will run any better on their outdated machines than vista does??

Haha, well said

So an extra 6 months to get rid of underpowered hardware that works ok with XP but useless for Vista. And some folk think that Microsoft does no good for hardware makers, shame on them.

Why do people need to downgrade to Windows XP? If you've got a computer running Windows XP, you've got absolutely no problem because you can still use it. If you're buying a new computer, Windows Vista is the best choice; if people are concerned about the restrictions in Home Basic, plenty of OEM's are turning away from Home Basic and offering Home Premium in their less expensive models. If you're concerned that Windows Vista is 'crap' then you really need to take a look at the improvements; I would say new features such as UAC, per application audio control and the improved networking support are worth it entirely.

Steven

The problem is the common public has been hearing in the press about how Vista is bad and has problems, which it did have at launch. Also due to the long gap between XP and Vista I think have got so use to just using XP that they don't want to upgrade, alot of people hate change.

No, there's no problem. Businesses are still needing to get computers with XP to match their current infrastructure. There are a lot of people that still want XP as well - good for them. It's their choice, leave them be. If they want Vista, they'll get it in the future. It doesn't help that companies like HP or Toshiba are still selling pc's with 512mb of ram and Vista Home Premium on them (yes it happens still) Imagine what the end user is going to be thinking - and trust me, I know, coz i've had to gently tell them.

The upside is, they won't be able to keep selling those very low end systems for long. By Windows 7's launch hopefully the low end systems sold then match our current day moderately powerful systems, and by the looks of things, Windows 7's system requirements won't be too far off Vista's.

Why does Neowin still post rubbish like this?

I have just realised why it was posted, the author by his own admission in his profile.
- Apple (I'm a fanboy)

Actually, it was a general news article, it was also posted over at Guru3D, and I don't think they're Apple fanboys there.
Stop trolling.

I wonder how many of these trolls who keep saying "lol omz vi$ta sucks" ever even used it? Vista was not a complete bomb. After SP1 vista is quite stable and I couldn't even imagine going back to XP. It's a shame microsoft keeps catering to the whiners and mac fanboys who never stock complaining. Anyone still saying vista is a complete failure needs to get their heads checked.

Vista is stable. So stable that it warn me the hard drive is going to fail I have to back up my data. I don't know which drive fails. Upon reboot, BAM! down my drive that had all the important stuff.

(Krome said @ #15.1)
Vista is stable. So stable that it warn me the hard drive is going to fail I have to back up my data. I don't know which drive fails. Upon reboot, BAM! down my drive that had all the important stuff.

So it's Vista's fault your hard drive failed? Did you back up your data like it recommended?

(Krome said @ #15.1)
Vista is stable. So stable that it warn me the hard drive is going to fail I have to back up my data. I don't know which drive fails. Upon reboot, BAM! down my drive that had all the important stuff.

Before you gripe about Vista, tell me how other operating systems behave in similar situations?

This is just more proof that Vista is a complete and utter failure when even Microsoft has no confidence in it. Those who continue to defend Vista are just deluding themselves and one just has to feel sorry for them as well.

Yet still has a far greater marketshare than Linux. So, even this "utter failure" is preferable to something people can get for free...

Who should be feeling sorry for who?

(39 Thieves said @ #2)
Yet still has a far greater marketshare than Linux. So, even this "utter failure" is preferable to something people can get for free...

Who should be feeling sorry for who?

/facepalm

Been using Vista Home Premium x64 for a long time now with no hardware or software problems. I really don't see what the problem is with it, must be just a matter of personal preference than if it has a problem or not. If you have a decent PC I really recommend you getting Vista, it runs great for me :). Even my games are running good on it to.


Its funny all the comments about businesses not getting Vista on their new computers due to price, considering when you do the downgrade option, you already are purchasing a Vista license and a XP downgrade fee. Therefore you are paying more for an older OS. So if they just sucked it up and moved to Vista already they would be saving money on every new computer purchase.

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.

Actually you aren't. Downgrade options often are free for businesses as they are using their existing XP licenses.

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.

Its not the case that the IT departments of being whiney. What incentive is there to upgrade to Vista when their current business infrastructure can operate on XP clients/200-3 server?

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?

We can only hope that Micro$oft learns it's lesson from this, and that Windows 7 will also not be an epic failure.
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.

(hagjohn said @ #11.2)
When 7 comes out, all we will hear is the whining. It's been the same thing since I can remember.

But nothing like what has happened with Vista, because Vista has far too many real problems.

(stevember said @ #11.4)


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.

