"The architectural changes that improved security and resilience in Windows Vista led to" less viruses and other malware on the Windows platform.

Upgrade immediately.

Thanks.

lol

Wow, so much angst and complete emotional nonsense...

I think this is actually a rather fascinating topic.

On the one hand, one could wonder why MS cares. In other words, even if the sold a copy of Win95 for the same price as Vista, why would they lose. They receive the same compensation and we get the OS that just may compliment the hardware and or the software.

MS already has a critical problem with their marketshare. I was rather amazed when I first saw the breakdown by platform, but the fact is that MS market is fragmented in a major way. Rather than having say the vast and overwhelming majority of their customer base on the last 2 OS releases, the market is much more fragmented and distributed over the range of releases - all the way back to 3.1! (And quite frankly, that is a rather scary proposition - if only from a consumer POV!!)

MS's cash cow is not their OS - its Office. And the capabilities and market is driven by the coupling of capabilities and requirements between the OS and Office.

If older versions of Office compatible with the corresponding releases of the OS were still available (at the same or a similar price as the current version) and compatibility between versions was PLAINLY stated and delineated in an EASILY understandable manner and also communicated effectively to be user's responsibility (...yeah, I know - we're all victims...LOL!) - I really don't see this being a critical issue.

The downside is minimal. The major reason for resisting the change is generally not more than one release down, and I would guess that it is primarily hardware related. Familiarity and compatibility can also be an issue, but if the revenue for back issues was similar or the same as current version - who cares? No, the customer will not be driven to upgrade and spend the bucks on cue, but I suspect that most will not persist more than a version down - simply as the hardware requirements and their lifecycles are tending to drive the upgrades more than the perceived need.

In any event, I suspect that we are at or near the end of the inevitable march where vendors can force the upgrades. And I suspect MS is well aware of this. Monolithic OS bloat will secumb to more streamlined and tailored modular systems - both due the changing HW footprints as well as changes in the vertical markets.

But when all is said and done, I suspect that this issue is simply one of the last remnants of the old market model.

No worries mate.

www.ubuntu.com

Damn! Mass Effect just quit working!

There's nothing wrong with Vista.

Run any OS you want. Why should I, or anyone else, care? If you want to run BeOS, and can find the drivers, it's your decision.

The Vista pushers would have you believe that Steve will come to your house and throw a chair at you if you don't install Vista instantly.

"The Vista pushers would have you believe that Steve will come to your house and throw a chair at you if you don't install Vista instantly."

I think you just might have your megalomaniacs confused here...

I'm now running Vista Ultimate. It's lucky for the person hiding in my closet. I'd have had to use my Beretta on them and I haven't been locked up since 1998.

Its quite amazing the number of people saying Vista is crap without ever actually seeing it... and those that have use it run it on computers that they think have good specs but in reality its a 'its mine so it must be better' syndrome. If you're buying a low end basic system, get Vista basic, its what its there for. If you're running something decent, with 2gb or more ram, a truly good cpu, a truly good graphics card etc etc, by all means get something higher spec'd. The main thing that astounds me is the reluctance to go x64, now thats something thats far superior to XP! In fact... its far superior to x86 even running 32 bit programmes.

its just a push for the up-coming Windows-7 thats all.........

This just gives people a really good reason to pirate it now.

No it doesn't. What an idiotic statement.

Well, that and their complete lack of morals.

Were supposed to feel bad that microsoft decided to discontinue an OS and is loosing money because of that?

Your argument neither refutes the point nor makes a counter argument to the reasoning.

No, their supposed to know that taking something without the owner's permission is "wrong".

Stealing software is stupid. If you can't buy Vista then use Linux. If you can't use Linux, then buy Vista.

If you want XP, buy Vista and use your downgrade rights.

There's no excuse to steal XP.

You do realize that this article just says that instead of buying it with XP, you buy it with Vista and can install XP legit? It doesn't condone pirating it... as people who pirate it will be installing it themselves anyways, they could be doing it legitimately without any differences.

As well, the article states that MS will be providing updates for 7 years after its normal expiration period (5 years is their standard end of life, correct? http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/). That's more than double what they've agreed to provide for normally... -_-

Bottom line, you're full of it. :)

Well at least Microsoft and the customers have at least one thing in common.

What reasoning?

You shouldn't have to buy vista AND XP just to get XP and put vista in the shredder.

All my copies of XP and Vista are legit, if people want XP they should keep selling it. With most open source applications you see them supporting the legacy version long after a new release. You can get the last 3 versions of Apache, you can get MySQL v4, you can get PHP 4 and to my knowledge you can get the last 5 versions of ubuntu that are still supported. If Microsoft wants to deprecate the OS that's fine, but it doesn't mean they should yank it off the market.

XP's death sentence is also Microsoft's.

If they kill XP before Windows 7 is ready they deserve whatever results.

