Print 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  He says this is driven by the fact that the IT industry frequent heavily employs older or outdated hardware.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

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:
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 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.

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.

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
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.

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 on 4/25/2008 9:13:44 AM , Rating: 1
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
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

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
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 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
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
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.

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
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
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 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
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.


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

RE: uh....
By wallijonn on 4/25/2008 12:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
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...)

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?

PCs. 32 bit Vista Ultimate.

Media servers?

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.

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.

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....

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
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
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.

RE: uh....
By eye smite on 4/25/2008 11:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with you, but then when has MS ever been realistic to what the consumers want? The sooner new mngt. is in place at MS, hopefully with a bit more ethics, the better off we'll all be.

RE: uh....
By falacy on 4/29/2008 12:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
Balmer is a blowhard, eh. Certainly not someone to take seriously, the way he presents himself. Bill Gates I take seriously, though I don't always agree with him of course.

As far as XP and Vista go for me, rather than buy a product I could not return after opening, I tried Vista on my "Made for Vista" hardware and in the three day pre-activation time I had video driver issues and my network driver crashed (of all things!), the system was less responsive and World of Warcraft would pause for 2-3 seconds randomly. None of this happened before on XP and has not happened since going back to XP, so in my personal experience the drivers and functionality of XP are better than Vista. I actually like Windows XP better than Vista and all the versions of Linux I have used since 1998. Guess that makes me crazy...

Asus P5K-VM
2GB DDR2 667 RAM (Dual Channel) - it was $10 CHEAP!
Pentium Dual-Core E2160
nVidia 8600GT 256MB RAM

Eventually I can upgrade to a 1333FSB Quad, but the above hardware more than satifies my computing needs (transcoding, WoW, file serving, ICS) - heck, I can stream 3 xVid movies around the house and play WoW without any issues (on XP)!

There are a couple of nice things in Vista, such as the improved computer management, task manager, and system monitor tools, but after the crashes and poor performance on my hardware (post SP1 with all the latest drivers), Vista is not something I would shell out the money to buy - I am glad I tested it before hand (and 3 days of being home with it is all one needs to test it out, so thanks Microsoft for allowing that!).

I'll be keeping XP on all my computers until Windows 7 is released. XP works for us - Microsoft should be patting themselves on the back for XP, rather than shunning it...

RE: uh....
By falacy on 4/29/2008 12:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
One thing of note that I forgot to mention was,

Browsing network/samba shares in XP/2000 is always slow a hell, while Windows 98, Linux, and Vista are pretty much instaneous. However, even post SP1 XP is still faster than Vista for tranfering files over the network (with Slackware Linux being the fastest of the three).

One really just needs to take the good with the bad, because "Every OS Sucks". :)

Are you kidding?
By FlakeCannon on 4/25/2008 8:35:56 AM , Rating: 1
Did anyone check to see if this Ballmer fellow has a pulse? Seriously though, does he ever leave his office, cause if he did he'd know that WE ALL WANT XP. Most OEM's are starting to remove it from their computers and only offer Vista. Microsoft can't expect every computer user to be literate enough to go out and buy a copy for themselves and install it.

RE: Are you kidding?
By Chimpie on 4/25/2008 9:22:24 AM , Rating: 3

We do? I'm quite happy with Vista Home Premium. Don't get me wrong, XP is a rock solid OS, but technology has enhanced and prices for equipment are reasonable to cheap. There is no reason not upgrade yourself to Vista if you're purchasing a new computer.

RE: Are you kidding?
By morose on 4/25/2008 10:30:06 AM , Rating: 2
I've got killer hardware at home, but I'd prefer to spend my computing resources running applications instead of wasting them on a bloated OS. I think people have forgotten that the entire idea behind an operating system is to allow you to run the applications you want in an efficient fashion. In some ways Vista improves on XP for this, but the cost in overhead is, quite frankly, staggering. Not to mention the pricing on Vista is prohibitive unless you get it with your new machine, in which case it's cost is hidden. The only way I see Vista selling is a huge OEM push, and right now it seems several vendors are backsliding.

RE: Are you kidding?
By mondo1234 on 4/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Are you kidding?
By jimbojimbo on 4/25/2008 12:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
For you things may be cheap but for many cheap is a computer that runs like a dog with Vista and runs snappy with XP. If you can accomplish the same tasks with both why opt for an OS that'll run slower on the same hardware investment? The only reason to go to Vista is their 64bit platform since XP 64bit has such limited driver support.

RE: Are you kidding?
By mmntech on 4/25/2008 9:25:38 AM , Rating: 2
I remember a while back that some 40,000 Dell customers had demanded Dell keep offering XP systems and Microsoft blew that off as being insignificant. People want XP because it's a mature product, it's stable, and it's compatible with more hardware and software than Vista is. Given that there is sufficient demand for XP, particularly in the business and low power computing sectors, Microsoft would be foolish to discontinue it. Take a look at Sony. The Playstation 2 is still selling very well so why would they stop making it even though a newer product has come out? There really is no real alternative to Windows now but we've recently seen gains in both Linux and Mac OS X's market share, particularly in the two markets I mentioned. If XP isn't there, someone will fill in the gap.

My theory is that Microsoft spent too much on R&D for Vista and are forcing it on consumers to try and recover the costs.

RE: Are you kidding?
By TomZ on 4/25/2008 10:06:03 AM , Rating: 4

Maybe you do, but I don't. I've been using Vista for quite a while, and XP is primitive compared to Vista, like the difference between Win9x and WinXP. But, enjoy your retro OS anyway!

RE: Are you kidding?
By RogueLegend on 4/25/2008 11:28:59 AM , Rating: 2
How is XP primitive? Vista has only two tangible features (at last count) that make it somewhat (at best) more advanced than XP- and those two features are largely unimportant.

I can name one unequivocal way that Vista really blows- the licensing agreement. It is much more restrictive than XP's when it comes to virtualization. Vista's licensing agreement specify which versions of the OS and how many times it can be transferred between physical hosts (only once). XP has no such limitations, which is great for a virtual testing environment. We can get the least expensive version of XP, virtualize, quickly deploy and test off of that. Vista proves to be a much bigger management nightmare for a company who wants to stay within the licensing agreement.

RE: Are you kidding?
By RogueLegend on 4/25/2008 11:30:36 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, and those features are disabled in the low end versions of the OS- so how exactly is Vista more advanced?

RE: Are you kidding?
By TomZ on 4/25/2008 12:04:56 PM , Rating: 3
When you look at Vista from a day-in and day-out perspective, there are a lot of small features that make it more convenient than XP. For example, the live search in the Start menu, in Explorer, and in Control Panel. Those save me time daily, compared to in XP when you have to drill in every time to find what you want.

I also like some of the other features in Vista, like the photo gallery, the DVD authoring applet, and a lot of the built-in diagnostics, e.g., in networking. I also like the way Aero and the other user interface elements look.

Sure, I'll admit there are no "must have" features in Vista - just like there weren't in XP - but overall, it just gives you a better overall experience. And I don't see any downside, so why wouldn't I use the latest and greatest?

But hey, I get the whole "retro" thing - so as I said earlier, enjoy your last-gen OS.

RE: Are you kidding?
By RogueLegend on 4/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Are you kidding?
By TomZ on 4/25/2008 12:47:41 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, I agree that if you download and install a bunch of add-ins into XP, then it can do a lot of things that Vista can out-of-the box. But I also don't see the point of the hassle, when with a single DVD install, I get everyhing, not to mention that Vista installs faster than XP in the first place!

Anyway, we should agree to disagree...

RE: Are you kidding?
By RogueLegend on 4/25/2008 1:08:10 PM , Rating: 1
Vista installs faster than XP in the first place!

Utter BS. I've installed XP and Vista on everything from a P3 to quad core systems. The only way that happens is if you install zero Vista addons and install every single XP addon.

I can't even get a virtual image to copy to a machine faster than XP- the Vista image, on average, the Vista image is usually 2-3 gigs larger.

I get everyhing

I don't get anywhere near everything with a single DVD install of Vista- especially not the media handling capabilities. And I only need to download media portal for that- which is only 22 megabytes and the install only takes maybe five to ten minutes.

How much bigger is Vista MCE compared to XP? No contest in terms of resources, installed size, or capability.

Everything I'm referencing is empirical data as well as personal subjective experience. This isn't a simple case of agreeing to disagree. I can offer you hard statistics (it's part of my job) to show performance differences, installation differences, the amount of bugs filed to solve Vista issues vs XP issues.

RE: Are you kidding?
By sprockkets on 4/25/2008 1:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, uh, XP doesn't do the stupid "testing your computer's performance" during install, as if, why is that even necessary?

So, if it finds your computer is very fast, vista compensates and acts slower so your computer does not run faster than a computer with 1 less ghz? The only reason why I say that, is that you would expect a computer with so much more resources to load faster, yet, on XP, that rarely seems to be the case.

RE: Are you kidding?
By TomZ on 4/25/2008 2:16:13 PM , Rating: 3
Utter BS. I've installed XP and Vista on everything from a P3 to quad core systems. The only way that happens is if you install zero Vista addons and install every single XP addon.

Vista's installer is image-based, unlike XP, which is why it installs faster, despite being much larger. If you haven't noticed the difference (I have), then you're not really paying attention very well. I only install Ultimate, which has the max features, and it is still faster than XP.