Shockz, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Linux and Max OS have a very similar popup window that prompts you for permission when you try to modify the system in some way? What's the difference?

(xpablo said @ #11)
....are some issues with it and also it doesn't work with my laser printer due to lack of drivers from HP....

And that's the fault of Vista and Microsoft....how?

(stevember said @ #11.4)

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.

(James Riske said @ #11.7)

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.

(TCLN Ryster said @ #11.6)
Shockz, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Linux and Max OS have a very similar popup window that prompts you for permission when you try to modify the system in some way? What's the difference?

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.

(GFree678 said @ #11.8)
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.

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.

(rm20010 said @ #11.10)

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.

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).

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.

Slow start times? Possibly, the first few times around. The next few times? It gets faster.

Yes, to a point. Plus hibernation/standby helps fill the gap in many cases, but it's still the slowest of all operating systems.

Slower performance in games? Yes. Back in 2007. Can you please do a F5 on your statistics?

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.

Bloatware? Such as...

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.

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.


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.

(GFree678 said @ #11.11)
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.

I agree as well. Sometimes Superfetch doesn't back off in a game. :/

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.

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.

Yes, to a point. Plus hibernation/standby helps fill the gap in many cases, but it's still the slowest of all operating systems.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Now if the others could do the same...

XP is lame, but I understand that many business that are on the verge of bankruptcy have other things to worry about.

It's not just the cost that's stopping a lot of establishments. For example, a lecturer at my university told us last week that they (the university) haven't upgraded to Vista because of software compatibility problems.

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.

(chicken-royal said @ #10.1)
It's not just the cost that's stopping a lot of establishments. For example, a lecturer at my university told us last week that they (the university) haven't upgraded to Vista because of software compatibility problems
.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.

(TCLN Ryster said @ #10.2)

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?

(Odom said @ #10.3)
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.

lol
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.

Vi$ta was an epic failure comparable to windows me, still using XP64 here, and it works very well, I can do anything I need to do on this os and hardware vendors are still churning out driver updates just as they always have.

just because you don't use vista doesn't make it an 'epic' failure, i am typing this from vista ultimate 32 bit, and i haven't seen a better OS then this from Redmond. Of course osx leopard kicks its ass in speed department, but it will get better with windows 7. Vista is brilliant... and its only going to be better...

(James Riske said @ #9)
Vi$ta was an epic failure comparable to windows me, still using XP64 here, and it works very well, I can do anything I need to do on this os and hardware vendors are still churning out driver updates just as they always have.

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...

(GreyWolfSC said @ #9.2)

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.

(usman767 said @ #9.1)
just because you don't use vista doesn't make it an 'epic' failure, i am typing this from vista ultimate 32 bit, and i haven't seen a better OS then this from Redmond. Of course osx leopard kicks its ass in speed department, but it will get better with windows 7. Vista is brilliant... and its only going to be better...

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, linux), I always feel like I have taken a time machine to the past. Vista is beautiful stable, more secure, just kicks a**. I love it. I have said it before and I'll say it again get a decent machine.

Alienware M9750
Dual 8700GT Nvidia (SLI)
Dual 350 Gig drives (Raid0)
4 Gig Ram
Intel Core 2 Extreme

(James Riske said @ #9.3)


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%?

140 million copies of Vista (May 2008) ... I hardly think it's a failure. The failure has been from the OEM's and the end users. The OEM's are not building very good computers to run Vista properly and the end users junk up with crap software and opening up every Trojan's and virus' they can get their hands on. I see it all the time when I go to people's homes.

(hagjohn said @ #9.7)
140 million copies of Vista (May 2008) ... I hardly think it's a failure. The failure has been from the OEM's and the end users. The OEM's are not building very good computers to run Vista properly and the end users junk up with crap software and opening up every Trojan's and virus' they can get their hands on. I see it all the time when I go to people's homes.

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.

(hagjohn said @ #9.7)
140 million copies of Vista ( May 2008 )

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.

(GreyWolfSC said @ #9.14)

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>

^^ You can't be joking. Imagine the OUTRAGE coming from XP users if they suddenly get a large message popping up on logon saying "XP WILL BE END OF LIFE SOON! LEARN HOW TO UPGRADE." Unless that happens there's no freaking way you can see 50/50 this quickly.

Here, one example. May 14, 2003.

"Windows XP's slower adoption rate on the Web may reflect a downshift in consumer's willingness to upgrade operating systems since the launch of Windows 98," said Geoff Johnston, vice president of product marketing for HitBox StatMarket. "There are many people who are probably completely satisfied with Windows 98. Others may want to upgrade, but don't want to spend the money."


