Print 116 comment(s) - last by Zoomer.. on Oct 2 at 10:14 AM

Taking into consideration customer and partner requests, Microsoft will sell Windows XP for another 5 months

In a recent press release Microsoft announced it will extend sales of its Windows XP operating system to OEMs and retail channels for five months over the initial end date, through June 30, 2008. The move comes after a great amount of feedback from customers and partners regarding the original end-of-sale date of January 31, 2008.

Mike Nash, the corporate vice president of Windows Product Management, stated, "While we’ve been pleased with the positive response we’ve seen and heard from customers using Windows Vista, there are some customers who need a little more time to make the switch to Windows Vista."

Nash went on to say that Microsoft's original policy of a four-year availability of operating systems to OEM and retail channels had been established in 2002. However, due to the delays in the launch of Windows Vista, Microsoft felt that offering Windows XP for sale for an additional five months would make more sense.

When asked about what Microsoft was hearing in terms of feedback from customers regarding Windows Vista Nash stated, "With more than 60 million licenses sold as of this summer, Windows Vista is on track to be the fastest-selling operating system in Microsoft’s history."

Microsoft's Nash feels that the strong sales thus far are due to the doubling of sales of pre-built desktop and laptop computers bundled with Windows Vista as the primary OS. However, recently Microsoft also decided to offer OEMs theoption to let customers downgrade from Windows Vista to Windows XP.

Comments     Threshold

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

Uh huh
By Polynikes on 9/28/2007 12:39:42 PM , Rating: 1
While we’ve been pleased with the positive response we’ve seen and heard from customers using Windows Vista, there are some customers who need a little more time to make the switch to Windows Vista.

Nice re-arrangement of "some of our customers think Vista sucks."

RE: Uh huh
By Gul Westfale on 9/28/2007 12:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
"some" may be a bit of an understatement.

RE: Uh huh
By colonelclaw on 9/28/2007 12:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
not some, many

there's no way microsoft would do this unless there was massive pressure for them to do so. normally they force unpopular products down people's throats regardless, but this time they've pissed off way too many people

RE: Uh huh
By colonelclaw on 9/28/2007 12:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
I enjoy The Register's covereage of the same story:

"Or put another way, punters are doing anything they can to avoid having to install and run Vista on their machines."

RE: Uh huh
By crystal clear on 9/29/2007 1:47:46 AM , Rating: 3
InformationWeek showed something very astonsihing-read this

While that may be, a number of signs have emerged in recent months that Windows Vista's problems go beyond timing. A survey conducted earlier this year by InformationWeek showed that an astonishing 30% of businesses have no plans to purchase Windows Vista.

It's an indication that many corporate software buyers may take a long look at Linux, the Mac OS, or some other alternative to Vista once Windows XP is no longer available.

Among other things, software buyers have railed against Windows Vista's price, lack of compatibility with existing software, and system requirements that exceed the capabilities of PCs more than a couple of years old.

or some other alternative to Vista once Windows XP is no longer available.

That bad for Vista & M.S.-watchout.

RE: Uh huh
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2007 2:01:20 PM , Rating: 3
Many also think its an excellent OS so whats your point?

RE: Uh huh
By Polynikes on 9/28/2007 2:33:35 PM , Rating: 4
Enough think it sucks that MS is allowing people to roll back.

That's a first for any OS I've ever heard of.

RE: Uh huh
By SigmaHyperion on 9/28/2007 2:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
It's not that they think it sucks, it's that they bought a PC that is far too underpowered to run the thing.

MS is just saying that since you were too stupid to buy a PC powerful enough to run the OS put on it, it'll let you use XP until you get a better PC later.

You can't be too surprised though. You see the exact same thing on forums for a game from people who think a game "sucks" because they can't play it at the resolutions they think they should when their PC barely (if at all) meets the minimum specs.

Apologies to those consumers that bought a PC in the short period of time when Vista was the only choice for an OS. It wasn't that long after launch before the makers realized they needed to offer an XP option of their own.

RE: Uh huh
By TomZ on 9/28/2007 3:56:12 PM , Rating: 4
I don't think the reason is due to buying an underpowered PC - you'd have to got out of your way to buy a PC that can't run Vista pretty well. I think the issues are probably more along the lines of application compatibility, driver availability, and just simple resistance to change.

RE: Uh huh
By crystal clear on 9/29/2007 2:07:21 AM , Rating: 2
The big stumbling block: Updating applications for Vista is a more complex task for software developers than was revising programs for the move from Windows NT and ME to Windows XP in 2001.

What's behind Vista's compatibility gap? Microsoft has acknowledged that rewriting Windows XP applications for Windows Vista is a more difficult task than what faced independent software developers when they had to port their products to Windows XP from Windows 2000 and Windows ME in 2001.

The trouble is in part due to advanced Windows Vista security features such as BitLocker and the User Account Control -- designed to prevent users from changing their desktop footprint without approval from an IT administrator. Coding applications to work with those features can be tricky, Microsoft has said.

Some example-

That means users will have to pay hundreds of dollars to upgrade their Adobe software if they want trouble-free performance on Windows Vista, which is now preinstalled in virtually all new PCs shipping in the United States. That's because the current versions of most of Adobe's major products won't work properly on the new operating system.

The bottom line is that Adobe customers who are satisfied with the current versions of their software will have little choice but to pay for upgrades if they buy a new PC this year. Adobe says the newest versions of Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver, and several other products will ship this spring and will be fully compatible with Windows Vista.

RE: Uh huh
By crystal clear on 9/29/2007 2:11:53 AM , Rating: 3
I think the issues are probably more along the lines of application compatibility, driver availability, and just simple resistance to change.

You are right-you indentitfy the problem !correct & accurate & the source of the problems.

RE: Uh huh
By exanimas on 9/29/2007 2:56:31 AM , Rating: 1
>>I don't think the reason is due to buying an underpowered PC - you'd have to got out of your way to buy a PC that can't run Vista pretty well. I think the issues are probably more along the lines of application compatibility, driver availability, and just simple resistance to change.

While I do agree with the last part of your statement, the "going out of your way" bit is false. Check out a Best Buy or Circuit City flyer sometime. They usually have a computer on sale every Sunday for $350-400 that has a Celeron and 512MB of RAM. Having used some of these computers, they're crippled just by opening up IE or Word. Many people buy them thinking a computer is a computer, then end up returning them a few days later because "this computer and this new Vista thing is terrible". A good portion of consumers don't know what they're buying and when someone tries to tell them they need a better computer or at least a RAM upgrade, they think they're just being up-sold. Then there's the few that actually dislike Vista for the legitimate reasons you stated. Keyword: few.

RE: Uh huh
By Screwballl on 9/28/2007 7:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
how about this....
I am a computer tech, I "adhere" to change.
Vista bogged down my fairly new computer worse than XP on a Pentium 2. By fairly new I mean E6600, 2GB DDR2-667, SATA3.0 hard drive, X1950GT PCIe video, X-Fi sound, GA-965P-DS3....
I used it 3 months and gave it to my work for testing and went back to my previous XP license. If it cannot work properly or work well on mainstream parts in a almost new computer then they obviously have a bigger problem than just "a few people don't like it".