Try this: on a given machine, install XP and install Vista, time them both start-to-finish, and see which is faster.

RE: Are you kidding?
By Screwballl on 4/28/2008 12:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
I call shenanigans on you TomZ

As a computer tech, I have done this on dozens and dozens of machines of all specs and speeds... Since Vista was released, I myself and other techs have done extensive speed and time testing here, you want to know how it is in reality?
A full blown XP Pro SP2 versus standard Vista Home Premium installation, XP is ALWAYS 15-20 minutes faster. On higher end machines (Core2Duo and Core2Quads), XP installs in HALF the time that it takes Vista Home Basic to install (average 29 minutes compared to average 63 minutes). Add in Vista SP1 with our most recent tests, and even on lower end machines, XP installs in half the time. On high end systems, try 400-500% faster. We are talking a matter of 20 minutes (XP) compared to 2 hours (VHB). Make it Vista Ultimate w/ SP1 and that 2 hours is increased to almost 3 hours in many cases.

There is a major difference, so please get your head out of Ballmers arse and come back to the real world.

RE: Are you kidding?
By SavagePotato on 4/28/2008 1:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
I call you a blatant f-ing liar. Shenanigans is a bit too polite.

Or for some inexplicable reason my core2 system is made of magic fairy dust and that's why I can install Vista on it in under 20 minutes.

For some reason everyone but a handfull of 5 or so anti Vista trolls on Dailytech have NO problems and completely different results.

Which is the more likely I wonder, that or the fact that you are either a liar a total clueless dumbass, or both.

RE: Are you kidding?
By SavagePotato on 4/28/2008 1:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
I can't beleive I almost missed it but you tried to drop the "I'm a tech" bomb too.

I have watched your anti Vista stupidity on many... many... threads screwball, and I have to sadly inform you that you are at best an incompetent boob.

Saying "I'm a tech" lends no, I repeat no credibility to anything you say. For one there are plenty of moron technicians out there, not to mention the fact that you are probably one of those basement troll teens that used to parade around with "system builder" tagged on their forum signatures circa 1997 because they managed to put their own system together watching a web tutorial.

Seriously I wish you had to have a 300 pound iron boxing glove on a spring mounted on your desk and anytime you start a post with "I am a computer tech" it smashes your f-ing face.

RE: Are you kidding?
By SavagePotato on 4/27/2008 5:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
No you can't

Here is why, because you are as full of shit as it gets.

He is indeed correct in that Vista installs far faster. On my own system I can have a Vista install at the desktop and ready to be used in under 20 minutes. XP isn't anywhere close to that.

I love reading posts from all the little experts out there like yourself that have done it all and yet have a perspective that is so far outside reality that it's not even funny.

I'm sorry buddy, but you are not... even... close... to having an idea what you are talking about. That or you are making shit up for the sake of making shit up.

I've installed XP so many times in the last three years it would make your empty head spin, trust me it can't even compare to Vista's installer.

RE: Are you kidding?
By RogueLegend on 4/25/2008 1:40:21 PM , Rating: 1
Just to back up my statistics claim- I have three basic virtual images: Vista, XP, and Server 2K3. All three installs were very basic, with no optional addons installed. Single core only, with the same amount of RAM allotted to each (2GB). These three images are my base images for the QA environment and don't get used until deployed to a server (ranging from P3's to quad core Xeons).

I set VMware to only allocate the space needed, rather than the full size of the VMDK's. Swap files are managed by the OS rather than statically defined and are left on the primary partition (to best simulate customer environments).

Installed sizes:
WinXP = 4.74 GB
Win2003 = 5.36 GB
WinVista = 11.7 GB

Admittedly, it includes the swap file, but even with the swap file, it illustrates my point- the size of the swap file on Vista can peak at around 4GB with our config. The swap files on XP and 2K3 barely approach 1.5 GB. This shows how much more performance Vista requires than retro OS'. And I don't care what planet you come from, you can't tell me that holding a 4GB swap on a hard drive is going to make any OS faster than one that only requires a 1.5 GB swap on the same hard disk- even during installation.

RE: Are you kidding?
By RogueLegend on 4/25/2008 1:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and the OS versions are:

XP Professional (With SP2)
Server 2k3 Enterprise Edition (With SP2)
Vista Ultimate (no updates OR service packs)

We haven't done SP1 for Vista yet, mostly because customers don't have it (mostly because they're sticking with XP), but Vista is only going to get bigger with SP1.

RE: Are you kidding?
By TomZ on 4/25/2008 2:11:24 PM , Rating: 3
So what? HDD space costs $0.20/GB these days, and so the difference you discuss is worth about $1.00. Not exactly something that the average user is going to care about, even if the two OSs were functionally equal, which they are not.

RE: Are you kidding?
By RogueLegend on 4/25/2008 3:17:07 PM , Rating: 1
Talk about missing the point ENTIRELY.

The point wasn't about how much storage it takes- the company I work for is a CLUSTERED STORAGE company. We have Petabytes of storage. We don't care about storage cost- we have plenty- we care about storage performance.

The point was about performance. You're trying to tell me that Vista is somehow installs faster. My data was showing you how much data is moved around with Vista vs. any other OS. Vista requires on average 2-3 GB's more for a basic install, and up to 2.5 GB's more in terms of swap space.

My point was this- given equal configurations (which I explicitly stated) you are not going to get better performance (which is an aspect of functionality) out of Vista when you have to move on average more than twice as much data. We are talking about GIGABYTES of data needing to be moved. Nowhere did I mention the cost of storage.

And you're right- from a functional standpoint they're not equal. From an average functional performance standpoint- XP is faster because it has half the amount of data to move around (which can be shown through swap file size graphs).

And Vista's install (and more than likely, everyday use) performance will only decrase with Service Packs- the size of XP I have is less than 5 GB's w/ two service packs. Vista is over 11 without any.

But while we're talking about cost- factor in the greater cost of Vista (on the order of hundreds of dollars) along with hard disk, ram, and platform upgrades to get equivalent performance out of Vista without any applications running. You're looking at several hundred dollars worth of a difference.

RE: Are you kidding?
By RogueLegend on 4/25/2008 3:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, and on a personal use note, I get better performance, lower cost, and the ability to multitask multiple HD content oriented tasks with XP + a 22 MB free Media Portal application- which does more than Vista does.

I can either do that, or spend up to $200 more in terms of the OS cost, spend up to $300 more in hardware to support the $200 OS.....

RE: Are you kidding?
By TomZ on 4/25/2008 3:28:53 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, I think you have missed the point. The point about is that the Vista installer is much more efficient than the XP installer, which is why it can install a larger image in less time compared to XP. The Vista installer is an image-based installer, and the XP is a traditional installer which has to individually select, extract, and copy each file.

Vista's installation process is dramatically different to any previous version of Windows: rather than being an 'installer', the install DVD is actually a preinstalled copy of Windows that simply gets decompressed onto your PC.

I've installed both OSs on different machines at work, and I can say with confidence that Vista installs faster than XP.

RE: Are you kidding?
By RogueLegend on 4/25/2008 4:26:56 PM , Rating: 1
First of all, that article says nothing about actual installation times, all it says is that it uses a fast compression. You have shown no tangible data that says XP is a slower install than Vista.

Secondly, even with image based extraction as an installation process, Vista still copies more data, has a performance check at install, still has to configure drivers, and on top of all that, the Volume License key does not relieve you from activation/key management issues if you try to create a ghost or PXE image with preinstalled apps as it will disable copies of Vista that have not been periodically activated further adding to management and installation issues.

Lastly, even if Vista somehow installed faster (I can honestly say there has been no scenario I have experienced with either an attended or unattended setup where Vista installs faster), the installation is usually a one time thing- even if you spent an extra 15-30 mins on installing XP, the everyday performance penalty you experience from just running Vista renders that immaterial. You get greater multitasking ability by XP's lower resource usage and any programs Vista does come with are castrated, and there are plenty of free versions of everything Vista offers that has lower resource utilization.

Thanks for playing.

RE: Are you kidding?
By TheJian on 4/25/2008 3:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
How much does Microsoft pay you to say this crap? Vista installs faster than XP?...LOL. IMPOSSIBLE. The burning app in Vista sucks. I can download and install imgburn in one minute tops (including install time...ROFL and it's free). Everything MS has ever done out of the box is 2nd rate (AV, Firewall, Burning, Ripping etc). Lets see, in 10 minutes I can fix it all with AVG (free Anti-virus), Zonealarm (free firewall), imgburn (free killer burning, movie ripping), EAC (free audio ripping with perfect lossless copies) etc etc. I'd say the same about XP or any other MS OS.

