backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 246 comment(s) - last by kondor999.. on May 6 at 11:06 AM


Steve Ballmer doesn't think customers are exactly screaming to keep Windows XP.
The final days for Microsoft XP are fast approaching, according to Microsoft

A hot debate is raging over what Microsoft should do with Windows XP.  Windows Vista is simply not viable for low-end PCs that are a mainstay of the consumer home computing market.  Windows XP was originally scheduled to be discontinued in January 2008.  In preparation for this phase out, most retail computers were to be loaded with Vista. 

However, the lawsuits and negative feedback that ensued from underperforming computers struggling with Vista, led Microsoft to reconsider and offer XP "downgrades".  It also gave XP a stay of execution until June 2008, sixth months after the planned date.

June 2008 is fast approaching and now Microsoft is faced with the dilemma of whether to officially retire the OS or further extend its career.  In Belgium on Thursday, Steve Ballmer spoke to reporters about the OS's fate.  He indicated that while customer demand could extend the life of the OS, currently he did not see customers demanding it, and he felt that unless something changes, XP would be headed the way of the dinosaur.

He stated, "XP will hit an end-of-life. We have announced one. If customer feedback varies we can always wake up smarter but right now we have a plan for end-of-life for new XP shipments."

All retail sales and licensing, under the current plan, will end June 30.  Ballmer said that despite difficulties, most retail computers today are being sold with Vista, and most customers prefer Vista.

However, some customers portray a different story.  They say that they were unable to buy XP in stores.  Further, they say that in order to get XP they had to buy their computers as small businesses.  It is indeed true that XP is virtually nonexistent at large retailers such as Best Buy and Circuit City.

Ballmer acknowledged there was business sector demand for XP still.  He says this is driven by the fact that the IT industry frequent heavily employs older or outdated hardware.  He states, "In the business environment, we still have customers who are buying PCs with XP."

Ballmer was also questioned by reporters about if Microsoft would appeal the landmark $1.4B USD fine from the EU.  Ballmer simply remained mum, stating, "I really have nothing to say about that today, sorry."

Microsoft would have to appeal the ruling to the European Court of First Instance by early May at the latest.  The European Commission imposed the fine due to the fact that it found that Microsoft was using pricing anti-competitively to drive rivals out of the market.

Steve Ballmer was in Belgium for the opening of a new "innovation center" in the city of Mons.  Google has a data center in the same city, but Ballmer says that is not why it was selected.

Ballmer also reaffirmed that if Yahoo would not accept its buyout offer, Microsoft would seek to oust the company's board of directors.  He stated, "We've sent them a letter that says, 'it's a good price, please let us know. If you don't let us know, maybe your shareholders will think it's a good price."

By far the most interesting insight he provided though was his outlook on XP.  Microsoft already caved in to extend the life of Windows XP Home only for ultra-low-cost PCs (ULPCs) until June 30, 2010. Whether Microsoft will have a change of heart for the remaining versions of XP remains to be seen.

And the sooner Microsoft retires XP, the sooner it can fully focus on releasing Windows 7.  The new OS, which is scheduled tentatively for 2010, promises slimmer builds, which may help relieve Microsoft's hardware woes.  Still, two years is a long time to wait in the consumer market.



Comments     Threshold


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

uh....
By retrospooty on 4/25/2008 8:33:38 AM , Rating: 5
Not to get into an XP vs Vista debate (which I am sure will happen anyways) but Ballmer is not exactly a realistic person. Possibly worse than Jobs with the reality distortion field. Lots of people and companies want XP extended, for example MS already extended it once.




RE: uh....
By Gul Westfale on 4/25/2008 8:40:14 AM , Rating: 4
and here is the obligatory "let's get this out of the way first" post:

- vista sucks
- no XP sucks
- yes but vista sucks harder
- if both suck then use OSX
- apple is t3h uberghey
- linux FTW!!!!!

and on that note:
http://gulwestfale.net/operatingsystems.htm
take a look at reactos, an OS that aims to be completely compatible with XP and all its apps and drivers, that could become a real alternative.


RE: uh....
By darklight0tr on 4/25/2008 9:11:25 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, except ReactOS development is so slow that it is barely off the ground. At this rate I don't think it will ever be completed.


RE: uh....
By mondo1234 on 4/25/2008 3:00:32 PM , Rating: 1
Friends dont let friends use Vista


RE: uh....
By TomCorelis (blog) on 4/25/2008 3:24:11 PM , Rating: 1
Feed it enough RAM, and Vista's pretty sweet. I don't understand all these whiners... they threw the same fuss when XP came out. And when Windows 7 hits, they'll likely abhor that too.


RE: uh....
By jlips6 on 4/25/2008 8:37:35 PM , Rating: 4
I love vista. All the problems people have I have never experienced. I have gotten a lot out of this operating system, and it's quite maneuverable. But discontinuing XP still doesn't make any sense, even if you like vista.

