backtop


Print 141 comment(s) - last by omnicronx.. on Apr 8 at 4:27 PM


Microsoft plans to end the sale of Windows XP on June 30, 2008.

Will devices like the Eee PC 900 have an XP option after June?  (Source: ASUS)

ECS G10IL  (Source: ECS)

Everex's CloudBook comes pre-installed with gOS V2, a variant of Linux.  (Source: Everex)
The looming June funeral for Windows XP could spell disaster for Microsoft in the low-end market

Windows XP has quite a few fans left despite the fact that the operating system was first launched in late 2001 and has since been replaced by the newer, more feature-packed Windows Vista operating system. Despite XP's age, many users stick to the operating system for its robustness, rock-solid driver support, and relatively bloat-free user interface (in comparison to Vista at least) which leads to better overall performance.

Microsoft, however, isn't exactly singing XP's praises anymore. While the Redmond-based company is putting the finishing touches on Service Pack 3 (SP3) for the nearly seven-year-old OS, the company announced last year that it would cease the sale of new XP licenses on June 30, 2008 -- this date itself was extended from January 31, 2008 due to incessant pressure from its customers.

Microsoft is now facing the grim possibility that it pre-planned funeral for Windows XP may leave it out of a lucrative, growing market for low-cost sub-notebooks. No one expected that the Xandros Linux-based ASUS Eee PC would be as popular as it became during late 2007; especially Microsoft.

With ASUS preparing its second generation Eee PC and a number of pretenders to the low-cost throne gearing up for production with Linux-based solutions, Microsoft needs an OS to complement these machines. The only feasible option right now is, of course, Windows XP.

Windows XP has a small enough footprint to install on machines with as little as 4GB of storage space. Granted, the default install of Windows XP Home on the newly-announced Eee PC 4G-X takes up 1.8GB of space, however, OEMs could pick and choose their installation options to duck under the 1GB barrier if they so choose. Software options like nLite already make this a possibility with end-users.

Windows Vista, on the other hand, simply isn't feasible due to its hardware requirements. Vista often struggles on even low-end Pentium Dual Core machines running with only 1GB of RAM. A Celeron-M based machine with 512MB of memory onboard wouldn't do much to provide a pleasant end-user experience in Vista.

"At the low end, Vista's hardware footprint is too large," said Intel vice president Tom Rampone to IDG News. "Even 512M bytes of RAM with [Vista] Home Basic, it's a slow machine -- underpowered and underperforming," added Everex marketing director Paul Kim.

The Windows XP problem leaves Microsoft in a sticky situation. Devices like ASUS' Eee PC 4G-X are safe until at least June 30 -- this gives it a rather short shelf life considering that it is launching on April 9.

The company can either decide to extend the sale of Windows XP to its volume customers -- yet again -- to make way for the growing crowd of sub-notebooks running on low-impact hardware like Intel's Atom processors or it can simply rollover and concede the market to the various flavors of Linux available today.

Microsoft isn't a company that will back down from a fight, hence the availability of Windows XP on the Eee PC. Hopefully for consumers, Microsoft will choose the former and extend the sale of Windows XP until it has a suitable next-gen OS to fill the gap.



Comments     Threshold


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

Windows 2000
By jaybuffet on 4/1/2008 11:39:49 AM , Rating: 4
Whats different now than when Windows XP came out against Windows 2000? It's the same argument. XP's drivers sucked at the time.. Windows 2000 was rock solid.. isn't history just going to repeat itself? Whats new?




RE: Windows 2000
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/1/2008 11:52:58 AM , Rating: 5
This time around it's been a lot longer between OS released. Before XP, Microsoft released a new OS every 2-3 years. People have become so accustomed to it they are having a hard time adapting to change once more.


RE: Windows 2000
By Aikouka on 4/1/2008 12:03:25 PM , Rating: 3
I believe the poor OEM driver support is also keeping people away. The only complaint I have about my Vista experience (note, not the OS but the overall time spent on a machine with it installed) are how bad the drivers (from nVidia) are.

There's also some incompatible software issues that some may have.


RE: Windows 2000
By darklight0tr on 4/1/2008 12:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
What NVIDIA driver issues are you referring to? Sure, the drivers were crap from Vista release (and before) until almost mid-2007, but things have significantly improved since then.

I have been using Windows Vista Ultimate x64 for almost a year and I have a 8800 GTX. The last time I had driver issues was prior to the release of the ForceWare 158.xx series, which was May of last year. Since then the ForceWare drivers have been fine for me.

I also have a 680i SLI motherboard and NVIDIA fixed the Vista issues I was having with the nForce drivers at around the same time as the 158.xx series was released.


RE: Windows 2000
By omnicronx on 4/1/2008 12:52:09 PM , Rating: 4
I cant say I have ever had issues heh (vista user since launch). Only those in SLI configuration had problems with their Nvidia cards. sure the performance was not as good as XP for the first few months, but its all but negligible now..

I would also like to note that Vista has much better hardware support for base system drivers than XP ever had. I installed it on 4 machines and only had to configure the sound card and video card drivers. I don't think i can say the same with XP. I can't say how many times i have had to open someones PC up just to find out what kind of network card they had because they forgot to write it down before formatting.. All this with machines ranging from AMD NFORCE2 to c2d systems.

So if you really want to talk driver issues, go hide your system drivers CD's, reformat a bunch of XP machines, and have fun guessing what 'unknown components' reside on your machine.


RE: Windows 2000
By 7Enigma on 4/2/2008 12:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno, I'd rather have the latest drivers for all components of the system rather than relying on included drivers on the install cd/dvd. Any reformat of my own or friends/family computers are done with a new drivers cd created with the latest drivers for the components. This has helped avoid many issues and increase stability of systems as some original drivers are from relatively new hardware that may be unstable.


RE: Windows 2000
By Hieyeck on 4/2/2008 12:21:15 PM , Rating: 3
Clearly, you have failed to realize that XP is older than your hardware. Yes, you have the right to assume a multi-billion dollar corp shouldn't be releasing crap, but you can't assume they have the technology to time travel.

Besides, that's what slipping new XP install CDs are for.


RE: Windows 2000
By omnicronx on 4/2/2008 1:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
What i realize is MS saw the blunders they made in XP by not supporting enough network chipsets in the base install. And for me thats all i need, as if you can get the internet up and running, anything else can be downloaded.

I used XP a month before it was even released(i.e my hardware existed long before xp was released), and i can tell it did not support nearly as much hardware out of the box as Vista does. Even after slipstreaming to SP2 Xp does not recognize my nforce2 network card.(installed MCE 2005 last week).

This is why I made these statements, obviously MS can not have drivers for products that were made after it was released...


RE: Windows 2000
By xxsk8er101xx on 4/1/2008 3:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
I have a workstation running windows vista ultimate and a notebook running windows vista premium. I've had no issues with either. Service pack 1 increased it's performance a bit and i've had no major issues since installing sp1 for vista.

Vista is fine and works fine and it's really nothing "new" as far as how it works and it's more secure and stable than windows xp.


RE: Windows 2000
By michael67 on 4/2/2008 4:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vista is fine and works fine and it's really nothing "new" as far as how it works and it's more secure and stable than windows xp.

Geee, Think you have to explain to me how Vista is more stable then XP and whit me all the other 600 admins i was whit at the MS Technet seminar for the roll out of server 2008.

during the seminar they MS technet guy go's on explaining all the benefits of Win server 2008 working together whit Vista for a bout 30min then he ask how many had rolled out Vista at work ... silent for 10~20sec
Then he ask how many ware planing to roll out Vista ... silents for a other 10~20sec then the hole room start laughing because the technet guy realized that he just wasted a half our on something no one wanted to use.

Because like me the other 600 admins think Vista is just a lemon that no one wants

And private i haven't notice it on my HP Vista machine IE still crashes and that password protection for everything that makes Vista so mouths more safe was bugging me so mouths that i had to turn it of just to be able to normally work whit Vista

After 3 months working whit Vista i was so fed up whit it that i did format C: and installed XP again so that i had control over my own machine again and my drivers ware working again 100% instead basic function driver.

Yeah there are some small things i liked and miss from Vista, but over all they are not worth all hassle that that blotted Vista gives me to use it over XP


RE: Windows 2000
By Etsp on 4/8/2008 1:21:29 PM , Rating: 2
its hard to read your writing...
whit? do you mean with?
go's on explaining? you mean goes on explaining?
a bout? about...
ware planing? were planning
silents for a other 10~20secs? silence for another 10~20secs
hole? wrong form, should be whole
our? should be hour if you are referencing a unit of time...
mouths more safe was bugging me so mouths? do you mean much more safe was bugging me so much?
my drivers ware? my drivers were?
blotted? could work, but you probably mean bloated.

It's pretty obvious that english isn't your first langauge, so I don't intend to give you too much grief. The reason I did post this is because after all, if no one corrects us, we will never learn.