The problem with Vista is you require far more powerful hardware, and still take a 30% hit in gaming vs. XP (even a big hit with Office2007 vs XP/Office2007). While you provide FUD. I'll provide facts (copied from my post days ago, because I'm tired of typing facts...LOL):
Vista HL2 (Q6600 normal/overclocked scores):
1920x1200 178/207
1600x1200 179/233
1280x1024 229/230

1920x1200 227/272
1600x1200 235/281
1280x1024 251/279

Vista World In Conflict MINIMUMS
1920x1200 28/30
1600x1200 29/35
1280x1024 36/39

XP World In Conflict MINIMUMS:
1920x1200 33/37
1600x1200 34/40
1280x1024 35/39

1920x1200 45/53
1600x1200 49/58
1280x1024 56/65

1920x1200 56/67
1600x1200 58/66
1280x1024 61/66

1920x1200 84/101
1600x1200 86/105
1280x1024 117/125

1920x1200 130/130
1600x1200 130/139
1280x1024 134/139

Check out those XP UT3 scores 30% faster than VISTA in 1920x1200 (my Dell 24's native res :)). That's a full 30fps faster people! Check out the minimums in WIC. My fav res hits below 30fps (and even in a lower res <30), where XP TOTALLY playable at any res. The Maximums in that game are even worse, coming in at 20%+ for XP victory! Check out HL2 at 272fps in 1920x1200. What's Vista get? 207...ROFLMAO. Congrats to Tweaktown for doing what others don't seem to have the BALLS to do. Test VISTA VS. XP. Who has the balls to do 64bit XP vs. 64bit Vista? Anantech? I tried to get tweaktown to do it but they completely ignored repeated emails. Guess microsoft pays everyone off. It can't be the drivers. I have them for every part in my house. All current Nvidia/ATI cards, all current chipsets from nvidia/ATI/Intel, All Nics I could find (including my Edimax Wireless N card!), all 3 of my OLD printers (all HP), TV Tuner (ATI) etc...I can't find a driver that isn't supported in XP64. So don't even bother claiming it's orphaned (AT/DT Editors claimed this recently when I posted about this last time...LOL). Nvidia's drivers even say they fixed 5 games for XP64 with their latest readme (any many other DirectX games it says IIRC). PC world says Vista is crapware of the year! Alex St. John (maker of DIRECT X!) says Vista SUCKS and so does DIRECT X 10! He made Dx for christs sake! He says it's a PIG. Extremetech says you should turn off DX10 because it looks no better (they give screenshots galore asking if you can see it) and blows chips in performance. HUGE HIT and they tested MANY DX 10 games vs same DX9.

Good OS for other stuff? Here's a post I made regarding all the places BANNING installs of Vista (yeah our govt too!):
My post is the last one...I guess that ended the converstation about how great Vista is...ROFL.
LOL. I could go on all day with articles that say it sucks at reputable places. Even gartner says it now. I welcome change, new upgrades etc. But Vista is a PIG. Get over it. Sorry for the long post but people just don't get it. So I've provided AMPLE proof. (AGAIN). Read it and weep. Pay special attention to the neowin link. NOBODY likes this OS. :)

RE: Are you kidding?
By just4U on 4/25/2008 3:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
err, I don't play half life2 but the games I do play don't take a noticable hit at all. Oh sure, maybe 2-3 frames per second (which is not noticable) but 30%? I'd notice that allright.. and I don't.

I still get the feeling that many of you who are not using Vista are basing your opinions on secondhand information, a bad beta experience, or a install gone wrong sometime in the past.

Bottom line with Vista. Most of us can be considered PRO's with XP now after 6+ years of using it. If were now suddenly jumping on the Vista bandwagon then obviously we think it's a better OS then XP... I know I do. All this talk about the OS always makes we want to explore my new toy even more! (I've been using it now for 7months!)

RE: Are you kidding?
By bangmal on 4/27/2008 2:27:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yo jerk, it has nothing to do with vista. It is nvidia's problem that being unable to write a good driver, especially for the X2 cards. You dont see such problems on ATI cards.

RE: Are you kidding?
By Tewt on 4/26/2008 11:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if you get "everything" from a single Vista install, no wonder software companies are slow to develop for the OS. Since you get "everything" and installing software[for XP] is such a hassle as you put it, I guess you only have to worry about downloading Vista updates. Everyone congratulate Tom on finding a way to never buy another piece of software until the next OS and avoid the 'hassle' of installing it. Oh, I wish we could only be so lucky with XP.....can't wait to check out that professional video editing app in Vista that will put FCP and Avid to shame. Must be some really great games on Vista too...can't stand loading those into XP either.

RE: Are you kidding?
By TomZ on 4/26/2008 11:48:22 AM , Rating: 2
How does making such an obviously bogus point add to the discussion?

If you took the time to read the posts in this thread, you'd realize that "everything" was said in the context of all the add-ins that the OP said could be loaded to add Vista-like functionality into XP (e.g., search). Nowhere did I say or imply that the OS was complete in the sense that it didn't need any apps loaded.

RE: Are you kidding?
By RogueLegend on 4/25/2008 12:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
And before you accuse me of being some Linux drone- I want you to know that I'm OS agnostic. I prefer to use different OS's for different functions. I have Mac OSX, CentOS (Linux), XP, Server 2003, and Vista all on my laptop (virtualized), and I use each for different things. I'm even administering Solaris. Of those six OS's, Vista has been the most troublesome and inconsistent, and the one I've spent the most amount of time on for relatively trivial things. It's easier getting Mac OSX to run on non-Mac hardware than it is for me to get Vista to run consistently even in a virtual environment.

Now, I'm not saying that Vista can't work well- I'm saying is that the experience is more inconsistent than any other I've had and that any features (only a couple are truly new) it has isn't worth the trouble.

RE: Are you kidding?
By silver on 4/28/2008 12:17:18 AM , Rating: 1
The second item I turned off on Vista was the Windows Search. Just as useless as MSN Search and far to annoying when it wanted to re-index my hard drives. Also completely unnecessary if you store your files in a logical order.

Of course the first item I disabled was UAC. Now I wonder if you can turn off Volume Shadow Copy ?

RE: Are you kidding?
By arsmitty86 on 4/29/2008 12:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
How is XP primitive? Vista has only two tangible features (at last count) that make it somewhat (at best) more advanced than XP- and those two features are largely unimportant.

I hardly consider a newer/better TCP/IP stack unimportant. Some might also consider DirectX 10 an important upgrade as well... and by some I pretty much mean everyone who will be buying any kind of audio/visual software including silly little kids games... It's all got to progress at some point.

RE: Are you kidding?
By mforce on 4/25/2008 2:25:31 PM , Rating: 2
I still want and use XP and I've got good hardware , Pentium E2160 , 2 GB RAM , GF 62000. Why ? Because XP actually works and it works well. It's still Windows so I'm not expecting miracles from it , you do eventually have to reinstall it and there's spyware, viruses but I doubt Vista is free of these problems.
I have Vista Business at work and I can tell you having tried it out that I'm far from impressed. It's just buggy , almost every day I get a new update that might fix things but also might break them. When I restart Vista it always shows that screen that it's waiting for something but it's bug , it's actually waiting for itself in my case. I've also had a friend running Vista and afer a while he couldn't even start programs from the menu.
Sure there are those people that don't have problems with Vista and it runs well for them but still I can't think of things that Vista can do an XP can't except for DX 10 which I and businesses could care less about.

RE: Are you kidding?
By mondo1234 on 4/25/2008 11:05:06 AM , Rating: 2
I think Baldmers having a seizure

RE: Are you kidding?
By Screwballl on 4/25/2008 3:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously though, does he ever leave his office, cause if he did he'd know that WE ALL WANT XP.


For VERY FEW people, Vista actually works well... for the other large majority of users, it is slower and sucks worse than granny on a milkshake.
The people want XP, especially a large majority that has switched to Vista, want to switch back but do not know how.
We need to spread the word about Microsoft's generous offer to "upgrade" back to XP... Anytime I hear a customer that has Vista, I mention that Microsoft will let them switch back to XP if the want... and many of them have come back and thanked me for it.
For those in the real world, Vista sucks.
For those with the rose colored glasses, Vista works great and looks good and is setup perfectly and isn't slow or whatever other excuse they need to keep themselves on this great big pedestal that has the letters MS FUD inscribed on the side... but they are so high up on the pedestal that they can't how it is here in reality, here on earth...

I call shenanigans
By arazok on 4/25/2008 9:50:10 AM , Rating: 5
Windows Vista is simply not viable for low-end PCs that are a mainstay of the consumer home computing market.

Nonsense. I stopped reading there. Any PC with 1GB of RAM will run Vista acceptably. Even with integrated video, sound, and the lowest end CPU on the market. RAM is key, and Vista runs fine with 1GB.

Yes, there are low-end PC's with less then 1GB for sale. It's no different then when XP was new. My mother in-law's PC was purchased in 2003 with XP. It came with 128 MB of ram and is a nightmare to use. Why is Microsoft at fault because the hardware manufactures don't care if their product is any good?

Horribly biased article if I have ever seen one.

RE: I call shenanigans
By SavagePotato on 4/25/2008 10:53:40 AM , Rating: 5
Silly false criticisms are the rallying cry of the irrational Vista detractor.

When it comes down to it 99.9% of Vista criticisms are based in fantasy or lack of knowledge leading to assumption. Example the constant whining about UAC to the point of claiming it is insurmountable when it can be turned off in about three mouse clicks. Or the constant uninformed rants about ram usage with no understanding of what superfetch is and why it is using 100% of your ram.

When It comes right down to it, if you are looking for anything concrete from a Vista detractor you won't find it. It all comes down to silly unsubstantiated claims of bugs that don't exist, performance problems that don't exist, complaints about features they don't comprehend, or testimony of family members and friends that may or may not have even used the product.

Some people just seem to think that if you say something in a confident enough way people will take it for fact. Example, your quote,
"Windows Vista is simply not viable for low-end PC's that are a mainstay of the consumer home computing market."

