Login:
Password:

Five More Months Tacked Onto XP Availability Roadmap

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

September 28, 2007, 1:31 PM

Apparently bending to pressure from partner OEMs who continue to report customers continuing to demand Windows XP, Microsoft decided this morning to extend the availability of the older operating system series to the retail channel and to partners from January to June 2008, as it maintains availability to system builders clear through to January 2009.

The move comes several months after Dell reported it would continue offering Windows XP as an option for its systems as long as it could. However, another possible contributing factor could be the company's plan for XP Service Pack 3. A check of the company's service pack roadmap today shows the company has only tentative faith in its ability to produce SP3 by as late as next June.

In a prepared Q&A for Microsoft this morning, corporate vice president for Windows product management Mike Nash attempted to put the best spin he could on the move. He systematically eliminated the more obvious possible causes for his company's decision, leaving behind the option that Microsoft is just trying to be nice.

"While we've been pleased with the positive response we've seen and heard from customers using Windows Vista, there are some customers who need a little more time to make the switch to Windows Vista," said Nash in an attempt to sound comforting.

"As it turns out, our official policy as of 2002 is that versions of Windows are available through our retail and direct OEM partners for four years after they ship. Obviously this policy didn't work with Windows XP given Windows Vista's delivery date. As a practical matter, most of our previous operating system releases were available for about two years after the new version shipped, so maybe we were a little ambitious to think that we would need to make Windows XP available for only a year after the release of Windows Vista."

Other than its mild chastisement of customers for procrastinating on its otherwise well-tuned roadmap, Nash's discussion read today less like an explanation of XP's extended life and more like a pep talk for Vista. He said there are twice as many PCs being sold on an annual basis now than at the time XP was first introduced, and that a great many of those units - by virtue of the declining scale of costs - are low-price systems. For those systems, it appears, customers may be perceiving XP as the preferable choice.

But that's just a temporary setback, it appears, as Nash promises to be more sensitive to how customers' needs evolve, as though the act of evolution itself were a postponement of the inevitable.

"It's early days still, but if things continue as we're expecting, Windows Vista will be the fastest selling operating system in our history," reported Nash.

"And while that's gratifying on one level when you consider all the architectural changes we introduced, it also suggests we've done a lot of things right in delivering value to our customers. But we want to be sensitive to how our customers' needs and experiences continue to evolve, so we'll continue to listen and look at how we can help our customers through the transition to Windows Vista."

Add a Comment (106 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By timatl

edited Oct 1, 2007 - 9:53 AM

I must admit at this point Vista does suck for me. I far more problems with Vista than I do with my XP machine. To be honest most operating systems suck in the beginning, at least until first service pack. That even goes for non-microsoft products. Before some of fan boys start crying, I am big Microsoft supporter. I am a 360 and Zune owner. Before you ask, the Zune has better sound quality and a buit-in FM tuner. At this time I prefer to Windows XP. For my Dad it great because he just needs a machine to get to the net and that it.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

edited Oct 1, 2007 - 12:46 AM

I never saw the driver problems that everyone keeps whining about with my machine. Seems like MS completely threw backward compatibility out the window with Vista though. I spent hours mucking around with compatibility mode. Some programs worked, most didn't work at all , and some started out ok but ultimately brought the system to a complete freeze or a BSOD. I'll be skipping Vista for the next Windows or a Mac. I really can't see XP being extended as a surprise.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Sep 30, 2007 - 7:11 AM

Good read on how _horrible_ Vista is.

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9785337-7.html?

Score: 0

By Avion Airplane

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 10:18 AM

QUOTE FROM CNET "One significant problem that I have with Vista is its inclusion of new DRM, specifically the company's decision to install Protected Video Path. To prevent a person from copying (or in most cases, backing up) a movie, the operating system provides process isolation and if an unverified component is in use, the operating system shuts down DRM content. For the first time on any operating system, we're not even allowed to backup our favorite movies? Come on."

This is why I do not want Vista

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Sep 30, 2007 - 8:05 PM

Works great here maybe if you knew something about PC's it wouldn't be such a challange for you.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 30, 2007 - 12:59 PM

Yay! Another DRM rant from someone who can't tell the difference between support and implementation.

Keep bringing up the same tired old BS, man. it's working so well for ya.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Sep 30, 2007 - 7:21 PM

Sorry the truth hurts so much. ;) I understand you are in denial...a M$ drone can't function without the mothership

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 9:26 AM

*laughs*

What truth? Where? It sure as hell ain't coming from you.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Sep 30, 2007 - 8:06 PM

And the hate compaign goes on. Yawn.

Score: 0

By mshulman

posted Sep 30, 2007 - 10:02 AM

I haven't done anything related to DRM, so I can't comment on that, but having been using Vista for well over a year, I think its great and better than XP.

Yes, there are some things that took some getting used to and the pop up asking about running an app can be annoying at times, but when you consider how infrequent that is, why should it be an issue?

Now that I've done a significant rollout at a client, I see even more benefits to it. Setup of devices is a breeze and in some cases its done automatically. The sidebar is a nice feature most users like and performance is great.

It does take more power to run it, but thats the case with any OS. People upgrading 3 year old systems expecting them to run better or equivalent are just foolish.

Score: 0

By jofin

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 7:34 PM

I can accept that others do have differing opinions from me and it is healthy that they do.
However, it is a great pity that there are so many personal attacks made on other users by some on this website.

