Windows XP gets another stay of execution

Microsoft has extended the final OEM and reseller delivery date for the Windows XP from January 31, 2009 to May 30, 2009. The cut off date for PC makers to obtain licenses for the software was January 31, 2009. Still, vendors have to place their orders before the official cutoff date of January 31, but they dont have to take delivery until May. Microsoft granted the reprieve largely because of customer's preference for XP.

Microsoft also recently extended the Vista "downgrade" deadline for OEMs to July 31 and netbooks and low-cost laptops will be able to run XP until at least June 2010, so chances are you'll be able to get XP until Windows 7 ships.

PC makers largely stopped selling XP installed on desktops and laptops in late 2007, but they are available to customers who order online or have a business account with OEMs such as Dell or Hewlett-Packard. Recently, Dell offered customers, the option to get Windows XP instead of Vista on many models.

If you are an XP lover and have bought a Vista system, you have two choices to get XP:

  • To buy an XP license before June 30 and install it over Vista, and
  • To "downgrade" to XP Professional using an XP Professional install disc or a "downgrade" XP Pro install disc supplied by the PC maker
Downgrade option is available only to Vista Ultimate or Vista Business users

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Australia to test blocking all P2P and Bit Torrent traffic

Next Story

Is Windows 7 the Linux-netbook killer?

63 Comments

View more comments

Raa said,
I bet you didn't say that in 2001.

Nobody would've said that back in 2001, back then XP was the shizzit, it was new, it was exciting, it was how Vista is today, how Windows 7 will be tomorrow.

sibot said,
Nobody would've said that back in 2001, back then XP was the shizzit, it was new, it was exciting, it was how Vista is today, how Windows 7 will be tomorrow.

It was how Vista should have been today, and hopefully Windows 7 will be tomorrow.

Raa said,
I bet you didn't say that in 2001.

XP was very crapy on it release

it was only pretty good after SP2 (2004)

skynetXrules said,
XP was very crapy on it release


It was but less than Vista. In case you didn't know that, software are release even if they still have known bug. Usually it is a matter of "it's stable enough, we release it and we keep working on fixing it".

XP when release still had 175,000 known bugs (most of them minor). Vista when release had 288,000 known bugs (most of them minors).

Captain555 said,
XP when release still had 175,000 known bugs (most of them minor). Vista when release had 288,000 known bugs (most of them minors).


Did you know that 99% of facts are made up in a instant?


SOURCES.




Vista is a way better operating system than XP. In all its senses. It is a great improvement.

and (mark could source me on this) UAC is the SAME thing as when you have to do a operation that requires root access.

mclaren05 said,
Did you know that 99% of facts are made up in a instant?


SOURCES.


Actually those numbers were from Microsoft themselves. Reseach it on our own.

Captain555 said,
It was but less than Vista. In case you didn't know that, software are release even if they still have known bug. Usually it is a matter of "it's stable enough, we release it and we keep working on fixing it".

XP when release still had 175,000 known bugs (most of them minor). Vista when release had 288,000 known bugs (most of them minors).

What do you expect? XP was a minor release over 2000 at its core (NT 5.0 to NT 5.1), hence there would be less issues with driver compatibility, application support, etc, although that didn't stop the fact that XP was in 2001 what people in 2007 perceived Vista to be...a slow, bloated, ugly OS that provided no real reason to upgrade. Vista was a major release and of course would have new problems as the NT 6.0 kernel was somewhat of a radical departure from standard Windows design, especially under the hood. I didn't have too many issues with Vista from day 1, and now it works better than ever, much better than XP could ever hope to.

FrozenEclipse said,
What do you expect? XP was a minor release over 2000 at its core (NT 5.0 to NT 5.1), hence there would be less issues with driver compatibility, application support, etc, although that didn't stop the fact that XP was in 2001 what people in 2007 perceived Vista to be...a slow, bloated, ugly OS that provided no real reason to upgrade. Vista was a major release and of course would have new problems as the NT 6.0 kernel was somewhat of a radical departure from standard Windows design, especially under the hood. I didn't have too many issues with Vista from day 1, and now it works better than ever, much better than XP could ever hope to.


Exactly, I installed the final build of Windows 2000 back in late 1999 when it was RTM. For its first 6-12 months Windows 2000 had horrible compatibility, poorer than Vista on its first year! What made matters worse is that OEMs that primarily targeted consumers would often say "Windows 2000 is a business OS and we have no plans to support it." Windows 2000 was a pretty stable OS as long as you didn't need to connect it to anything fancy like network cards, GPUs or consumer grade printers (not joking), and forget about webcams, scanners or specialized keyboard, mice and joysticks those things just didn’t work whatsoever. By 2001 Win2000 had pretty good hardware support but many newly released games still could not run on it. Late 2001 in comes Windows XP which is NT 5.1 and for the most part supports all existing Win2000 drivers that manufactures have spent the last 2 years working on. For gamers there was still about a year delay before WinXP was the preferred platform for gaming—more for performance reasons than compatibility.

Now compare Vista to Windows 2000. Vista had many of the same issues compatibility issues but from my first hand experience as an early adopter of both Vista was not as bad. Despite the fact that MS is trying to divorce Windows 7 from Vista and call it a brand new major release it is NT 6.1 (although they will call it NT 7.0 for marketing reasons) and will support the same driver model as Vista. Despite what the naysayers may tell you, making Windows 7 similar to Vista is not a bad thing, it means more compatibility (because let̢۪s face it, by now virtually all modern hardware works fine with Vista) and faster adoption.

In a nutshell Windows 7 will be to Vista what XP was to Windows 2000. The biggest difference is that Windows 2000 was never marketed as a consumer OS it never got the bad press Vista has. Those few people who did run Win2000 on a home system where typically more technically sophisticated than your average user, and even then running Win2000 at home didn̢۪t really become popular until after the release of WinME (which was right at a year after Windows 2000̢۪s RTM).

This extension is for OEMs. If I had a corporation full of machines that were already on XP you bet I'd ask my OEM to replace a dead machine with the same OS for support reasons.

I personally love Windows Vista. Using XP makes me cringe. The Vista UI is much more attractive, and I find it to be a faster overall system.

While that is just my personal opinion, I have friends, family, and clients who really don't like Vista for this or that reason. So I love the fact that I will be able to purchase mass licenses from MS to serve those people. If they choose not to deploy Windows 7 either, then I still have a few options to meet the demand of my customers.

If I had a product as stable as Windows XP is, I would sell it until Windows 184743628235 came out. Why not? If it makes the masses happy, and I make a buck....

Show me the numbers that says there are more Vista installations in the world than XP ones and I'll start to believe the Vista fanboys.

If there are more Vista installs, they aren't browsing the net with them. :P
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-...e.aspx?qprid=10

Windows XP 66.31%
Windows Vista 20.45%
MacIntel 6.51%
Mac OS 2.35%
Windows 2000 1.56%
Linux 0.83%
Windows NT 0.77%
Not sure why, but OSX is split out for the PPC vs Intel. And I posted far enough down the list to show that Linux has more users than NT 4.0! W00t! Next up, more than Win 2k! See you in 2020! :P

markjensen said,
If there are more Vista installs, they aren't browsing the net with them. :P
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-...e.aspx?qprid=10
Not sure why, but OSX is split out for the PPC vs Intel. And I posted far enough down the list to show that Linux has more users than NT 4.0! W00t! Next up, more than Win 2k! See you in 2020! :P

We still have PPC users, and users who like to hang on to their Macs for as long as possible. People love their Macs.

GreyWolfSC said,
Why on earth would you think there would be more installs of a two-year old OS over a seven-year old one?


Most people never upgrade their OS, they just use what came pre-installed. As computers are replaced Vista's numbers will go up, the same thing happened with XP, as I recall it took over 3 years for XP to overtake Win98SE. Vista's numbers are lower than XP at its same time because OEMs are still selling new systems with XP.

Don't be fooled, where I work some of the servers are still operating on NT4 lol. Having said that, all the desktop computers are being migrated to Vista.

I can't believe people get so worked up because some people prefer a different operating system than they do. How insecure do you have to be that you get emotional about it and want the other OS to be taken off the market even though it doesn't really affect you in any way? If you like Vista that's great, you can still use it even if someone else still likes XP, or OS X, Linux, Solaris, whatever. It's just like arguing over consoles, pointless and makes people look ridiculous. Use the software or product that you like and fits your needs and don't worry about what other people think.

TRC said,
I can't believe people get so worked up because some people prefer a different operating system than they do. How insecure do you have to be that you get emotional about it and want the other OS to be taken off the market even though it doesn't really affect you in any way? If you like Vista that's great, you can still use it even if someone else still likes XP, or OS X, Linux, Solaris, whatever. It's just like arguing over consoles, pointless and makes people look ridiculous. Use the software or product that you like and fits your needs and don't worry about what other people think.

I think it's when people bring up ridiculously inaccurate reasons that their OS (typically XP) is better than the other persons (typically Vista).

Why don't they do the smart thing and say **** XP? That would get rid of the ass pain once and for all. It's almost 2009 people, no more games, move on to Vista or get lost, that simple.

... move on Vista or get lost ... nice ...

Back in the real worls, a lot of people don't want to or cannot move onto Vista. Most businesses are like this. Most people at home won't have a clue how to or why they need to update their PC. All they know is that they have their music and photos where they want them. When their PC finally gives up on them, they will buy a new one ... and then figure out that their photos and music are lost ...

Commenting is disabled on this article.