If you make pure bull sound official enough people start to sling it around like it's accepted fact. When the reality is it is still just baloney. Come a year from now the Vista detractors will just look stupid. Moreso than they do now.

RE: I call shenanigans
By 67STANG on 4/25/2008 11:35:32 AM , Rating: 1
Vista runs fine with 1GB RAM?? Don't you mean 1GB RAM in every available slot? I don't even run XP with less than 2GB RAM....

Of course this is really a moot point anyhow... 1GB RAM is like $30...

The real bottom line is that I'm running an OC'd Q6600 w/4GB RAM and my XP w/SP3 was MUCH faster at EVERYTHING than with Vista Ultimate... Other than DX10, I'm not seeing any benefit or "advanced technology" over XP...

RE: I call shenanigans
By SavagePotato on 4/25/2008 11:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
See how you can take total nonsense like the above and make it sound like it's actually true with enough emphasis.

Again, nonsense. I have an e6600 with 4gb of ram and Vista performs so well on it you would be hard pressed to find a performance hitch. I regularly play windowed games and do other tasks at the same time that I wouldn't have even tried in XP.

The computer I'm using now has 1gb of ram and it performs just as well as mine at home until you compare application performance or multitasking of course, which is a no brainier why that would be less on machine with a fraction of the processor power and 1/4 of the ram.

You can look till you are blue in the face and you are not going to see the advanced technology box popping up to show you what the core under the hood changes between Vista and XP are. Go read about them if you want to know what they are.

RE: I call shenanigans
By 67STANG on 4/25/2008 3:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense? So you have compared the 2 different OS's on an identical machine and have found what I've stated to be untrue? Did I say there was a perfomance "hitch"? No, I said XP ran EVERYTHING faster.

There's probably a reason for this then:

<br>Vista Recommended Specs:
1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB of system memory

<br>Vista Recommended Specs:
300 MHz processor
128 MB of system memory

Didn't look until I was blue in the face... to find those specs, only Microsoft's site.

Please try to use logic to compensate for lack of research.

RE: I call shenanigans
By arazok on 4/25/2008 4:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
The point isn't which one runs programs faster. It's not even related to my original point, which is that Vista runs on current low end hardware just fine - assuming by low end you don't mean 512MB or less of ram.

If you are going to benchmark execution times, of course XP is going to be faster. If that's the be all/end all of OS's then I'm glad to see you getting so much mileage out of Win 98. The reality of OS's is that as they evolve, they do more. As a result there is a slight decrease in clock for clock performance.

In exchange for this unperceivable performance decline, you get enhanced security, better error detection, better error recovery, a more attractive OS, some cool toys (sidebar etc), and a host of other features. Sounds like a good deal to me.

RE: I call shenanigans
By SavagePotato on 4/25/2008 4:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yes nonsense. The general performance of the os is much more desirable on similar high end computers.

You see I did indeed load XP pro on my e6600 system and I prefer the general day to day use and performance of the os by far. Something you clearly must not have come across in your vaunted research is that the vista gui is in fact lower in overhead to the XP gui by approximately 15%. No Vista is not slower but faster in general use than XP.

So yes, use of the os for day to day os related tasks is more liquid and a much better experience than the clunky experience XP offers on the same system. I will gladly take my frequently used programs opening in a fraction of the time thanks to superfetch, or the advanced search features or even little gimmicks like live window hover previews that I make use of daily.

This is of much greater benefit to me than an extra 5fps in a game or a few seconds shorter media encode to put up with using a dinosaur OS like XP any longer. Believe it or not some people really do like the features of Vista more than sitting and looking at a big empty pool of ram and marveling at it's size before waiting for a 45 second hard drive grind to open Photoshop.

RE: I call shenanigans
By 67STANG on 4/25/2008 5:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
This is almost laughable. Almost. 15% less overhead? I am assuming that is with Aero turned off...with Aero turned on, cpu usage is 2% higher at idle than XP at idle... You aren't disabling Aero are you, because that's one of the new "features"? I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but mine are from my computer.. (which by the way loads photoshop in just over 3 seconds with XP).

If you want Vista's UI, download the free VTP for XP... your computer will still be faster than a real Vista box.

As for me, I've tried Vista on an Athlon X2 dev server and on my afforementioned C2D machine. But since I like as much speed as possible, I'm sticking with XP for the short term.

The only way I'll switch to Vista again is if I buy boatload of RAM and get the 64 bit version, which I hear, is actually faster than XP.

RE: I call shenanigans
By TomZ on 4/25/2008 5:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
The OP's point is that Aero offloads GUI rendering to the GPU, compared to XP which does not. That is why it consumes less CPU. With XP, when you're running normal non-game apps, your GPU is basically idle. Basic stuff.

RE: I call shenanigans
By SavagePotato on 4/25/2008 5:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
No what is laughable is your made up stats.

There was recently an article comparing start up times of apps between Vista and XP to compare the effects of superfetch and photoshop was nowhere near 3 seconds in XP.

And yes original articles at the time of Vista's release quoted the ui overhead at 15% more efficient than XP, quite possibly right on Dailytech or Anandtech.

I'm afraid you are going to have to be added to the "I'm a tech" hall of shame of Vista bashers.

RE: I call shenanigans
By 67STANG on 4/25/2008 6:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
The 15% would have to be the rendering of UI elements which are dished off to the GPU as TomZ mentions. After all, you can have a more efficient by volume engine that uses more gas than a smaller, less efficient engine... overlooking simple reasoning, lets get back to load times...

The Dell Dimension 7730 notebook with a T7800 I'm on right now opens photoshop in under 5 seconds, and it isn't nearly as fast as my desktop. Your system is quite sad if it took 45 seconds to load photoshop-- my old athlon 2800+ only took 20 seconds for that matter...

BTW- I'm not bashing Vista. I'm simply calling a spade, a spade. That's why I'm going to also call you: "uninformed"

RE: I call shenanigans
By SavagePotato on 4/25/2008 10:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
40 seconds was a generalization clearly, to emphasize the point of superfetch.

Actualy my sad 3.4 ghz overclocked e6600 with 4gb of ram takes approximately 2-2.5 seconds to open photoshop thanks to superfetch.

A recent comparison outlined start times on the same hardware and a 6 second photoshop in XP was more like 2.6 seconds in Vista. 3dstudio max went from a whopping 40 seconds to 10 seconds on the same machine.

So I'm sorry but it is you who is misinformed. The Vista UI exists beyond aero effects and yes it is more efficient overall than XP.

Load times are much better, general use is much better, and functionality is much better. This is why I use Vista and have for over a year.

You are not bashing Vista? That's funny your initial post ranks among the top incoherent nonsense rants to inflict users with your own foolishness that I have read.

I call a silly Vista bashing troll a silly Vista bashing troll, which is what I would call you.

RE: I call shenanigans
By 67STANG on 4/26/2008 1:56:38 AM , Rating: 2
That's funny, photoshop under Vista took almost 10 seconds to load on my nearly identical machine... I guess my Vista came with mediocrefetch.

You can quote numbers from websites all day long, I can do the same contridicting your points just as easily. The only reason I don't is because everyone (well maybe not you) has already seen them-- and at this point it's like talking to a brick wall (that's short a few bricks).

The Vista UI is pretty. That's it. IIS administration within it blows. Most of the control panel items are needlessly renamed from every other version of Windows. The integrated zip utility is so slow it makes me long to install winzip again. There are nearly 0 benefits over XP's UI.

Menu load times are much slower, general usage is unchanged and functionality besides the cool (but copied from apple) 3D Flip are largely unchanged. Security is about the only major improvement, although if turn off annoying UAC (which most do), it's not much more secure... Don't even get me started on the 10-40% slower game performance.

It's clear to see you're a blithering die-hard Vista fan. That's quite obvious by you butting-in on just about every thread in on this topic. But please stop the spin, and made up numbers. Then go back underneath the bridge from whence you came.

RE: I call shenanigans
By SavagePotato on 4/27/2008 5:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
There you go again.

Everything you just said is a flaming load of bullshit, but if you make it sound like you mean it people might actualy believe it right.

You are quoting bullshit that would have been a stretch at launch much less after a year of driver improvements and a service pack.

Heres a thought, maybe you are in fact a dumbass and have absolutely no idea how to set up a system properly. That is why your system takes twice as long to load photoshop as your XP system. That or the even more likely, you are a dumbass AND making shit up to sound like you know what you are doing.

Personally I am going to go with option two and classify you as yet another waste of time anti Vista retard that pulls made up stats out of his ass and pretends to know what he is talking about. Have a nice day in self validating fantasy land which is the only place you will ever have a hope of knowing what the hell you are talking about.

RE: I call shenanigans
By Omega215D on 4/26/2008 1:37:14 AM , Rating: 3
I ran VIsta in a brand new MacBook with only 1GB and Intel GMA X3100 GPU just fine. A MacBook for crying out loud (based on the people stating that it is lackluster in terms of hardware).

I only upgraded the RAM because people told me OSX Leopard will like 2GB + of RAM just like Vista.

RE: I call shenanigans
By jimbojimbo on 4/25/2008 12:24:01 PM , Rating: 1
Any PC with 1GB of RAM will run Vista acceptably.
You said it. Acceptably - although this is still your opinion. XP with 1GB of RAM runs just fine. Now you have one set of hardware. Do yo put something on it that runs acceptably or something on it that runs well? You'd be an idiot to go with the former.