Also remember they announced that "Vienna" is scheduled to be released for at least public beta testing in 2009. I think they saw early on that Vista is just something to line the pockets with money until they release something that really is worthwhile. Hmmmm sounds familiar... release a substandard product to hold people over for a year or two until they can release something worthwhile... Windows ME anyone? Release ME until they can get XP in a stable mode. It was a bit sketchy at first but after a few months it came along nicely. Here it is more than a few months later for Vista and it is still problematic at best.
Welcome to Windows Me version 2.

RE: Uh huh
By crystal clear on 9/29/2007 2:54:01 AM , Rating: 3
Some prestigious universities, such as MIT and Stanford, also have shelved Windows Vista upgrades until compatibility issues can be resolved.

I think the above should have given you an indication long time a ago.

Also remember they announced that "Vienna" is scheduled to be released for at least public beta testing in 2009.

You can be rest assured dont expect M.S. to meet it deadlines-push it over to late 2009 or early 2010 to be on the safe side.

I think they saw early on that Vista is just something to line the pockets with money until they release something that really is worthwhile.

No ! Its NOT MONEY-let that be clear enough.

The whole Vista project has been plagued with delays-mostly technical in nature, all through out.
Just a bit of history-

#M.S. invested all its human resources to get the WinXp Sp2 developed & out into the market,result pushing forward Vista development.
# Then the technical delays in the process of Vista developments.

The market pressure(OEMs) to get the Vista out after repeated delays made M.S. take the decsion to get Vista out as early as possible.

This with all the problems existing in the O.S.

To add to this to make things worse for Vista-

Drivers from 3rd parties-either they did not work or were non existant or horribly delayed.Example-Nvidia,HP, etc

So its NOT MONEY its Technical & MARKET pressures-OEMs

RE: Uh huh
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2007 10:53:13 AM , Rating: 2
You had bigger problems then. I tested Vista on single core Pentium 4s with hyperthreading, 2GB of RAM, intergrated 945 graphics, and an 80GB hard drive. It ran fine even with full Aero effects.

I also tested it on Core Duo laptops with 512MB of RAM.

The biggest problem Vista has is that hardware developers sat on their ass when it came to writing drivers. That is hardly Microsoft's fault.

RE: Uh huh
By SavagePotato on 9/29/2007 11:27:45 AM , Rating: 3
Nope, your not a computer tech. If you posted something that blatantly stupid you are either a liar or don't have a clue how to set up a system.

I have almost the same system exactly. E6600 P965 board, 7900 gtx though not a 1900xtx and it runs absolutely flawless. Better than XP loaded on the same system.

But then I deal with "computer techs" like yourself quite alot, I call you pseudo techs. Kind of like the moron that was screaming at me on the phone other day about being cisco certified that didn't know his ass from his elbow.

Sorry to burst your bubble but you don't know what you are doing.

RE: Uh huh
By Zoomer on 10/2/2007 10:08:11 AM , Rating: 2
I happen to have a similar system, and don't want to install something for the privilege of less performance.

Ideological issues abound as well. User mode driver? I think that's just a dumb idea. Forcing signed drivers on 64 bit version? Yuck. (In)Secure Audio Path? :rolleyes:

Give me a tangible reason to upgrade. And no, a new UI doesn't cut it. DX10 might be a reason, but I need to get a DX10 part first. I might just dual boot for these few games, though.

I'd say that just against installing it on my desktop. However, I'd be crazy to install in on a current laptop. Increased heat output, decreased battery life, outrageously expensive ram upgrades for >2GB. Sounds more like a downgrade to me.

By the way, I base this on the assumption that it is free (MSAA). If I had to pay for it, it'll be a flat no.

RE: Uh huh
By 3kliksphilip on 9/28/2007 7:57:28 PM , Rating: 2
I think that it's a good thing. It keeps customers happy. I know many people who are happy with Vista (Including me). Just imagine if another company did that- Apple, for instance. Would people go 'Oooh they know that their new operating system sucks thats why people can go back to an old one lol' or would they go 'Nice one Apple! If only Micro$oft could do something like this'.

More people will be happy this way. Isn't that a good thing? Leave Microsoft alone.

RE: Uh huh
By colonelclaw on 9/28/2007 2:49:54 PM , Rating: 3
my point is that it's deliciously ironic that history's biggest ever corporate bully has now been bullied by the computer retail industry into an unprecedented move

i'm not commenting on vista itself, which if these forums are anything to go by is the Marmite of OSes (you either love it or hate it, no inbetweens)

RE: Uh huh
By Eris23007 on 9/28/2007 4:01:58 PM , Rating: 5
MS as history's biggest ever corporate bully? I find the notion laughable.

Have you heard of Standard Oil? The old U.S. Steel? The original Ma Bell? Microsoft's behavior was child's play next to these, or for another, more current example, the De Beers diamond cartel.

Not that I can't appreciate the irony, but I personally believe deeply in the value of appreciation for history...

RE: Uh huh
By ghostbuster on 9/29/2007 4:01:05 PM , Rating: 1
Microsoft doesn't really suffer if you buy WinXP Pro instead of Vista Business, or WinXP Home instead of Vista Basic, or WinXP Media Center instead of Vista Home Premium because WinXP and Vista have the same pricing structure.

Companies are not really anxious to jump to a new OS when it comes out regardless of the OS itself. For example, my company was using Win2K Pro until WinXP SP1 came out. MS knows this and WinXP Pro "downgrade" from Vista Business has been on offer ever since Vista started shipping. Today we buy PCs with Vista licenses and stash away the keys until the company decides to move to Vista.

What's also funny is that when WinXP came out it was bashed for being the same thing as Win2K but with prettier UI and now people talk about WinXP as though it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I'll go out on a limb and make a prediction - when Windows "Seven" comes out in a few years Vista will be ruling the roost of consumer/business OSes and it will take some time for Windows "Seven" to surpass its predecessor in popularity.

RE: Uh huh
By Gul Westfale on 9/29/2007 7:19:45 PM , Rating: 3
XP was 2k's technology with an accessible, easy to understand user interface. vista is XP with essentially the same interface, features, and functionality, since all the cool stuff they announced years ago was cut from the final release.

to add injury to insult, vista is much less compatible than XP (to be expected from a new OS, granted), and consumes considerably more system resources. if you add to that the fact that even current high-end video cards struggle in DX10 gaming then you have no reason at all until MS irons out the bugs.

it was the same story with 98/98SE, and with XP/XP SP1. so i guess i'll wait until vista SP1 before i will upgrade.

RE: Uh huh
By Zoomer on 10/2/2007 10:10:22 AM , Rating: 2
XP wasn't less compatible than 2k.

RE: Uh huh
By Samus on 9/28/2007 8:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
well translated poly

By AnotherUpgradeArg on 9/28/2007 3:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
As a Software Engineer, we attempted to go to Vista and found so many of our 3rd Party tools we used were not Vista compatible and the vendors where either out-of-business or had not migrated them to Vista. Will be a long, long time before we upgrade to Vista or .Net.

XP Pro is Rock Solid!! Gates must have got bored. lol


By TomZ on 9/28/2007 4:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
What 3rd party tools do you use that wouldn't run on Vista?