Score: 0

By ladylust

edited Sep 29, 2007 - 3:46 PM

Like Bill gates said to Steve jobs at the end of Pirates of Silicon Vally "that doesn't matter!". It doesn't matter.. because no matter what anyone says, thinks or b*tches about.. Vista will be on 90% of all new computers within a year. MS wins again.. period. Doesn't matter if you think it sucks or not... MS still gets paid for every single machine that uses Vista. If you dont like it, just open your window and scream a bit louder, because thats about all you can and will ever be able to do about it.

...and yes I am a MS fanboy - at least my hat isn't made of tinfoil.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Sep 29, 2007 - 3:52 PM

The only way this stops is when people stop b****ing, whining and moaning and actually start taking responsibility for themselves and buying what they believe is the best product.

I'm not saying that this isn't currently happening, I believe it is. I'm simply stating that they *do* have a choice if Vista is so glaringly horrible to them.

*shrug*

Hell, I just purchased, not more than 30 minutes ago, a system with XP Home SP2 for my Mother-in-Law. It's all about choice, and believe it or not, you whiners below, it still exists.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 12:01 AM

Or NOT buying in the case of Linux. Free, as in beer, right?

As I've said before - our local PC shop still ONLY sells XP. They'll get Vista for you if you want, but as yet, not one person has requested Vista on a desktop computer.

Can't blame them either. If XP is doing everything you want, there's little point in upgrading! Other than a flashy interface, there's little to be gained from the move to Vista (right now) and quite a bit to be lost. In the future there will be Vista-only games, Vista-only Blu-Ray & HD-DVD - but right now the only thing Vista offers is the chance to break a few hardware devices, slower performance (network, IO and general performance), marginal security improvements and a lot of irritating dialog boxes.

As a tech, I'd still recommend XP.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Oct 1, 2007 - 9:21 AM

Or NOT buying in the case of Linux. Free, as in beer, right?

Heh... Sure. Did you see the press release about how Linux is "selling" like hotcakes now? Gotta love it.

s I've said before - our local PC shop still ONLY sells XP. They'll get Vista for you if you want, but as yet, not one person has requested Vista on a desktop computer.

Purely anecdotal. The owner of the shop could very well be as fanboyish as our dear El Dingo. There are several local shops here selling their own branded systems with VIsta...just as there are several who aren't. It's called transition. Tends to happen when a new product hits the market.

. If XP is doing everything you want, there's little point in upgrading!

Spot on. Couldn't agree more.

As a tech, I'd still recommend XP.

In the case of existing systems with XP on them, I would agree 100%, as well as for new systems with under 2GB of RAM and an integrated vidcard (until the new line of NVIDIA integrated chips hits the market). For new systems with 2GB of RAM or better and a discreet GPU, there's no real reason *not* to go with Vista. On a pre-installed system, the driver-issue is moot. :)

(NOTE: My mother-in-Laws system was only ordered with a Gig of RAM and an integrated GPU. This is why I chose XP for her.)

Score: 0

By Setian^Stalker

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 11:57 PM

Spot on

Score: 0

By roj

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 12:56 PM

I read the headline and laughed. given the number of people who have come to me complaining "I need a copy of XP - all I can get is this Vista crap", I find it amusing.

I guess more and more are realizing that the emperor is NOT wearing new clothes.

Score: 0

By mshulman

posted Sep 30, 2007 - 10:03 AM

Why do the "need" XP? I can see it if applications won't run on Vista, but if they do, Vista is great.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 12:03 AM

The same reason some people 'needed' 98. They liked it better. It worked with all their programs. It was fast (when it worked).

The only difference here is that XP is relatively secure - and 98 never could be. There's actually very little reason to upgrade to Vista at the moment, other than wanting to use it's new UI.

Score: 0

By roj

edited Oct 1, 2007 - 4:54 PM

Change that to "no reason at all". Which is why I won't. My 6000+ w/4Gb is nice and fast running XP Pro / SP2. Vista Premium actually takes a chunk of speed out of it - in my experience any claims of increased speed are lies, plain and simple.

From where I'm sitting, he OS itself is needless and doesn't give me anything I don't already have other than the chance to lose some performance.

Oh, and a chance to kiss Microsoft's ring and give them money no one should give them for this white elephant.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 12:37 PM

98 didn't work with all programs, though. Many people found out that quite a few of the fall-back 16-bit programs (and even some of the 32bit "95" programs) no longer functioned properly in 98. 98SE fixed *some* of that, but really...it's the same every time.

Score: 0

By Jonnn21

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 9:32 AM

Very not true in my case. For whatever reason XP didnt manage my memory very well at all (2GB) I would get a BSOD every day.

Since I installed Home premium not one BSOD.

The ONLY problem I had was it didnt work with the new printer I got untill about 2 months after it came out. Other than that every single thing Ive thrown at it works.

People need to understand and use before they whine and b**** about it.

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Sep 29, 2007 - 6:25 AM

Any other insults you want to throw at me for a common opinion against MS as a company?

Point is many in this world DO NOT TRUST THEM. and they SHOULD NOT TRUST THEM. And VISTA gives them unprecedented access to your system over any prior version of Windows.

All thats left is one of you people questioning my parentage and calling me a Natzi for expressing a common opinion. And saying not to put up with it.

OK to lighten things up a bit over this hot tempered issue:
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070926
And http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070927
and finally http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070928.

so there ;P lol see I do have a sense of humor too.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Sep 29, 2007 - 3:54 PM

Dude,

Look, I'm not against you having your own opinion. Hell, regarding upgrades, we agree, amazingly enough. It is simply when you make over-reaching statements like "Point is many in this world DO NOT TRUST THEM. and they SHOULD NOT TRUST THEM.", apparently trying to convince everyone that your opinion is the only valid one that I take issue.