RE: Windows 2000
By omnicronx on 4/8/2008 4:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
If that post is the result of a second language i think you should give him a break. I would like to see you type with such proficiency in another language.

Although I do not agree with all his views, (Since when have sys admins jumped on a new OS the day it comes out, many business's did not upgrade to XP until 2003-04 let alone server03) he got his point across, and thats good enough for me.


RE: Windows 2000
By eye smite on 4/1/2008 3:21:19 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah it's been too long between releases and they've just about perfected XP over time.........if that's possible. People in general don't want to change and have to learn a new OS and all it's quirks. Since this is the first time they've gone this long without a new OS release, I think they should break another record and just keep selling XP. There's no harm at all in them selling XP and Vista til the end of time that I can see. They're still going to make plenty of money and keep happy Windows customers. What it really boils down to is MS not giving the general customer what they want. If the Eeepc's give people what they want with a flavor of linux it will take marketshare. Right now after going on a year and half, Vista has about as much popularity and as much disdain as Window ME did. The hardware resources needed alone to run Vista in a respectable manner has always left me frowning at it, and I have a Vista machine sitting here I got back in November. MS has screwed the pooch on so many things recently though, and they're not getting any better. Maybe when they start really listening to the customers and what they want, it will change.


RE: Windows 2000
By darkpaw on 4/1/2008 4:28:32 PM , Rating: 4
The main issue with contining to sell XP is that they will have to conitnue to support it as well. Currently, support will end 5 years after sales end (2014).

The longer they keep selling it, the longer that date gets pushed back. I think supporting any product for 12 years is pretty good to begin with, but no one can support that product forever.

I think MS will probably continue to sell XP just for the ultra low end laptops for now, but will probably kill that when system builder license sales end. That should give them plenty of time to put together a Vista Portable or something.


RE: Windows 2000
By Oregonian2 on 4/1/2008 9:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
Just wait until support ends and someone changes their computer in a way (perhaps reloading backups with a disk crash) and XP wants to be activated -- and Microsoft no longer does it. So the computer and all on its disks are turned into a brick. A few non-happy campers will probably not do it again with another uSoft product, I suspect.


RE: Windows 2000
By Polynikes on 4/2/2008 10:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
I could see people keeping backups of XP activation cracks for that purpose. And there will always be the great archive in the sky, the interwebs, to get that stuff from.


RE: Windows 2000
By 1078feba on 4/2/2008 2:39:18 PM , Rating: 4
I understand the natural cycle of hardware vs software growth. Growth in one spurs growth in the other. But really, why can't XP be supported indefinitely? Perhaps I am displaying more ignorance than I should be comfortable with, but I cannot think of one good reason. I say this not as a Vista basher as I have a $400 copy of Ultimate sitting on my shelf at home (tried it, liked it very much, but X-Fi drivers and an nForce4 mobo will just not play nicely with x64), but until MS manages to come up with either something truly revolutionary or the performance leap is so large it can't be ignored, every OS they put in the channel is just going to be the same tired old hag in a new dress.

Quite to the contrary, I can think of several good reasons to keep it around, but the biggest would be that it is a known evil, and the longer it is around and more security flaws are discovered, the more secure it becomes. After all, there can be only so many chinks in the armor, right?. It has gotten easier and easier for anti-malware apps to keep an XP install clean. Not only that, but collectively their footprint has gotten smaller and smaller. Take NOD32 for instance, or Threatfire. Over the years the vast majority of the dark places in the OS have been discovered and exposed to sunlight. Google any of the services running in your services.msc or task manager and a whole wealth of info is available. I guess my main point is this: for the first few years when a new MS OS hits, there is a window of expected ignorance as we all get used to it. It is this window that malware writers take advantage of to exploit the OS.

quote:
support will end 5 years after sales end (2014).


True enough, & to me this is really myopic. 4-5 years is just about the time that an OS is well and truly figured out. It's just hitting it's full stride. Perhaps the 50 lb. heads in Redmond would do well to rethink their business model with legacy OS's. The staff they have working on XP must be able to quote code line by line in their sleep by now. I, for one, would be willing to pay a pretty hefty sum for a gamer's version of XP Pro in which it is stripped down, lean and fast. That way, I don't have to spend 2 hours and 20 reboots to turn off all the extraneous services running and sucking up resources after a fresh reinstall. How many other people out there would be willing to cough up some green meanies for a very specifically tailored version of XP?


RE: Windows 2000
By bjacobson on 4/3/2008 1:55:55 AM , Rating: 2
Look into XP Embedded, you can roll your own, kinda like compiling your own kernel in Linux.

XP is fast enough for me though, I don't feel compelled to build my own.


RE: Windows 2000
By eye smite on 4/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Windows 2000
By eye smite on 4/6/2008 7:52:16 PM , Rating: 3
I had a rating of 5 on this one, but the kiddies just love bashing me. Glad I could provide such entertainment. All your base are belong to us.


RE: Windows 2000
By therealnickdanger on 4/1/2008 12:01:07 PM , Rating: 5
It's the same batch of headaches with each release. Another common thread with each release: overstating problems. Vista is just fine - is it worth the $400 MS wanted for Ultimate? No.


RE: Windows 2000
By AstroCreep on 4/1/2008 12:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think that was all FUD, honestly.
Remember, Windows XP (NT 5.1) was built upon Windows 2000 (5.0); Vista, however, is a different architecture. Yes, it's technically NT 6, but it was a more drastic change going XP>Vista than it was going 2000>XP.

Besides, most the of the 'problems' with Windows XP were (generally) resolved within a year. Hell, most of the issues I personally ran into with XP I ran into with 2000 as well. Once my problem apps were updated for Windows 2000, I didn't have any other issues on XP.


RE: Windows 2000
By omnicronx on 4/1/2008 12:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
.. Vista is still very much so based on XP/NT. It's only because of the reworked vista sound and video apis that issues arise when trying to use XP video or sound drivers. Many other XP drivers for many other products still work fine in vista, it will just give you an annoying

For example my Nvidia NVTV capture card specifically made for Windows Media Center 2005, and do not even work in XP Works perfectly in Vista.


RE: Windows 2000
By Pryde on 4/1/2008 8:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
It would most likely work in vista because windows vista premium and ultimate come with Windows Media Center.


RE: Windows 2000
By omnicronx on 4/2/2008 2:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
No.. it works because it does not require the use of directshow..


RE: Windows 2000
By Yames on 4/2/2008 1:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
They rebuild the TCP/IP stack also.


RE: Windows 2000
By AstroCreep on 4/3/2008 6:48:14 AM , Rating: 2
They also changed the driver structure quite a bit with the addition of "User-Mode" drivers and by changing the way audio is processed by removing it from kernel space.


RE: Windows 2000
By Machinegear on 4/1/2008 12:41:14 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not dead yet!

(add your british accent)


RE: Windows 2000
By paulpod on 4/1/2008 1:09:21 PM , Rating: 5
The transition to Vista is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. The entire paradigm of a PC (a truely Personal computer) is being thrown out. Entire classes of applications are no longer feasible for third parties to write. Control over what CPU cycles are used for and what IO operations are executed has been completely lost. Therefore we can no longer customize the OS to work the way we want.

Four glaring examples: TV tuners. There used to be many solutions with different approaches, including ones where you watched TV in smaller windows on a multi-tasking monitor and captured lossless video to a file. Now there is only one approach (Mediacenter and clones) that is insanely bloated, assumes you want PVR, obfuscates the saved video format, and assumes you want a sparse, 10ft user interface. Media Center seems like it does not even allow capture from a video input!! And the current programs are so braindead at controlling aspect ratio and HW deinterlace acceleration it isn't even funny.

Number 2. Disk activity. On an XP PC, I control what is running and there is no disk activity unrelated to operations I am doing. Noise is minimal and performance on intended operations is not ruined by randomization of disk access.

Number 3. Network file copies. If I manually copy a file in XP, all resources are applied to that operation. Vista assumes all kinds of backround services have priority over a network file copy. They say they want to prevent audio stuttering but I have NEVER experienced that on even my slowest XP PC. In reality the new behavior is just a reflection of how the entire approach to the OS has changed.

Number 4. DirectShow used to allow third party access to hardware acceleration and in turn, many powerful freeware apps were available. Bowing to pressure from major SW vendors, this concept has been gutted. Want HW acceration of video decode? Guess what, you are now stuck with the insanely pathetic Cyberlink and Intervideo player software. (Ironically, the UI of these programs is so bad, most people will probably NEVER figure out that HW acceleration is possible and enable it properly.)

Basically, we now have OS where the software looks like it was autogenerated from marketing PowerPoint slides.


RE: Windows 2000
By omnicronx on 4/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Windows 2000
By omnicronx on 4/1/2008 2:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
p.s.. you want to capture video, use virtualdub.(can't get an lighter than this). still works with many cards under vista, although not all ;)


RE: Windows 2000
By Bigjee on 4/1/2008 3:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have noticed absolutely no difference between XP and Vista in hard disk activity.


