backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 185 comment(s) - last by rupaniii.. on May 25 at 9:41 AM

One writer/analyst is speaking out blasting XP "holdouts" and lauding Windows Vista while comparing XP to a crummy airport terminal

Don't like Windows Vista?  Love Windows XP?  Well columnist/pundit Rob Pegoraro with Fast Forward, carried by The Washington Post, doesn't like your attitude.  Having heard a wealth of criticism for Vista and praise for XP, Pegoraro said enough is enough in an impassioned article detailing his stances on the XP vs. Vista debate.

There have been many recent reports of both consumers and particularly businesses rejecting Vista and waiting for Windows 7 to upgrade.  Despite Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates bragging of "strong sales" in the consumer sector, OEMs are pushing hard for Microsoft to extend Windows XP's life.  If they can't convince Microsoft, they're going to offer it anyway, even if not officially sold by Microsoft anymore, via certain loopholes such as downgrade privileges.

Downgrades?  Rubbish, says Pegoraro.  Pegoraro, a strong Vista supporter, states, "By the strictest definition, Windows XP has been dead since January 30, 2007 -- the day its replacement, Windows Vista, arrived in stores and XP promptly vanished from most new computers."

Pegoraro doesn't think that Vista is a bad product.  He points out that Vista does have its issues, "steep hardware requirements, its strict anti-piracy measures, its sometimes-intrusive security measures, its incompatibility with some older products", and acknowledges that these factors have driven strong XP sales.  He mentions that in Q1 2008, XP sold 87 million copies worldwide, according to IDC analyst Al Gillen, while Vista sold 132 million copies worldwide.

Pegoraro also pointed to the slipping of the Microsoft end-of-life deadline for XP from January to June, under manufacturer pressure.  And Pegoraro brings up the wealth of online "Save Windows XP" petitions, lead by a massive one hosted by the tech magazine InfoWorld

He points out that XP was not exactly beloved by all when it was Microsoft's flagship product, and he accuses the public of changing its tune when presented with Vista.  While running XP on existing systems is logical, he argues that on new home computers it is ridiculous not to run Windows Vista.  He states, "It's another thing to say that on a new home computer, Vista is so unacceptable for mainstream use that you'd be better off with its predecessor."

Security is one major flaw in Windows XP, which is blasted by Pegoraro.  He points out that even with three service packs and other smaller updates regularly released, Windows XP still needs to multiple security programs to safely connect to the internet.

With a bit of sarcasm, Pegoraro comments, "XP is not something that needs to be "saved," as if it were some architectural triumph in need of historic preservation. It's not an Old Post Office or a Union Station; it's more like that crummy midfield terminal at Dulles International Airport, a once-serviceable structure that outlived its utility years ago."

Most things that are wrong with Vista are also wrong with XP, he argues.  Again, not shying away from controversy he comments, "And that, in turn, helps explain why Apple is selling so many Macs."

Vista is easier to use without configuration he argues, which in the end is another mark in its favor.  He argues that most problems with Vista were fixed with its first service pack and third parties are jumping on board.  As an aside he blasts those third-parties that haven't jumped aboard saying, "If they haven't, they probably never will. Presumably, those dead-enders are uninterested in any new sales to the customers they've ditched in this way."

Is Pegoraro a fan of XP on small computers like the ASUS Eee PC?  Not so; while he says he can see the appeal, he argues Linux or other operating systems are much better for the purpose.  He states, "But the builders of these little laptops don't have to choose between obsolete or sluggish Microsoft software. Faced with those unappealing options, many of them are instead loading the more efficient, free and open-source Linux operating system, which happens to perform many everyday tasks just as well as Windows does."

Finishing on a controversial note, Pegoraro adds, "If you're unhappy about Vista, don't get sucked in by the misguided nostalgia for XP. Root for the success of non-Windows computers. Or buy one yourself. Nothing attracts a company's attention like taking your business elsewhere."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The man is right
By 306maxi on 5/19/2008 4:49:14 PM , Rating: 4
If you don't like it then don't use it. There are millions of people like myself out there who are all too happy to use Vista. Me personally? I think Vista sucks so I'm waiting for Windows 7 which will probably suck and be bloated so I'll wait for Windows 8 but I hear that's got lots of DRM so I'll wait for Windows 9 but that has got a fancy interface so I won't go for that either. Windows 3.1 for me it is then!




RE: The man is right
By Cherish on 5/19/2008 4:56:10 PM , Rating: 5
LOL! :-D
Indeed, it's pretty funny to read people who are waiting for Windows 7. I bet they hope it will be Windows XP in disguise.
I honestly doubt it would be any lighter. Who's gonna need it in an age of octacores and 8 GB of RAM on a basic PC?


RE: The man is right
By PontifexMaximus on 5/19/2008 5:23:48 PM , Rating: 4
While I agree with you based on past experiences with Microsoft products, Bill Gates is actually touting Windows 7 actually will use lower power, take less memory, and be more efficient than Windows Vista.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/billg/spee...

Condensed analysis here:
http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archi...

Of course, Bill always has the knack for making these vague, empty promises that never quite materialize.


RE: The man is right
By BladeVenom on 5/19/2008 5:37:24 PM , Rating: 3
You mean like in 2004 when Bill Gates said the spam problem would be solved in two years.


RE: The man is right
By Ringold on 5/19/2008 8:25:27 PM , Rating: 4
Bill Gates was close; 2004 + 2 = 2006, but gmail didn't go completely public, according to wikipedia, until 2007, but I got an invite fairly early.

Spam problem? Solved!


RE: The man is right
By Gholam on 5/20/2008 4:38:34 AM , Rating: 4
You mean the same gmail that's functioning as an open relay for anyone with half a clue?


RE: The man is right
By othercents on 5/20/2008 5:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, gmail has made it easy. We just block anyone with a gmail account and our spam problem has gone away.

Other


RE: The man is right
By Strunf on 5/20/2008 6:22:55 PM , Rating: 1
Your spam and all your contacts that use gmail...


RE: The man is right
By Samus on 5/21/2008 2:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
anyone using gmail for business is a lost cause. grow up and get a real mail service.


RE: The man is right
By Elementalism on 5/20/2008 8:22:24 AM , Rating: 1
The only thing Google did was filter your spam mail into a box. Something that could be accomplished years earlier with othe products. They clearly havent figured out the spam issue though. Becuase 99.9% of the stuff in my gmail's spam folder shouldnt have even arrived to my mailbox. Of all the email's I have had over the years. My gmail is the most spam ridden of them all.


RE: The man is right
By Integral9 on 5/20/2008 9:52:10 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe that's a sign you should stop subscribing to all those get rich quick and male enhancement catalogs... I know they are tempting but they never work and shrink your balls...


RE: The man is right
By plinkplonk on 5/20/2008 12:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
no it's a sign that websites he/she has signed up for intentionally, maybe even this one, have been selling his information...not that he/she wants to get rich quick


RE: The man is right
By mondo1234 on 5/20/2008 3:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't Bill G. imply that the solution to spam was to charge 1 cent for email so it would be cost prohibitive to send spam?
I am sure none of that money would find its way to his pocket.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.c...


RE: The man is right
By javiergf on 5/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: The man is right
By Oregonian2 on 5/19/2008 7:59:21 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think he said 640K would be enough, I think he said that 640K is enough. Which at the time it was. At the time it was more than enough. Like saying now saying "3GB is enough" in terms of memory on a 32-bit processor. It is.

Processors then had a 1-MB (20 bit) address space accessible in 64Kbyte chunks. The 8086/8 model.

It also didn't take a megabyte program and gigabyte OS to say "hello world" on the screen.


RE: The man is right
By xsilver on 5/19/2008 10:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
With 4gb of ram and a dual core proc I can only get "hello wo" on the screen!

Im missing out!
Time to upgrade to 8gb and quad core

/end joke

ps. who's to say that 640k isnt enough if you decide to do word processing in DOS?


RE: The man is right
By goku on 5/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: The man is right
By PrinceGaz on 5/20/2008 12:43:21 AM , Rating: 3
640K was more than enough to run DOS WordPerfect 5.1, which was a very capable word-processor package used and liked by many people.

In its day, DOS WordPerfect was pretty much the industry standard, but WordPerfect for Windows was a bug-ridden mess which led to its demise and Word becoming dominant. There are rumours about why WordPerfect for Windows was so bad, most of which involve Microsoft and their using non-public Windows calls with Word for Windows not available to WordPerfect.

Bill Gates never actually said anything about 640K being enough for anybody, only that it was enough for now and in the near future (which it was).