Forgive me if I don't think that Ballmer is actually on the ball. http://youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE


RE: uh....
By audiomaniaca on 4/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: uh....
By maverick85wd on 4/25/2008 9:27:17 AM , Rating: 4
Reactos looks pretty interesting, once they move to a beta release I will try it out.


RE: uh....
By mondo1234 on 4/25/2008 2:55:19 PM , Rating: 3
I'll try reactos, it looks interesting. Will Open Office run on it?


RE: uh....
By pattycake0147 on 4/25/2008 3:28:17 PM , Rating: 4
They've got some screenshots of OpenOffice on it, so I'd say that it will run OpenOffice. http://www.reactos.org/en/screenshots.html

The next build 0.3.5 is going to be marked beta, and it's due out anytime now.


RE: uh....
By Performance Fanboi on 4/25/2008 5:49:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The next build 0.3.5 is going to be marked beta, and it's due out anytime now.

Actually that release will still be an alpha:

A short sum-up of the ReactOS roadmap, for more information visit our ReactOS roadmap page.

Short-term plan
The next release will be 0.3.5, with an earliest projected release date being April, 2008.

Medium-term plan
The coming 0.4 release series will still stay in alpha stage, and 0.5 release series will be marked as beta , meaning a system which is suitable for every day use.


First beta will be 0.5 and is projected for this year. I will be looking forward to it.
http://www.reactos.org/en/about_roadmap.html


RE: uh....
By bdewong on 4/25/2008 3:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
Judging by the screen shots on the site, I'd say yes.


RE: uh....
By smitty3268 on 4/25/2008 4:17:06 PM , Rating: 3
ReactOS uses the WINE project for the Win32 API, so it will run the same Windows apps that Linux/OSX are already able to run (through CodeWeavers/TransGaming/plain WINE).

The interesting difference here is that the kernel API is also implemented, so that device drivers can work.


RE: uh....
By thartist on 4/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: uh....
By Gul Westfale on 4/26/2008 8:04:58 PM , Rating: 1
me too, that's why i said "obligatory": because it is not obligatory and it gets on my nerves... like the OMG SENSATIONALISM phase we had about two weeks ago.


RE: uh....
By 306maxi on 4/25/2008 8:53:05 AM , Rating: 3
People might be screaming to keep XP but I think it's a totally different story as to whether they actually need XP on a new PC. Most people will be just fine with Vista and most businesses will have volume licences for XP so they can continue to install XP on new PC's if they so wish.

I think this is the kick up the butt that Vista needs to gain widespread adoption which can only be a good thing. The more Vista is adopted by retail users the easier it will be for companies when they move over to Vista in regards to training and the amount of work people will get done.


RE: uh....
By Gul Westfale on 4/25/2008 8:58:58 AM , Rating: 4
i think the problem with vista is quite simply that microsoft promised that it would be "The Best Operating System in the Universe" but when it was finally released it turned out to be not much more than XP with a shiny coat of paint... kinda like the dreaded windows ME was just W98 with extra lipstick. add the higher memory requirements and you can see why people are disappointed.

what they need are killer apps, like a GTA4 that only runs on DX10, or maybe a free version of office for vista customers. the other option is to simply stop making XP.


RE: uh....
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/25/2008 9:13:44 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
but when it was finally released it turned out to be not much more than XP with a shiny coat of paint... kinda like the dreaded windows ME was just W98 with extra lipstick.


And wasn't XP more like 2000 with a shiny coat of paint or "extra lipstick"?

That being said, I'm happily content with XP. And since I game on my Wii and PS3, DX10 is of no use to me.


RE: uh....
By Relion on 4/25/2008 10:13:58 AM , Rating: 1
No, XP usability was a lot superior since launch. Also compatibility...and "normal" user adoption...the list goes on for XP...


RE: uh....
By 306maxi on 4/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: uh....
By HighWing on 4/25/2008 11:20:51 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not sure what world you live in, but I seem to remember XP facing similar problems with adoption. So much so, that there are still businesses that use Windows 2000 to this day.

And maybe you've forgotten about this, but even back then people made a big stink about how XP came in two different versions, Home and Professional.


RE: uh....
By murphyslabrat on 4/25/2008 12:43:25 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
there are still businesses that use Windows 2000 to this day.

I use 2000 still, as you don't have to worry about circumventing any piracy protection!


RE: uh....
By Fanon on 4/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: uh....
By Durrr on 4/25/2008 3:00:23 PM , Rating: 5
*BZZT*

Guess you missed the article about MSN stopping all its licensing for music on June 30. SO, If you bought music from there, and lose the license due to re-format or what have you, your music files are now USELESS that you paid for.


RE: uh....
By Noliving on 4/25/2008 11:34:07 AM , Rating: 2
Thats not true at all, 2000 had better stability, more compatability and adoption then xp did.