Windows Vista is the best version of Windows ever created. It's much more secure than Windows XP and a lot more stable. It only needs 8GB of RAM to get decent performance. Considering the dirt cheap prices on DDR2 memory there's no reason the average consumer couldn't perform this simple upgrade if they think Vista is too sluggish. I wouldn't be surprised if Mac OS X's memory and other hardware requirements are similar to Vista's by the time Windows 7 is released.

Newer operating systems are not going to run (at least not very well) on that old, obsolete AMD Athlon XP computer with 512MB of RAM. People need to get with the program.

It only needs 8GB of RAM to get decent performance.
You're kidding, don't you?
Yes, this car is the best ever made. It uses 10 gallons each mile, but it's all good. -_-;

XP's death sentence is also Microsoft's.

ROFLMAO!

You guys never quit...and please don't. Your constant predictions of the death of one of the richest companies in the world is a constant source of amusement.

Hey, don't get down on yourself though, if you keep predicting it, eventually, through time and the law of averages, you might actually be right, and ya know...there's a first time for everything!

. It only needs 8GB of RAM to get decent performance.

Oh! Another comedian!

Vista runs perfectly well on 4GB, it even runs quite respectably on 2GB with a good discrete video card.

It only needs 8GB of RAM to get decent performance.

Yeah, especially since Vista 32-bit can't even see that much RAM ;D

May I suggest a server, ala Windows 2008 x64, if you're going to have 8GB of RAM. Really, Vista 32 with 2GB of RAM @800 Mhz is plenty. Anyway, yes, the jist is as hardware advances so does an OS that uses components more efficiently.

I dunno....Micorosft survived Windows 98 and ME. I think they can take the blow that Vista has dealt them. Microsoft isn't going anywhere soon (regrettably).

This is why 64-bit Vista is required for the best performance. Besides, most people that use Vista are already using 64-bit Vista anyways. If a computer can't run 64-bit Vista it belongs in the trash.

Before the Telsa Roadster electric car was put into limited production, the Bugatti Veyron car was the best performing car available.

convincing the average end-user that vista is better than xp is difficult, because theres really nothing it does that XP cant already do. so all they see is that they need to shell out $$ for vista AND a faster computer.

convincing the corporate world to switch to vista is even more difficult, because almost every company either just switched to xp or is still using 2000.

anyone who can really provide a tangible argument as to which version of windows is "better" couldnt make it relate it to any major demographic. so what we're left with is a story on how microsoft had to cease production on xp in order to get people to stop opting for it.

Sounds like the same kind of post that was around when XP came out (nothing that XP can do that 2000 can't, blah blah blah).

The average end-user does not go and buy operating systems. They go and buy a readily configured box...

XP does nothing new that 98, 95 or 3.1 can't. Dude wake up. Even the faster computer 5 years old is slow today. Don't expect your 3 years old Celeron with bara minimum configuration to run the latest and the greatest. It just won't happen. Now the slowest new computer I see for sales is on Dual core 1.8 with 1 gigs raw, this will run Vista fine. The average computer sell equipment with much faster CPU, and most of them with 2gb ram standard.

If you think it is too much to spend $300 to $500 for this system. Feel free to buy a mac, it only cost you like 3 times as much.

because theres really nothing it does that XP cant already do.

There's actually plenty of things Vista can do that XP can't...the problem is that up until now nobody's really focusing on Vista-specific features in their programs. Why? Backwards compatibility.

Interesting headline. The death sentence won't be commuted...it will go from June 2008 to February 2009?

And, of course, those small laptops which will continue to have XP for some time to come.

Makes me also wonder about those $5 limited XP's sold to some foreign countries...will they move to $5 Vista's, or will XP still be available to them?

'Foreign' to what? 'Them' as in who?

It's time to stop whining and crying about an ancient OS that is approaching 7 years old!!! Let that old decrepit OS die already. After all with Vista the "WOW" starts now. LOL.

*laughs*

Ah, the trolls are playing again. How cute.

/sarcasm

The fewer people hang on to XP the better. Get the majority of consumers on some decent hardware *now* and by the time win7 rolls around we won't have this "Vista runs like crap on my XP box" troll-fest.

Yes, MSFT screwed up. Of course, you folks would love to blame it on Vista and call it a crap OS. of course, you'd be wrong as well, but that's never stopped ya.

MSFT screwed up by setting up an "Upgrade" SKU and by low-balling the requirements. Had they pulled the upgrade SKU and used decent requirements (2GB, dual-core, 256MB DDR2 Video), most of the "performance" complaints would never have seen the light of day.

*laughs*

Ah, the BIGGEST troll at BetaNews is playing again. How cute.

/NOT sarcasm

Just can't stop policing BetaNews can you PC_Troll?

I'm onboard, I installed Vista in a VM today to replace XP.

Funny.

*My* comment contained relevant, arguable, and useful information (the only person doing so in this entire topic so far, apparently).

Your response? Insults.

...and he still thinks *I* am the troll.

Go away, Jr., and let the grown-ups talk.