You're kidding me right? The hard disk is reading for the better part after 10 min. of booting up Vista. It accesses the hard drive even when the computer is idle. And we all know that a 7200-rpm is a ****ing slow when Vista is trying to write its crap and you try to run a process or two when its doing that.


RE: Windows 2000
By omnicronx on 4/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Windows 2000
By techhappy on 4/1/2008 5:29:31 PM , Rating: 5
Anything that omnicronx says is out of ignorance.

I've taken IT classes and my professor with over 35 years of real world computer engineering experience has shown demonstrations that Vista is a bloated piece of garbage. If you want to see an example, use a registry monitoring programming.

In the same expanse of time that XP is idle and has literally zero registry responses, Vista will have accessed the registry thousands of times. I watched in horror as the amount of registry responses piled up while the system was idle. Vista eats cpu cycles for no reason at all.

It's a complete piece of bloated garbage. Face the Truth, Vista was designed by Microsoft to run like garbage so that computer manufacturers can sell you more expensive hardware to run it. I have seen zero benefits from Vista.

Omnicronx must be a posterboy for Microsoft. He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.


RE: Windows 2000
By JoshuaBuss on 4/2/2008 1:31:44 AM , Rating: 2
nice to finally know why my hard drive is always going nuts in vista. freakin' annoying!!


RE: Windows 2000
By leexgx on 4/2/2008 8:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
that will be the volume Shadow service running (part of system restore) turning off system restore will fix that problem, if something broke in vista most cases you need to format and reload any way (XP norm just fix the problem)

on boot up thats superfetch id recomend leaving that on


RE: Windows 2000
By kzrssk on 4/2/2008 10:39:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you want to see an example, use a registry monitoring programming.


Have you run Regmon on an XP machine? I usually see something like 20k entries per second. Also, is writing to the registry really all that intensive? At idle, Task Manager shows the CPU to be, well, idle, but obviously these 20k registry entries/sec are being read and written.


RE: Windows 2000
By omnicronx on 4/2/2008 11:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
Wow someone didnt just take his word for it, there is still hope!

As for your question, no its not intensive at all. And for the record, I can't think of a desktop OS that is not constantly writing something to the hard drive(however small or non intensive it may be). And yes that includes nix ;)


RE: Windows 2000
By omnicronx on 4/2/2008 11:00:15 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
In the same expanse of time that XP is idle and has literally zero registry responses, Vista will have accessed the registry thousands of times. I watched in horror as the amount of registry responses piled up while the system was idle. Vista eats cpu cycles for no reason at all.

I would like to invite everyone to do the same test that has been writtin above. Go and download the simple too SpyMe, click on real time monitoring and see what happens.

Low and behold WindowsXP has the EXACT same behavior as windows Vista, with both constantly writing to the registry.

It's nice that you make personal attacks on my comments, yet your/your teachers findings are totally bogus when the same test was duplicated.

Here are some screenshots of both Windows XP and Vista for all those non believers.

http://99.252.213.33/spymevista.jpg
http://99.252.213.33/spymexp.jpg

So to me it looks like either your teacher needs to go back to school, or you need to fabricate better evidence.

I am not endorsing MS here or trying to be their 'Poster Boy', I use what I find best for my day to day activities, and at this point in time, its vista.. When rdesktop in linux finally supports rdp 5.2 it will be ubuntu linux..

So please, stop bashing something neither you or your teacher have ever used on a regular basis. If you really think windows should be just the core system with no visuals, or extra stuff required than stay with XP. But believe it or not, as apple shows there is a market for an eye candy O/S, and XP just can not compete with OSX, let alone linux+compiz.

Omni


RE: Windows 2000
By techhappy on 4/3/2008 10:33:35 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, both XP and Vista write to the registy. The problem is Vista writes about 4000% more frequently to the registry and for no apparent benefit or good reason.

The problem is tied to the amount of system processes running with Vista. In most cases, the average user wouldn't use 90% of the procesess for anything productive. So why have your system, taxed for no good reason. It may not tax the cpu at idle, but watch how quickly Vista topples once you try to multitask, the registry entries pile up and start chewing away at performance that should be spent running programs. It's like taking a step back and using Win95 with a 200mhz comp.

But based on your insistence on this thread to defend and glorify Vista, I'm guessing you shelled out $1200 for 3 copies of Vista Ultimate to run on all your computers.

Good for you. I hope you enjoy its breadth of useless new features, which will slow your computer to a crawl, anytime you try to multi task.

Me and the other practical members of this board will continue to rely on the stability of XP. Maybe after 3 years of Vista patches and Updates, I'll revisit Vista. Until then, I'll let Microsoft do its Beta testing on their own machines.


RE: Windows 2000
By omnicronx on 4/4/2008 4:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, both XP and Vista write to the registy. The problem is Vista writes about 4000% more frequently to the registry and for no apparent benefit or good reason.

Prove it? I've dont the tests myself, they both have around the same registry writes per minute. The only thing i did notice was Vista was writting much more for the first few minutes while superfetch did its business.

quote:
But based on your insistence on this thread to defend and glorify Vista, I'm guessing you shelled out $1200 for 3 copies of Vista Ultimate to run on all your computers.

Hey I never said Vista was not expensive as #$$#%.. I paid for the OEM copy that came with my laptop, but thats about it ;) This does not make it a bad O/S though, and its not what people here are complaining about, for home use, most of you are using a pirated version of windows anyways.

quote:
Good for you. I hope you enjoy its breadth of useless new features, which will slow your computer to a crawl, anytime you try to multi task.
Baseless comment #342342 and counting. Once again, I've seen no proof of this, and I use the OS every day.. Wheres the site link? wheres the thousands of lines of code being run for no reason other than to bloat up your system? I mean someone else out of the 60 million Vista customers must know what you know.

quote:
Me and the other practical members of this board will continue to rely on the stability of XP. Maybe after 3 years of Vista patches and Updates, I'll revisit Vista. Until then, I'll let Microsoft do its Beta testing on their own machines.
Why even have hardware advancements at all? XP runs fast enough, you obviously more than happy being stuck in a 2d desktop environment. Hell why not go back to windows98? Have you ever installed it on a new computer? It runs much faster than XP so it must be better.

Get it into your head, Windows runs on thousands of pieces of hardware, it will take time to become as stable as XP. Sure we are early adopters, and 3 years from now the OS is sure to be more stable and efficient, but that does not make it a bad OS. XP, although it ran slower than 98, had a better feel and just ran better, even with the mass amounts of driver issues that were present at launch.(and essentially the same arguments you are giving now)
The Vista launch has been Much Much better, Sp1 is now released, and almost all the problems you have to complain about have been fixed.. (thanks to our 'beta testing')

So if you are not going to try it out, then so be it, but please stop blasting others for it. I've heard the same arguments just about every windows release, and it's getting OLD


RE: Windows 2000
By ATWindsor on 4/1/2008 4:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny how you complain about a non existing problem, when file transfers are probably the only complaint that it well founded against vista. File transfers were painfully slow and sometimes just stopped pre SP1, but i no longer have issues. As for the streaming, It's obviously not audio streaming that it is problem, it gives file transfers high priority to limit the issue of video and sound syncing issues. I have not had a problem since i upgraded to vista, I can't say the same about XP and VLC where on many occasions i was forced to pause the video to resync the audio.(increasing the buffer size did nothing)


Even after SP1 the network is painfully slow when playing media. (although it is somewhat fixable with a regedit after SP1) I had no syncing problems in XP to be honest. However I have had quite a few problems with the horrible network-performance in Vista.

In general, its not that Vista is a very bad OS, it just that it brings very little improvments (better audio-handling for instance), some setbacks (all the drm-annoyances), it fails to fix some of the more annooting problems with XP (horrible primitive file-copying) and its slower on medium-specced computers and down. It's not so bad that I won't be using it if i buy a new comp, but its pretty disappointing that this are what they came up with after so many years, so much money, and so many "promises".


RE: Windows 2000
By omnicronx on 4/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Windows 2000
By omnicronx on 4/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Windows 2000
By leexgx on 4/2/2008 8:40:57 PM , Rating: 1
i guess you jsut rin M$ word only on your pc and do not mess with big files

1. TV cards hate them and allways will so no comemnt there

2. Vista start system restore points that starts Volume shadow copy service and if you have lots of GB in the user space it trys to do an shadow of them that ultimately fails but it can run for up to an hr before it gives up makeing lots of disk access for no point, On XP system restore is only used when its asked to make an restore point

2a. vista does not Give IO prioty to running programs and should idle off (like superfetch and other disk intensive Windows services) when other programs are accessing the hdd as we are not useing SSD disks yet spining disks suck for random read and writes

3 WTF you liveing somewhere els Network speed is realy buggered on vista compeared to an XP pc even with Vista SP1

others not realy related to me

when my XP dies thought i will be running vista x64 be it in RAID 0 with 4 disks to mask some of the hdd actively, may have to dump my creative card as well, thats an completely other topic in it self (Creative sucky support + sueing)


RE: Windows 2000
By wallijonn on 4/1/2008 1:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whats different now than when Windows XP came out against Windows 2000? It's the same argument. XP's drivers sucked at the time.. Windows 2000 was rock solid.. isn't history just going to repeat itself? Whats new?