RE: uh....
By ImSpartacus on 4/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: uh....
By just4U on 4/25/2008 3:17:11 PM , Rating: 3
Overall Vista/Xp Scenario is different. Mainly because XP has had time to grow extremely mature. That's not happened before with Windows which usually see's a new release every 3 years or so.


RE: uh....
By Mr Perfect on 4/25/2008 3:21:16 PM , Rating: 2
Because ME was devil spawn?

BTW, when he says Windows 2000, he doesn't mean Windows ME. They're two different OSes. But you probably knew that.


RE: uh....
By sprockkets on 4/25/2008 1:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
compared to winme, NO.

But after SP2, the extra features and security advancements made it worth it for sure.

Just as now Vista, after a few tweaks, is finally showing some justification for changing.


RE: uh....
By just4U on 4/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: uh....
By smitty3268 on 4/25/2008 4:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
I agree - the difference is that XP was something everyone was using, and Vista was hyped as a major upgrade to it. While 2000 was something that only computer professionals used, and was marketed to companies. In fact, users of 2000 weren't supposed to upgrade to XP.

It's the difference between complaining that Vista is a small update to XP and that Vista is a small update to Win2003.


RE: uh....
By Chimpie on 4/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: uh....
By Golgatha on 4/25/2008 9:33:25 AM , Rating: 5
and the DOJ would shut down that monopolistic behavior faster than you can say "bundled software".


RE: uh....
By 306maxi on 4/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: uh....
By RogueLegend on 4/25/2008 11:14:04 AM , Rating: 5
You start to really see the differences with XP and Vista when you start burdening it with content.

I have a homebrew PVR- it records and plays back HD content, and it does all that on a low wattage Athlon X2 and 1 GB of ram and a couple of SATA 300 drives. I can multitask content conversion and playback while simultaneously streaming media to the network. It's running XP.

With Vista on the same config, I can only perform one task at a time, there's tons of latency between when I tell it to play something and it actually plays, and it's not exactly stutter free.

I have also (personally) administered and deployed over 250 installs of Vista on varying server hardware configurations to perform QA on our clustered storage solution at my company- and even with all the eye candy turned off, it can at certain points with our testing software tend to choke up a server with 4 GB of RAM and two Dual Core Xeons. XP doesn't have the same issues.

I could only get Vista running in a VM on older P3 server systems; it will crash during the install anytime I attempt to put it on the bare metal (seems to dislike the older implementations of ACPI).


RE: uh....
By The Irish Patient on 4/25/2008 11:24:31 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Vista will run OK and is pretty happy on 2 gigs.


I think this gets at why most commentators aren't all that thrilled with Vista. Why sell a new 32 bit operating system to consumers where the minimum memory requirement is pretty much the same as the 32 bit maximum?

I wouldn't hesitate to buy an OEM copy of Vista 64 bit if I was ready to build a new computer. But I'll pass on Vista 32 bit, which is what 95% of consumers are getting on their new computers.

A poster in an earlier thread had it right. No one would have anything bad to say about Vista if it had been released as 64 bit only, with WinXP kept on as the 32 bit OS.


RE: uh....
By TomZ on 4/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: uh....
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/25/2008 12:47:57 PM , Rating: 2
TomZ, you play Half-Life 2 or any Source game? That comes in 64-bit.


RE: uh....
By omnicronx on 4/25/2008 12:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2. Lack of any real benefit for majority of users
I think this has more to do with it. Although 64 bit can have many advantages in a server environment, it will make little to no difference for the average user, and actually requires more ram. I recommend 4G for anyone who is serious about using it. Its actually slower on my 2g machine then 32bit in many situations, and it plain can not run smoothly on less than 2gigs.


RE: uh....
By silver on 4/27/2008 9:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
Right on the money! I installed Vista Ultimate (32bit)on my system which has an AMD 4600+ x2, a ATI Radeon 3870, 4GB DDR-II and it uses over 800MB of RAM just to boot up. Open Adobe CS3 or any other memory intensive apps and your right up the 2GB 32bit memory limit. I tried 64bit and had problems with drivers even though my system is actually pretty much mainstream.

The biggest challenge I've seen with it is extremely high CPU usage when playing audio from either MP3 or FLAC files. Didn't try WMP's as I don't use that format at all, but I did try 3 different sound cards including an ADI 1888, a PCI-E X-Fi Extreme Music and a RealTek 888.

Speaking of overhead, I was quite surprised to see how much hard drive space the Volume Shadow Copy and other services are allocated. Found this out when I remove all directories and files from an internal hard drive but when I looked at the drive properties it still showed there were 12GB of data on the disk. Yeah, taking up 12GB on my 160GB drive is a feature !


RE: uh....
By Gholam on 4/30/2008 10:42:37 AM , Rating: 2
Having instant access to previous versions of your files and folders is a feature, taking up 12GB is what it costs. If you look at the competition, you have to buy an entire separate hard drive and dedicate it to that task to have similar functionality.