Call me a Tool all you want. You'd be amazed how many people utterly fail at originality and creativity.

The *point* is that your opinion applies to *you*. Claiming the majority, or worse, claiming it is the only valid opinion at all, is not only blindingly arrogant, but more often than not, patently false.

It is nice to see another userfriendly fan around these parts though. :)

Any other insults you want to throw at me for a common opinion against MS as a company?

Heh...anyone on a public forum that can't take a few barbs should go back to AOL. I really hope you aren't taking *any* of this that seriously. The only folks I insult (and actually mean it) here are Zridling and El Dingo. Besides, if it's true, is it *really* an insult?

Score: 0

By ladylust

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 3:33 PM

Can i ask where you shop for your tinfoil hats?

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 12:04 AM

Bah, if you BUY your tinfoil hats from big corporations then you don't need one. Real paranoids realise you must make your own for it to protect you. Otherwise it will have backdoors into your brain.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 9:13 AM

How does one go about making their own tinfoil??

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Oct 2, 2007 - 6:17 AM

That, from the biggest looney of all. How's that MS-OOXML certification going there, toolie?

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 6:09 AM

Sure, I'll call you a 'Natzi'; it's not like I'm calling you a Nazi afterall.

You Natzi!

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Sep 29, 2007 - 6:37 AM

Its obscure humor I didn't think many people here would get. Its meant to be funny... look it up in the Urban Dictionary or google. you'll see its me making fun of my earlier misspelling...

"2. Natzi : Overly anal spelling correctors."
www.urbandictionary.com

Score: 0

By NrmalUsr

edited Sep 29, 2007 - 1:22 AM

Vista. Let us see. Considerable to Great learning curve for anyone but somebody who has not used a computer in their life. A lot of hardware resources for just seating there. Great incompatibility with current programs. (Remember Windows XP had a compatibility mode).

From my point of view a normal or light user would have no problem using Vista, right? Why would a normal user buy a behemoth of computer? Why would a normal user use the newest programs and have to search and search for every driver available for its hardware to make Vista run smooth on his or her pc?

If XP was like Vista back on its day, is this what Microsofts accumulated to knowledge has come to? "Don't worry about user's ability of adoption for the new OS, let's make it our way!" Even Apples Mac OS is as pretty as Vista(has been for far more years).. almost as secure as Vista and far less resource intensive than Vista is.

Most of us are techs who can afford to dig, look, search and experiment on our pcs. Is this fair for the normal user? Must he spend for his OS and his hardware just to be a little bit more impressed graphically and a bit more secure. Does this sound like a magnificent piece of software?

Score: 0

By Jonnn21

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 9:35 AM

Drivers??? This isnt Microsoft's problem. Its not their fault that hardware doesnt work with the OS. Its the Manufactors problem. Stop blaming MS for all the Driver issues.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 2:01 AM

Considerable to Great learning curve for anyone but somebody who has not used a computer in their life.

Gee...globe instead of a start button. Gads, whatever will we do. Oh, we can switch to Classic Windows theme? Guess you blew that one.

(Remember Windows XP had a compatibility mode).

...as does Vista. Used Vista yet?

Why would a normal user buy a behemoth of computer?

People have a tendency to buy what they are told is best for them. This is why salespeople exist. It has worked quite well in the past. Also, people tend to think bigger, faster, more powerful is better. Go figure...

Why would a normal user use the newest programs and have to search and search for every driver available for its hardware to make Vista run smooth on his or her pc?

Okay, you're either being sarcastic, or you are high. A new PC? You mean with Vista already *installed*. Hunting for drivers? Uhh.... Good morning?

Must he spend for his OS and his hardware just to be a little bit more impressed graphically and a bit more secure.

...isn't that the point of new releases? Of businesses in general?? Hello?? McFly??

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Sep 29, 2007 - 3:24 AM

Stores have sales men to sell a customer more then they need for twice the profit.

Indeed most internet users get email and browse the web. maybe do some excel and Word. OHHH that needs uber power... If a laptop most will want to watch movies... Gee a DVD drive should be fine, But no Salesmen go overboard with all the crap that in the end do nothing but confuse the consumer and get them to spend more money for equipment and software then they know what to do with, and have a chance of being told Opps you got to buy your OS again because your not genuine anymore in MS eyes...

So unless your doing movie editing Graphics design or High End Video gaming, there is no reason for a power horse machine. That is until Vista came out. cause now Pent 4 HT with 2GB ram and 512mb Graphics, with Windows XP??? OMG Obsolete. You need to upgrade...

What? We just bought this last year?

Yea but Vista looks so pretty doesn't it? Ohh look Media center...

Didnt XP have a MCE?

Oh yea but don't you want to be using the most recent version? You know if you do not nothing will work on your XP soon? (LIE) So buy Vista Home premium.

Consumer buys it and installs it and comes back and says...

Well I did what you told me, but its just so slow now.. why? Oh you need a new machine!!!! That will get you what you want...

Wait what was wrong with what they had again?

Equates to one upset consumer.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 3:43 PM

The crapflood never stops.

Do they need more HP to do what they are doing now? Hell no. Never said they did. In fact, I have stated, several times on this very topic, that people using XP currently don't need to bother upgrading. Of course, you'd rather rant and rail against me instead of actually reading my posts and trying to, ya know, think...

Didnt XP have a MCE?

Oh yea but don't you want to be using the most recent version? You know if you do not nothing will work on your XP soon? (LIE) So buy Vista Home premium.

Consumer buys it and installs it and comes back and says...

Well I did what you told me, but its just so slow now.. why? Oh you need a new machine!!!! That will get you what you want...

Wait what was wrong with what they had again?


If they want the new version, they need to ask themselves, "why?"

If the answer is because they just want the latest and greatest, I would suggest sticking with XP unless they want to spend the money to upgrade their system. If the reason they want the latest MCE is to watch protected HD content (That will be downscaled on XP), then Vista is definitely the next step, and yes, it will involve upgrades. Go figure. You describe the actions of a very poor salesman to support your argument. Imagine that...

Equates to one upset consumer.

Boo-frigging-hoo. The customer was apparently a moron. It's not the retailers, Microsoft's or the Government's job to protect idiots from themselves.

Score: 0

By Macross74

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 9:33 PM

This memory debate is becoming more annoying with every windows release.
Nearly every windows update has required an memory/cpu/hdd increase of the last 10 years.
people can moan about the requirements for vista, due to their machine not running it the way XP does, but remember one thing.
XP was built with 2001 technology on mind. so there is a major differance there for a start.
Microsoft has made some major blunders with the devolopment cycle of vista, the biggest one was changing the needs of the os to many times and as result the blow out in cost and not only the slow speed.
They did get a few things right.

1. installer is brilliant
2. updated interface has been long overdue.

thing they did not get right.

1. cost for differant versions.
2. new interface is very greedy on resouses compared to competing OS's.

Everyone will either like or hate vista, if you like it fine, if you dont you have a few other options unless you play games, then your options are really limited when DX10 games become the norm.

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 5:57 PM

You do realize that five years worth of development on Vista and all you get is better installer and some interface BS no one really even needs. I mean, flippable transparent 3d windows. My productivity just increased by 0.02 percent! Just fantastic.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 9:12 AM

Yeah, *all* they did was tweak the interface and give you a better installer. Yep. You nailed it.

/sarcasm

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 12:05 AM

"then your options are really limited when DX10 games become the norm."

That might be true if DX10 was worth the performance hit, but it's not. In fact, a few developers have already stated that they see nothing in DX10 worth developing for.

I'll wait for Windows 7.

Score: 0

By DudeBoyz

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 8:06 PM

I'm very glad to see XP sales extended.

It's not a perfect OS but is far better than Vista, imo.

It is good to see that consumers can have an effect on the market if they make their feelings known in force.

Score: 0

By ladylust

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 3:35 PM

I have used both OS's and Vista is amazing. I have no idea what everyone is complaining about. I had some issues in the beginning finding some drivers for a system i put together, but the average consumer will not have this problem. My mother just got a new HP laptop with Vista Basic and she took right to it, no problems, no issues.

Score: 0

By DigitAl56K

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 5:44 PM

Some of us want to do more with our computers than your mother.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 9:11 AM

Some of you aren't the target market for Vista then, are you. :)

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Oct 2, 2007 - 6:19 AM

You're the one who won't shutup about his mother-in-law (you're really married?!) and other wacko relatives. Let me guess — you recommend Microsoft exclusively because that's all you've ever used. Pretty sad, toolie.

Score: 0

By ingram091

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 7:16 PM

Vista equates to too much big brother telling you what you can and can not do. Until MS wakes up to the fact that Consumers DO NOT want this attitude from their computers on such things as simply hooking up your computer to a HD monitor that MS does not recognize... So they downscale their HD content because thats a big nono as far as they are concerned....

And installing and creating your own software that does things MS does not like may well cripple your machine for the doing of it under the heavy hand of MS calling home every few mins to inform them of changes on your system they do not approve of.

And finally the resorce heavy environment for such simpile things as Aeroglass??? Common give me a break. The exact same thing that aeroglass effect gives you can be done easily on a windows 2000 machine with NO resource hogging at all... and the Video as a desktop background is easily done with WinVLC for years now. So that so called special feature being resource heavy is Ludicrous... There is NO reason Vista should require 2 or more GB of memory just to start up efficiently... NONE...

Point is. Vista is the Windows ME of this age. in other words Make it die please... Its a disaster no one wants and worse, it insults consumers by treating legitimate consumers as illegal pirates with occasional false positives going out of r not being genuine. This is insane... We may not Own anything from MS but we dam well own the computer its on, and IF the software we purchased rights to use starts making our property unless by design someones heads better start rolling to correct that issue. and fast..

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Sep 29, 2007 - 1:55 AM

Vista equates to too much big brother telling you what you can and can not do. Until MS wakes up to the fact that Consumers DO NOT want this attitude from their computers on such things as simply hooking up your computer to a HD monitor that MS does not recognize... So they downscale their HD content because thats a big nono as far as they are concerned....

Uh... This is HDCP. Vista supports it so that *all* protected HD content isn't downscaled. Compare this to Linux, which cannot even legally play a DVD. Huh...

And installing and creating your own software that does things MS does not like may well cripple your machine for the doing of it under the heavy hand of MS calling home every few mins to inform them of changes on your system they do not approve of.

Example? Proof?

And finally the resorce heavy environment for such simpile things as Aeroglass???

Excellent spelling, BTW.... But I digress: Aero? You mean the UI that runs off of the GPU instead of the CPU? Sure, it uses GPU cycles (bummer) and some RAM. Disable it. Try running Compiz in Linux on a underpowered system and tell me what you think.

The exact same thing that aeroglass effect gives you can be done easily on a windows 2000 machine with NO resource hogging at a

Really? If you're thinking of WindowBlinds, you are sadly mistaken. While WB will move the UI to the GPU, it will not be able to give you the same effect. Sure, it gets close, but no cigar.

and the Video as a desktop background is easily done with WinVLC for years now. So that so called special feature being resource heavy is Ludicrous

Beta. Also not technically part of Vista. It's an Ultimate Edition Extra. Do you really know what you are talking about here, or are you just spouting BS you've read elsewhere?

Its a disaster no one wants

Yay! More lies...

it insults consumers by treating a statistically non-existant anumber of legitimate consumers as illegal pirates with occasional false positives going out of r not being genuine.

FTFY. At least you got the "occasional" bit right.

We may not Own anything from MS but we dam well own the computer its on, and IF the software we purchased rights to use starts making our property unless by design someones heads better start rolling to correct that issue.

Many folks find Vista useful. If you can't, that's your problem. :)

It's been fun. G'night folks.

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Sep 29, 2007 - 3:39 AM

Whatever. As usual PC_tool is the tool of MS propaganda. MS can do no wrong in your eyes we get it. Point is many of us do not share that view.

What breaks Vista from regular use? Visual studio... anything prior to ASP.net 2.0. Borland C++ without a $300 upgrade to the compiler. Some Cobal Compilers.

What is equivalently or better then Aeroglass (yes so f-ing what, I spelled it wrong who give a flying fig) Madotate and Otaku softwares Topdesk. And yes the early versions of both work on windows xp and 2000 flawlessly. BTW all of these and vista style icons, sounds, and emulation tools that make a virtual Vista on an XP machine except at twice the speed on 1/2 the resources is all available from the fileforum of betanews.

Oh and yes as I said before I have used Vista and I own Vista, and Its not worth the trouble to mess with it on a production machine, and NO ONE should feel pressured to change to it for ANY REASON. If what you got is not broken dont go screwing yourself with Vista and end up having to double up everything just to get back to what you had on XP speed wise.

That is by far the point of all this. and you people just piss me off that you can not accept the reasons people do not like this piece of crap. you remind me of those mindless fools that touted Windows ME as the second coming from Windows 98. Look how that turned out?

Hey if you got 3 grand you want to waste for a new Vista machine that runs well, more power to you. The normal IT manager is not going to get far in this world telling his boss they are looking at a multi million dollar investment to continue to do what the already do ... just a little slower then before. And with a major overhaul to their accounting system (NON MICROSOFT BASED) in order to get it to work on the upgrade. And THAT is the reason it is not popular with businesses. Thats the point.

As to the other stuff that is my own personal opinion on MS business practices and policies from working with them in the past and having to deal with the repercussions of their world domination attitude they commonly joke about, but secretly aspire too.

OH and PS: NO HD CONTENT SHOULD BE DOWNSCALED EVER. Thats the point. if you have the equipment to do it, then you should be allowed to use said equipment. In effect Vista has stifled any such innovation for Vista unless of course its a MS product.

I guess I should just learn to ignore PC_Tool and his ilk. In effect doing what MS does when consumers and governments say they are unhappy about something and just do what they want anyway.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 3:35 PM

Whatever. As usual PC_tool is the tool of MS propaganda. MS can do no wrong in your eyes we get it.

You're kidding, right? Didn't I just make several posts stating people shouldn't be upgrading and even stating MS should never have even produced an "upgrade" SKU? Or are you just using the above statement in an attempt to make yourself feel better?


What breaks Vista from regular use? Visual studio... anything prior to ASP.net 2.0. Borland C++ without a $300 upgrade to the compiler. Some Cobal Compilers.


*laughs* So your complaint is that programs not written to be compatible with Vista don't work? Amzing...who'da thunk it.

If what you got is not broken dont go screwing yourself with Vista and end up having to double up everything just to get back to what you had on XP speed wise.

I've stated as much several times in this very topic...

you remind me of those mindless fools that touted Windows ME as the second coming from Windows 98. Look how that turned out?

Funny. I never suggested anyone use WinME. It was probably the worst OS ever produced by MS. In fact, I "downgraded" several folks to 98SE. We never even touched ME or 98 in my business though. 95->2K. *shrug* Believe what you want though if it helps you think you actualy know anything about me.

Hey if you got 3 grand you want to waste for a new Vista machine that runs well, more power to you.

Again, said the same several times in this very topic.

The normal IT manager is not going to get far in this world telling his boss they are looking at a multi million dollar investment to continue to do what the already do ... just a little slower then before. And with a major overhaul to their accounting system (NON MICROSOFT BASED) in order to get it to work on the upgrade. And THAT is the reason it is not popular with businesses. Thats the point.

Uh, if your business is of any decent size and you have a regular schedule of replacing older equipment, you have more than enough reason to start using Vista during your next upgrade cycle (so long as you have tested your apps against it). The only issue here is the multimedia prioritization on Gigabit networks, which is also something I have vocally spoken against on this forum (still wondering why you think I'm under the impression MS can do no wrong). We will not be using Vista in my business until that is fixed (or at the very least alleviated to a large degree). If your point was business use, you really need to work on being more specific.

NO HD CONTENT SHOULD BE DOWNSCALED EVER. Thats the point. if you have the equipment to do it, then you should be allowed to use said equipment. In effect Vista has stifled any such innovation for Vista unless of course its a MS product.

*laughing* You're entitled to your opinion. From a business prespective, a multimedia OS without support for protected HD content is *worthless*. Get over it.

I guess I should just learn to ignore PC_Tool and his ilk.

Trolls hate being told the truth. I understand. Wouldn't want to damage your MS=Evil™ world-view.

In effect doing what MS does when consumers and governments say they are unhappy about something and just do what they want anyway.

...and yet the vast majority of users prefer MS. Obviously, it must be because they simply don't know any better... /sarcasm

Score: 0

By lanky

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 8:42 PM

*laughing* You're entitled to your opinion. From a business prespective, a multimedia OS without support for protected HD content is *worthless*. Get over it.

*laughing AT you* Get out of the glass palace ya in, those rocks ain't good for it.

I guess no-one uses XBMC/MP3 players. Not all the world is business. It's a consumer society, understand that before you open ya trap.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 30, 2007 - 1:00 PM

Try playing Protected HD in *any* other OS. Then you'll see my point.

Glass palace... Man, you could have at least tried to get the cliche right.

understand that before you open ya trap.

Heed thine own advice, genius.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Oct 2, 2007 - 6:20 AM

Obviously you haven't been on the GNU/Linux side of the fence yet. Sabayan and Ubuntu plays anything I throw at it, chump.

Score: 0

By mshulman

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 7:57 PM

Have you really used Vista? I've found many of the features to be great and its a big plus for the average consumer. While there are many things that you can do if you added on to XP, most people don't do that. Setup is also simple.

And it runs fine with less RAM. Where it doesn't do as well is with older systems. Any new systems I've seen it on (typically 1GB of RAM) run great. I wouldn't recommend XP with less than 1GB of RAM either.

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Sep 29, 2007 - 3:35 AM

Yes during beta and after and on a hot swapped drive that I can not stand to have installed in my machine cause I can not stand ANYTHING in Vista when compared to the speed my equipment runs on the prior generations of windows. When I get a New OS I expect it to perform BETTER then what I had, not worse. I could care less if it looks pretty with all the Vista bubble this, areo that, shadow here, outline there, MCE (whoopty do; XP MCE is basically the same exact thing) whatever. make it fast and efficient and secure. Vista did 1/2 the job. Vista is more secure then XP by the tools they added to it. All of which Should have been added to XP by now as well, but will never be, because basically MS does not care about such things anymore. They want everyone on XP to have security problems Indeed they announce many of them to the world to be exploited ahead of a fix so people will feel unsecure with their product and force them to buy an overpriced Vista that runs at 1/2 the speed on their machine and has all kinds of unwanted DRM garbage in it that no one wants, but has no choice but to put up with because MS dominance says so... and If you DARE write software to get around it, you cripple your OS in the process.

Score: 0

By SnakerDLK

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 6:37 PM

I don't need time do adapt do Vista..I need an OS that doesn't consume 500 MB of RAM sitting still and doesn't ask three times if I'm sure I want to delete a file that I just created.

Of course Vista has many improvements, but as Windows XP it took some time to become popular(also because of the SP2 that finally made the windows edition usable). So eventually Windows Vista's time will come..but just not yet.

OBS.:
Oh...great move making an SP3 for an "older operating system" ... /sarcasm off
then why did they launch vista if they had this one going ?
Just can't see Microsoft as being 'nice'

Score: 0

By ladylust

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 3:39 PM

Why 500MB of ram is what 24 bucks now? Just get an 4 gig system, who cares. Dont run vista if your computer is running less then 2 gb of ram I always say... Vista isnt for everyone, but the new computers can run it fine. for older systems - run xp... Its very simple. MS is killing off XP because all new computers can run vista just fine. Older systems will already have xp or bellow installed so there is no need to keep it around.

Plus its not like you cant buy a copy of XP on ebay or from some warehouse on the net for the next 2 years.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Oct 1, 2007 - 9:10 AM

MS is killing off XP because all new computers can run vista just fine.

I wouldn't say that. Many of the computer retailers are selling new systems with Vista on it with less than even 1GB of RAM.

I agree with the rest. :)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 7:08 PM

I need an OS that doesn't consume 500 MB of RAM sitting still and doesn't ask three times if I'm sure I want to delete a file that I just created.

Way to start the post with two complete lies.

So eventually Windows Vista's time will come..but just not yet.

Almost didn't read this because of the above. You are right. The same will happen. People will begin to lose their fascination with bashing the OS and actually start using it. Then they will learn that there are benefits to some of what they are currently bashing it for. go figure.

Oh...great move making an SP3 for an "older operating system" ... /sarcasm off
then why did they launch vista if they had this one going ?
Just can't see Microsoft as being 'nice'


They released updates and service packs to Windows 2000 well into XP's life cycle. This is nothing new.

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Sep 28, 2007 - 7:41 PM

Yep, My windows 2000 machine does everything my Windows XP laptop does and better for that matter IMHO. Why? cause I never allowed such things as IE 6 and Mediaplayer 7,8,9,10, or 11 to be in it, thus never getting all the calling home crap that comes with DRM...

An ALMOST MS free PC is rather nice really...

I like linux too but we have to face it folks, there are just some things that Linux is not up to par yet on. Windows 2000 however is still windows, and functions as we would expect it too... Removal of IE and Mediaplayer were HUGE in securing my system. Something not possible in Vista or XP. Though the EU may make MS make it possible someday soon.

I use WinVLC and Open office, Mozilla Firefox, Quicktime, Adobe products, and Personally I feel all the better for it... With some DLL manipulation I am even able to have a Directx 10 emulation that runs Halo 2 quite well in fact courtesy of petroglyph allowing me to beta test the libraries for XP compatibility.

I also have MS defender (though I only did it to prove a point that it would work on windows 2000) running with no problem (I normally recommend Spybot S&D with their active scanner for windows 2000) and I'm using the Firewall and Users.msc to effectively monitor traffic through unauthorized ports, (alla MS Firewall features in XP and Vista); (I recomend Zone alarm for people without a router or knowledge how to setup MSC policies on their own) AS well as my router of course...

Point is if you know what your doing to secure the BAd MS products from it self, then there really is not much reason to upgrade beyond Windows 2000 or XP IF Vista continues to be such a pain in the Resources, Policies and Business practices. At least until Linux matures a little more and becomes the more mainstream alternative... OR Apple makes a Pure Wintel OS that will replace Vista easily... Of Course thats just trading one dictator for another. but its a choice none the less.

I have a legal Vista disc, I got it with a free upgrade on the last Dell I got prior to Vista being released... I installed it in a separate hotswap drive for that machine, and on occasion I have to get into it to help support a client that is asking something about Vista I am not sure about... So I go looking for it... But in all reality, I will never use it on a production build as long as there are alternatives that run better and faster and have more options with them then Vista allows.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 1:45 AM

I've got nothing against people who know what they are going using older operating systems (no longer supported).

I still wouldn't be suggesting that to any of my clients, but hey...if you enjoy playing around in Win2k still, more power to ya.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 4:05 PM

I've been using Vista Ultimate 32-bit edition since mid-February (I did test the 64-bit edition of Vista RC2 in January, but didn't really test it much), and I am still using it as my primary OS right now. I have seen the initial problems with it, gone through a few minor headaches with it's driver support, and have still managed to get everything to work with it that had worked on Windows XP. Three weeks ago I even got Mechwarrior 3 and Final Fantasy VII for PC to work on it, not the easiest feat, but certainly worth the effort.

I have 2GB RAM (DDR-400--not even DDR2), Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Socket 939 CPU, 250GB WDC SATA hard drive (as primary), used an X700 128MB DDR3 PCIe video card for a while and upgraded up to a GeForce 8800GTS 320MB card (sweet).

I have had some 'slowness' with Windows Aero Graphics with the initial card, but later drivers resolved most issues. Also the OpenAL sound requirements made getting EAX support require some effort on my part, but nothing that really bothers me much.

My Vista runs much better than it did in February--updated ati and nvidia drivers have really improved performance over the past three months. If you're running Vista and haven't updated your video drivers in a while, I highly recommend you do so.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 12:10 AM

That post is probably a good example of why people shouldn't upgrade. Looks like you've jumped through as many or more hoops than the average user has to when moving to something like Ubuntu! You have more patience than me, I can tell you that much. Maybe it's because I fix the damn things all day I don't want to go home and fix my own computer. ;)

Score: 0

By uberfly

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 2:21 AM

"Three weeks ago I even got Mechwarrior 3 and Final Fantasy VII for PC to work on it, not the easiest feat, but certainly worth the effort."

Exactly the reason I won't be switching to Vista now or any time soon.

The fact that ppl have to do this kind of thing is total bs. Sorry MS, giving you $200 for these kind of headaches aren't worth the meager benefits Vista offers. Not even close.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 4:59 PM

Heh...

Haven't messed with the sound much. I had an SB Live, that wouldn't give me 5.1, grabbed an old Audigy, same issue. (Damn Creative to Hell)

In the end I stuck with the onboard SoundMAX chip. I'll wait to mess with it more until we get some decent "Vista Certified" Sound cards. Last time I checked none existed... but that was over 3 months ago.

Score: 0

By NULLedge

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 4:34 PM

sounds like a lot of headaches over nothin... swooshy windows. swoosh... swoosh. look at them stack!

Score: 0

By TomA102210

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 3:24 PM

Bottom line...Core 2 duo at the very least and 2 gigs of RAM for the basic Vista and Home Premium. If you don't have that, quitcherbellyaching. Too bad OS's that don't meet those requirements won't install any version of Vista. Vista Home Premium runs great on my HP but then again, my system exceeds the minimum recommended requirements.

Score: 0

By tankist

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 3:31 PM

not sure what you are talking about. i test drove vista ultimate on athlon 2500xp/1Gb and it was going fine/sufficient.

it didn't meet my other needs and as consequence i still use XP ( +ubuntu on older machines) but Vista is perfectly adequate, at least preformancewise.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 12:11 AM

Add some AV and watch the performance plummet. 2GB is really ideal for Vista. 1GB will run, but it won't run well - and you'll get significantly better performance and productivity out of an XP machine running 1GB (or even 512MB).

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 12:34 PM

...and you'll get even better performance out of Win2k. It's one of those "duh" statements that's been around since Windows 3.11. Hell, the first release of ubuntu probably runs better than the latest release on the same hardware as well.

Score: 0

By NULLedge

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 4:36 PM

someone sold him a lie at best buy

Score: 0

By dracodos

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 3:01 PM

I think back to the days when XP first came out. Most users with windows 98SE didn't buy it back then either. Especially corporates who already had 2000. My company has yet to set a solid date to transition to XP. No way in hell are we going to jump to Vista. All our apps break under it. So far every new verison of Windows, excluding ME, was an improvement over the last. Vista may very well be the next improvement but Microsoft is trying to shove it down everyone's throat and thats where the backlash is coming from. Like XP in it's early days (P2's were still around and it was slow as molasses on those), Vista is not yet ready for most users. Some are happy so far with Vista and maybe for the average user it's fine. Businesses see security issues an incompatbility problems all over the place so they're avoiding it like the Black Plague. Maybe once SP1 hits the streets we'll see a change.

Score: 0

By tankist

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 4:34 PM

100%
i didn't bother loading XP until SP1 was 4-6 month old, and didn't completley switche until SP2 came out.
XP works fine for me right now, why should i switch?

Score: 0

By NULLedge

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 4:38 PM

because now you can see through your title bar and clutter your desktop with gizmos

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 4:53 PM

*laughs*

He's right, though. Unless he's building a new system, or itching for the latest, it's not really worth it.

Score: 0

By ethanbowenwon

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 5:24 PM

Yeah I agree, Windows XP Is One of THE BEST OPERATING SYSTEMS I KNOW ABOUT. I am not going to bother switching also.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 7:05 PM

*laughs*

What are you talking about? You act as though you agree with my by stating the opposite of what I've said on this site many times.

While existing PCs with XP should, for the most part, not bother with Vista, new PCs, or powerful XP systems will handle it quite well, and there *are* benefits.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 12:13 AM

Like? I'm still unsure on the benefits. Unless my wallet is too heavy. ;)

I've got a C2D with 2GB - but still using XP. Perhaps because I like gaming too much to mess around with Vista and it's performance/compatibility quirks.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 1, 2007 - 12:32 PM

Read below. Already answered that for the DingoTroll.

You're right. You should stick with XP. The cost of upgrading at this point is not worth it. Either wait until a new PC is in the mix, or stick with XP until you *need* DX10 or some such. I've not stated anyone should upgrade. Upgrades suck, and as for Vista, they should have gone so far as to remove the "upgrade" sku from the product line.

Score: 0

By ethanbowenwon

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 2:38 PM

No I was just agreeing with you about the switching part of the article. Why Switch to Vista when it sucks as it is, no matter what Microsoft does to it. Bottom line, many people agree that it sucks...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 3:23 PM

Many people posting on Vista do. The vast majority using it are just peachy, and as such, not making asses of themselves online about it.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 10:22 PM

such as?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 1:42 AM

It pisses you off, for one.

Seriously (like you actually wanted an answer):

Memory Heaps, UAC, moving the GUI to the GPU instead of the CPU, moving drivers to user-mode instead of kernel mode, and so on.

If you even bothered to to browse the web to any non "anti-MS" sites in the past year or so, you might actually know some of this. Instead, you just keep repeating the same "Slow, bloat, monopoly" bull that you apparently think makes people think you're intelligent when, in fact, damn near everyone here knows you're just another MS troll.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 8:18 AM

We if you happened to browse any non M$ propaganda sites and stopped drinking the M$ drone kool-aide for once....

Memory Heaps - did not take much to improve on the crappy heap from XP. Too bad it still sucks compared to OS X and *nix.

UAC - horrible attempt at security. Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure? LOL. This is nothing.

moving the GUI to the GPU instead of the CPU - this does nothing but consume a ton more resources. But that is what M$ does best, bring a machine to its knees. This is nothing. You can reskin XP.

moving drivers to user-mode instead of kernel mode- UMDF is both for Vista and XP. Vista still uses tons of kernel mode drivers. This is nothing.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 29, 2007 - 3:22 PM

Memory Heaps - did not take much to improve on the crappy heap from XP. Too bad it still sucks compared to OS X and *nix.

They not only tookt he better system from Win2k, they improved upon it. You can go ahead and claim OSX is better all you want. It still doesn't make it true. :)

UAC - horrible attempt at security. Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure? LOL. This is nothing.

You're an idiot. Nothing more need be said.

[]imoving the GUI to the GPU instead of the CPU - this does nothing but consume a ton more resources. But that is what M$ does best, bring a machine to its knees. This is nothing. You can reskin XP.[/i]

Okay, I was wrong, you're not an idiot. You're obviously retarded. It uses less resources and improves responsiveness dramatically. Again, if you'd ever used Vista on a machine capable of handling it, you'd know better. Open XP: Bring up the perfmon. Drag windows around (displaying contents) and look at CPU usage. Now do the same in Vista with Aero enabled on a system that can handle it. See the difference? Of course not. You won't even try it. you'd rather rant blindly against something you know *nothing* about.

moving drivers to user-mode instead of kernel mode- UMDF is both for Vista and XP. Vista still uses tons of kernel mode drivers. This is nothing.

*laughs* So your best argument is to lie and then claim it is "nothing". I'm shocked...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 28, 2007 - 2:30 PM

I do think the fact that Vista runs like a** on the current batch of low-endians is probably a large contributor to this.

What gets me is that to most folks, the fault for this is attributable to Microsoft and not the system-builder.

If I were a system builder, there's no way in *hell* I would let a Vista system out the door with anything less than a dual-core CPU,2 GB of RAM, and a 256MB discreet vidcard unless it was for Basic, in which case, the dual-core would still stand while I might consider lowering the RAM/vid requirements *slightly*.

*ANYONE* with system specs below the above should not even consider migrating to Vista. They shouldn't even have released an "upgrade" SKU. There are far to many XP systems out there with specs below the above to warrant such an option.

If they had released Vista *only* for new systems, as an OEM option for builders, and set the bar on the requirements a bit higher, people might still be b****ing about the requirements, but the performance issues would at least be lessened to a degree.

Score: 0