It's not the same argument. XP's drivers didn't really suck because for the most part W2000 drivers were sufficent.

What's new is the system requirements. If you want Vista then you have to buy a new PC, because you'll need a new graphics card; whereas going from W2000 to WXP you didn't need to buy a new PC, you added memory to bring it up to 512 (remember when Dell would sell a PC with 128MB of RAM?) and you were good to go.

The problem is the OEMs - they want to sell a cheap PC with Vista. Vista needs 2G minimum with a robust graphics chip if the eye candy needs to be turned on. Memory is cheap enough, today, whereby 2G won't cost much. But that graphics chip is going to cost a few dollars. If the 3D graphics aren't turned on, then why bother with Vista? WXP 2D graphics is good enough for a plain desktop. So strip Vista of the bloat, install the bare minimum(s) and make it run within a 512MB scheme.

MS will therefore have to come up with a Vista which is even below Home Edition. Everyone will probably see it as "Home Edition the way it was supposed to be," without the incessant warnings, beeps and dialog boxes, for example.


RE: Windows 2000
By Donkeyshins on 4/1/2008 3:33:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's new is the system requirements. If you want Vista then you have to buy a new PC, because you'll need a new graphics card; whereas going from W2000 to WXP you didn't need to buy a new PC, you added memory to bring it up to 512 (remember when Dell would sell a PC with 128MB of RAM?) and you were good to go.


What on earth is stopping you from upgrading your video card? It's not as if the damn thing is soldered into its PCIe (or AGP) slot. It's removable. Same goes for RAM. If your two biggest complaints with Vista are the need for a new graphics card and new RAM, then you don't (historically) have a lot to complain about. Hell, you can get 2GB of RAM for under $40 and a decent DX10 video card for under $100.


RE: Windows 2000
By MonkeyPaw on 4/1/2008 6:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
Really you don't even need to spend THAT much. I've run Vista Aero on a S754-based 6100IGP. I've also run Vista on a 5900XT and a X1550, and again, Aero ran as expected. The key in all of these trials was having 1GB of RAM.

In other words, what Vista "needs" to run in "pretty mode" can be found in a motherboard that cost $49 three years ago, or in a graphics card that was launched 5 years ago. If you can't afford 1GB of RAM and/or a $35 video card yet, then chances are Vista isn't what you should be complaining about.


RE: Windows 2000
By BladeVenom on 4/1/2008 2:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
For most home desktops it wasn't XP vs. 2000, it was XP vs. ME, and XP at its worst was better than ME at its best.

Some people seem to want to forget that ME existed.


RE: Windows 2000
By JoshuaBuss on 4/1/2008 10:44:00 PM , Rating: 3
can you blame them?


RE: Windows 2000
By PitViper007 on 4/2/2008 3:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
No


RE: Windows 2000
By leexgx on 4/2/2008 8:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
ME was an very bad OS heh windows 98 or 95 was more stable then it

its Device Speed detection to Driver installing was very impreseive tho (was very fast)

tbh its XP vs win2k untill drivers could no longer be found for win2k (or games stoped working on it as thay required XP min)


RE: Windows 2000
By sgtdisturbed47 on 4/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: Windows 2000
By piroroadkill on 4/1/2008 4:33:32 PM , Rating: 1
Uh, when I removed 98 and installed XP in October 2001, I never went back. This is in sharp contrast to now, when I actually own a full copy of Vista Ultimate, but I still chose to install XP on my machine.

There were.. basically the only issues with XP I had were a few old games not working, and the driver for some pile of shit 640x480 camera not working. Needless to say I didn't lose any sleep.


RE: Windows 2000
By codeThug on 4/1/2008 5:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to vent your frustrations with vista, I suggest to go to another site. The microtologists trolling this site will mod you down regardless of the validity of your claims.


RE: Windows 2000
By leexgx on 4/2/2008 9:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
whos flameing who his post was in no way an bad post
omnicronx posts are plane stuped (had 1-2 good ones there)

you should target me instead but i work with and fix pcs for an liveing and i know how vista performs and it takes way longer to resove vista problems then XP ones, but it works well once the hard disk stops trashing all other the place (pointless hard disk random access)


RE: Windows 2000
By leexgx on 4/2/2008 8:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
same here as well

thats what i did but i dual booted XP and windows 98 for about an year due to i think 1-2 games (C&C Red alert :) ) but i mostly used my XP and most XP crashes was Due to Hardware Faults that would make an some times crashy win98 into an full swing BSOD all the time on XP

i been useing XP from day one apart from the MSblaster type of problems (that never affeced me due to been behind an router all my life) XP been good, Vista needs super fast hard disks and that be SSD drives as thay whould hide most of the random access that vista makes


RE: Windows 2000
By Bonesdad on 4/1/2008 7:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
gotta say, that was NOT what I experienced or heard from any of my clients. They were ALL ecstatic after using XP for just a few days, some coming from 98SE, some from ME. XP at the outset was vastly superior to 98.


RE: Windows 2000
By sprockkets on 4/1/2008 7:02:14 PM , Rating: 3
You know, if they didn't mess up the whole moving sound and video to userspace and making a somewhat weird scheme for UAC, it would be just the right amount of change. That and the fact XP did not need a reboot every day to function compared to ME helps as well.

But, whatever. This argument comes up every time a story such as this is posted. Move along.


RE: Windows 2000
By mindless1 on 4/1/2008 7:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
The difference is you are completely wrong.

When XP came out, the driver base for XP and 2K was the same, 2K had been the best thing to happen to a PC in a long time and itself had stability but it's shortfall was drivers.

What XP did for 2K was to get NT on a lot more machines, that plus the simple passing of time meant the NT drivers for both 2K and XP matured to improve the quality of computing on either OS.

However, XP added a few features over 2K meaning it still had more bugs remaining, that things patched in 2K were generally patched in XP and vice-versa when a feature common to both, but inevitably XP still had it's own share of new unique features that left it earlier in it's maturity cycle.

What's new now is that back then we were contrasting moving from Win98 or ME - operating systems everyone wanted to abandon due to more frequent bluescreens and one of those taking down the whole OS, and finding even a still maturing 2k or XP greatly improved on these crucial stability concerns.

With Vista we have the opposite, while there are certainly some with all Vista features working ok, it is as often someone has some problem moving from 2K or XP to it - and we don't really have to care why, because the subjective need is met by the former OS as well or better than the latter.

Put simply, what's new is back then moving to XP brought stability. People want that a lot more than bells and whistles. Today XP has that, Vista is not improving on this aspect in any significant way, but carries a heavy penalty in system hardware requirements to do the most common tasks people do.

Let's be frank, when the OS itself demands more hardware to run reasonably than the tasks people run most often, that OS is ill-suited to the average person who sees a computer as a means to an end instead of an enthusiast's vision of a high performance toy (gaming) or status symbol.

Some people don't worship the PC, it's like a toaster or TV, it just has to work to do what THEY want. 2K/XP allowed that. Vista will too eventually but these things take time - patches and evolution of cheaper hardware with better performance.


RE: Windows 2000
By leexgx on 4/2/2008 9:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's be frank, when the OS itself demands more hardware to run reasonably than the tasks people run most often, that OS is ill-suited to the average person who sees a computer as a means to an end instead of an enthusiast's vision of a high performance toy (gaming) or status symbol.

Some people don't worship the PC, it's like a toaster or TV, it just has to work to do what THEY want. 2K/XP allowed that. Vista will too eventually but these things take time - patches and evolution of cheaper hardware with better performance.


good post


RE: Windows 2000
By Oregonian2 on 4/1/2008 9:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
One can (and I still do) use Windows NT and Windows 2000 drivers on Windows XP. Ones I use work fine.


RE: Windows 2000
By mattclary on 4/2/2008 12:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
Win 2000 had nowhere near the install base that XP does. Most people were running Win 9x. Win 2000 was mainly present in the enterprise. XP has matured well and serves most people's needs quite well. The bloat factor between 2000 and XP was very minimal compared to the difference between XP and Vista.


RE: Windows 2000
By leexgx on 4/2/2008 8:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
this time its not drivers its how fat the OS is and going from win2k to XP is not so bad but the requrements for vista are overblown to the point its useless on pcs with less then an dual core cpu and 1-2gb of ram,
M$ with vista does not allso seem to work out that Random read and writes kill performace as well or thay are assuming that evey one is now useing SSD drives now (that handle random reads not so bad) doing windows updates on an fresh pc with vista can take up to 2-3 hrs

whats new is it does need alot more out of your pc just to do simple things


RE: Windows 2000
By leexgx on 4/2/2008 8:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
this time its not drivers its how fat the OS is and going from win2k to XP is not so bad but the requrements for vista are overblown to the point its useless on pcs with less then an dual core cpu and 1-2gb of ram,
M$ with vista does not allso seem to work out that Random read and writes kill performace as well or thay are assuming that evey one is now useing SSD drives now (that handle random reads not so bad) doing windows updates on an fresh pc with vista can take up to 2-3 hrs

whats new is it does need alot more out of your pc just to do simple things


RE: Windows 2000
By phxfreddy on 4/5/2008 4:19:27 AM , Rating: 2
What's new is Vista is bloated and I have absolute no discernable reason why I need it. XP is fine and I already know where things are at. Unless it can do the thankin' for me!


Not likely
By mcnabney on 4/1/2008 11:31:39 AM , Rating: 3
The demand is for an operating system with a smaller footprint. At what time in history has Microsoft ever released a newer product that was smaller, with lower system requirements, and with less bloat? There is no future Microsoft product coming for the Atom or small featured product. Maybe they can bring back MS Bob?

Linux, if you screw this market up.....




RE: Not likely
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not likely
By glennpratt on 4/1/2008 11:54:42 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Pot Kettle Black.
Lies.

Xubuntu 6.06 (654MB) -> Xubuntu 7.10 (566MB)
Ubuntu 7.04 (698MB) --> Ubuntu 7.10 (696MB) :)

Some projects have size reduction as a goal.

Damn Small Linux
iPod Linux
OpenWRT

We could go on and on.


RE: Not likely
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/1/2008 1:28:13 PM , Rating: 1
For Ubuntu they are constrained to the size of a single CD for the moment.


RE: Not likely
By glennpratt on 4/1/2008 3:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
That's why I put a smiley face after it.

Point being your statement was wrong, and it was so because of your bias. Like I said, we could go on and on about this, but I'd like to think you get the point.


RE: Not likely
By omnicronx on 4/1/2008 4:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Point being your statement was wrong
Its not a bias, hes right. From personal experiance (I've used nix since redhat 5) almost every distro upgrade ends up with a larger final product. I am not talking images here, I am talking final installed product while using the default install. As i've already stated ubuntu 7.10 when all is said and done, ends up being bigger than 6.06LTS.. You have no idea what packages on have been removed from the disk, there could be compressed files in one that are not in the other etc..

Even most distros that were made to be small do not decrease in size in the next distro version. I mean you could go through every line of code and make it as efficient as possible, but this would have mainly been done in the first release(or what would be the point..), and it would still mean the distro would have to retain the exact same featureset (at least not adding to it) to lower its size... and even then it would be marginal at best..



RE: Not likely
By omnicronx on 4/1/2008 4:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
p.s incase you wanted to know.. both D.S.L and ipod linux have grown in size since their initial release ;)


RE: Not likely
By glennpratt on 4/1/2008 5:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
Please tell me that Xubuntu 7.10 is bigger the 6.06. Please tell me OpenWRT hasn't worked hard to reduce it's footprint to fit on ever smaller devices. The point here is that the community has worked hard to make Linux relevant on all sorts of devices while adding features at the same time, and growing almost exclusively from increasing features.

Windows on the other-hand has grown massively without much advantage to the consumer. I say that as a long time Vista user and Microsoft Partner, Windows just isn't ideal for small devices, and WinCE, XPe and Windows Mobile make too many compromises.


RE: Not likely
By DOSGuy on 4/1/2008 11:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure that many Linux distributions have gotten larger after each release, which one expect as an OS adds features and driver support. But have they grown as quickly as Windows?

As a networking consultant for a public high school, I've used Norton Ghost to deploy identical images to every computer in a lab for years. Since the school's computers have always been several years old, the schoolboard had standardized on Windows 98 until about two years ago. I have uncompressed Ghost files for almost every version of Windows. I have base install images (OS only) to fall back on as a template, as well as images that have all of the school's software installed. Let's compare the bare OS image sizes.

Windows 95: 73 MB
Windows 98: 173 MB
Windows Me: 423 MB

I don't have a Windows XP image on my home computer, but I know that we had to split it into two parts because it was over 1 GB. We don't have any computers that can handle Vista, but I've been advised to expect Vista to need up to 4 GB.

The trend is that each version of Windows is about 3x larger than the last version. Is that also true for Linux?


RE: Not likely
By omnicronx on 4/1/2008 2:35:34 PM , Rating: 1
Funny you show the ubuntu image filesizes Because.... :)
7.10 after install takes up more space than 6.06 :)
same can be said of 8.4 vs 7.10 although it is still in beta.(8.4 CD is only 693MB)
CD Imagine sizes don't mean everything ;)


RE: Not likely
By Yawgm0th on 4/1/2008 12:41:52 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
When was the last time Linux released an update to a flavor that wasn't bigger? Pot Kettle Black.


Linux = O.S. kernel
Microsoft = Company

Linux doesn't release anything. Even making this comparison is a fallacy in and of itself. There isn't enough of a single entity with authority of the whole of Linux to the point where there can be a "pot," in this particular cliché.

Now new Linux kernels are released periodically, but they rarely increase the footprint substantially.

Most major distributions (or the organizations that develop and release them) of Linux, which could each individually be compared to Microsoft, do indeed tend to increase the footprint with each subsequent release. However, every popular distribution has new release every 6-18 months (as opposed to seven years), usually coinciding with major updates to Linux, Gnome or KDE, or disro-specific features. Even the latest versions (NB: versions released after Vista) of have relatively small footprints in comparison to XP, and are far from Vista. The footprint increases are hardly comparable to the sweeping changes brought about in Vista.

Even comparing Fedora 8 (probably the most intensive distro) which offers far more advanced UI features than Aero (as well as better "behind the scenes" enhancements) to Vista is a joke. Going back 7 years to RedHat (I want to say 7ish), the difference in system requirements is no where near the gap between XP and Vista.

And as the other posted mentioned, there are distributions and variants of distributions designed solely for the purpose of providing a smaller footprint.

You can't discredit the use of Linux for an application like this nor defend Vista's ridiculous overhead by essentially saying "some Linux distribution updates are also more resource-intensive than their updates."


RE: Not likely
By mikefarinha on 4/1/2008 11:47:38 AM , Rating: 2
There are no mainstream applications or OSes that any company has released that actually requires slower hardware and less disk space than it's prior version.


RE: Not likely
By wallijonn on 4/1/2008 2:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are no mainstream applications or OSes that any company has released that actually requires slower hardware and less disk space than it's prior version.


"What Intel giveth, MS taketh away."

A faster processor means that the OS can do more quicker. So the OS does more and the speed increase is negated and nullified.


RE: Not likely
By omnicronx on 4/1/2008 2:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
What a concept, I am glad at least a few people know what they are talking about..


RE: Not likely
By TedStriker on 4/1/2008 11:51:11 AM , Rating: 1
"At what time in history has Microsoft ever released a newer product that was smaller, with lower system requirements, and with less bloat?"

Just a few years ago with WinCE and WinXPe


RE: Not likely
By omnicronx on 4/1/2008 3:01:53 PM , Rating: 3
Why are you rating him up? One isnt a PC platform , and XPE is the successor to Windows NT4 embedded and is not in the same family as WindowsXP. Not that anyone here has ever used it but NT4e has much lower requirements and much less bloat than XPe =P.. nice try though..

I think you knew damn well what he was saying is that Microsoft has never released a new revision that was smaller and less bloated than the previous version..
i.e win95..98.. ME..2000...XP..Vista... not that you were right about XPE anyways...


RE: Not likely
By TedStriker on 4/1/2008 3:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure I know what he was saying since I directly quoted him. LOL

and I work with PC's everyday that have WinCE installed as the OS due to the footprint and lower hardware requirements. Quite a few point of sale terminals are moving to WinCE and WinXPe based. There's little reason why it couldn't be used on the EeePc. But that's beside the point of what he was asking. Why are you crying foul anyway? is it just another chance to bash MS? They definitly have their faults, but they have released new products that require less footprint and resources than previous products.


RE: Not likely
By glennpratt on 4/1/2008 3:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's little reason why it couldn't be used on the EeePc

Uhh, there's one big one. They aren't designed to be used in general consumer applications, they are for custom computers and handheld devices that are customized for a well defined environment, not meant be used on a consumer notebook.


RE: Not likely
By omnicronx on 4/1/2008 4:46:50 PM , Rating: 2
I think were on the same team here, I have no problem with smaller footprints, in fact i welcome them. But when someone says a previous product, I assumed you were talking about products in the same product line. (i.e an o/s upgrade)
I also agree there is no reason why products like the EeePc can not take advantage of WinXPe. Sorry about the confusion


Windows Xp Pro
By Joz on 4/1/2008 11:27:20 AM , Rating: 1
The only good Microsoft product.

Windows XP Pro, crack CD, even better.