RE: uh....
By Sulphademus on 4/25/2008 12:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
Vista has many fundamental improvements from the ground, kernel, up. Some very badly needed ones. Change isnt easy but I have seen very few problems with Vista.

The issues I have seen with Vista are not Vista's fault at all. Poor/slow driver support from some companies, applications that think they need to run in administrator mode, and PC manufacturers who are selling Vista boxes with 512MB ram.
1) Vista RC1 was out in the middle of 06. Did programmers just sit on their asses until March 07? Seems like it. 2) The vast majority of programs dont need this and nearly all who were shouldnt have ever been programmed like this in the first place. 3) They should know better, they do know better, and theyre taking advantage of John "I only want to check email" Doe.


RE: uh....
By Fallen Kell on 4/25/2008 1:03:55 PM , Rating: 4
I personally have run into a few fundamental problems with Vista and how it's kernel operates. The first and biggest is how it prioritizes network stack and audio calls. Anyone who is running a game server or multimedia server on Vista will have run into this. If any audio is running, your network performance drops to a complete crawl. Due to the new audio implementation, Microsoft had to increase the priority for audio relates system calls pretty much to realtime priority. Your every day user would notice that their audio was choppy and dropping in and out, but they might not notice that their network performance suddenly dropped to 100kbps... However those of us who are using multiple computers at home on their own network, with disk sharing, immediately notice that the read/write speed just dropped to next to nothing. What good is having a data server/game system with shared RAID array when I can't play a game and record a video on my DVR box (using the 2TB array on my server)?

The other big issue that I have with Vista is its horrible file copy/move performance. It is at least 20-30% slower than under XP. I have no idea why that is the case, but it certainly is.


RE: uh....
By Sulphademus on 4/25/2008 1:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
I havent noticed the sound issue but I did notice the file copy. It is alot better with SP1.


RE: uh....
By omnicronx on 4/25/2008 2:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your every day user would notice that their audio was choppy and dropping in and out, but they might not notice that their network performance suddenly dropped to 100kbps...
First off, your estimate of 100kpbs is far off, and second I am going to guess you have a 1Gbps NIC, as this problem does not exist with 100Mbps NICS like it does with 1Gbps NICS. Third.. download Vista SP1 and turn off MMCSS (Multimedia Class Scheduler Service) throttling.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/948066

quote:
Windows throttling mechanism

Because multimedia programs require more resources, the Windows networking stack implements a throttling mechanism to restrict the processing of non-multimedia network traffic to 10 packets per millisecond.

The throttling will come into effect only when you are running multimedia programs that are time sensitive. However, this throttling mechanism can potentially cause a decrease in network performance during the active multimedia playback period. This decrease in performance is likely to occur only on high speed networks that are saturated to maximum capacity.
I agree this is a problem with Vista, but many people forget how intensive processing network packets really is. When using a Gigabit card in order to maintain smooth playback at all times, throttling is needed. I would be much more pissed if my dvd's kept freezing or the audio kept going out of sync while watching movies, something that happened to me all the time while using XP.

As for performance 20-30%? Who are you kidding? Vista needs RAM, and when you have it, it runs smoothly and within 2-3% performance of XP in most situations. You also fail to notice that vista is faster when using programs that you use on a regular basis because of the better optimized super fetch. Firefox, IE and foobar all open faster for me on Vista than on XP.

The throttling issue was a major oversight by MS, but most people are not effected by it, and it can be disabled. Still, it is very disapointing, I had no issues with Vista until I noticed the same thing you described while playing audio/video, and some even say it happens when you see the preview icons of media files as MMCSS kicks in when that happens. MS basically hardcoded these settings for machines with only one core, on a 100Mbps network, very stupid in my mind. They might aswell disable the feature and let those that know what they are doing activate it as needed..


RE: uh....
By Pirks on 4/25/2008 8:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would be much more pissed if my dvd's kept freezing or the audio kept going out of sync while watching movies, something that happened to me all the time while using XP
How come you can watch video on Linux or Mac OS X without any problems or stutters while having gigabit network transfers in background at full speed? Why you can't do the same stuff on Windows ON THE SAME HARDWARE?

Do you think Macs have some magical Steve Jobs blessed gigabit NICs or what? :)))


RE: uh....
By Gholam on 4/30/2008 10:43:56 AM , Rating: 2
Actually OS X has been having problems with audio for its entire life, and don't even get me started on linux...


RE: uh....
By silver on 4/27/2008 9:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Microsoft virtually forced programmers to "ust sit on their asses" as they kept making major changes to the OS that effected their drivers and applications. In fact they're still doing it and Microsoft has even had problem with their own applications (MS Office 2007) causing problems with Vista. Another example would be Roxio who worked directly with Microsoft to make sure that their v.9.0 was Vista compatible only to have Microsoft release an update in January that broke their software.

And what in the workd were they thinking when they ripped out DirectSound without a suitable replacement ? Creative is the only company to come up with a workaround so far and their being completely trashed for taking so long to do so. Yeah, it's their fault that Microsoft completely changed the architecture in their subsystems. Not !