RE: I call shenanigans
By TomZ on 4/25/2008 12:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
That's not true. We had a number machines here in the office that were older 2.x GHz P4's w/1GB RAM, and we upgraded them from XP to Vista. There is no noticable performance difference after the upgrade.

On the other hand, I had an older machine, a laptop wiht 850MHz P3 and 512MB of RAM. That machine ran XP acceptably, but it didn't run Vista very well - it was too slow. So there is a certain threshold, but it is not where you state it is, in my experience.

RE: I call shenanigans
By SavagePotato on 4/25/2008 5:24:26 PM , Rating: 2
I would generally say one is an idiot to use a last generation OS to save $20 on ram for a new computer.

Lets see which makes more sense. Reloading your brand new machine with an XP downgrade because it only has 1gb of ram, or paying $20-40 and getting 2-4gb of ram.

If you are honestly so hard off that you can't break the bank for that, maybe it's a good idea to forget about the computer world.

RE: I call shenanigans
By xeroshadow on 4/26/2008 12:38:01 PM , Rating: 3
I would generally say one is an idiot to spend ~$150 if their current OS satisfies needed functionality just because it is supposedly evolved and we must progress. Last I checked my computer is still secure, plays all available games, surfs the web, emails, IMs, video editing and the last I remember a crash was over 2 years ago.

What futuristic world am I missing that Vista supplies that XP cannot? I thought the increasing functionality of new technology has been progressing just fine WITH XP despite the release of Vista.

RE: I call shenanigans
By SavagePotato on 4/27/2008 5:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, what is the fascination with the notion that you have to go out and spend this massive amount of money to upgrade your machine to Vista?

You do realize 90% of the people that will end up using Vista will do so because it is preloaded on their new computer?

The situation all you little bubble heads like to draw out would have to mean you have first of all a retail box copy of XP and be considering purchasing flat out a retail box copy of Vista to load on the same machine.

If you are getting a new machine, you are going to be getting Vista, unless you downgrade to XP after June, you simply aren't getting it if you buy a new computer. In the end THAT is what a new OS is for.

In what universe does it make sense to downgrade the OS rather than purchase a $20 stick of ram?

You may not realize it yet sitting there happily typing word documents on your 1.4ghz p4 but yes there are people out there that want features like DX10, and an actually well supported 64 bit option. Sitting around for the next several years with a 32 bit os, or trying to piss around with XP64 which is a driver crapshoot at this point isn't an option.

THAT is the future that you don't seem to be seeing, that there is a world beyond 4gb of ram and many people would like to see it become common place much much sooner. In the next two years XP is going to be laughable with it's memory limitations. Much the way 98 was with it's 768mb limitation. Vista is the first step towards making 64 bit memory addressing commonplace. XP64 is an example of a total wash that did not work. With forced 64/32bit driver development for certification Vista can actually get people to make the change, where XP64 failed miserably.

RE: I call shenanigans
By gradoman on 4/25/2008 12:32:31 PM , Rating: 1
What in the world are you talking about? 1GB? Are you insane? I posted about my friend's HP DV2000 series laptop that has 1GB of RAM that he paid about about a $1400 for last year. (I will have to get the full specs)

Out of the box, it was slow and now that he's installed a bit of stuff it's even slower. Sure it wasn't reformatted to lose all the extra bloatware, but it clearly says on that sticker, Vista Capable. I find it to be incapable of doing anything without hair-tearing, slow-as-snails-uphill, disk-churning action.

I have since recommended to him a reformat, reinstall and a 1GB stick of memory. Jeezus.

RE: I call shenanigans
By arazok on 4/25/2008 1:14:12 PM , Rating: 3
My wife's Dell has similar specs and 1GB of ram. Runs like a dream.

I'd suspect your problem is bloatware, or something similar. Let me know what it runs like on a clean install. Don't be so quick to blame the OS.

RE: I call shenanigans
By royalcrown on 4/25/2008 4:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
Your problem is that it is HP ! HP is crap..

RE: I call shenanigans
By gradoman on 4/25/2008 4:39:46 PM , Rating: 1
@royalcrown It's not my laptop, it's my friend's. Reading up on this series and others, I found out that they are prone to having their wireless card go out -- lol, and so (just his luck) even after updating the bios his went out about 2 weeks ago. Now he has to send it in for repairs. Oh and they don't bother to pack in a DVD or CDs with Vista, the computer's drivers, extras, whatever -- it comes on your hdd to take up some space on there. 3rd time I've seen this and me no like.

In any case, why should anyone have to format a computer and re-install to have optimal performance? I don't get it. I'm quite sure that those who aren't so comp savvy would want the best out of what they bought. Are they not entitled to at least that out of the box? What a load of bullshit.

RE: I call shenanigans
By SavagePotato on 4/25/2008 5:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
And this is Microsoft's fault?

Oh wait no, it is the fault of the notebook manufacturer.

Yes there are crappy notebooks out there loaded with ridiculous performance robbing poorly designed applications piled on by the manufacturer. Case in point, Acer. Their first Vista notebooks were a circus of crap loaded with apps that didn't even work in Vista in some cases.

Almost no notebook manufacturers include a restore cd or driver cd any longer. Welcome to cost cutting.

Again none of these problems in any way relate to Vista, and in fact will plague an XP system just the same. Find a new rant.

RE: I call shenanigans
By royalcrown on 4/25/2008 6:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
Don't feel too badly, I am always working on my friends dv 6000 series because it's always having probs, like with that "optiarc" read "opticrap" dvd drive, it's not compatible with vista technically, and oddly enough...her wireless burned itself up too.

You KNOW HP knows better than this, they MADE the damn thing. Maybe it's time for a class action vs. HP.

RE: I call shenanigans
By gradoman on 4/25/2008 7:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
It is partially MS fault as they have that stupid sticker thing going on and partially the manufacturer's fault since they push it on you with loads of other garbage.

This laptop isn't capable of running Vista well if you install any other software on it with the specs it has. So why does it have a sticker on it? I highly doubt a reformat and reinstallation is going to help that much once he starts re-installing software suites and using them -- that's why I'm bugging the guy to pay about $40 for a 1GB stick of RAM to bring his total up to 2GB. Doesn't that sound prudent?

RE: I call shenanigans
By arazok on 4/25/2008 8:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
that's why I'm bugging the guy to pay about $40 for a 1GB stick of RAM to bring his total up to 2GB. Doesn't that sound prudent?

No, it sounds like a waste of money. If you can't get Vista to run correctly on 1GB of ram, your problem isn't ram. It's faulty hardware or software. You have already confirmed it has faulty hardware, and other posters have commented on some of the preinstalled software being problematic as well.

I'd suggest you tell your friend to cut his losses and buy a decent machine. I'd recommend Vista Premium on his next machine - I've been very happy with it on my Dell.

RE: I call shenanigans
By just4U on 4/25/2008 4:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of 128megs of ram and XP. I just upgraded a pc I built back in 2001 with winme and 128megs of ram. It was upgraded to XP sometime around 2003 or so and has been using that same stick of ram since then and not had a very enjoyable experience at all... Im still in shock that she went so long with it like that. Needless to say, she's now got it all upgraded. I went with 4G of ram a 5200+ Amd cpu on a 780G chipset. That should keep her happy for several years to come!

RE: I call shenanigans
By thartist on 4/26/2008 4:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
My question is... How come you believe that it's now Manufacturers fault if a OS-Hardware relation is a bit troublesome? So, Vista is no longer a memory hog to anyone now! It hw manufacturers fault just like that. Ahhh, how relieving is passing guilt to someone else! You are chewing MS's latest gum, FUD. Tastes like cherry and relaxes your mind, doesn't it?

RE: I call shenanigans
By SouthCA on 4/27/2008 4:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
I picked up a new laptop a while back with a Core2 Duo proc and 1GB RAM that shipped with Vista Business. I'm an MCSE and have been supporting various MS products for years, and frankly was looking forward to getting Vista. My enthusiasm faded quickly, as the performance was dismal even after disabling many of the gee-whiz features. After around 3 weeks, I finally "upgraded" to XP and the difference was incredible. I fully expect a new OS to have higher system requirements, but I'd say system requirements for decent performance on Vista are still well beyond entry level PCs.

In general, I found Vista to be stable and easy to use, but there just weren't any "must have" new features and I didn't have the patience to deal with the horrid performance. The same hardware with XP is crazy fast with enough resources to run a second OS in a VM.

Conflicting statements & contradictions !
By crystal clear on 4/25/2008 12:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
As reported earlier-

While Ballmer stopped short of saying that Microsoft will extend the June 30 deadline for OEM sales of Windows XP, he did say that Microsoft has a large number of users on both Vista and XP, "and as long as those are both important options, we will be sensitive, and we will listen, and we will hear that," he said.

"And I know we're going to continue to get feedback from people on how long XP should be available. We've got some opinions on that," added Ballmer

"Windows Vista: A work in progress," said Ballmer to a crowd of Microsoft MVPs in Seattle

And now this statements as mentioned in the article & many more to come at every occasion/opportunity he gets.

Ballmer should -

Stop making conflicting/contradictory/confusing comments to the press.