RE: Some Many 3rd Party Tools Not Vista Compatible
By noirsoft on 9/28/2007 5:04:16 PM , Rating: 1
I feel really really sorry for your customers if you are a "Software Engineer" whose business relies upon tools from vendors who have gone out of business.

Care to name yourself so I can avoid your products forever?

RE: Some Many 3rd Party Tools Not Vista Compatible
By TomZ on 9/28/2007 5:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's actually not an uncommon situation, but what I see is the mistake is to put off supporting Vista instead of acquiring and transitioning to tools/components that support the current release of the Windows operating system. Depending on unsupported tools/components is just asking for trouble.

It's hard to be too critical without understanding the exact situation, but on the surface it looks like a short-sighted management decision.

By crystal clear on 9/29/2007 6:36:50 AM , Rating: 3
They believe in the law called-

"if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

RE: Some Many 3rd Party Tools Not Vista Compatible
By TomZ on 9/29/2007 9:31:18 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, of course, but they are also delaying the inevitable.

By TomZ on 9/29/2007 9:34:39 AM , Rating: 2
In addition, we add all our apps running on Vista around a year ago. We didn't have any changes to run on Vista, because we carefully followed Microsoft coding guidelines when we coded our apps for XP.

By crystal clear on 9/29/2007 10:11:58 AM , Rating: 2
yes indeed-they learn the hardway.

By SavagePotato on 9/29/2007 11:41:00 AM , Rating: 2
Those are the same people that end up in hardcore panic mode when their 10 year old win98 box, which was what they relied on for keeping 100% of their accounting and buisness information on, just calved.

This is something I get to delight in a great deal with the local small buisnesses. THEN they usualy get another fun blast of reality when their 10 year old accounting package has bad floppy disks and they can't reload it, combined with the fact that their stuff is just so old, modern versions of the software from the same company won't even import their data.

That is what happens to people that rely on obsolete software out of a sheer laziness or cheapness toward updating.

By crystal clear on 9/29/2007 1:03:06 PM , Rating: 3
You give the savage blow !great !

By Zoomer on 10/2/2007 10:13:27 AM , Rating: 2
You make it sound so bad. Properly mantained, old systems are just as good. Just look at all these old bank mainframes.

XP’s end-of-life
By splint on 9/28/2007 12:48:17 PM , Rating: 3
I’m digging through Microsoft’s website to find XP’s end-of-life and I found it to be 4/14/2009 for mainstream support. This is interesting considering the price of the OS has not dropped at all. To me this seems a bit unfair.

RE: XP’s end-of-life
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 12:53:02 PM , Rating: 1
Ahh, yes. Why would a company ever discount the price of one thing after its replacement is available? it just doesn't make sense... oh wait, that would make sense.

I, personally, dislike the new features and look of Vista, not because its bad, but because its just not what i like. So if microsoft wants any of my money, they would get it from selling me a license for xp. However i won't spend the same on that as someone else spends on Vista cause thats just ridiculous. This is one of those cases where they are simply being stupid

RE: XP’s end-of-life
By Bioniccrackmonk on 9/28/2007 1:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh, yes. Why would a company ever discount the price of one thing after its replacement is available? it just doesn't make sense... oh wait, that would make sense.

Speaking from a business stand point your comment makes no sense at all. Why would they lower the price of XP if a lot of people are still wanting it. If you released a new version of your own product and a ton of people still wanted the older one until the newer one is mature, would you sale it for less? Sucks for us consumers, not so much for share holders though.

RE: XP’s end-of-life
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 2:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
If you released a new version of your own product and a ton of people still wanted the older one until the newer one is mature, would you sale it for less?


RE: XP’s end-of-life
By darkpaw on 9/28/2007 2:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't the PS2 selling for the same price ($129) as it was before the PS3 even launched? Not completely sure on this one since my launch PS2 is still functioning so never had to buy another one.

RE: XP’s end-of-life
By Bioniccrackmonk on 9/28/2007 4:54:45 PM , Rating: 2
Lets compare apples to apples here, not oranges. Hardware is slightly different then software is. Does Adobe lower the price of its software everytime they release a new version? What about Autocad or Microstation? What about Apple, you think their older OS's are cheaper to everyone whenever they release a new one? I am willing to bet no.

In reality, this situation is hard to compare because Windows is on 90% of the computers in the world unlike anything else. Best thing I can think of is if I was selling oxygen and released a higher quality grade, why would I take a hit when I could sell the older stuff for the same price?

Also, do you believe that 5 year old PS2 costs ~$129 to make these days? Besides, the price of the PS2 has come down over the years, its not like Sony did a huge price drop when the PS3 came out anyway.

I wish I was living on cloud nine like you, but I will check in from time to time to let you know how reality is going down here.

RE: XP’s end-of-life
By mondo1234 on 10/1/2007 10:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
Apples to apples? Adobe doesn't usually sell an earlier version of their software for years when a new one comes out. M$ hoses everybody and never drops their prices. What a rip off. At least other companies drop thier prices as time goes on, but not our beloved Balmer. He screws everybody the same and then throws a temper tantrum like a child when it doesn't work out.....

RE: XP’s end-of-life
By crystal clear on 9/29/2007 3:02:25 AM , Rating: 2
PS2-You are right-great response - in one word or 3 letters !

RE: XP’s end-of-life
By splint on 9/28/2007 2:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
The economic invisible hand consideration aside, when I got XP in 03 much of that “value” was in their support. I figure if Microsoft decides to milk their old platform for longer then it would only be prober to extend its end of life.

RE: XP’s end-of-life
By mechBgon on 9/28/2007 11:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
I’m digging through Microsoft’s website to find XP’s end-of-life and I found it to be 4/14/2009 for mainstream support. This is interesting considering the price of the OS has not dropped at all. To me this seems a bit unfair.

The Extended Support phase of WinXP's lifecycle ends on 4/8/ 2014 . This is the date to look at if you're interested in the availability of security updates.

Waiting on the first SP...
By vortmax on 9/28/2007 1:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
Once SP1 for Vista comes out, many more will migrate over. Until then, they should still sell XP...

RE: Waiting on the first SP...
By Master Kenobi on 9/28/2007 1:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
Companies don't switch quickly, not the big ones. We are expecting to roll out Vista on several thousand machines starting mid next year, it has nothing to do with SP1, it has everything to do with system lifecycle, budgeting for next year, upgrading infrastructure to handle the new OS on the back end, etc.... Companies have a hard time adopting early en-masse because we need to make sure the infrastructure is sufficiently upgraded to handle a new OS.

RE: Waiting on the first SP...
By vortmax on 9/28/2007 1:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
Seeing that SP1 will probably be out in the Nov. timeframe, it will give companies a chance to check it out and place the orders for early Q1...

I think we'll see a large jump in Vista sales beginning Q1 based on new budgets...

By Hoser McMoose on 9/28/2007 5:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
Companies (at least those of 20+ employees) typically buy Microsoft products through volume licenses anyway, so this is a non-issue for them. Microsoft will continue selling volume licenses of WinXP for some time to come. Typically Microsoft will continue to sell the OS through downgrade rights for as long as people are willing to pay for them, though in practise most want to move over by the time it moves from 'mainstream support' to the 'extended support'. In the case of WinXP Pro, that is April of 2009.