RE: uh....
By lwatcdr on 4/25/2008 9:45:42 AM , Rating: 2
I work for a software company with about 20,000 customers.
I have yet to here any Vista users say they like it. Sorry but even now a large number of them are thinking of "downgrading" to XP. We also sell notebooks with both XP and Vista. XP out sells Vista 3 to 1.
Vista is a lot of pain and no gain as far as I can see.


RE: uh....
By Chimpie on 4/25/2008 9:49:17 AM , Rating: 4
And what do your customers say is the reason for choosing XP over Vista?


RE: uh....
By mattclary on 4/25/2008 9:50:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People might be screaming to keep Win 98 but I think it's a totally different story as to whether they actually need Win 98 on a new PC. Most people will be just fine with Win ME and most businesses will have volume licences for Win ME so they can continue to install Win 98 on new PC's if they so wish.


Fixed that for you. It's all about perspective.


RE: uh....
By 306maxi on 4/25/2008 9:57:36 AM , Rating: 4
I'm sorry but ME is an unadulterated piece of ****. I've yet to meet one person who liked ME. The difference is a lot of people actually like Vista and Vista works well for a lot of people. Proof of this is that a lot of people are more than happy to come on here and say that they use Vista and that it works well for them.


RE: uh....
By mattclary on 4/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: uh....
By 306maxi on 4/25/2008 10:44:06 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps. But the thing is 98se wasn't all that great. It was still quite unstable. The problem Vista has is that XP is pretty good and has been developed over such a long time that a good deal of the bugs have been ironed out. Vista still beats XP hand over fist in security though. What's the bloating BS about? People can get 4gb of RAM for £20 these days and a 3ghz dual core for about £100 as well as a decent graphics card for not much, then there is hard drive space which is dead cheap. No one expects a new OS to have less features than their old one.


RE: uh....
By Arctucas on 4/25/2008 1:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
'Hand over fist', you mean the UAC "FEATURE"?

How many people actually use that, and how many find it so intensely annoying that they simply turn it off?


RE: uh....
By BMFPitt on 4/25/2008 2:37:12 PM , Rating: 3
UAC is an AWESOME feature!

Not for me to run on my own PC, but now every time I go home to see my parents, I don't spend 2 hours cleaning up their PC. That cleanup time has been reduced to zero.


RE: uh....
By Arctucas on 4/25/2008 2:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
I never said UAC didn't work, it's just so damn annoying!


RE: uh....
By catalysts17az on 4/25/2008 10:23:33 AM , Rating: 1
so lets count the all the positive VISTA post here on the DT. um i see one, you......LOL

i just had to, sorry........


RE: uh....
By 306maxi on 4/25/2008 10:38:27 AM , Rating: 1
So lets count all the uneducated Vista hating morons who post here on DT. Just you! LOL

I wish it were just you.....


RE: uh....
By cochy on 4/25/2008 10:45:39 AM , Rating: 3
I use Vista at home and office and I'm quite happy. Both systems have 4GB RAM, one is a 3.0Ghz Core 2 duo the other Q6600.

One big problem that needs fixing however is the Sidebar. It has a worse memory leak than Firefox not to mention is starts hogging lots of CPU eventually. MS needs to get a better handle on this as this can easily slow down a system.


RE: uh....
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/25/2008 12:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think it might be one of your sidebar applications. I've got several there and it's not slowing down my dual core at all. I also run dual screen so my system is being taxed more.


RE: uh....
By cochy on 4/25/2008 1:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
It very well could be. However it's MS's responsibiliy to limit resources available to sidebar apps so they can't hijack my system. There's no reason why sidebar.exe should require 300MB of memory + 25% cpu on a dual core system.


RE: uh....
By TomZ on 4/25/2008 2:29:30 PM , Rating: 1
If you think that strategy makes sense, then please tell us what you think the absolute resources limit that will be acceptable for all sidebar apps, present and future?

And be careful, since history teaches us that arbirary limits in computer resources like memory can grow to be a real pain point.


RE: uh....
By cochy on 4/25/2008 3:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say it needed to be absolute. How about a user definable limit just like users can define limits for other apps (ie. Web caches, Paging file etc.). A default value should be some place around 5% main memory, hard limit?

That strategy does make sense. It's easy to add lots and lots of sidebar apps, and then someone might wonder why their Vista is slower than XP.


RE: uh....
By cochy on 4/25/2008 3:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
Furthermore, if these limits are in place and a user tries to add another sidebar app that would push memory requirements over the limit, the OS should be smart enough to warn the user and offer the user the chance to increase the limit. We wouldn't want the sidebar to start swapping like crazy.


RE: uh....
By just4U on 4/25/2008 3:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
<puts up hand>

I liked WindowsME. I still always wonder why people didn't like it. I never had problems with it at all and it worked like a charm.


RE: uh....
By othercents on 4/25/2008 10:20:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
most businesses will have volume licences for XP so they can continue to install XP on new PC's if they so wish.

Most large business have volume licenses, but most mid size and small business don't. My office is 50 users and volume licensing isn't cost effective especially if I'm replacing computers every 4 years. You really have to replace computers every 2 years for volume licensing to be cost effective.

Other


RE: uh....
By 306maxi on 4/25/2008 11:09:10 AM , Rating: 2
To be fair though Vista is quite good in regards to compatability. XP and Vista have run side by side for 20 odd months now. Which is long enough for most companies which care, to make their software Vista ready.

I do wonder sometimes if Microsoft was wrong to go away from having NT/2000 for businesses with consumers running ME and XP to the current model of having 1 OS with home and business variants.


RE: uh....
By Kenenniah on 4/25/2008 11:38:04 AM , Rating: 2
You have to remember that even without volume licenses, companies can purchase computers with Vista and use the downgrade right to install XP.


RE: uh....
By destrorexe on 4/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: uh....
By Inkjammer on 4/25/2008 10:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
You can be a fan of older OS all you want, but it doesn't help move technology forward. Then again, neither does Vista entirely.

Besides, Microsoft doesn't owe XP fans anything. Any fan of XP already has Windows XP, so their stopping selling it won't affect you. XP will still be supported, too.


RE: uh....
By JoeBanana on 4/25/2008 10:44:54 AM , Rating: 2
Older?


RE: uh....
By wallijonn on 4/25/2008 12:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can be a fan of older OS all you want, but it doesn't help move technology forward. </quote]

DRM. New licensing model. Incessant pop-ups. Using slow USB mem flash for caching (now there's a leap forward...)

quote:
Besides, Microsoft doesn't owe XP fans anything. Any fan of XP already has Windows XP, so their stopping selling it won't affect you. XP will still be supported, too.


"Dell suggests Vista Ultimate."

Of course, they do...

No, MS doesn't owe XP fans anything. But chances are that those self same XP fans will not be upgrading to Vista. More than likely they will wait for Windows7, or whatever will replace Vista. Or they will go to Linux or buy Macs and also install XP on it.

Surfing? Buying online? Documents? Music? Photos? Movies?
Macs.

Gaming?
PCs. 32 bit Vista Ultimate.

Media servers?
Vista.

I haven't used Windows to surf at home in over 2 years. Macs and Linux is what I use. Because I am tired of installing Anti-Virus software, installing anti-spyware programs, installing anti-BHOs programs, dealing with browser hijacks, rootkits, resolving conflicts between Norton and AOL firewalls, etc.

If I upgrade to Vista I will need to build a new PC. If I 'have to' pay $1000 for a new PC then I will just buy a Mac.


RE: uh....
By mrEvil on 4/25/2008 2:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
I see several flaws in your response.

1. You claim to be using Norton and AOL firewalls. First, using Norton is a no-no. Second - who would trust an AOL firewall. Third, you deserve whatever headaches you get by even installing multiple firewalls.

2. I realize you need daily porn, but you can probably even find that without having to worry about anti-everything being installed.

I've run Windows with only a free AV program for years and have yet to get any trojan, spyware, rootkit, had my browser hijacked, etc...on any of my machines.

Maybe your problem isn't the OS, but the person surfing. I back that up by the fact that you state you use Norton and AOL firewalls - or did. If you are that paranoid, grab the free VM player and utilize a VM for surfing. I hear there is something called Ubuntu that works lovely for that (or on a direct DVD load).

Glad to hear that Apple solved all of the Safari issues for you and that there are zero vulnerabilities there.

I am not a staunch MS supporter by any means, but to put your head in the sand and say that there are no flaws with other operating systems you have mentioned is naive.


RE: uh....
By AntiM on 4/25/2008 10:19:03 AM , Rating: 2
Let's say you're not a gamer, and are just a basic user with web surfing, email, word processing, editing and storing photos and a few other basic functions. The big question I would pose is... what can you do in Vista that you can't do in Ubuntu (or any other Linux distro) ?


RE: uh....
By JoeBanana on 4/25/2008 10:56:14 AM , Rating: 1
In Ubuntu you dont have free commercials bundled with every application you download. Also when you install an application in windows like Safari you get two for the price of one(that's a good deal).

And I can play tons of games under windows and only thirty+ 3D shooters under ubuntu. Oh, I am sorry you said if I am not a gamer...

Also I like windows installers. There's nothing like going through 10+ pages of clicking next, agree, ok, finish..., I hate installing everything with one click on a mouse button.

Also I like the support that windows offers. Whenever something goes wrong in windows or I don't know what to do, I always call their center and we have a nice little chat. It's not like Ubuntu has a call support or official forums.


RE: uh....
By mondo1234 on 4/25/2008 10:59:34 AM , Rating: 2
That is a huge point, and I think it has MS scared to death. The majority of computer users surf the web and use word processing. Why would you want to pay $100-$200 for an OS plus $350-$500 for an Office Suite?
In the DOS and 3.1 days, an easy to use OS was a big selling (or upgrade) factor. Not so much today. MS has said it has to reinvent itself, but its not doing a very good job. Its using the old "you need to upgrade your OS, and when you do, we can sell you MS Office" story. Remember, the OS is the hammer, and Office is the money maker. The truth is, Vista was only installed on less than half of all new computer sales last year. Thats a huge drop! World wide sales of computers were 250 million units, yet MS said they sold about 100 million Vista licenses. Do the math! MS makes more money from overseas sales than they do here in the states.


RE: uh....
By encryptkeeper on 4/25/2008 11:34:49 AM , Rating: 2
Let's say you're not a gamer, and are just a basic user with web surfing, email, word processing, editing and storing photos and a few other basic functions. The big question I would pose is... what can you do in Vista that you can't do in Ubuntu (or any other Linux distro) ?

For the same reason most people buy any branded products. People usually just stick with the names they see everywhere, even though you might be able to get, for example, the Giant Eagle brand cheese, milk or bread for cheaper than the branded stuff; or if you go to Gabriel's and buy the same clothes for three or four bucks you could buy at the Gap for thirty or forty bucks. I agree, if I'm going to have compatibility issues with hardware, unable to play my games, but I want Aero, why would I pay for Vista when the Ubuntu disty is free and does all the same things? With a LOT less cpu power? In fact, I'd have enough left over for a virtual XP machine...


RE: uh....
By royalcrown on 4/25/2008 3:12:56 PM , Rating: 4
Well, let's see (and I have used linux distros, even Hardy Heron)....

Get my front mic input to work, my tv tuner card to work...

Navigate around my OS easily, install software easily that is not on the package manager list (all this sudo and -apt and 700 extensions for each file type need to GO)

Here is a BIG one - FIND HELP IN PLAIN ENGLISH FOR AN ABSOLUTE BEGINNER (and that doesen't make the assumption that I even know what terminal is or how to use it.

I really like linux in general, but they need to clean up these problems and that is where they are falling down. On the front of plain ease of use and UI navigation, windows has linux beat by leaps and bounds. Your average non gamer type (that just surfs and looks at photographs etc..) is exactly the type that finds windows much easier to navigate, and even me, a computer junkie does also.


RE: uh....
By kc77 on 4/26/2008 1:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
You're expectations are far and away higher for linux than you would be capable of doing on any Windows based machine.

quote:
Navigate around my OS easily, install software easily that is > not on the package manager list
What you are asking is akin to saying I want to install a Mac app on Windows without compiling the product. What you ask here is just impossible. There are too many distros out there to make this doable, that's not even going over the different hardware configurations. Compiling an application that isn't in the package manager will always be necessary. However, doing this is far more advanced and isn't even possible with Windows, so why is it a negative? Windows doesn't even have a package manager for installing new applications via web that are not installed on the machine.

As far as navigation, are you telling me that navigating around Gnome is harder than Windows, are you serious? "Applications > Places > System" is more complex than a start menu with an array of locations and options. Puleease.

The compiling thing I can kinda see where you are coming from but UI navigation in Gnome is waaaay more simplistic than Windows any day. Especially since Internet <bold> AND</bold> Office Applications are installed by default. A brand new Windows installation will take you hours to setup compared to a seasoned Linux distro.

As far as Mic inputs and TV Tuner cards this is a headache even in Windows. If you are running onboard sound and it's crappy you will have problems with Mic inputs. If you are using a discrete sound card it's just as easy in Windows as Linux. As for your Tv Tuner card, if you are running Ubuntu, you can have the whole thing set up with 1 package in the package manager just as long as it's supported by whatever application you are using and/or the kernel.

As for instructions for a beginner for web browsing and office applications everything is already installed but if you mean understanding Linux there's Ubuntu wiki's aplenty as well as the Ubuntu community that will easily help you through any problem you are having.


RE: uh....
By silver on 4/27/2008 10:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
Heck I spent 3.5 hours just getting dual monitor support working on a ATI X600 video card !

I like the thought of using a Linux but none of the various distros have the ease of configuration and hardware support that Windows does. For instance, I have a Epson 4490 PHOTO scanner which is not supported by SANE. We're not talking about a high-end scanner here !

Also I'm running 2x250GB SATA drives in what Linux uber-twits call a "fakeRAID" which is so incredibly easy to setup in Windows. And please don't tell me that "it's not really a RAID". I don't care. It's over 50% faster when transferring large files than a single drive and that's why I use it.

Finally, just try finding a good video editing application for Linux. Good luck with that !


RE: uh....
By kc77 on 4/28/2008 3:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
Dual monitor support is generally dictated by the drivers. So if ATI wants to write sloppy support for dual monitors what is the community going to do? Although the latest ATI drivers I know support dual monitors quite easily. I use Nvidia cards so I've never had a problem enabling this feature.