For everthing else, theres open source and better things such as OpenOffice, google docs, gmail, etc...etc...etc..

And for everything else, theres linux.

DSL FTW. (Damn Small Linux)




RE: Windows Xp Pro
By Spivonious on 4/1/2008 12:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
Go away. MS Office blows OpenOffice away. Visual Studio blows any Linux dev environment away. I'll even go so far as to say Vista x64 blows XP Pro away.


RE: Windows Xp Pro
By mmntech on 4/1/2008 12:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
Why? Because OpenOffice doesn't have pretty colours or transparent menus? I've been using OOo for years now and I do a lot of writing. I wouldn't go back to MS Office ever. Not when OOo does the exact same things for free. Typical fanboyism, which is the reason why no other products, no matter how good, can't break Microsoft's monopoly. People have convinced themselves that if it's not an MS product, it's crap, yet they'll moan about using Windows to no end.

I really don't understand why Vista and XP can't be sold side by side. Microsoft is making money off both products. There's obviously still a strong demand for XP so it would be a poor business decision to stop selling it IMO.


RE: Windows Xp Pro
By omnicronx on 4/1/2008 1:11:49 PM , Rating: 2
Open Office has the feature-set of Office97.. Anyone who uses linux, but still heavily use excel or word know this. There are many macros and special functions are non existant in OO, that i have been using for years in MSOffice that i just can not live without. I am personally forced to RDP into my windows server to use the advanced features of MSoffice.... still better than OO anyday..


RE: Windows Xp Pro
By falacy on 4/1/2008 2:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
Open Office is certainly a better product than MS Works.

What's more is that if one has a problem with Open Office, one also has the source code to fix that problem. If one is too lazy to fix said problem, one should not complain. Certainly, if one had a problem with MS Office, one could write Microsoft a letter to resolve the problem, which may or may not ever be resolved.

Open Office is a handy product for the vast majority of people, but I can see how some more advanced users may miss a feature that MS Office has which Open Office does not. That said, many advanced MS Office users may simply not realise how to use the advanced features of Open Office, because they are not implimented in exactly the same manner. I imagine there is large gap in understanding the Open Office way, as apposed the MS Office way, as Open Office wasn't shoved down our throats through elementy, high school, and college...


RE: Windows Xp Pro
By omnicronx on 4/1/2008 2:40:30 PM , Rating: 3
You are missing the point, OO has no problems, its great if you only need to type up a letter, or a simple/medium spreadsheet. But its still limited to the a feature set comparable with Office97.. I've used OO before it was even called openoffice(staroffice), and i can tell you, it has never been close in comparison with any version of MSOffice.
If anything, its gone downhill since it split into its own entity.. leaving star office, a product you actually have to pay for with the better features.. Wouldnt not be too much of a point for Sun to have an opensource version thats just as good as the one you have to pay for..


RE: Windows Xp Pro
By robinthakur on 4/2/2008 8:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly you fall into the tiny percentage of IT users who has the free time on their hands and the wherewithal to fix code problems with their office software. Most wouldn't want to even if they could.


RE: Windows Xp Pro
By Diesel Donkey on 4/1/2008 3:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps Microsoft doesn't want to sell XP and Vista side by side because, despite remaining demand for XP, keeping only Vista around would generate more revenue due to increased sales of Vista (more expensive in some cases) without XP sales cutting in. Also, I'm sure it costs a bunch to continue to support two operating systems rather than focusing on just one.


RE: Windows Xp Pro
By MScrip on 4/1/2008 4:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they could keep selling Vista installed on computers at Best Buy and Circuit City, and keep selling copies of XP online through Newegg and other places. Who buys retail boxed copies of operating systems in a store anyway?

They want to stop supporting XP and move towards the future. Who would have thought back in 2001 that XP would be "the best, most stable OS" from Microsoft? Maybe after SP2 Vista will finally be a mature platform.

I'd love to run Windows 98 on a quad-core box! Take that MS!


RE: Windows Xp Pro
By joemoedee on 4/2/2008 6:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Perhaps Microsoft doesn't want to sell XP and Vista side by side because, despite remaining demand for XP, keeping only Vista around would generate more revenue due to increased sales of Vista


*Ding* So many folks already own XP, so there is a limited amount of potential new sales versus what Vista offers.

With all the advertising, development, etc poured into Vista thus far, it would be basically conceding defeat to extend XP sales for a long period of time. MS wants you to believe that Vista is the best thing since sliced bread, or well, since Windows XP was released. :)

Vista truly doesn't offer the dramatic leap in computing experience that was initially advertised, so the compelling reasons for people to upgrade are less than expected. It's not like the leap from 3.1 to 9X, or from 9X to XP, so the adoption schedule will be slow.

As long as XP is still selling, Vista sales will be limited. MS's goal is to get Vista sold to as many XP users as possible. Doing so will require ending sales of XP, and ultimately support for it.


RE: Windows Xp Pro
By robinthakur on 4/2/2008 8:39:35 AM , Rating: 2
OK, stop right there. Open Office has limited functionality for a niche market (undemanding home users) and if you're happy with using Office 97 esque functionality then that's fine and dandy, it is free. In business, anyone suggesting OO would be laughed out of a job. It lacks any of the feature set of O2k7 (sharepoint 2k7 integration, extended xlx spreadsheets etc obviously for enterprises) and the latter also feels like a much better build professional product which is supported by the same company which provides their OS.

The bottom line is that whilst it might appear at first sight that o2k7 is just pretty colours and confusing layouts, as a business tool, it does not compare to any other solution because it integrates better in a MS environment. It also costs money because it cost Microsoft millions or billions to produce. I see nothing wrong with this. Its called Office, the clue is in the name.


RE: Windows Xp Pro
By wallijonn on 4/1/2008 2:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
MS Office blows OpenOffice away.


OfficeXP, yes. Office2007, no. :D


RE: Windows Xp Pro
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/1/2008 3:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Office97 , yes. Office2007, no. :D

There, fix that for you.


Overstated System Requirements
By Flunk on 4/1/2008 12:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think the point "Vista often struggles on even low-end Pentium Dual Core machines running with only 1GB" is overstated. I have Vista Home Premium installed on an Athlon XP 2500+ with 1GB of DDR RAM and it runs very well.




RE: Overstated System Requirements
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/1/2008 12:30:06 PM , Rating: 3
I recently had to remove the bloatware from a new Toshiba Satellite A205-S5803 notebook running Windows Vista Basic. Even after removing the various antivirus/antispyware, google desktop, etc., it still ran like poo.

This was a machine with a Pentium Dual Core 1.6GHz processor, 1GB of memory and 5400 RPM HDD.

It wasn't until I upped the memory to 2GB that it became bearable.


RE: Overstated System Requirements
By Omega215D on 4/1/2008 2:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
My MacBook (Core 2 Duo and Intel GMA X3100) runs Vista Home Basic as fast as it did XP. When I had Home Premium on it there were no issues even when it only had 1GB of RAM. I also only made a partition of 30GB for the Windows Vista installation which I was left with 22GB left.

I don't know where those who say Vista needs a robust GPU to run properly come from. Intel graphics are far from robust gaming wise and are sufficient for Aero. Right now all I have at start up is BitDefender, Spysweeper and Logitech drivers.


By mcnabney on 4/1/2008 4:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
When people actually start using their computer the bloat becomes more apparent.


RE: Overstated System Requirements
By Armorize on 4/1/2008 3:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
AHH I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND! I recently helped out my mother to buy a cheap notebook. She only rarely browses the internet and checks her email on any computer. So BB had a sale awhile ago for that notebook if not the same then a very similar one. 1GB ram 120GB hdd, and an athlon x2 with vista home premium on it.

I went through the computer and eliminated all of the bloatware (most of it was Toshiba software itself) and started surfing around just to test the speed of how fast things were loading and get a feel for how the computer was going to be when surfing and checking email.

This thing is simply horrid. I've eliminated as many services that arent necessary as possible and i've set all of the graphics options OS wise and ATI wise to performance.

Sitting idle with only a few background services running (70 some) this thing is still slower then a dead snail.

Well not that long ago SP1 came out, so I downloaded it to her computer because I kept getting calls about how slow the damn thing was.
Being optomistic I thought that it would at least alleviate some problems... and thats about all it did. sitting idle the computer has processor activity around 50% before sp1, with sp1 its sitting at around 47% while idle now.

I tried to avoid getting another stick of ram for her computer as much as possible, but at this point its about the only option left. I suggested she get a different notebook but that wasn't gonna happen shes blind as a bat and needs a big screen. so no eee pc for her lol.


By omnicronx on 4/1/2008 3:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
Having a load of 50% while doing nothing can not be directly attributed to Vista. Under no circumstances should it ever be this high SP1 or not.. I imagine you are having some sort of driver issue, or issues with some other piece of software that your PC vendor put on your laptop that you were unable to remove. Perhaps you have more ram usage, but that's the superfetch feature making use of your extra ram, which should increase, not decrease performance..