By crystal clear on 9/29/2007 3:27:11 AM , Rating: 1
Businesses see little reason to buy expensive new computers just to run Windows Vista, when their current systems are fully capable of getting the job done.

A number of major federal agencies, including NASA, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Aviation Administration, have all decided to forgo -- at least for now -- moving their desktop systems from Windows XP to Windows Vista, in part because some of their current business applications won't function properly on the operating system.

But on the other side of the coin-

Nash, on the Microsoft Web site, noted that Charter Communications and Continental Airlines are among the companies that have moved to Windows Vista "incredibly fast." Microsoft said it has sold more than 60 million Windows Vista licenses to date.

"incredibly fast."

M.S. should finance big companies in their switch over to Vista !

I told M.S. just that-You want me to switch over to Vista !

"then you got to help me by abosrbing portion the additional cost involved."

You M.S. help out OEMs with financing for Vista marketing !

What incentives We/I the buyer have to switch over to Vista-

when their current systems are fully capable of getting the job done

"then you got to help me by abosrbing portion the additional cost involved."

This appllies only to big companies & not the ordinary user !

By crystal clear on 9/29/2007 6:47:58 AM , Rating: 2
May be this could help you-

Microsoft has announced the Windows Vista Application Compatibility Factory.

ACF is a cooperative venture between Microsoft and "services partners" such as Satyam Computer Services, Tata Consultancy Services, and Wipro Technologies. ACF will consist of an assessment of the current applications with a "high-level" scan for compatibility problems. Then, a few pilot applications will be tested for compatibility followed by broader testing and remediation. Once all the bugs are squashed, Vista will be rolled out to all the desktops and laptops in the company

The 3 companies mentioned are India based & good reputations.

Why not fix Vista?
By paulpod on 9/28/2007 1:20:11 PM , Rating: 1
The new look of Vista is fine but why not just backport a mode where it behaves exactly like an XP system. (Especially the "It Just Works" motto.)

There is no technical reason a driver wrapper could not allow all XP peripherals to work. There is no technical reason a DirectShow filter wrapper could not allow all XP media software to work. There is no reason the streamlined and vastly more efficient folder Explorer could not be backported.

There is no technical reason XP video editing software which calls DxVA can't operate cleanly within Aero. It was just a marketing decision to make a clean break from any support of the existing, "unclean" Windows users.

I bought "Windows" TV tuner hardware and software that I expected to run for the rest of my life. I've painstakingly learned how to get most from these and other very tricky apps. Now it's back to square one.

A better name for Vista would have been: Sisyphus.

RE: Why not fix Vista?
By Chudilo on 9/28/2007 2:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
Well if you had to spend all that time getting stuff to work, you might've as well gone to Linux.
Check out Ubuntu. Auto-installers for everything. More eye-candy then in Vista (if you like) .If some odd piece of hardware doesn't work, there is always someone out there who has gotten it to work just need to google for it. nVidia and ATI now have native drivers. There are lots of DRM free video players. MythTV is a great DVR solution. It's a heck of a lot more secure and stable the vista.
Wine now allows you to run most windows apps. like photoshop and MS office.
If Linux ever had a chance to swoop in to become a viable Windows alternative it's now.
With Bill gone, MS messed up with Vista, messed up BAD. Time to seriously consider the alternatives especially since they have gotten so good in the last 2 years.

RE: Why not fix Vista?
By paulpod on 9/28/2007 5:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
Not so simple. Solutions that perform hardware based deinterlacing do it through DxVA. Even the best software decoders score zeros across the board on HQV deinterlacing tests. To get an idea how compute intensive this is even for GPUs, the AMD HD2400 series can NOT support all deinterlace features but the HD2600 and above can. (Note that deinterlace is a postprocessing step.)

Most people have never seen properly deinterlaced non-film video material on a PC monitor so they don't know how insanely good 60 fps with no zaggies looks.

Are there any reviews of HiDef HQV test results on Linux or MAC?

RE: Why not fix Vista?
By The0ne on 9/28/2007 2:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
hahah, I have to agree with you on this point on some applications. I use MS Word and Excel 2003 quite often and know where commands are at. After purchasing and installing Office2007 and using it for a period of 3 months, I finally gave up and reverted back to Office2007. The learning curve for me on both of these apps were too un-productive for me to use. It takes me more time to find the commands I know is around somewhere than to get a formula or insert cells done.

This is what happens when changes are made. Some people will have a hard time adjusting to them, smart or not :P I am tempted run it on a separate virtual OS to learn it more however. The only reason driving me to do this is because of some improvements made. The file incompatibility and annoying compatibility messages is not one of them.

As to your first point, this happens quite often and not just software. There are product cycles. When you want customers to embrace you new product and leave the old one behind you make decisions that hinder or discourages the use of the old product. This is done especially in software versions.

As an example, we have several different point of sales terminals. To end one product, we can discontinue support and upgrades for it. We can make the accessories obsolete after a certain period of time. We can off "improvements" but only with the new model. This last one is the biggest joke of all since most of the time you can make the changes to the old product as well.

Having said this though, these decisions are typically (90%) made by Sales and Marketing and not engineering. Why would we engineers want to end our own product!!! That's insane talk :D

RE: Why not fix Vista?
By TomZ on 9/28/2007 2:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, after 3 months you couldn't find functionality in Office 2007?!? I think the learning curve for me was 2-3 days, LOL. I'm just sayin'...

This is stupid.
By Shawn on 9/29/2007 5:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
Let XP die already. There is nothing wrong with extending support for XP, but there is no reason to keep selling it. Vista works great on new hardware and is definitely an upgrade over XP.

RE: This is stupid.
By ZaethDekar on 9/30/2007 10:16:01 AM , Rating: 2
Thats the problem. New hardware. Not all of us have the money to go out and buy even a $500 compaq with vista installed, and even then it runs it mediocer.

It was the exact same thing with 98SE to XP. Hell, my family and I stuck with 98SE for two or three years until going to XP. Why? All of our hardware and software ran just fine on 98SE.

As other people have said, its the same thing as 98 to XP as XP to Vista.

The people that have the money to go and switch or those that buy the pre built systems will go ahead and switch and then we that will get support for Vista to go up and as the hardware gets cheaper more people will upgrade. The more people the better support and when it gets just dandy a new Windows will come out. That is how it will be for every Windows to come out.

RE: This is stupid.
By SavagePotato on 9/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: This is stupid.
By crystal clear on 9/30/2007 3:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
Hey savage !compare this comment to his previous one-
RE: You can't force ..
By ZaethDekar on 9/30/07, Rating: 2
By ZaethDekar on 9/30/2007 9:55:54 AM , Rating: 2

then think !

RE: This is stupid.
By SavagePotato on 9/30/2007 5:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry I don't have time to go over 100+ posts in advanced to determine which people are contradictory trolls or simply suffering from alzheimers.

What difference does it make
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 9/28/2007 12:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
Whether you buy XP or Vista, Microsoft is still the one making profit.

Slow sales of Vista may hurt their Ego, but it doesn't hurt their bottom line.

RE: What difference does it make
By Quiescent on 9/28/2007 3:22:39 PM , Rating: 3
I actually found that people were switching to Apple products because they said that it is too confusing for them to know which OS to get. I mean XP has been mainstream for a long time, but because of Vista, people are switching to an even worse situation for themselves.