Quote from: internetworld7
Last I checked, Apple was #1 in every market they compete in.

*laughing*

Man, every time I think of that I smile. You've truly made my week, man.

Try this for a REAL laugh:

http://www.bbspot.com/Ne...nternet-explorer-8.html

"*laughs*

Ah, the trolls are playing again. How cute.

/sarcasm"

If you stopped making posts that start off like that you might look a lot less like a troll yourself. Wouldn't stop the trolls from calling you one but at least you could look like like you were trying to make a reasoned post. Trolls are best dealt with from a higher moral ground. They aren't used to reason and go hide back to hiding under bridges.

Sometimes.

"MSFT screwed up by setting up an "Upgrade" SKU and by low-balling the requirements. "

Half right. Plenty of people have XP running on machines that are fully capable of running Vista. Why should they pay full retail price when MS has ALWAYS had an upgrade path? That is why MS has and should have an upgrade SKU.

As for low-balling the requirements, MS seems to have a Peter Pan belief about their OS's. They will work on old systems (like mine) if you believe in fairies. Technically my machine will work with Vista. I am not so stupid as to try without at least two upgrades and that would be a waste of money.

I remember just how much better Windows 95 ran after I went from 8 to 16 megabytes. Always have at least twice the memory MS recommends.

"by the time win7 rolls around we won't have this "Vista runs like crap on my XP box" troll-fest."

Indeed, because we'll have the W7 runs like crap on my Vista box! :)

If you stopped making posts that start off like that you might look a lot less like a troll yourself. Wouldn't stop the trolls from calling you one but at least you could look like like you were trying to make a reasoned post. Trolls are best dealt with from a higher moral ground. They aren't used to reason and go hide back to hiding under bridges.

But where would be the fun in that? They will call me a troll? Heh... That's nothing. They have called me worse, and I am sure they will continue to do so as long as continue to ridicule their wet-brained posts.\

Plenty of people have XP running on machines that are fully capable of running Vista. Why should they pay full retail price when MS has ALWAYS had an upgrade path? That is why MS has and should have an upgrade SKU

OEM. :) Price of an upgrade for a clean install. MSFT should dropp the upgrade SKU entirely. It's never been good to them. Ever.

I remember just how much better Windows 95 ran after I went from 8 to 16 megabytes. Always have at least twice the memory MS recommends.

Ding! I'm all out of cookies right now, but I am sure someone can link you up with something good. :))

Actually, from what I've read, Vista will have very near the same reqs of Vista.

Anyone running Vista decently should be able to run Win7. Of course, it's still in development, so ... grain of salt.

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 25, 2008 - 9:14 AM

Actually, from what I've read, Vista will have very near the same reqs of Vista.

Anyone running Vista decently should be able to run Win7. Of course, it's still in development, so ... grain of salt.

Heh...

You bet.

Win7, as well.

I moved to the Ubuntu distribution of Linux about 6 months ago and will never look back...

...

Well, there is an up side...

It makes all of those extra XP licenses that much more valuable on EBay...

;-)

And all of the downgrade sales will technically be counted as Vista sales! PR wins again, further reinforcing the position of "Why should we offer XP when no one wants it as evidenced by our sales figures for Vista"! LOL!

Shame really. Especially considering the fact that XP is WAY better than Vista...

Windows ME is better than Vista.....

Yeah, Windows ME is great. It's less stable than Windows 95 Gold was. You get to spend most of your time looking at BSOD's instead of getting anything done. Only a moron would think that Windows ME is better than Vista.

"Only a moron would think that Windows ME is better than Vista."

You said it. Agreed.

Hopefully Microsoft can come up with a good OS by 2014. Vista (an updated version of ME), hasn't given people any increase of faith in Microsoft. On top of hardware issues, Vista made what was easy on XP, hard or impossible. If Microsoft can't get there ducks together perhaps 2014 will be the year of Linux.

"(an updated version of ME)"

Bang goes any credibility you had there.

*rolls eyes*

Its as appealing as ME was and its not much.

At least he had some to begin with. Unlike you.

"If Microsoft can't get there ducks together perhaps 2014 will be the year of Linux. "

You heard it here first folks!! 2014 will be the year of Linux! MS death sentence has been officially announced, by...rebradley?? That's right! Mark it on your calendars!!

Oi, now the Windows trolls are here.

Hi Niro.

Enough with "year of Linux" already, it's been the year of Linux for 10 years. It's not everyone's year and it never will be.

Geez, can't you see you just posted a "CALLING ALL TROLLS! CALLING ALL TROLLS!" alert?

heh

Oi, now the hypocrites that think everybody else is a troll are here...

Hi fewt.

I'd say well played, but it wasn't.

Troll on dude, troll on.

Nope, he didn't have any. And nor do you clearly. Troll.

Like you, yeah? Troll on dude, troll on.

Looser

Hi again Niro.

Wow Niro, you sure have a lot of accounts.

Boy you sure are quick to use that word, too bad you can't seem to say anything of value.