Regarding the scanner, it's unsupported... again if the manufacturers dont' want to write decent driver support for Linux everything can't be reverse engineered. Even though it's not supported in Linux doesn't mean you can't get it to work though. Here ya go.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=4389626#p...

As for the "fakeraid" if you have an Intel or Nvidia motherboard it will work just as easily as Windows, usually easier if the drivers are included with the kernel. Even if they aren't (although for Intel boards I'm pretty sure it does) Nvidia includes the drivers for this as well. Ubuntu lets you set up the "fakeraid" as you call it, during the installation process.

As for video editing, I use linux for this as well.. what kind of caliber video editor do you need?

This link should start you off.... http://cvs.cinelerra.org/

Alot of things have changed within Linux since you may have last used it. All of these solutions/guides took me all of 3 minutes (not even) to find.

While I will say there are plenty of things/areas where Linux has problems ....printers, scanners, and dual monitor support isn't a trouble spot anymore as it used to be.


RE: uh....
By tanishalfelven on 4/26/2008 7:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
lets make it clear.
ubuntu can do everything XP/Vista does, alteast for most users. i have ubuntu 8.04 along side XP and vista. yet i still prefer vista, WHY ?

because vista is easy to use and maintain, and by easy i mean less time consuming. Linux is a huge time drain.


RE: uh....
By kc77 on 4/28/2008 4:08:15 PM , Rating: 3
So did Vista become less time consuming after you added another 1GB stick of RAM or before? Although I hear if you don't use the media player while transferring files over the network Vista's speed is quite snappy (sorry I couldn't help myself)

Sorry didn't mean to take a shot at ya like that... I suppose everyone has their own opinion of what they like, or what they think is best, for me XP was good, Vista not so much, and Linux I like the most because I'm not fooling around with licenses, nor feel guilty if I install my OS on multiple machines.


RE: uh....
By arsmitty86 on 4/29/2008 11:17:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
lets make it clear.
ubuntu can do everything XP/Vista does, alteast for most users. i have ubuntu 8.04 along side XP and vista. yet i still prefer vista, WHY ?

because vista is easy to use and maintain, and by easy i mean less time consuming. Linux is a huge time drain.


This is simply not true... Even if you run into problems on the initial install of ANY Linux distribution, a quick search on the forums will take care of it, furthermore (And this is really the more important part) once it's setup it's done... No more fooling with updates or anything (if it's properly configured it does it quite well automatically, and only grabs the stable versions). You like graphical tools to set everything up? Fine use SuSE. YasT is an amazing way to configure the system that works really well and is extremely intuitive. Gnome and KDE both have come a long way in intuitiveness as well. I find it much easier to find programs on my openSusE box than on my Vista machine. The sole reason I keep vista on anything in my house is for games... My work machine is strictly SuSe Linux Enterprise, and I have a virtual XP Pro machine strictly for our database front ends that don't work in Linux, and for those damn ActiveX/.Net 3.0 web apps, but even that will be fixed soon once MONO catches up to the recent changes. I'm not a Fan boy by any means as I run several OS's but in a machine that I need to just work when I need it Linux takes the cake... My home file server is a SLES server running samba... Took me all of a whopping 30mins to configure and it's solid as a rock and secure to boot. It's not fair to say that linux is a time drain.


RE: uh....
By Locutus465 on 4/25/2008 11:20:15 AM , Rating: 2
I honestly think Microsoft is just trying to force XP out, it's clear there's consumer demand. Honestly I don't know that I blame them, maintaining XP isn't free in terms of dollars or man hours for them. Add in the fact that Vista is perfectly fine for the vast majority of new hardware coming out on the market and it's very desirable (at least for MS) to get rid of XP.


RE: uh....
By wallijonn on 4/25/2008 12:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's very desirable (at least for MS) to get rid of XP.


Because of the new license model they can make much more money.


RE: uh....
By Locutus465 on 4/25/2008 4:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
Or because they don't need to support XP.


RE: uh....
By silver on 4/27/2008 10:11:18 PM , Rating: 2
"I honestly think Microsoft is just trying to force XP out"

This belief is quite popular and I share in it. I also believe they did exactly the same to Windows 2000 when they pushed SP4 out. My 6 year old son has a system running Win2K Pro SP2 and it works quite well. Put SP4 on and watch the performance go to crap.


RE: uh....
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 9:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
That's odd, before the chaintech (never buying anything other than asus from now on) motherboard died in it I my parents Win2k SP4 system was running like a top. Seriously this system was one of the smoothest systems I ever put together.

Of course this system was also an Athlon 64 3000+ (s754) with 512MB of DDR400 so by all rights there should be very little capable of slowing it down with that OS running on it. The one thing I don't like that MS did with 2000 is stop releasing compatible .Net frameworks for it, so stupid stuff like Zune flat out won't run on Win2k.