By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 9/28/2007 3:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
I really doubt there are signifigant numbers switching to apple. its impractical except for the retail consumer that is buying a computer for household use.

That isn't a bash against apple products

The market will push it forward to Oct+ 2008
By crystal clear on 9/29/2007 6:30:38 AM , Rating: 2

"Taking into consideration customer and partner requests, Microsoft will sell Windows XP for another 5 months."

Point to note-

" System builders will be able to continue offering Windows XP(full versions) through June 30, 2008. For emerging markets where Microsoft sells Windows XP Starter Edition, Microsoft has extended XP's availability to June 30, 2010. This is due in part to some of the shipping systems in those markets not yet meeting the hardware requirements of Windows Vista."

The realities of the market said earlier/say now/will continue to say for this year & the next atleast, if not more that-

"M.S. cannot stop selling XP at a predetermined date"
(yes its their O.S. but "we are the buyers" remember)

Instead, I would like to see" market demand drive decisions on when to stop selling Windows XP".

To summarize it-"Let the market decide"

I can safely assume that by Oct/Nov 08 you will start seeing WinXP fading gradually in the background & not a "instant death". .

If you ask why ?

By this time Vista SP1(1Q 08) will be out & running.
Which will solve most/majority/all of those issues hindering a smooth adaption of Vista.

Also lack of compatibility with existing software, and system requirements will be a thing of the past.

Yes people will argue why wait till SP1 is released-windows update does it all even before.

But read this & get yourself a wake up call-

Stealth Windows update prevents XP repair
By Scott Dunn

A silent update that Microsoft deployed widely in July and August is preventing the "repair" feature of Windows XP from completing successfully.

Ever since the Redmond company's recent download of new support files for Windows Update, users of XP's repair function have been unable to install the latest 80 patches from Microsoft.

Repaired installations of XP can't be updated

Accounts of conflicts with XP's repair option came to our attention after Microsoft's "silent install" of Windows Update (WU) executable files, known as version 7.0.600.381, was reported in the Sept. 13 and 20 issues of the Windows Secrets Newsletter.

M.S. needs to redouble its efforts to make sure Windows Update never again disabled.

Putting aside this windows update issue !

"Windows Vista is on track to be the fastest-selling operating system in Microsoft's history," Nash said.

Very ambitious claims but the market doesnt see it in reality,its exactly opposite.This below-

Dell,Lenovo, and Hewlett-Packard have in recent weeks gone as far as offering customers discs that effectively let them "downgrade" their Windows Vista systems to Windows XP.

If Vista is as reported & voiced as "Just fine",the need to put out WinXp SP3 would not be there,as majority would have switched over to Vista.

Its not for support purposes(life cycle) that SP3 is coming,but M.S. has become aware of the market realities.

Read this link of M.S.-Windows Service Pack Road Map

Next Update and Estimated Date of Availability-

SP3 for Windows XP Professional is currently planned for 1H CY2008. This date is preliminary.

I am not against Vista but see very crystal clear the market indicators & reactions/responses.

It says "Wait dont push us-Dont rush-give it time"

By crystal clear on 9/29/2007 7:11:47 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft Extends Sales Availability of Windows XP

By codeThug on 9/30/2007 6:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
hear hear...

Maybe They Should...
By Quiescent on 9/28/2007 2:37:18 PM , Rating: 3
Be selling Windows XP 64bit instead. There is hardly anymore 32bit processors that are selling anymore except perhaps celeron. 64bit is pretty normal for us now. This would help force companies to make drivers for things that are STILL not supported for Windows XP 64bit.

Basically, a lot of things that actually read what OS I have says I have Windows Server 2003, which is what XP 64bit is actually built on. So perhaps that might be something key in making drivers.

I was actually given this really generic webcam from my parents and the drivers didn't work for XP 64bit. It was so generic of a brand that I can't even recall the name of it. So I had them returned. It's pretty pathetic that there is still a lot of devices out there not supported for XP 64bit. Even though I do not like Lexmark printers, I was pretty shocked that no Lexmark printers had any support for XP 64bit.

RE: Maybe They Should...
By The0ne on 9/28/2007 2:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
64bit is gaining ground, as it should. Companies are just slow to embrace it at the moment. And And sadly to say, some companies are just damn lazy to develop drivers for their product. Granted it does take a lot of resources for some companies to develop many different drivers. But for generic USB...why not? :o

I'm hoping the 64bit driver and their stability will improve once companies are committed the shift. Due to many 32bit users still, it's not a good decision to leave the market (which is stable) and enter a infant one.

Staying put...for now.
By Bonesdad on 9/29/2007 11:17:13 AM , Rating: 2
Sad to say, I know quite a few people who are still using 98SE (and one or two in 1st edition!). Their computers are Pentium II and PIII and they have no reason to "upgrade" to a faster machine. THey just use dial up internet and file their recipes and that's it. With Win98, you were lucky to get to a state of relative stability and once there, you did nothing to disrupt it. XP came along and, despite a FEW initial complaints about bloat, it was accepted quickly and enthusiastically. The nice thing about XP WORKS. Not like 98. THere was and excellent reason to go 98 --> XP...not so much from XP --> Vista. I'm still at XP and will likely stay for a while. I've no reason to "upgrade" at this point. I'm aware of security threats and smart enough to avoid exposing myself to most of them, and I'm at peace with XP and WIndows now. Why throw a monkey wrench into my own world?

RE: Staying put...for now.
By SavagePotato on 9/30/2007 2:52:01 PM , Rating: 1
Personaly I don't think life is worth living in the world of computers unless you throw a monkey wrench into it and challenge yourself.

Thats how you become one of those stagnant stumps that think 98 is still the best OS ever and all they need.

Without new technology, new things to learn, life is dull. I hope I never reach that point where someone lets their mind go dormant and accepts such a thing as being "comfortable" with their environment.

To each their own, but I find your lifestyle just as alien and incomprehensible as you probably find mine.

I love vista
By hitman699 on 9/28/2007 7:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
I must be the odd man out because I like vista way better then XP.. and Im running the 64bit version.. the only thing I find to be a pain in the ass is flash in IE.. damn IE crashes at prob once a day because of it.... none of the games or programs have issues and my pc is 2 going on 3 years old and custom built so its not like I even have PC maker support. It seems to be alot faster to me. go figure.. I uhm reinstall every four months so maybe thats why it doesn't give me and problems :)

my thoughts
By ncage on 9/28/2007 11:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
Ok ive been running vista x64 since microsoft released the RTM last fall. Do i like it...yes? Its very stable in my eyes. I've had it crash a few times but far less than xp did. I never reboot unless i have to because of an update. People moan and groan about UAC. I really don't see what the big deal is really. Ive don't think its nearly as annoying as the press has made it out to be i think a lot of people are just chronic complainers that will complain no matter what. I think microsoft had to make these changes (eventhough they were breaking) to the OS to make it more secure or they would be plagued in the future. Hey remember when Apple recoded their OS using the FreeBSD Kernel? How many things do you think they broke when they do that? How about when they decided to switch to x86 and existing apps did have some compatibility problems (PowerPC Apps) and some slowdowns because they now how to be emulated. Do you think if you have Photoshop that would have pissed you off? I think most likely. I guess my point if we want to go forward sometimes changes like these will have to be made. Do you want to stick with crappy code base or move forward? The 2000/XP system definitly needed an upgrade.

Those of you who say vista doesn't offer anything but eye candy really don't know what your talking about. They have added great things in vista like "File Transactions". GREAT FEATURE!!!! There are a lot of features like this under the hood of vista that are great features.

Now im going to tell you im going to be switching back to Windows XP. You ask why after the argument i just painted. Well the crappiness in vista is not so much microsoft's fault as it is the venders fault. There are so many vendors that either have crappy vista code or just wont update their drivers/software. For example infragistics controls in vista suck. You have to dig deep into the help files to even be able to install it on vista that the install process should take care of but the have a half baked solution that will work but will make you scream by the time your done. Then there is my laser printer. Vista does have native drivers but i loose about 1/2 of my functionality with this printer. Is this microsofts fault? Nope! Its lexmarks. So im pretty much switching back until everything is stable with vista x64. Hell i won't even use XP x64 because some apps have problems with that eventhough i have 4GB of RAM.


They were doing well with 2000/XP
By ranmaniac on 9/29/2007 12:04:38 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rather pay to keep and continue to have Windows XP improved/updated than to upgrade (downgrade) to Windows Vista.

XP vs. Vista
By mforce on 9/29/2007 7:19:19 AM , Rating: 2
I must admit to not being a Windows fan , I prefer Linux. Still I think the value of Windows is in the windows programs and drivers. Once programs and drivers start not to work it's pretty much useless. Linux and OS X work pretty good as an OS too , they just don't have the same apps and drivers Windows has.
XP might not be the best thing but it's been around for a while and it works. The apps work , the drivers work , the OS works. Vista ? What does it offer ? DX 10 for gamers , some eye candy , improved security. But that's about it. And besides all the compatibility problems with apps and drivers it uses more resources.
What about people or better yet companies that don't need DX 10 , eye candy and have found ways of making Windows XP secure enough. What can MS offer them to make them switch ? Nothing IMO. Sure, new computers will be sold with Vista and it will sell because it's the OS of choice but Linux and OS X are beginning to catch up and the future doesn't look that bright for MS if the continue to offer Vista like solutions.
I don't even thing it's Microsoft's fault. They're kinda caught in a trap having to provide support and compatibility for so many apps.

Answer the question, Nash!
By PrinceGaz on 9/29/2007 10:49:17 AM , Rating: 2
When asked about what Microsoft was hearing in terms of feedback from customers regarding Windows Vista Nash stated, "With more than 60 million licenses sold as of this summer, Windows Vista is on track to be the fastest-selling operating system in Microsoft’s history."

That would have been a fine answer if Nash had been asked "How quickly is Vista selling?", but he was actually asked about the feedback from customers regarding Vista. I think it's safe to say then that a lot of the feedback must be unfavourable.

Changing the XP Serial Numbers
By formulav8 on 9/30/2007 9:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
At work we were recently told that the old Windows XP serial numbers will Not work with newer xp disks that are going to be coming out. They said that they are running out of serial Numbers under the current scheme or whatever and are doing a redesign. I guess XP has sold very well for them. I have never heard of them running out of serial numbers before??


vista is crap
By tastyratz on 9/28/07, Rating: 0
You can't force ..
By kristof007 on 9/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: You can't force ..
By Master Kenobi on 9/28/2007 1:17:44 PM , Rating: 4
Imho, Microsoft should continue supporting Windows XP indefinitely at this point until at least 70% of the user base is running Vista by their of own choice.

Ah no. This isn't how things fly in the IT world. Would you want to maintain 2 massively different code bases? Hell no. Notice how Microsoft dropped the 9X code base and switched to the NT code base? Notice how XP phased out 2000 over a 2-3 year period? Notice how all the whiners pointing out Vista as being a terrible bloated OS with DRM are the same people who said the same thing about XP when we were all running 98SE and 2000?

Vista's launch was good, all the complaints I hear about it make me double check the year because I feel like I'm back at the XP launch in 2001.

RE: You can't force ..
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 1:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
I honestly couldn't even care less if they continue to "support" it by coming up with updates and stuff. But there is no reason they couldn't continue to sell it. Even if not many people buy it, its not like they need to send out disks. They could simply have a buy/download for it on their site, with instructions on how to burn it to your own disk. The only cost to microsoft would then be however much it cost to keep a copy of that file on their server to be downloaded. Which couldn't be more than 700mb, which probably wouldn't cost much.

There are people who still want to use XP. Those people will continue to use it, and if they can't get a new license, they could pirate it. If they just had a download of it they could potentially get more money. (i'm actually still using 95 on a computer, in case anyone cares lol)

RE: You can't force ..
By darkpaw on 9/28/2007 1:57:09 PM , Rating: 3
Theres one big reason they shouldn't have to keep selling it, because then they'd have to continue supporting it. While you might not care if they continued to support it, if they are offering it for sale they do and really few if any come close to MS's support policy. They support business class OS for 5 years after end-of-life and I think for XP they'll be supporting Home for that long too.

Even though availability from MS on XP will end in 2009 (for system builder market), the OS will still be readily available and by that time most people will be using Vista.

If MS continued to sell an unsupported operating system, the MS haters would just hit on them for selling something no longer secure. It really doesn't matter what they'll do, some people will never be happy.

RE: You can't force ..
By erikejw on 9/28/2007 4:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
They sold about 200M copys of XP and the revenue might be about 20 Billion dollars so I damn expect them to support their software for many years to come.

RE: You can't force ..
By omnicronx on 9/29/2007 12:59:47 AM , Rating: 3
Thats a silly thing to say. Auto companies sell millions of cars and have a revenue in the billions, do you expect a lifetime warranty on your car? Unless you personally bought 20 billion dollars worth of XP licenses, i don't see what you have to complain about. It probably came with your dell computer anyways.

RE: You can't force ..
By SigmaHyperion on 9/28/2007 2:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
As a condition of its' many numerous lawsuits against it, Microsoft established a LifeCycle Policy that deems that it must continue to support its Windows software for 5 years after it has last officially sold it. Every extra day that MS sells XP is another day it has to support it in the future. And there's a cost associated with that. A very big cost.

RE: You can't force ..
By BladeVenom on 9/28/2007 1:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
Notice how all the whiners pointing out Vista as being a terrible bloated OS with DRM are the same people who said the same thing about XP when we were all running 98SE and 2000?

I have to disagree because XP was the replacement for ME, and anything was better than ME.

RE: You can't force ..
By Hotdogah on 9/28/2007 1:45:48 PM , Rating: 3
by BladeVenom on September 28, 2007 at 1:31 PM

I have to disagree because XP was the replacement for ME, and anything was better than ME.

You had to remind us of that..Thing..I had almost had shut it out of my mind.

RE: You can't force ..
By kristof007 on 9/28/2007 2:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
... and anything was better than ME.

And man are you RIGHT! I had a Compaq desktop with Me on it. I had to create and alter ego to deal with all the pain that was.

Anyway in response to Master Kenobi: I know it would cost them a lot of money to keep supporting it. But if people keep on buying it at the price at it is (and as others said it doesn't look like its dropping anymore) then I think it would makes sense for them to do it. I know its not how things go in the IT business because they want you to buy the new more expensive & better things. But yea .. just my 2c.

On a side note I usually get to the articles to post anything that hasn't been said. I <3 Anandtech and read 90% of articles and their comments. Just wanted to get some loving out there =)

RE: You can't force ..
By TomZ on 9/28/2007 2:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
On a side note I usually get to the articles to post anything that hasn't been said. I <3 Anandtech and read 90% of articles and their comments. Just wanted to get some loving out there =)

You know this site is DailyTech, not AnandTech, right?

RE: You can't force ..
By kinnoch on 9/28/2007 3:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
He's probably like me where he uses AnandTech as a portal to all of these news snippets :)

RE: You can't force ..
By TomZ on 9/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: You can't force ..
By Master Kenobi on 9/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: You can't force ..
By TomZ on 9/28/2007 3:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
Right, I think that's what I said. :o)

RE: You can't force ..
By retrospooty on 9/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: You can't force ..
By TomZ on 9/28/2007 2:36:07 PM , Rating: 4
I disagree - I remember tons of complaining about XP. The complaints I most remember are app compatibility, that XP is just eye candy, and that it is bloated.

Hmmm...sounds familiar.

RE: You can't force ..
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 2:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
... I never understood people calling XP eye candy... i was just glad that they allowed it to still have classic mode. God the standard theme for XP is just hideous... or so i think. And the way they keep messin with the start menu irritates me.

RE: You can't force ..
By retrospooty on 9/28/2007 2:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree with your disagree ;) . Yes some people complained, but overall XP was extremely well received both my consumers and business and caught on quickly in both sectors. It was a great upgrade for anyone using 95/98/ME/2000.

Vista, although pretty, is causing alot more people alot more problems than XP ever did. And XP was people switching from 95/98/ME, and well as 2000. Vista is primarily only getting XP users and its still full of issues. Again, I have to keep going back to the point that even MS is offering free downgrades. That speaks volumes itself. they never needed to do that, not even with that POS Win ME.

RE: You can't force ..
By colonelclaw on 9/28/2007 2:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
whatever the agrees and disagrees (im confused as hell by all of them), there's one thing you can't deny - Vista produces emotions not seen before in a microsoft OS. many people seem to love it, but many people also seem to hate it with equal passion. people on the middle-ground are conspicuous by their absence.
what is unusual is that there's a large and powerful enough userbase of MS OSes that want nothing to do with it, and microsoft have deemed it necessary to placate them. this has not happened before as far as i can recall

RE: You can't force ..
By Oregonian2 on 9/28/2007 2:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
Not hardly. XP may have been eye candy for 2K users, but to the masses using windows 9x/ME it was a VERY dramatic improvement in function and stability. And with superb upward compatibility (remember all those emulation modes that are still there in a right-click'ed .exe that usually weren't even needed?). I jumped within a week or two of release. Vista looks like a new solution to a problem that I don't perceive that I have (security) at a cost of breaking software (but with promises of compatibility modules someday later when they finally get around to implementing it). A system released when it wasn't quite done yet. I still see nothing that would make me take it even if offered for free.

RE: You can't force ..
By TomZ on 9/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: You can't force ..
By colonelclaw on 9/28/2007 3:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
TomZ, i've read here in these forums that you are a proud 'early adopter', so i presume you're a big fan of the OS?

what is it about it that you like? is it better than XP for everyone, or does hardware need to catch up first? did MS release it too soon? and how do you feel about the DRM so deeply embedded within Vista?

for me it's this last point that keeps me from trying out Vista - i'm fed up with microsoft wanting to know every last detail about me and what i do. they seem to be obsessed with control. am i overreacting? i also think the new interface is disgusting, but i am aware that it can be turned off

finally, as a Vista fan, why do you think many people are turned off by it, and are they right to be?

RE: You can't force ..
By TomZ on 9/28/2007 3:47:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I like Vista, although I don't think it's so important that I would be considered a "fan." I do pipe up a lot when I see it wrongfully maligned.

What do I like? I like most of the new features that were added since XP. It's like a bunch of small things, rather than having any one compelling upgrade feature. I do like the GUI, and I especially like the new search features for the Start menu, Control panel, and file explorer. I like that it's quite stable, especially right out of the gate. Much more so than XP was at the start - much more. I also feel more confident about the security compared to XP. The list could go on...

No, I'm not worried about DRM. Microsoft is not tracking who I am or what I do with my computer. There is no commercial value to Microsoft having that kind of information.

I think the problem with Vista is really about people being slightly resistant to change (human nature), the higher hardware requirements, and some of the app compatibility and driver issues. The thing with app compatibility is that Vista has the controls to make probably nearly any app run on Vista, however, people don't use seem to use them for whatever reason. I also think that some of the hardware vendors who have decided to not make Vista drivers for older hardware are slowing adoption of Vista. These problems will all work themselves out over time.

As I've said elsewhere, I like Vista enough that I would hate to go back to XP. Not that XP is bad in any way, just that Vista is better.

RE: You can't force ..
By crystal clear on 9/29/2007 4:17:08 AM , Rating: 2
In many ways, the success of Windows XP is also working against Microsoft. At this point, Windows XP SP2 is a very stable OS with known security strengths and weaknesses. In comparison, Vista is still an unknown quantity in some enterprise settings. Windows XP will also run well on older hardware. Myths that Vista needs high-end hardware to run adequately do not help Microsoft's cause, either.

RE: You can't force ..
By Nekrik on 9/29/2007 6:09:44 AM , Rating: 2
"I like that it's quite stable, especially right out of the gate. Much more so than XP was at the start - much more."

It seems like a lot of people have forgotten, WinXP and WinXP SP1 had their share of issues, especially with people trying to run 9X apps in compatibility mode and driver problems from vendors who had never developed code for the NT architecture, in some cases it seemed like using WINE to run an app it hasn't been specifially coded for, most of the APIs 'should' work. By SP2 XP was pretty mainstream and most apps and drivers had been updated or rewritten (some very poorly, but they functioned).

You commented on people being resistant to change. I don't think Vista is perfect, downloading a 6GB file over VPN (or just a network copy) is a nightmare, it calculates the transfer time for 30 minutes before the copy seems to start, very annoying. But it has great improvements in many areas, and like it or not it is going to be the next mainstream/business OS, there are no other contenders for that space at the moment. Fighting that is fighting the inevitable and holds up the progression to the next stage, the longer they have to expend resources on XP draws from the resources they have for other development efforts. Kinda like the EU, everyone hacks on the Vista delays and dropped features but it seems no one recognizes that resources were drawn from Vista to create massive documentation and the 'N' version of XP that no one ever wanted, this wasn't the only cause of features being forfieted and a delayed release date, but it was a factor.

RE: You can't force ..
By TomZ on 9/29/2007 9:26:44 AM , Rating: 2
downloading a 6GB file over VPN (or just a network copy) is a nightmare, it calculates the transfer time for 30 minutes before the copy seems to start, very annoying

Actually, it is copying while it is saying that it is calculating the time. If you click to show the details, you can see that the file starts copying right away. I think that dialog box is a little bit misleading.

RE: You can't force ..
By Nekrik on 9/29/2007 1:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be happy if I thought that were the case, in my experience it usually sits with Speed : 0 bytes/sec and there is no 'small' jump in progress indicated once the time is finally derived. I know status bars in themselves are not perfect indicators but I think they still have some issues here with file copies. It's just as annoying if I cancel such a transfer part way through, the 'Canceling' dialog appears like a hung process and can take a considerable amount of time to close, sometimes over 5 or 10 min.

RE: You can't force ..
By TomZ on 9/29/2007 1:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
There must be something wrong there - I've seen end-user reports of Vista taking a long time to copy some files, and I think that SP1 has a fix for that, but I don't know the details. We do a lot of LAN files copies to/from servers and I've never noticed a problem. But maybe it is somehow related to the latency of your VPN connection, I'm not sure. Did you ever call Microsoft to ask about this issue?

RE: You can't force ..
By Nekrik on 9/29/2007 2:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're correct about the VPN connection, but the same machine running XP does not have the same problem. I think there is still an issue but I misrepresented it in my original post. FWIW, I have applied the fix (KB938979) to be included with SP1 and the behavior has not changed (lending more to it being the VPN issue).

RE: You can't force ..
By wallijonn on 9/28/2007 2:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
Notice how XP phased out 2000 over a 2-3 year period? Notice how all the whiners pointing out Vista as being a terrible bloated OS with DRM are the same people who said the same thing about XP when we were all running 98SE and 2000?

Remember how if you had W2K you had to disable hyper threading in the BIOS? WXP basically can run on two cpus (license). Now that quad cores are out Vista will be the way to go since they probably won't work too well under a two cpu license restriction. But many of these people would prefer to use a 64bit Vista, not the 32 bit version. One will therefore have to buy whole new apps., bringing the cost up above and beyond the $300 or $400 Vista license. For those prices it doesn't make sense to run 32bit apps. within a 64bit environment.

As far as I am concerned Vista is bloated since it reserves some 800MB of memory (check your BIOS). To run Vista you need the latest processors, which means building whole new machines. People may not want to invest another $2000 for a new PC. People may therefore elect to keep their XP machines as long as possible. If it is a matter of security, then building a server which does all the security functions may be the way to go. One then can connect their XP machines to this one server which does functions as a firewall, DNS, email, anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-trojan, anti BHO, file server. The XP machine freed from power robbing apps. (anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-trojan, anti-BHO, Qtime, Real Player, Flash Player, fax, etc.) will regain their speed. In effect WXP machines could become server centric. Then Vista isn't really needed for the slower machines. (Let's wait and see how Home Server works out.)

There are still millions of single cores in State agencies and private businesses (ever notice how some auto parts shops are still using DOS type screens? Because the apps. still work and they don't want to change over.)

Vista necessitates a new PC. That is the reality. Many may not be inclined to buy new machines. Period.

RE: You can't force ..
By darkpaw on 9/28/2007 2:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
Cores don't matter for licensing. MS decided when multi-core processors first became available that they would license per socket. XP pro (and Vista too afaik) for example is good for two sockets, doesn't matter if thats 2, 4, 8, or in the future 16+ actual cores.

As for the rest, POS systems like the autoshop one you mentioned have no need to upgrade because the many of the programs are written for old OS like DOS and are not networked directly to the Internet so security isn't a big issue. MS doesn't really care all that much about upgrades anyways, 90%+ of the sales are from new machine purchases with OEM installs.

RE: You can't force ..
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 2:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
LOl, when i first read that, i thought you meant the other type of POS, which does work well in that sentence... Stupid double acronyms

RE: You can't force ..
By ZaethDekar on 9/30/2007 9:55:54 AM , Rating: 2
You don't have to spend $2000 dollars to build a Vista capable machine.

My brother just built a full system for $800. His specs:

ASUS M2A-VM HDMI AM2 AMD 690G HDMI uATX AMD Motherboard x 1
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Windsor 3.2GHz Socket AM2 Processor Model ADX6400CZWOF - Retail x 1
Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD3200AAKS 320GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive x 1
SAMSUNG 20X DVD±R DVD Burner Black SATA Model SH-S203B - OEM x 1
Antec 761345-75025-7 120mm Green LED Case Fan - Retail x 2
G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F2-6400CL5D-2GBNQ - Retail x 2
OKGEAR Cable Model OK18ARUB12 - Retail x 2
COOLER MASTER RC-690-KKN1-GP Black Computer Case - Retail x 1
Antec earthwatts EA500 ATX12V v2.0 500W Power Supply - Retail x 1

Granted he used onboard video... He still uses Vista Ultimate just fine. Then for a good gfx card.. I got a XFX 8600 GT XXX for $89 dollars after a $30 mail in rebate. (By the way you can get software to overclock it and equal the GTS XXX version and it has been stable for three days of system up time. Playing Quake wars on max settings + downloading short CGI films with Azureus + having AIM, MSN, Yahoo and Steam open downloading three or four games. I am also using a Athlon 64 3800 with 4 gigz OCZ DDR 400 ram with timings of 2-2-3-5 and a SATA II 500g WD AAKS drive. I also have stock cooling with a Antex P180 case with 1 extra fan in the front.)

I can play any game I want right now with full settings on DX9. Even new releases. On DX10 I will probably have to put it on med-low but it will still look just as great if the game is setup right.

So for a total of $800 you get a top of the line AMD system with a great gfx card. Granted if you are just upgrading you can cut costs easily. Figure take out 60 for the harddrive, 40 for the DVD drive, 80 for the PSU, 60 for the case, dont need the cables so thats 15 bucks, and save 30 from the fans if you already have your case cooling.

Thats a total (with GFX card of my same type without MIR):


P.S. The 8600 GT does NOT require a special power connector. The GTS version does however.

RE: You can't force ..
By Zoomer on 10/2/2007 10:14:52 AM , Rating: 2
This machine, by any measure, is not "top of the line".

RE: You can't force ..
By The0ne on 9/28/2007 2:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
The difference between 98SE and XP is far more evolutionary than XP to Vista. Sorry, couldn't find the right word, evolutionary might be too strong :D

In regards to Vista being bloated, it's not the same if you compare 98se to XP vs XP to Vista. You expect an increase in software code but I never expected Vista to be this bloated and has little to offer in big improvements. Having Vista be many times larger than XP but not much more is not the same. 98SE and XP, there are big differences.

RE: You can't force ..
By retrospooty on 9/28/2007 2:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
agreed. Man, there are some serious bloaty issues with Vista. Not at all worth the money to me anyhow. I have Vista Ultimate 100% free and dont use it.

RE: You can't force ..
By bangmal on 9/28/2007 6:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
A fresh install of XP takes about 2GB of space. win98 takes about 600MB. Vista takes about 5GB. Vista has a much larger driver database which takes about 1GB. And Vista literally has one copy of itself in the windows directory so the pre-vista day of "insert install disk to continue" is gone. If you have considered all these factors, vista is not much bloater than XP.
Also, it is really hard to buy a hardrive under 100GB these days.

It is very easy to complain and yell. But it takes some IQ to figure out why things are. Internet is much more popular than it was 6 years ago. No one should be surprised to see more ignorant morons compalining things.

“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki