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

Commenting is disabled on this article.

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 ...

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).

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.

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.

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....

Will they just let it die already. All its going to do in the end is make it where fewer people will even switch to windows 7 when it comes out. The more pcs with vista then the more software/hardware will be supported when windows 7 comes out. The longer we hold on to xp the longer it will take to move past all this.

Gotenks98 said,
Will they just let it die already. All its going to do in the end is make it where fewer people will even switch to windows 7 when it comes out. The more pcs with vista then the more software/hardware will be supported when windows 7 comes out. The longer we hold on to xp the longer it will take to move past all this.

MS know there's a silly demand for XP over Vista so from a strictly profit-oriented view, why not cash in?

The only time XP is noticably faster, is if your computer is near or at the recommended Vista requirements. Many people running quad-cores with 4GB (or more) of ram and a semi-modern graphics card have little if any difference in game performance when comparing XP to Vista.

Not true. I've noticed systems (modern/recent/highspec) that have outperformed Vista on numerous occasions.

I'll give Vista it's credit : On other systems, it wins. Marginally.

mwpeck said,
The only time XP is noticably faster, is if your computer is near or at the recommended Vista requirements. Many people running quad-cores with 4GB (or more) of ram and a semi-modern graphics card have little if any difference in game performance when comparing XP to Vista.

I've found that in my (admittedly fairly powerful) machine running Quad-Core and 4GB of RAM that Vista is actually faster than XP due to services like SuperFetch, which loads Firefox, Visual Studio and others straight into RAM for me when I boot up. This means that when I click on the icon for any of these pre-loaded applications, the application loads instantaneously.

This however doesn't translate to lesser powerful rigs simply for the fact that they don't have the resources to take advantage of such features.

Majesticmerc said,
I've found that in my (admittedly fairly powerful) machine running Quad-Core and 4GB of RAM that Vista is actually faster than XP due to services like SuperFetch, which loads Firefox, Visual Studio and others straight into RAM for me when I boot up. This means that when I click on the icon for any of these pre-loaded applications, the application loads instantaneously.

What?

Superfetch only boosts app launch speed on LOW memory systems, and only then on systems using Readyboost and a Readyboost-ready USB flash drive. It doesn't do much more than the XP prefetch does except it's designed and engenered to support Readyboost.

How do I know this? I've got 6 GB on this machine and I'm dual-booting XP and Vista, that's how. Firefox is certainly not noticeably faster on it's first-after-boot launch under Vista than it is under XP.

Oh, and unless you've equipped your machine with an all-SSDs set of drives, nothing but lightweight apps like uTorrent or Notepad is going to launch "instantaneously." Your claim to the contrary is just ridiculous.

Airlink said,
What?

Superfetch only boosts app launch speed on LOW memory systems, and only then on systems using Readyboost and a Readyboost-ready USB flash drive. It doesn't do much more than the XP prefetch does except it's designed and engenered to support Readyboost.

How do I know this? I've got 6 GB on this machine and I'm dual-booting XP and Vista, that's how. Firefox is certainly not noticeably faster on it's first-after-boot launch under Vista than it is under XP.

Oh, and unless you've equipped your machine with an all-SSDs set of drives, nothing but lightweight apps like uTorrent or Notepad is going to launch "instantaneously." Your claim to the contrary is just ridiculous.


Rubbish. Superfetch in Vista does EXACTLY what Majesticmerc said it does. It basically learns what programs you like to run and when, and then caches those programs to memory so they load more quickly when you need them. It isn't just for "LOW memory systems" as you put it, in fact the more memory you have, the more it can pre-load for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperFetch#SuperFetch

TCLN Ryster said,
Rubbish. Superfetch in Vista does EXACTLY what Majesticmerc said it does. It basically learns what programs you like to run and when, and then caches those programs to memory so they load more quickly when you need them. It isn't just for "LOW memory systems" as you put it, in fact the more memory you have, the more it can pre-load for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperFetch#SuperFetch

Actually, it's StupidFetch that's rubbish. It thrashes the HD like crazy at seemingly random times (M$ claims only during idle, but it continues thrashing even when I'm using the system). Maybe your HD's seek noise is quiet and you can't hear it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's thrashing the heads all over the place and wearing out your HD. Tell me how much you like Vista after your drive dies prematurely.

Airlink said,
What?

Superfetch only boosts app launch speed on LOW memory systems, and only then on systems using Readyboost and a Readyboost-ready USB flash drive. It doesn't do much more than the XP prefetch does except it's designed and engenered to support Readyboost.

How do I know this? I've got 6 GB on this machine and I'm dual-booting XP and Vista, that's how. Firefox is certainly not noticeably faster on it's first-after-boot launch under Vista than it is under XP.

Oh, and unless you've equipped your machine with an all-SSDs set of drives, nothing but lightweight apps like uTorrent or Notepad is going to launch "instantaneously." Your claim to the contrary is just ridiculous.

That's ReadyBoost you're describing. Think before you strike.

After using vista as my Main OS for over a year its kind of scary when I use my XP machine at my desk upstairs. Its scary how how much freedom applications have on XP. Or how much freedom the user has to just move and delete files from where ever they want. In that regard, while UAC can be a tad annoying at times, it does feel much more secure.

This is really the way the default Windows install should have always been on an NT kernel with the Win32 subsystem... running users in limited mode. The trouble was it was not very convenient, therefore... UAC. You get to run an admin account... in a reduced user mode. Of course, in truth... Vista handles limited user accounts better than

TBH, Vista ****s me to tears with all it's questions about if i'm sure I want to do something, then it wants permissions, then it wants to know, blah blah.
I don't think I need to restate the old "It's my computer and I know how to use it" comments, you already know them :P

The notion that Vista is more secure is a farce. Perhaps its more child proof, but more secure? If you don't secure it up properly, just as you need to secure up any previous version of Windows, you leave plenty of security holes.

dmd3x said,
The notion that Vista is more secure is a farce. Perhaps its more child proof, but more secure? If you don't secure it up properly, just as you need to secure up any previous version of Windows, you leave plenty of security holes.

Vista's UAC is atrocious. There are much more elegant and secure ways of controlling, restricting and/or limiting unauthorized access, and you don't have to treat people like children to do it. Trouble is, it's impossible for Microsoft to design an OS that's customized for each enterprise right out of the box, so they sunk to the lowest common denominator and decided that, by default, Vista restricts everything you do, even if you are just moving a file. And so we have the god dam UAC (THE most annoying feature of any MS product every made, IMHO. Clippy was a minor annoyance by comparison).

You want a secure OS? Then secure your OS. Don't just rely on what's built into Vista.

Airlink said,
Vista's UAC is atrocious. There are much more elegant and secure ways of controlling, restricting and/or limiting unauthorized access, and you don't have to treat people like children to do it. Trouble is, it's impossible for Microsoft to design an OS that's customized for each enterprise right out of the box, so they sunk to the lowest common denominator and decided that, by default, Vista restricts everything you do, even if you are just moving a file. And so we have the god dam UAC (THE most annoying feature of any MS product every made, IMHO. Clippy was a minor annoyance by comparison).

You want a secure OS? Then secure your OS. Don't just rely on what's built into Vista.
Actually you need to secure just the way microsoft did in vista. The truth of the matter is 95% of all pc users are too stupid to even be in front of a pc and will some how find a way to screw it up. Its just a known fact. The elite 5% who know what they are doing will not get any benefit out of UAC or any of the other security features. Thats because we know what we should or shouldnt be clicking on where as the other 95% will click whatever just to get past the prompts because they dont take the time to read what they are clicking.

I hardly ever get UAC dialogues any more.

Use Vista for more than 5 minutes and you'll see it's better than XP (with the exception of the networking screens... euck.)

For most users Vista UAC popups disappear and arent a problem after a relatively short. Personally I've disabled it as making web pages and editing system files etc. etc. it goes mental.

M2Ys4U said,
Use Vista for more than 5 minutes and you'll see it's better than XP (with the exception of the networking screens... euck.)


Me, every time I have to work on a PC with Vista, it take me less than 5 minutes to remind me how much better XP is. If you really like Vista better, it is because you are not using it, you're just looking at it. LOL

Captain555 said,
Me, every time I have to work on a PC with Vista, it take me less than 5 minutes to remind me how much better XP is. If you really like Vista better, it is because you are not using it, you're just looking at it. LOL

Erm, no. I like Vista better because it does lots of things better than XP does.

Raa said,
TBH, Vista ****s me to tears with all it's questions about if i'm sure I want to do something, then it wants permissions, then it wants to know, blah blah.
I don't think I need to restate the old "It's my computer and I know how to use it" comments, you already know them :P

Lol, here we go again. This is such a stupid argument. Vista only does this when you do something that requires elevated privileges. Quite honestly, there's nothing you should need to do that requires so many UAC prompts. And in the extremely unlikely event you do, it takes half a second to click "Continue", so you and the other UAC/Vista whiners just need to grow a set and shut the hell up.

I don't see any reason why anyone should still be using Windows XP provided they have able computers that can run Vista. Most major companies in India have migrated to Windows Vista.

sibot said,
I don't see any reason why anyone should still be using Windows XP provided they have able computers that can run Vista. Most major companies in India have migrated to Windows Vista.

One word: Netbook

Marshalus said,
Two words: Virtual Desktop

Three words: Stem Marketshare Loss

Ok, I was rushed a bit in this one-upmanship. :P

EDIT: snapshot of Nov. 2008, Windows 89.62%
and Dec. 2006, Windows 93.86%

toadeater said,
Vista is just as dead as XP is. There's no point switching now.

Actualy, more people use XP right now than use Vista, so I'd have to say that XP is actually less dead than Vista is.
Besides, all Windows 7 is going to be is like Vista 2.0. Windows 8 will be like Vista 3.0, and perhaps after that we'll see Microsoft wake up and smell the Linux. Hey, I can dream, can't I?

markjensen said,
One word: Netbook

With computer peripheral prices getting cheaper day by day, I don't see why Netbooks should not be running on Vista, probably that would happen very soon.

sibot said,
With computer peripheral prices getting cheaper day by day, I don't see why Netbooks should not be running on Vista, probably that would happen very soon.

Netbooks were really a separate market. However, like you and others are pointing out (even if only indirectly) netbooks are becoming nothing more than small low-powered laptops.

Heck even in the Neowin forums, there are people asking about which netbook would be best for running Photoshop. :ermm:

These "high powered" netbooks are becoming nothing more than "low powered" laptops.

Mainstream support for Windows XP ends in April 2009. After that, *possibly* no Silverlight 3.0, Windows Live Wave 4.0, OS component updates-IE9, Windows Search 5.0, Windows Installer vNext, WMP12, Virtual PC vNext, .NET 4.0 and those freebie downloads for Windows XP. Only security updates. Third parties might not follow suit so soon however.