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.

(James Riske said @ #9.18)


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.

Our company has about 2500 PC's. We have been doing a hardware refresh for over a year now.
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.

The complete and utter idiocy of the comments made by the pro-XP contingent in this thread made my head hurt.

Full Disclosure:
I run 3xXP desktops, 1x Vista laptop, 1x Linux machine

(James Riske said @ #9.21)


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?

(RAID 0 said @ #9.25)

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.

BTW, don't you mean 'whining'?

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!!"

(DrunkenMaster said @ #7)
Wonder what'll hppen with happen if nobody buys Windows 7. XP is simple, stable and works.

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.

That has a very real chance of happening, because of the current belief Win7 is just Vista R2 and people believe Vista = ME 2.0, it is only logical for people to think Win7 is just WinME 3.0 and therefor not touch it with a barge pole. I think MS's greatest challenge will be to convince the general public that Win7 is not just Vista version 2.0, they are going to need to advertise it strongly and focus on preventing the association with Vista and 7. If they don't then Vista's failure could cause a "dominoes effect" on Win7's success as well. Honestly I'm not bashing Vista really, just saying how it feel it is. Take with a grain of salt.

(Xerxes said @ #7.2)
That has a very real chance of happening, because of the current belief Win7 is just Vista R2 and people believe Vista = ME 2.0, it is only logical for people to think Win7 is just WinME 3.0 and therefor not touch it with a barge pole. I think MS's greatest challenge will be to convince the general public that Win7 is not just Vista version 2.0, they are going to need to advertise it strongly and focus on preventing the association with Vista and 7. If they don't then Vista's failure could cause a "dominoes effect" on Win7's success as well. Honestly I'm not bashing Vista really, just saying how it feel it is. Take with a grain of salt.

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.

Its a good move if its real. They should keep XP more longer, tho. Because the ppl wont change to another OS like they expect, meaning, forcing you to brough a new machine/OS everytime the company needs or think the market needs.
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.

Lets face it - Microsoft will still be making money at the end of the day. It's hardly an utterly awful situation to be in. I happen to think Vista works well and I've had very little issue with it.

(rdmiller said @ #4)
Is it true that the original, original source for this is a speculative piece by "The Reg"?

Yup... Go to the source and click the "apparent decision" link.

In many ways, MS had to see this coming. Three service packs later, XP is rock solid; applications work, drivers work, games work, corporate software works, obscure hardware purchased from Wal-mart works, people are just too familiar and attached to it. Over/under on MS dropping support/sales for Vista 2 years after Win 7 is released? I say under.

Vista will be dubbed "Oops, our bad, here try Win 7".

(ozzy76 said @ #3)
In many ways, MS had to see this coming. Three service packs later, XP is rock solid; applications work, drivers work, games work, corporate software works, obscure hardware purchased from Wal-mart works, people are just too familiar and attached to it. Over/under on MS dropping support/sales for Vista 2 years after Win 7 is released? I say under.

Vista will be dubbed "Oops, our bad, here try Win 7".


Vista is "rock solid" for me also. And your comment is complete BS.

Lame, lame, lame. 'Allowing' OEMs to distribute the discs doesn't mean anything. Totally biased trash.

This 'news article' is merely a speculative bash based on a Reg article.

(buletov said @ #1.1)
Why kill it when there is market demand for it?

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.

(The Stylish Hobo said @ #1.3)
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.

(Foub said @ #1.5)

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?)

(Foub said @ #1.5)
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.

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.

Don't you mean kill off Vista already? Regardless of how good Vista might be (I'm one of the few people who actually likes and uses Vista, so I'm no anti-Vista basher believe it or not) it can't shake it's negative image. The high demand for XP shows that many people still (wrongly) believe Vista is a bad OS. This of cause puts alot of pressure on Win7, with Vista all but considered a failure (and this news of XP support been extended is only adding fuel to the fire of the Vista bashers) it means people are expecting Win7 to come out of the ashes as the ultimate version of Windows, plus they are under pressure to get it out much sooner. Hopefully MS can deliver because the future of Windows is riding on it I suspect.

(GreyWolfSC said @ #1.6)

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.

(Foub said @ #1.5)

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.

(Skyfrog said @ #1.2)
I guess because that would make many Vista users feel more secure about their purchase.

I'm a Vista user and I approve this message.

(cork1958 said @ #1.10)
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.

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.

(Skyfrog said @ #1.2)
I guess because that would make many Vista users feel more secure about their purchase.

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.