Stop creating consumer confusions.

Ask DailyTech to change its file photos of him by sending them some fresh ones.

Ask himself "If Vista is work in progress then why discontinue selling WinXP"

Decide when Vista will be graded a finsihed product.

If he has decided finally to stop selling WinXP then why does he leave the downgrade to WinXP option OPEN for Vista buyers/users.


All this does not do any good to his image & of M.S.

All this does not do any good to VISTA SALES.

We have come from somewhere and are going somewhere.
The great architect of the universe never built a stairway that leads to nowhere."

RE: Conflicting statements & contradictions !
By SavagePotato on 4/25/2008 12:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
Nom nom nom the crocodile is coming to get Ballmer. Run! it's crystal clear and the killer crocodiles and confused marketing nonsense of doom!.

RE: Conflicting statements & contradictions !
By crystal clear on 4/25/2008 12:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
As I have said repeatedly in the past-

I find you sick & disgusting & the type of people not worth responding to.

There are many on this site who feel the same about you.

Enough of you personal attacks & insults -I am not interested to read anything coming from you .

I have better things to do than responding to you-GET LOST.

Just a reminder-

How do I get banned from DailyTech?
Occasionally we will completely ban a user or IP block from DailyTech. You can assure yourself a ban by:
* Harassing other users or employees
* Excessive use of derogatory language
* Excessive “neffing” or posting pointless, offtopic comments
* Spamming
* Registering dummy and puppet accounts

By SavagePotato on 4/25/2008 5:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
I am so sick and disgusting and not worth responding to, that you responded to me.

Well I see your logic is intact as ever.

Keep a weather eye for those crocodiles.

RE: Conflicting statements & contradictions !
By TomZ on 4/25/2008 12:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
All this does not do any good to his image & of M.S.

Are you kidding - this buzz is great PR for Microsoft! Everyone is debating which Microsoft OS is best - sounds like Ballmer is doing a great job "stirring the pot."
Decide when Vista will be graded a finsihed product.

Software is never finished, unless the company goes out of business. Vista is more than "done enough" to be useful today, as proved by the millions of people running it around the world.
All this does not do any good to VISTA SALES.

Remember, Microsoft benefits from Windows sales, not just Vista sales - so substitution of an XP license in an OEM machine is the same for Microsoft. While obviously they'd prefer to sell all Vista licenses, the current situation is not exactly bad for Microsoft.

RE: Conflicting statements & contradictions !
By crystal clear on 4/25/2008 1:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
Hi there !

Are you kidding - this buzz is great PR for Microsoft! Everyone is debating which Microsoft OS is best - sounds like Ballmer is doing a great job "stirring the pot."

Great PR for M.S.should be comparing Vista with the competition & not competing with its ownself,namely WinXP.

Anyway thats what I feel about it-At the same time I respect your opinions.

Software is never finished, unless the company goes out of business. Vista is more than "done enough" to be useful today

Yes I agree with you that software is never finished-but calling it "work in Progress" is bad terminology.
Call it refinement/tweeking or any other suitable terminology for the software work done.
Yes I agree with you that Vista is more than "done enough" to be useful today.

Have a nice day !

RE: Conflicting statements & contradictions !
By Farfignewton on 4/26/2008 1:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
Great PR for M.S.should be comparing Vista with the competition & not competing with its ownself,namely WinXP.

I think the prevailing opinion is that the only competition windows has is another version of windows. There are certainly alternatives, but for most people linux and apple fall short of their needs just by virtue of not being windows.

By crystal clear on 4/27/2008 1:54:12 AM , Rating: 2
Yes you have a point but if you notice (as widely reported)-

Apple's earnings for the quarter ending in March jumped 37%, thanks to a 51% surge in unit sales of desktop and laptop computers.

A 51% increses in unit sales is certainly a figure worth the note.

These sales figures cannot be credited due to iPhones/iPods,these were people/buyers who previously used windows as their O.S. earlier.

Taking into consideration the higher price levels of macs comaparatively,to achieve these results indicates a gradual shift from the traditional windows only clients.

YES people like you may not use the Mac options but the mainstream buyers who bring in the bulk of the revenues(90%)certainly do consider other options.
Apple even with its price disadvantage still makes itself an attractive/feaseble option for the mainstream buyers.

Pls note that these mainstream buyers do not have the knowledge/experience/abilities like you.

All the same M.S. has no reason to panic but should view these consumer/buying trends as something not worth ignoring.

Apple is expanding its precense in Europe & Asia to further boost its sales.

Consumer buying trends tend to be very voltile & unpredictable & the Mac sales just say that.

I am not promoting Macs but view with interest consumer buying trends/habits.

Have a nice day !

By crystal clear on 4/29/2008 4:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
Partners To Microsoft: Stop Bashing Vista

Some Microsoft (NSDQ:MSFT) channel partners say the software giant's recent blunt public statements about Windows Vista are putting them in difficult positions with their customers and undermining their efforts to sell the operating system.

In the past month, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has referred to Vista as "a work in progress" and hinted that Microsoft might extend the June 30 deadline for Windows XP. Earlier this month at the RSA conference in San Francisco, David Cross, a product unit manager at Microsoft, said the User Account Control feature in Vista was designed "to annoy users."

These public comments couldn't come at a worse time for solution providers who've been dutifully chipping away at the market's calcified disdain for Vista, which is fueled by negative feedback both from organizations that have deployed the OS and organizations on the sidelines parroting the 'Vista sucks' meme.;jsessionid=5...

A little OT
By nvalhalla on 4/25/2008 9:32:03 AM , Rating: 2
What does the EU do with the "fines" Microsoft pays them? 1.4 Billion is no small chunk of change. Do computer owners get this as restitution for Microsoft's "unfair pricing", or is the European Commission like the RIAA and keeps the money it collects?

RE: A little OT
By Moohbear on 4/25/2008 9:48:03 AM , Rating: 2
I'd think it goes to the EU budget and get spent on EU subsidies programs.

RE: A little OT
By jimbojimbo on 4/25/2008 12:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
Nyah, it probably gets reinvested into their lawyers so they could sue more companies.

RE: A little OT
By Aloonatic on 4/25/2008 9:52:00 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe the report/audit into corruption and expensive abuses by MEP (Members of the European Parliament) and their cronies will answer your question?

Oh wait, they wont release it as it's an internal matter, non of our business, nothing to see here, move along, move along.

I am still waiting for my MS/Intel "damages" cheque to come through the post. :)

RE: A little OT
By Aloonatic on 4/25/2008 9:54:40 AM , Rating: 2
RE: A little OT
By DeathSniper on 4/25/2008 11:47:08 AM , Rating: 2
It gets spent supporting Uwe Bolle's horrible game-adaptation movies :p

By L33tMasta on 4/25/2008 1:29:29 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously, if you have a new machine and you want to put XP on it you need to go get educated. XP is old and useless. It's time to move forward and get Vista. 2 GB of memory isn't alot of money. A nice computer will run Vista and games just fine.

RE: Upgrade
By tfk11 on 4/25/2008 2:19:36 PM , Rating: 4
If you say so... L33tMasta


RE: Upgrade
By royalcrown on 4/25/2008 4:18:04 PM , Rating: 3
No it won't..I just put together an AMD 5400+ X2 machine with 2 gigs of ram and an Amd 780g chipset and it runs vista about the same as my XP 2800+ with 1 gig of ddr 400 and 7600gs in it.

I am back on xp pro because vista just bogged down my NEW machine...Maybe you'd like to see my Newegg invoice as proof ?! Maybe when I get 2 more gigs and my geforce 8 series, it won't be so dog slow.

RE: Upgrade
By tanishalfelven on 4/26/2008 10:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
maybe if you were smart enough to not pair a dual core proc and 1gb or ram it would be better.

like the poster said. 2gb is needed and 2gb is really cheap these days.

RE: Upgrade
By V3ctorPT on 4/28/2008 8:47:02 AM , Rating: 2
I think Vista is good, is safer than XP and it doens't get all f$%&# after a while, all because of UAC. My sister has a HP notebook with XP MCE05, I let her use my Toshiba (2x2.4 penryn, 3gb DDR2) that has V. Home Premium, and she loved it... way stable... her notebook has to be formatted every 2months because it starts to "get dirty".I'm going go put Vista in her one and a half year pc (vista capable), and a 1gb extra ram... Vista is good if people don't care about the top performance, but care about total reliability. (ps- my notebook was formatted because of Toshiba's "software"... it boots 30sec faster and is more responsive).


Ballmer's an idiot
By OxBow on 4/25/2008 9:10:27 AM , Rating: 5
That's really all I have to say.

RE: Ballmer's an idiot
By arazok on 4/25/2008 11:28:52 AM , Rating: 2
I'd argue that based on his tax returns, he's probably smarter then anyone posting on these boards.

RE: Ballmer's an idiot
By TomZ on 4/25/2008 12:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree - and here's another example. Think for a minute how he and Microsoft have been able to change the debate. Now everyone is arguing which is better - XP or Vista - which of 2 Microsoft OSs is superior. That's far better for Microsoft than to have a debate about Windows, OS-X, and Linux. LOL.

RE: Ballmer's an idiot
By cscpianoman on 4/25/2008 7:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but he is a rich idiot, which gives special idiot powers that allow him media time. When you get idiocy and money together, sparks fly.

The only reason this customer "wants" Vista is...
By Golgatha on 4/25/2008 9:41:27 AM , Rating: 3
because I'm a gamer.

1) Can't get DX10 any other way. Games will start to require this feature sooner or later.

2) Memory requirements for games are pushing the 2GB per program limit under 32bit XP, and it's only going to get worse as time progresses.

3) There is better vendor support for Vista 64bit than WinXP 64bit.

4) I can dual-boot Vista 64bit alongside WinXP 32bit. For what it's worth, I'd say WinXP still gets 95%+ of my screen time. Basically I use it to play a handful of games and watch high def movies. Great value for the dollar there Microsoft.

By DeepBlue1975 on 4/25/2008 7:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get your post fully.

You say you need vista, but that you're running XP 95%+ of the time? :D

BTW, why don't you feel compelled to play hd movies in Vista64? Does it have any kind of issue with that? (it's a true question, I run vista 32 here, and it has no issues with anything I do for now, including playing hd movies, but I don't know about vista64... Though I plan to jump on that bandwagon as soon as I get a new hdd)

By Belard on 4/25/2008 11:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
DX10 is the *only* possible useful feature on Vista. So much that MS chose to NOT support it in XP. Remember, DX9 works FINE in WindowsXP, 2000 and 98!! But all of the suddden, their resources can't make it work. right.

Meanwhile a few kids are making/made DX10 emulation or wrapper to allow that crappy Halo2 run on a PC... like who wants that crap XBOX game on a 2008 computer?

- Dx10 won't matter much in the future. ATI and Nvidia have their own graphic languages that are faster and more powerful than DX. The game developer doesn't need to use the DX10 layer between the game engine and hardware. While there are some nice visual effects I've seen on DX10 screen shots... those games do look quite good on DX9/XP. Whatever the case, Vista ain't worth the DRM riddled bug-fest that Microsoft farts out of its factories.

- 3) That is a given about 64bit support.

- Someone posted that games are starting to need 2GB of RAM.... lets see, about the ONLY game that is HITTING 2GB is Suprmeme Commander. And the comparison is on a 2GB Vista box vs 3 / 4 GB systems. Gee... try running the game on a 2GB XP box.... like mine and its nowhere near close to eating all 2GB. So its really only VISTA that is driving the need for more memory... besides, in testing - 8GB if the min. optimal amount for 64bit computing. So cost wist: XP with 2GB = $35~50 for RAM vs Vista with 8GB = $250~500... and it may still be JUST as slow as an XP box with 2 or 4GB of RAM.

By Omega215D on 4/26/2008 1:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, is it true that Crysis will run better on Vista 64-bit? I've heard reports that it should so I don't know if I would jump on it (currently running Home Premium 32-bit but can upgrade to 64).

Ballmer - you're an idiot
By Belard on 4/25/2008 1:22:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah... Vista is selling SOOO good, that only about 15~20% of the users Spend another $100+ to upgrade to XP.

I've talked with sales people on the floor at Frys, CompUSA, Best Buy - they ALL wish they had XP computers to sell. When I build a custom PC, they're still XP... and reasons why I get such requests IS BECAUSE I can order/buy XP-OEM and what is at stores is only Vista. In the business sector, we STILL have salesmen recommending XP over vista to their customers. hmmmmmm

Vista is not quite the junk that ME was, but I bet that IF there were XP desktops with the same configs as Vista for the same price side by side - that Vista wouldn't even make 50% of the sales for 2007.

Ballmer - When a 70yr old woman COMPLAINS that VISTA is tooo SLOW and more difficult to do simple tasks such as writing a letter and playing Solitare on her new 3Ghz/1GB/160GB HD computer that replaced her OLD Celeron 1.0/128mb/15gb HD system with XP... that is SAYING something. She complained about the computer every week for almost 2 months before she bought XP and I installed it over vista... never a peep from her in over 8 months.

RE: Ballmer - you're an idiot
By L33tMasta on 4/25/2008 1:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
And you're a liar. Old people don't know the difference between operating systems. You made that old lady story up.

RE: Ballmer - you're an idiot
By Belard on 4/25/2008 2:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
And you're a liar. Old people don't know the difference between operating systems. You made that old lady story up.

Nope.... sorry to bust your vista bubble.

Her hands are not in great shape to hold and move actual cards, so using a mouse and a computer allows her to play cards much easier.

She's a friend of the family, known her for over 5 years. Her old PC was a HP, grey with smoked-clear plastic front. Its HD was failing and Windows was very much dead. Because she lives across town and needed a replacement quickly - I didn't have time to simply build her an XP box. So she got a $400 Compaq at Office Depot.

Old people? That's rather insulting? How OLD are you? There are QUITE a large number of people who are in their 50s, 60's, 70s and up USING computers today to communicate with their family as well as work. Needless to say, my own mother can't work a computer (refuses too) whily my 3yr old does quite well on his own desktop system (Of course he thinks he doing a LOT more than he really is).

Out of all the people I know personally, only 1 is using vista. Many of my friends are programmers, work in the tech field, Texas Instruments, etc - none of them are touching vista.

I'm sorry that having a transparent Window on your desktop means so much to you. But proof of Vista's problems are out there. It does NOTHING that XP can't do... its horrible slow, basic Vista PCs have 2GB of RAm standard, when a Standard XP PC is 512mb... some of my clients are STILL running just fine with 512mb XP systems. This site / Anandtech do reviews with Vista setups having 4 & 8GB of RAM.... so from that standpoint, a GREAT running Vista box will need to be a tweaked 8GB 64bit version and ALL of your hardware devices need to have 64bit drivers.... tricky.

Come on... SLOW USB, SLOW UNZIPPING files... 20mins to unpack a file? I aborted, copied the 40mb file to a flash drive... murded vista, installed fresh legit XP, unpacked the 40mb XP driver in 30 seconds or so.... on the EXACT same PC, no hardware changes. Vista spends its time showing pretty animation graphics while you die of old age waiting for something to happen. Some of us have better things to do with our lives. Geez, Vista spent 2 minutes "calculating" how long it would take to unpack the file! Wow, that is an ADVANCEMENT in computer tech...!!

Besides... monkey boy, well - he explains it all himelf: I guess if I made billions selling crappy products, I can be a nut too?

RE: Ballmer - you're an idiot
By SavagePotato on 4/28/2008 9:27:46 AM , Rating: 1
Ok you win the grand prize of stupid things I've heard about Vista.

Vista is slow because grandma told me so.

Let's see if I get the story here.

You got a flaming piece of crap $400 compaq bloatware infested heap and gave it to skeletor to play solitaire on. Now based on the testimony of an old woman with a computer from probably the worst, bar none, manufacturer going, Vista is to blame. Let me guess you put Norton Internet security on it too.

Let's back up your bullshit train there a little bit please. I have personally ran tests on the so called "slow usb" and "slow zip files" since SP1 and guess what? It's not f-ing slow, it's just fine. I did a side by side comparison of a USB2 transfer from a WD Passport and it was the same on the XP machine Vs the Vista SP1 machine. My time unzipping files on my SP1 machine is perfectly acceptable as well. Both my home system with 4gb of ram, and my POS system at work with 1gb of ram and an A64 3500+

Oooooh all your friends are programmers, well thats different now you get instant credibility for everything you say! Wait no you don't you are still full of crap.

Oh perfect example to point out your stupidity here...

"Vista spent two minutes calculating how long it would take to unpack the file."

First of all, No, it doesn't do that post SP1, second of all. Even when it did, it was actually doing the task when it said calculating.

This is exactly the kind of nonsense jabbering I am talking about. People without a clue pulling at best exaggerations and more often flat out lies out of their ass to support their ridiculous opinion on a perfectly functional OS.

Please go back to troll school.

RE: Ballmer - you're an idiot
By Belard on 5/2/2008 7:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
Funny... the PC ran like a champ once vista was murdered and upgraded to XP. Oh, and there was no bloat ware on the PC. It was all uninstalled. Same Antivirus software was installed (vista certified).

I guess everyone who disagrees with you don't know what they're talking about... read this if you can:

Get your head out of fantasy land.

Why do we care?
By daBKLYNdoorman on 4/25/2008 1:47:06 PM , Rating: 3
All versions of Windows XP will always be available for download on pretty much all of the many torrent sites out there.

No worries, Mr. Ballmer... your efforts to stop piracy are being crushed one by one.

I <3 uTorrent. Long live pirates!

RE: Why do we care?
By ashegam on 4/25/2008 2:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry if this has been answered.

How long will updateds and patches be released after windows XP is stopped being sold?

RE: Why do we care?
By darkpaw on 4/25/2008 2:59:21 PM , Rating: 3
Currently it is scheduled for patch support through 2014

Of course...
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/25/2008 8:44:31 AM , Rating: 4
Everybody will want Vista Ultimate with aero and everything running on machines like the EEE PC or any kind of UMPC for what matters.

Vista is a fine OS but its hardware footprint is not exactly suited for every single computer you can buy out there, and that is specially true for the cheapest of the laptops and all of the less powerful machines.

RE: Of course...
By darkpaw on 4/25/2008 9:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
And that is why MS already said they'd extend XP sales through 2010 for these specific types of machines.

Who's selling what
By Topweasel on 4/25/2008 9:11:58 AM , Rating: 2
I work in IT support and for that reason I want XP to live longer (my company is nowhere near ready for a switch). That said I don't know what gives us the right to say when a company should or shouldn't stop selling their own product.

Second. Vista is more then XP with paint. and the memory foot print is not that much bigger then XP. Speccailly with todays memory prices.

RE: Who's selling what
By Chimpie on 4/25/2008 9:28:57 AM , Rating: 2
That said I don't know what gives us the right to say when a company should or shouldn't stop selling their own product.

We don't have the right to force a company to continue to produce a product. But if customers still demand it, and I think there really is limited demand in this case, then a company should continue to either offer it or just support it.

RE: Who's selling what
By Aloonatic on 4/25/2008 9:41:55 AM , Rating: 2
kinda agree, but disagree.

They could (for arguments sake) release OS every year, stop selling the old one and charge £100 for it which would piss a lot of people off but what you gunna do? Go linux?

If anything, they left it a bit too long and should have had Vista in place around XP SP2 time?

XP SP2 worked too well and now they've been forced into making SP3 they are only making matters worse.

The vast majority of home vista users can't really see much of a difference apart from aero (which means nothing to them really) the changes to the start menu and that a few things have been moved around in control panel.

Here in the office, most people have been annoyed by the same old changes and some of the network discovery fun too but it's nothing major.

Most users sill never really know what the "good" changes are and will get used to super fetch advantages and such, it's just human nature to remember the bad and forget the good.

It'll all blow over soon, I hope.

MS need to release a new product from time to time just as any other company does, the fact that everyone is so dependent on them causes them problems that most companies would be happy to have I guess.

It's just a shame that they were almost Terminal 5 like in their claims that it was a brave new Vista world and it just hasn't turned out that way for most people.

I can't wait for windows 7 :-s

Prove Ballmer wrong - sign the petition
By DukeN on 4/25/2008 11:11:19 AM , Rating: 2

Sign the petition folks. I think if a couple of million folks signed up, perhaps it would send Ballmouth a message.

RE: Prove Ballmer wrong - sign the petition
By Arctucas on 4/25/2008 12:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
Page load error.

By kilkennycat on 4/25/2008 6:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
Site overloaded ?? Highly likely.
Try again. Worked just fine for me yesterday when I signed the petition. I checked the above link just now. Works fine for me.

XP can easily hold out.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/25/2008 3:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
By the time Xp is truly " obsolete " Windows 7 will be out or near launch.

Xp is by FAR the most stable and best Windows OS I have ever used. I'm not about to freak out and go Vista because of Balmers scare tactics.

RE: XP can easily hold out.
By TomZ on 4/25/2008 3:49:20 PM , Rating: 1
I can see the future. Early adopters will plow through the intial problems with Windows 7, get it working, and come to like it. In the meantime, a large vocal group of "Windows 7 Detractors" will spring up extolling the virtues of Vista compared to Windows 7 which they will call a resource hog, eye candy, and complain about the frame rates of certain games and compatibility with old apps and hardware...

RE: XP can easily hold out.
By just4U on 4/25/2008 4:16:50 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree Tom. Because of the longevity of XP... That large vocal group will most likely still be coming from that sector. Just there will be a second tier clinging to Vista as well.

To be honest tho, I kind of liked the fact that Microsoft had such a delay between consumer Os's. It gave a considerable amount of time for people to really get to know how to do things with xp.. Even novice users who just surf.

By sapiens74 on 4/25/2008 4:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
I tested Vista for our company for the last year and a half.

We had it at day one and until recently you could not manage Server 2003 boxes or AD effectively with Vista

Microsoft's solution was setup an XP box and RDP into that computer and manage from there

Good job guys winning us over.

I'll bet my job we don't use Vista, period... It will be XP until Windows 7 comes out.

on a side note Ballmer is an idiot, a very rich idiot.

I like him better when he runs around stage incoherent with his tongue wagging.....

By sapiens74 on 4/25/2008 4:19:35 PM , Rating: 1
Figured I'd reply to my own post that I like Vista 64 and run it at home on my Media Center computer.

However It's a bitch to tweak and get working like it is supposed to, but I like it


Disable all the useless services like superfetch and indexing.. it runs like a champ now...

By TomZ on 4/25/2008 5:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
We had it at day one and until recently you could not manage Server 2003 boxes or AD effectively with Vista

We've managed our Server 2003 boxes here with Vista for a year now. What limitation or problem were you running into specifically? We don't even have any XP computers left.

By meepstone on 4/25/2008 12:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
he must think if he says it enough times it will come true. I dont know anyone who has vista and/or is looking forward to getting it.

He must only get his information from inside his offices from employees who are just "yes" men.

RE: Steve...
By codeThug on 4/25/2008 7:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
Very true.

L Ron Ballmer (LRB) only listens to the other Microtologists @ his camp in Redmond.

LRB should do well at writing science fiction novels.

By DEredita on 4/25/2008 1:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think it would be an epic mistake if XP is discontinued. Don't get me wrong, I like Vista (specifically 64-bit version of the Business Edition). But, XP is still needed and I still use it.

XP is running on my Macbook for Parallels, I've tried Vista, but my 2.16 GHz (C2D) Macbook w/ 2GB of ram can't handle it.

XP is great for virtual machines, low end laptops/desktops, and sub-notebooks like the Asus Eee PC. Discontinuing XP would be a huge mistake, unless Microsoft can release a Vista Lite edition, which uses far less system resources than the current Home Basic edition.

Vista is good, but if and only if you are using it as a stand-alone (not in a virtual machine environment) and have at least a 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo processor, 2GB ram (minimum!!!!), and a decent onboard video chipset. These minimum specs won't let you game, but should suffice for basic office environment tasks.

BTW... I've noticed that Vista 64-bit is much faster than the 32-bit version, and is worth the jump if your applications, hardware, and drivers support it. I have both 64-bit and 32-bit Vista Business running on a Dell Optiplex 745 here at work w/ a Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4GHz) processor, 4GB DDR2-800 ram, and a 256MB ATI X1300Pro video card. The 64-bit Vista is significantly faster than the 32-bit version, both have the same applications installed, only reason I have the 32-bit still on there, is because my CD label printer doesn't have 64-bit drivers.

That was a bit off-topic, but just wanted to show an unbiased option from someone who uses a Mac AND Windows machines side by side - every day. I like the Apple OS X operating system the best, but not exactly sold on the Apple desktop hardware, which in my opinion is slower, dated, and extremely over-priced. I use Windows when I need all out horsepower and lots of ram, and the Macbook for tasks, such as e-mailing, web browsing, and general office tasks.

By dragonbif on 4/25/2008 2:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
You have it on your old Macbook so why do they need to continue making it if you have it? They don't need it for the new ones, they can handle Vista.

Windows XP Home is going until June 2010 so it can be put on the Asus Eee PC. Did you even read this or just the title?

Why is it that we have not all changed to 64bit? By all I also mean vendors too.

Apple makes a good OS but they don’t like selling it for “build your own PC” because that would be more work for them.

Now for my points, someone up top put down that Vista is XP with lipstick and I have to tell you that you are wrong in so many ways. If that is true then we could just use XP drivers on Vista and we would not be having the driver problems. You can use 2000 drivers on XP that is more like lipstick. It’s more like Vista is like XP but with a new head and lipstick.

As for normal PC's that do not cost much and can not run Vista is simply not true today. It may have been 6 months ago but not now. My dad just got a new Dell that cost him $499.99 and it came with 2G of ram and an AMD x2 processor (sorry don’t remember what version) with some Nvidia card I was the 8500. He has not had a performance problem at all and he can run his WoW at full settings with a low fps of 43.2. I put Crisis on it for fun and I could play that at the low settings with the low fps at 16 and a high of 28 (not that that is supper great but it works). As AMD puts out more CPU's and GPU's it forces Intel and Nivdia to lower their prices making more affordable prices for the consumer. By June 30 I would say that any PC that you buy for $499 could run Vista and if not they are selling to for to much. As for laptops at $499 I don’t think it would work to well but that’s what Windows XP Home is for. If you want Vista on your laptop you would have to pay $699 or more I would say.

XP - Who wants it? Businesses.
By iFX on 4/25/2008 8:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
From my experience with large fortune 500 companies most are not looking to upgrade to Vista any time soon. They finally have a secure infrastructure of PCs and workstations built around XP; all their apps work and everything is nice and stable. Why would the want to spend the money to upgrade (both in licensing costs, labor for their IT people to perform the upgrades and labor for their IT people to support the new OS)?

RE: XP - Who wants it? Businesses.
By TomZ on 4/25/2008 9:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree; most businesses are on what I call the 'n-1' upgrade plan. In other words, they typically try to run the previous generation of OS.

I also also add that most businesses would be on an 'n-2' or 'n-3' plan if Microsoft didn't terminate support for older operating systems. Most businesses, in my experience, begrudgingly upgrade only at the end of life. For example, many of my customers (large corps) upgraded from Win2K to WinXP only when Win2K support ended.

Newest Steve Ballmer Headlines
By rupaniii on 4/26/2008 11:01:34 AM , Rating: 2
People don't want Food and Water.
People don't want a roof over their head.
The sky is Plaid.
The Earth is actually a Cube.
Consumers rate Firestone Tires #1.

Yeah, Steve, go do your jackass monkey dance for us and shut up.