RE: Overstated System Requirements
By leexgx on 4/2/2008 9:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
the extra 1gb of ram in there will do it wunders

when buying any laptop or PC make sure its 2 for 2 (dual core and 2gb of ram)

the windows updates can drag the pc down for the first 1-3hrs its turnd on get SP1 on there and walk away untill it shuts up messing with the hdd as well do not do any thing on the pc when its doing the updates as it Will extend your waiting times due to Vista doing lots of random access wait untill the hard disk has shut up

you mite allso want to tell her to use the sleep button so superfetch does not have to refill the ram up makes the laptop come back up super fast norm as long as its not gone hibernating as it does after 18 hrs (most laptops)


RE: Overstated System Requirements
By marvdmartian on 4/1/2008 3:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
I think even an XP2500+ with 1gb of ram beats out the Celeron M with 512mb, wouldn't you say?

Microsoft would do well to supply a stripped down version of XP, that could run well on a system with limited resources and power, like the eee laptops. Either that, or bring back windows ME for them! ;)


By Tsuwamono on 4/1/2008 10:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
Lmao ME.. ya so they can spend more time turning on their PC after it crashes then actually using it... Ahh the power of Windows ME...


By joemoedee on 4/2/2008 6:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft would do well to supply a stripped down version of XP, that could run well on a system with limited resources and power, like the eee laptops. Either that, or bring back windows ME for them! ;)


They already have it: Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, but the general public isn't getting it.

From Wikipedia: "In July 2006, Microsoft introduced a "thin-client" version of Windows XP called Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, which targets older machines (as early as the original Pentium). It is only available to Software Assurance customers. It is intended for those who would like to upgrade to Windows XP to take advantage of its security and management capabilities, but can't afford to purchase new hardware."


More memory to come
By Wonga on 4/1/2008 11:53:39 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft just needs to lie back for a few months until these cheap machines get 1GB+ RAM, then Vista will be accepted. Why spend thousands of man-hours trying to reduce Vista's footprint when RAM prices will come down like they always have done?




RE: More memory to come
By Wonga on 4/1/2008 11:55:44 AM , Rating: 2
And the same goes for flash memory...


RE: More memory to come
By pomaikai on 4/1/2008 12:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
Lie back and do what? Sales of XP will stop in June if the just lie back and do nothing because thats what management decided. Do you know how much money will be lost between June and whenever prices allow 1+GB RAM in these PCs, not to mention the install base linux could get in small cheap laptops. All the PC vendors have jumped heavily into Vista and an extension of XP sales would not cause them to backtrack from Vista to XP.


RE: More memory to come
By Spivonious on 4/1/2008 12:27:52 PM , Rating: 3
I'm calling it now. After June of this year, you will not be able to buy a new PC with less than 1GB of RAM. The extra 512MB will cost an OEM roughly $20 per machine. Spend an extra $20 to continue selling machines, or completely redesign and test a model without Windows that won't sell? It's an easy choice for me.


RE: More memory to come
By Wonga on 4/1/2008 12:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think it would be smarter to let memory prices naturally come down than to spend a fortune on stripping down an operating system which will run fine on these types of machines anyway (in a few more months when they ship with half-decent memory specs). By the time these types of laptops get popular (if they really do), Vista will run fine on them.

The story would be a lot different if mainsteam laptops struggled to run Vista, but they don't.


RE: More memory to come
By robinthakur on 4/2/2008 8:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
Frankly, MS could lie back and do nothing and Linux still wouldn't have a chance. While I'll admit that the fact that the EEE is selling nicely while shipping with Xandros seems like an anomaly, I think its because most of the applications on it are fairly self contained and it doesn't rely on being part of a network environment to function. Linux distros are far too wrapped up in the technology to appreciate little things like usability, accessibility and interface design. Its a pity it would cannibalise MAC sales or Apple would be perfectly placed to ship OS X with them instead, an infinitely better solution than vanilla Linux.

If sales of XP stop, big deal. The manufacturers WILL have have to find a spec-increase solution allowing them to run Vista pretty quick if that's the case or risk their luck with more Linux Ultra portables. MS can devise a cut down portable vista (as I'm sure they already are, it should already be out!) and then watch Linux disappear from UMC's overnight once a better option presents itself. People would rather buy hardware running software which is compatible with everybody else. The PC industry is built almost entirely around MS and its fortunes, its really naive to imagine that will change in 6 months-1 year's time even if they hypothetically took their foot off the accelerator.


RE: More memory to come
By piroroadkill on 4/1/2008 4:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
What about graphics card requirements, though - why on earth would you need even half decent 3D acceleration in a sub-notebook? It's just wasting power and space. Microsoft needed to make the transition from Aero to Aero Basic a lot more graceful, and visually the same, in my opinion. Translucent window edges are somthing that can be done in GDI+ without much trouble


RE: More memory to come
By JoshuaBuss on 4/2/2008 12:09:07 AM , Rating: 2
that sounds horrible. "let's allow for OS bloat as long as memory keeps getting cheaper!"

i wish all people building OSs had similar design goals to the linux gurus..

one of their latest goals is to get the x server to start in less than a second.


Stuck with Windows XP
By pomaikai on 4/1/2008 11:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
I am stuck with XP due to work. The software I use is not yet compatible with vista. The problem is that I use my personal laptop for work. There are just a few laptops that come with XP as opposed to vista and I dont want to have to deal with trying to find compatible drivers if I uninstall vista and install xp. While I would like a new laptop my only options are keep using my current one or get one that I dont want just because it comes with XP. And yes I have installed linux(ubuntu) on this laptop for a few months and ended up switching back to XP because of configuration issues switching between networks and software compatibility.




RE: Stuck with Windows XP
By BigLan on 4/1/2008 11:59:43 AM , Rating: 4
You could get a vista laptop and then run a virtual machine for XP. Both MS's virtual PC and VMware player are free, so you'd just need an xp license.


RE: Stuck with Windows XP
By Omega215D on 4/1/2008 2:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how I'm able to run Guitar Method on my Vista machine. I bought the program back in 2000 and it says for Win/Mac. Yet my Leopard partition on my MacBook can't run it while the Vista part can with no problems.

Same goes for some text book CDs and study programs.


Windows XP vs Windows Vista
By techhappy on 4/1/2008 5:41:05 PM , Rating: 1
Windows XP = Porche

Windowx Vista = Red Pinto - with flat tires

I suspect that Vista's entire objective is not to make any OS improvements, but to make a resource hog OS that will force consumers to buy new computers and new software(from the way old XP programs are not compatible, how deliberate).

The whole thing is a Microsoft Money Machine. Let's find a way to screw consumers by giving them a crap OS, where they need to spend 2 grand to buy a top of the line computer system to run it.

It's terrible how things have evolved. I'll stick with XP for the next 5 years.




RE: Windows XP vs Windows Vista
By SiliconAddict on 4/2/2008 1:20:41 AM , Rating: 2
techhappy,

You are a moron. Actually lower then a moron. Even a moron would know that if MS wasn't trying to make any improvements they wouldn't have taken what? 4? 5? years to release Vista. Do us all a favor and stop embarrassing yourself by going and learning what is _UNDER_ the hood of Vista before posting. it makes those who actually read white papers shake our heads in pity for you, and those like you who are ill informed idiots.


RE: Windows XP vs Windows Vista
By techhappy on 4/3/2008 1:44:32 PM , Rating: 1
It's called using metaphors for an argument.

And clearly, you are an idiot for not posting any reason for proclaiming why Vista is so spectacular. Do you love not being able to transfer large files without a crash? Or how about 1,000 other complaints the vast majority of users have experience using Microsoft's Gloriously magnificent Vista?

Tell us why Vista is so great and you love it so much. I'm really curious. You must love getting screwed by Microsoft. Are you enjoying yourself?

WinXp is vastly more stable, vastly more compatible, vastly more reliable than Vista. Anybody who knows anything about computers would agree.

My IT teacher with over 35 years of computer engineering experience has shown in technical demonstrations that Vista is a piece of garbage. Maybe you need to go back to school first, before you try to act like you know something on this board.


RE: Windows XP vs Windows Vista
By techhappy on 4/3/2008 1:57:51 PM , Rating: 1
SiliconAddict,

Did you enjoy spending $400 on Vista Ultimate? Do you enjoy random system slowdowns in Vista? Do you enjoy system crashes during file transfers? Did you enjoy not being able to install all your XP programs in Vista? Are you happy that all your old computers are obsolete because Vista requires you run a QuadCore in order to get full performance?

Wow, you must be a genius, congratulations on your well informed thinking. I'm sure you drive a gas guzzling Hummer and love throwing your money away on gas, while you're at it, why not give all your money away, yeah, that's real smart, don't be critical of technology, just buy anything because its new and supposedly the best!

Give me one good reason to get Vista over XP at this point in its life cycle and I will actually listen. So far, I haven't heard any good arguments. Maybe after 3 years of updates and fixes....


No one's buying Vista that doesn't have to
By mac2j on 4/1/2008 12:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
1) Everyone knows XP
2) XP runs fast and doesnt take up much space
3) Drivers are VERY solid for XP
4) One look at the UAC features of Vista turns people off and the majority of not-so-advanced users dont want to have to bother learning how to turn it off

..... and the big one....

5) Windows 7 -- late 2009/early 2010 -- which is the REAL upgrade to XP. So if I dump $100-300 on Vista now, I'm buying a not-so-desirable OS thats only gonna last me 2 years tops .... seems like a pretty bad deal compared to XP.




By JoshuaBuss on 4/1/2008 11:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
this is exactly how I feel. Well said.


Imagine...
By Vim on 4/1/2008 1:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine all the large, medium and small companies that are currently running XP in the world. Now imagine the time it took for their "non geek" employees to "master" the software and I truly mean master, hell even the supervisors and company methods adapted to efficiently use the software in relation to the business.

Now imagine if all that had to change for a non Microsoft OS, I think it would be too costly... Way too many entities use Microsoft...

Am I wrong or what?




RE: Imagine...
By robinthakur on 4/2/2008 8:59:37 AM , Rating: 2
If people whine about the relatively few changes Vista brings, they'll have a full scale nervous breakdown moving to Linux. You're not wrong. For some reason, they always seem to take to OS X quite well, but that's probably because its better designed than most nix implentations with an eyes for how humans use computers.


XP Sunset
By gfclement on 4/1/2008 1:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
It has crossed my mind many times before that if companies like Microsoft, Intuit, etc., sunset such widely installed software and refuse to support it any longer, leaving everyone hung out to dry, that they should be forced to put it in the public domain.




RE: XP Sunset
By darkpaw on 4/1/2008 4:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike Intuit, which is very evil about forced obsolescence, MS takes an extremely leaniant approach. Only sales of XP end next year, support for the OS continues until at least 2014! It's not like they are just casting it off and saying you must upgrade now or else.


By psychobriggsy on 4/1/2008 12:03:21 PM , Rating: 3
For the 7" ultra-small laptops, Linux is going to remain a strong option, XP or no XP. The interface is very customisable - see the EeePC's default Linux - and can be made into a very nice task based interface to launch standard applications.

The 8.9" EeePC at least can accommodate XP without window choppage. However they'll make very nice Linux machines as well and unless you have a real need for XP (proprietary work VPN, etc) I'd go for Linux.

I expect that Microsoft will release a slimmed down Vista eventually for this type of device. It won't be long until low power graphics are strong enough to run Aero either, even though Aero isn't the most slimline desktop.




The cutoff is actually 2009
By BigLan on 4/1/2008 12:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
"An OEM System Builder License, used by VARs, LARS, and white-box manufacturers and sold through distribution, have a January 31, 2009 cutoff date for ordering an XP license. Again, if the distributor has enough XP inventory before the January 31 cutoff, it can keep selling XP, and resellers can keep buying it until there is no more inventory, so to speak, left." from http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;18328...

So the EEE will be safe until at least 2009, and it's possible that Asus could just order a bunch more licenses before that date to see them through to mid/end of 09. At that point, Intel's atom should be around which should be able to handle vista fairly easily, and prices on SSD's should have fallen so that machines have enough storage for a vista install.




Windows CE to the rescue?
By Hokum on 4/1/2008 12:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
I heard a while ago about a team in redmond which is working on expanding the windows mobile shell into a more flexible OS for usage on small laptops and large PDA's. It would be ideal, small foot print and built in support for touch support.




Hmmmm
By RjBass on 4/1/2008 12:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
I can think of two solutions to the low end market OS issue.

Microsoft can continue to sell and support XP to volume customers under a contract that allows them to only pre-install the OS on low end laptops and desktops that meet a certain hardware criteria.

Or Microsoft can hurry up and make a better more robust version of their Windows Mobile OS for low end PC's.




umm...
By omnicronx on 4/1/2008 1:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
Whats stopping MS from only making XP available to the special OEM's that are in need of an OS for small form PC's..

Media Center 2005 was available this way for a long time, and it seemed to work fine.

Microsoft discontinuing general licenses, and only allowing XP licenses to Small form PC manufacturers will have almost the same effect Microsoft is hoping to create. That is of course, getting Vista into the business sector..

The faster the corporate world accepts vista, the faster the home market will, thus continuing the MS domino effect that has sustained their dominance for years.




Ok ...
By batman4u on 4/1/2008 1:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
Vista has alot of issues we know this and everybody compares it when XP was release and 2000 was our favorite OS..... (mine still is :P) but the thing is that XP was released 2 years after win2k and Vista was realeased 5 years after XP which was more than enough time to make a rock solid OS and compatible.

Vista is like windows ME.... it works great with products that come designed for vista or come with pre-installed Vista ..... and same as win ME it will Die and be replaced too early

Maybe The Decision That Windows seven comes is a sign that windows Vista is in fact a BAD design, they wouldnt throw 7 years of trying to make Vista work

You cannot compare Linux 500mb Os because Windows has always been made for a majority of people that want fancy flashy OS and not a ultra high performance intelligent os........ i would like to see my mom using Backtrack....she would freak out =P




By BigToque on 4/1/2008 2:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
The market share that these devices have is so small compared to the markets that MS makes the most money.

I'm sure the greatest percentage goes to businesses to use in their office.

Laptops and desktops share about equal share (just recently it was said that laptops just overtook desktop sales)

Then there is the enthusiast market, which as far as I can tell, is where these devices exist at the moment. Is this even 10% of the market?

I'm sure there are quite a few costs involved with continuing to sell XP and I'd be surprised if the number of licences they could still sell would even come close to offsetting this cost.




why not slimmed down Vista?
By Diesel Donkey on 4/1/2008 3:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have nearly as much experience with Vista as I do with XP, so I was wondering if somebody could tell me why it would or wouldn't be possible to slim down Vista (using vLite or something similar) and turn off Aero, making it a viable option for these low-power portables? Is there something so fundamentally different about Vista (the memory management/CPU usage patterns or something) that this is not possible?




MS can't do that...
By SiliconAddict on 4/2/2008 1:26:12 AM , Rating: 2
"or it can simply rollover and concede the market to the various flavors of Linux available today."

If they do that the flow of non windows software will start to flow more rapidly and MS could easily find that a widening wedge is being pushed between Windows and OS X with Linux starting to really start to take off in this market. As it stands I wouldn't mind using *nix on such a system for the basics. As long as I can compose mail, browse, play multimedia, chat, and do some basic Office Suite activities *nix is perfectly fine.
Ms can't afford to give up even a small segment at this point.




I beg to differ
By mattclary on 4/2/2008 12:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No one expected that the Xandros Linux-based ASUS Eee PC would be as popular as it became during late 2007


I think a LOT of people expected this to do just as well as it has.




Age & Maturity
By Auric on 4/3/2008 7:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
It is de rigueur to emphasize XP's age but while it was released six and a half years ago, the common and rational practice amongst those concerned with reliability is to wait for some maturity and indeed necessity before adopting a new or significantly changed OS. That generally occurred as little as three and a half years ago with service packs and capabilities such as Hyper-Threading and even Clear Type.

Sure, home users still running DOS-based Windows may have benefitted from adopting XP early (or not really considered options since being included with a PC) but otherwise, a mature Windows 2000 continued to be sufficient and often more desirable to an immature XP which was not a compelling upgrade until, as said, features demanded it.

In that way, it is not unlike the situation with Vista versus XP. However, if Microsoft does succeed in reestablishing their OS release schedule then many XP users may well choose to skip Vista altogether in favour of Windows 7 -assuming they remain "loyal" a few more years out and are not compelled to switch to a competitor's OS.




Bull$!#*.
By SiliconAddict on 4/2/2008 1:14:31 AM , Rating: 1
Windows Vista, on the other hand, simply isn't feasible due to its hardware requirements. Vista often struggles on even low-end Pentium Dual Core machines running with only 1GB of RAM."

Maybe with 1GB but I'm running Vista Business with SP1 on a Gateway tablet PC running an ULV 1.2Ghz dual core, 2GB of RAM, and an Intel GPU. All the bells and whistles work flawlessly on the thing and short of gaming and ripping\encoding movies this thing works fine with a rating of 3.1, as a comparison my C2D 2.33Ghz MBP gets something like a 5.x score.
Now sure. On something like an Eee yes. Vista not only is overkill it shouldn't go anywhere near it. But I really am sick of people pulling this shit out of their ass about how clunky Vista is without backing it up with proof. Vista (with SP1.) can humm along perfectly fine as long as you have 1.5GB of RAM, 64MB+ VRAM, and a CPU that is less then 2 years old. In this case most of the above is well above a Eee PC and similar models though which is why XP is going to have to stick around for the foreseeable future.




"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki