Thanks for this article. Lol don't worry MS will still support Xp for security update, and OEM manufacturer will still support you for both (security and optional updates). I think we may just need them only, even my friends offlince PC havent got any update for years (except Xp SP3 offline install) without any problem at all, especially since Xp has been pretty stable after SP2 and SP3 and some latest optional updates. You'll still be able to get Xp for years forward i.e from ebay, some remaining stocks (believe me, there are many!), or use downgrade rights, netbook etc. It's the most popular OS ever! Even in illegal way if you really wanted it bcoz MS doesnt give us more options by selling it legally lol sorry kidding (but it's still a fact). There are still many 3rd party softwares and hardwares which will support it for years forward while some people and companies will still keep it (as i've seen the same i.e for Windows 98 and 2000 nowadays), considering large Xp users.

Btw if you want to enhance Windows Xp so it will serve you as well as Vista and Windows 7, longer and better, alternatively just visit and read the entire article here:
"List of Vista and Windows 7 Applications Features for Xp or 2003":
http://www.winmatrix.com...dex.php?showtopic=20480 and
http://www.winmatrix.com...dex.php?showtopic=21246

, very worthy article imo, hopefully useful for Xp or 2003 users even you can get some original Vista applications ported to Xp etc! Personally i'll keep Xp longer, even maybe 2014. Anyway good luck and long live Xp! - The best Microsoft operating system, again fact. Cheers!

Time to pay the Microsoft tax...again

I really hope they tax you more.

It's about time Microsoft starts the process of laying this great grandfather OS to rest.

Holy crap internet, we finally agree on something.

How's that iPhone and AirBook? Still pretending to be someone you are not? At least you look "successful".

You ride first class or coach? I bet it's coach. You rarely see people in first with Macs for some reason. Why is that?

It's about time! The 64-bit edition of Vista (especially with SP 1) has always been superior to 32-bit Windows XP (not just because it can handle massive amounts of RAM). Suprisingly it didn't take very long for most of the major hardware companies to release 64-bit signed drivers. Any computer with an Intel or AMD dual core CPU and at least 4GB of RAM can run Vista blazing fast. RAM has been dirt cheap for some time so this shouldn't be an issue for anyone. Computers running Windows XP that are used for anything other than just word processing almost always have dual core CPU's these days. All of the annoyances in Vista such as UAC can easily be disabled. Spyware doesn't cause 64-bit Vista's performance to drastically decrease like it does with Windows XP. Any crashes or stability problems that have happened with the RTM or later versions of 64-bit Vista are not Microsoft's fault. They are the fault of third party software developers who aren't very good at what they do.

Always?

Hell no! At launch it was a bloated, unreliable piece of crap with no drivers that was as stable as a fish doing a handstand on a swing.

Admittedly, Vista has come leaps and bounds from launch, and SP1 fixed the vast majority of issues with the OS. But it's still a slower performer than XP 99% of the time, and it still has far too many bugs and incompatibilities to be so glowingly reviewed. Regardless of who was at fault for the driver issues - the experience remains the same, and XP was (and or is) superior for that very reason.

Windows 7 however... now that IS a promising product.

I don't know what kind of hardware you tried to run 64-bit Vista on, but the only unstable version of 64-bit Vista made available to the general public was Beta 2. As for incompatibilities, 64-bit Vista was no worse than Mac OS X when it first came out on the PowerPC platform. Mac OS X by itself has never supported programs designed for Mac OS 9 or earlier. Apple had to include a full copy of Mac OS 9 that runs in the background for backwards compatibility. At least 64-bit Vista ran the vast majority of 32-bit programs out of the box at launch. I'll bet if Microsoft had done the same as Apple with Windows 7 (by including a copy of Windows XP running in the background) people would have complained up a storm about how bloated Windows 7 would be.

XP: runs everything in past ~15 years, including hardware.

Vista32/64: Doesn't run everything in past 15 years. Much hardware is incompatible from as recently as 2003!

Printing on a domain network is still FUBAR and must be very carefully handheld.

UAC/locked down user accounts is somewhat welcome, but man the number of times I've seen UAC break stuff is a lot. For instance, say you start installing itunes or another software package, and UAC is enabled. you allow it to continue, and then watch as the installer continues. It's taking a while, so you walk away for 5 minutes. When you come back, the screen is empty. you think: oh, the software is installed, cool.

Nope.

While you were away, UAC brought up another prompt, and it waited, but then it timed out, causing the whole install to fail.

I've seen this firsthand, but more annoyingly, I've heard other people b**** to ME about it.

I shouldn't complain. I do like Vista now, I just get annoyed by some of its quirks and adjustments.

Let's finally bury this ugly b****.

With all the years of community help, who really needs to call Microsoft with their XP problems anyway? I'm sure many do, but time to learn how to use Google.

This will have little, if any, effect on XP's position as the OS of choice. It's currently running on approximately 65% of PCs according to ZDNet.

True, this probably will not have any effect on the vast majority of users although I think there are several other factors will probably keep pushing down the market share on Windows XP.

I think right now there a lot of people that don't have an immediate need for a new computer are just waiting to see how Windows 7 turns out. If it lives up to the hype they will skip Vista and buy a new computer with Windows 7 pre-installed. If they are disappointed with Windows 7 they will start exploring the alternatives(Mac OS, Linux, PC-BSD). If it weren't for the expectation of Windows 7 being released soon a lot of those people would have already replaced their aging computers already. Once Windows 7 is released I would expect to see the general downward trend in market share for Windows XP to accelerate.

In addition it is getting increasingly difficult to find machines with Windows XP. Most brick and mortar retailers don't have anything with XP except for a couple netbooks like the one I am using to type this comment. Most of the major companies like Dell and HP usually have a very limited selection of XP boxes which may or may not be what a particular users is looking for. Since most end users don't know how to install Windows they are eventually going to move on to another OS in the near future whether they like it or not. Once their current box dies it will likely be replaced with a new box with another OS.

Same thing with Exchange 2003...and Office 2003.

"and there could very well be a big batch of those as soon as next Tuesday"

Patch Tuesday was yesterday.

Shame to see it (probably) not get new products any more. It's pretty damn stable now, after around 9 years of development and patching :)

I doubt we will not see new products for XP... There are still many companies developing products (or at least making sure their products are compatible with) Win98 and Win2000.

Paul Skinner: Why do you think they want to kill it so badly? It works and people are satisfied with it. You can extort biennial upgrade fees from a customer who doesn't feel the need to upgrade.

@DotNet: I meant Microsoft not making products for it, really.

Ahhh, gotcha... I still don't really see that as being the case. It is almost guaranteed that MSFT will not give up backwards compatability for upcoming applications. With XP having such a huge market share, it would be disasterous for them not to include backwards compatability in their apps. Case in point, .Net 1.0 applications can (and do, much to the chagrin of some developers, lol) run on Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, etc.