backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 167 comment(s) - last by Stranged.. on May 5 at 9:00 AM

Its hard to keep a good old OS down

Last week, Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer addressed the media and delivered controversial comments that customers simply did not want XP, so that Microsoft would likely discontinue its sales in June 30 as planned.  From the feedback on DailyTech alone, it was obvious that some users did want XP, particularly in IT scenarios, while others couldn't care less about its death.

In the end, the fate of XP really rests in the hands of retailers which will be most affected by its discontinuation.  These retailers are not sitting idly by and consenting to XP's death though.  In fact, they are looking for sneaky ways to prolong its life, apparently choosing by their actions to dissentingly opine against Ballmer's valuation of consumer interest in XP.

Leading computer manufacturers Dell and Hewlett-Packard, both announced plans to use a loophole to allow computers to continue to be sold with Windows XP.  The key is a part of the Windows Vista license agreement, which grants "downgrade rights".  Essentially the company will be buying Vista and then "downgrading" the computers.  Thus the customer will essentially receive a PC with Windows XP that can be upgraded to Vista if they should so choose.

HP says that in the business sector it will continue to sell desktops, notebooks, and workstations "pre-downgraded" to XP, until July 30, 2009, over a year after Microsoft's planned discontinuation.  Dell will stop taking orders for XP machines as part of a default package on June 18, but will thereafter offer the same "pre-downgraded" option on its website.

Other major computer manufacturers have expressed interest in exploiting this loophole to satisfy those wanting XP.  However, they have not yet committed to plans and are still "exploring their options".

One unfortunate (in some people's mind) limitation of the downgrade loophole is that it only applies to Ultimate and Business versions of Vista.  Thus standard consumer machines will not be able to be downgraded to XP under the current rules. 

Also, the really challenging logistics crop up at retail stores.  Stores like Best Buy and Circuit City have already virtually done away with XP, but often get customers who want the option to pick XP instead.  However, in order to be within the law in terms of Microsoft's licenses, these retailers would somehow have to get the customer to specifically "ask" for a XP downgrade before offering it.  Thus floor models would be a virtual impossibility, limiting sales potential.

With the large public and business outcry over the discontinuation of XP, one would think Microsoft might consider changing its mind, especially giving Ballmer's comments, which indicated that the company would take customer feedback into consideration.  However, Microsoft seems content on casting a blind ear on dissenters' comments. 

Kevin Kutz, a director in Microsoft's Windows unit, blows off the possibility of an extension, and says that the downgrade option should satisfy customers.  Said Kutz, "While (computer makers) continue to see large numbers of customers making the transition to Windows Vista, there are some pockets--like small business--that need a little more time, and from what we've heard from our partners, the downgrade rights option fulfills that need."

The amount of demand for XP over Vista has surprised many manufacturers.  These manufacturers have struggled to try to find ways to satisfy it.  Manufacturer Lenovo, offers XP recovery disks as a downgrade option on some Vista models, and plans on continuing to do so through January 2009.

In the end for the consumer seeking XP, these developments mean there are still options, but they are becoming increasingly more difficult and hassle-prone. 

For Microsoft, the new manufacturer tactics are a mixed bag.  While they may be driving overall Microsoft OS sales, they undercut its Vista efforts.  Worse yet, they mean that the company may need to devote extra resources to XP-related  customer support, at a time when it is likely trying to pull resources off the XP side of things, to work on their new OS, Windows 7, likely due in 2010.



Comments     Threshold


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

This isn't new...
By drebo on 4/28/2008 1:13:42 PM , Rating: 4
Dell has been selling "Downgraded" PCs since Microsoft first announced the ability to downgrade Vista Business and Vista Ultimate to XP Pro...over a year ago.

This isn't a loophole, it's something that Microsoft has been letting Vista Business and Vista Ultimate users do nearly since the beginning. In fact, to activate, you have to call their tech support. This is available to everyone with an OEM copy of Vista Business or Vista Ultimate and has been since about a month after the Vista launch.




RE: This isn't new...
By mikefarinha on 4/28/2008 1:17:26 PM , Rating: 5
I agree with drebo, this is not a loop hole and PC Maker's aren't being sneaky in doing this. This is a course of action that Microsoft intentionally implemented.

Please stop over doing the sensationalism.


RE: This isn't new...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: This isn't new...
By daftrok on 4/28/2008 1:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
Think about the future, man. Nobody wants XP we are fine with 2000. Nobody wants 2000 we are fine with windows 98. Nobody wants Blu ray we are fine with DVD. Nobody wants DVD we are fine with VHS. Nobody wants LCD monitors we are fine with CRT monitors.

Transition isn't easy. You can't make an OS work perfectly with every single CPU, GPU, motherboard, flash drive, etc. You can't just launch a crash free system. You have to do what you can with the time given to you, release it, and find out what's wrong and try to fix it. It's the only way to do it if you are launching an OS to billions of people.


RE: This isn't new...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/2008 1:58:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Think about the future, man. Nobody wants XP we are fine with 2000. Nobody wants 2000 we are fine with windows 98. Nobody wants Blu ray we are fine with DVD. Nobody wants DVD we are fine with VHS. Nobody wants LCD monitors we are fine with CRT monitors.


Your trying too hard. Most of your examples are clearly leaps in technology. To claim Vista is the same leap over XP is pure fanboism. Infact, depending on who you ask and their situation, Vista was a clear side grade at best.

quote:
Transition isn't easy. You can't make an OS work perfectly with every single CPU, GPU, motherboard, flash drive, etc. You can't just launch a crash free system. You have to do what you can with the time given to you, release it, and find out what's wrong and try to fix it. It's the only way to do it if you are launching an OS to billions of people.


Is there a name for this planet you live on? Vista was released too late. And just when its getting all its kinks worked out, they go ahead and announce Windows 7. Its market saturation, at this point, is very poor. Windows XP stacks up very nicely, and at this point, is more viable on midrange hardware than Vista. Especially on Laptops and other portable devices which are more widely used today.

This isn't about the future. This is about a new OS so lackluster, that there is still a huge demand for the previous OS XP. Those examples you used are nothing like this. Not even close. How many new VHS players or CRT's compared to DVD and LCD are being made ?

I have " thought about the future ". I'm going to leapfrog Vista and go Windows 7. There is no reason, no reason at all, to stop using XP right now.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 2:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but to claim it isn't show's your blind and I'm guessing you've never actually used the OS on a daily basis... I'm not going to knock XP because I think it's a great OS, but Vista really is quite the OS leap over XP... In fact compared to the "leap" from 2k to XP we're talking about the amount of difference between a bi-plane and tri-plane... By comparison vista is a British spitfire. All XP ever was is a dressed up 2K installation, hell the XP kernal was only a minor version # higher than 2k for good reason, it was the same basic kernal with slightly improved resource management.


RE: This isn't new...
By Yawgm0th on 4/28/2008 2:22:05 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
it was the same basic kernal with slightly improved resource management.


That's true. And to some extent, 2000 could be perfectly fine for use today. It wasn't marketed to the consumer as well as XP (or at all, really), and it wasn't as user-friendly as XP. XP replaced 2000 because it was better supported, fixed minor problems with 2000, and added minor (but nice) features. But theoretically, 2000 would have been fine. By about SP3, with maybe some of XP's shell enhancements added in, 2000 would be perfectly usable today. It could have been the OS to use for an entire decade. XP was indeed, only a minor improvement that didn't warrant a new OS.

Vista, on the other hand is a drastic departure from XP. It makes sweeping, undesirable (read: worse) changes to the user interface while implementing new features that hurt productivity more than help it due to how resource intensive it is. Vista simply does not offer substantial advantages over XP for the consumer, SMB, or enterprise. Its kernel "improvements" are grossly outweighed by its slow performance and unreasonable UI changes.

And for the record, I use 32-bit Vista ultimate on my laptop on a daily basis. I am perfectly satisfied with it as an OS (after tweaking the hell out it, of course). It runs just fine for the most part, and does what I need it to. But the interface changes still bother me, and quite frankly I can do everything I can in Vista faster and better in XP.

That's the crux of the matter. What can Vista do that XP can't? Very little.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 2:35:25 PM , Rating: 1
Have you tried actually learning to utilize Vista as intended... I'll agree in so far as going from XP to Vista is a shock at first at it takes time to learn, but if you put a little effort into learning the new system you quickly start learning not only is most everything XP had still actually there, but Vista has things XP doesn't to make life easier...

One case my sister brought up was that "In XP I used to be able to pull up a folder list when I click my computer by going to view => explorer bar => folder list"... In vista by default there is always the folder list visible in the window below favorate links, just click the folders button which features an up arrow and there you are folder list...

Something Vista has which XP does not is windows search integrated everywhere... Having trouble finding a control pannel item? Just type a search for it in the windows search box and chances are if you're even close it'll pull it up.


RE: This isn't new...
By Solandri on 4/28/2008 4:18:21 PM , Rating: 5
I'd say it's debatable which is "better". XP had a folder list (I assume you mean folder tree view) by default too. You just had to click the big Folders button once, and it would remember it.

The favorites panel in Vista isn't exactly intuitive either. If the pre-selected favorites are your favorites then all is fine. But if you should want to remove or add one, it's hardly intuitive as to how to do it. Ironic considering it's supposed to be a list of your favorites, not what Microsoft thinks will be your favorites. (hint: You have to browse the directory structure under Users/[Name]/Links)

Vista's file explorer search is one step forward, one step back IMHO. Defaulting the search to the current directory is a plus, but you could do the same thing in XP by right-clicking on a folder and selecting Search from the menu. Where Vista's search really takes a big step back is content search - searching for words within files. It defaults to a filename search. As far as I've been able to figure out, only after it's completed that search does it give you the option to search within files. The same goes for advanced search options - you're not presented with them until it has completed a search.

Of course you can immediately get at the advanced search options if you start a search window directly, but they've removed this from the right-click menu. You're forced to go through the Start menu, meaning there's no quick and convenient way to access advanced search options and constrain it to a specific folder. (You can also WindowsKey-F, but most casual users don't know that, and you still have to select the folder you wish to search manually.) And even there, you have to search filenames first before you're allowed to search within files.

The system options aren't very helpful either. Either all your searches are filename only, are both filename and content searches (meaning all your searches will be slow), or you have to turn the built-in indexing on. There's no way to default to filename searches while picking and choosing when you want to do a content search. The only practical way to get content searches is to turn on indexing, which is one of the big reasons Vista seems slow on a lot of people's systems.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 4:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well, as I've said your milage will vary with search, for my purposes it works very well... As far as searching file contents I'm sad to say no verion of windows has ever provided adiquate support for my needs (i.e. I'm a developer searching code and making file lists based upon them) so as far as file contents searches I've been 100% cygwin/grep for a long time now (since win2k).

at least in my experience, Vista is a huge step forward on the whole. Enough that frankely I don't really enjoy using Windows XP at all any more.


RE: This isn't new...
By Belard on 4/29/2008 12:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
Google Agent Ransack (or from download.com) - Download it, install it on XP or Vista. It works on both (don't know about 64bit vista)... You'll love it.

1) Add a listing in the Right Click mouse menu when in a folder.

2) Give you the Find functions from Win98 with the Advance Find functions right from the get-go.

3) Will Find ANY file you are looking for, even the ones that MS has blocked from "Vista Search". A life saver, it was the only way to find certains files as vista puts things in different places.

PS; While I rag on Vista as much as is deserves, its placement of the user files is nicer... but basicly a different and cleaner from "C:\Documents and Settings" otherwise, vista spends more time looking pretty than functional.


RE: This isn't new...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 2:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... Based on what you posted here you obviously have no clue as to what Windows 2000 is verses XP which makes it impossible for me to accept anything you have to say at all about vista.


RE: This isn't new...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/28/2008 3:10:24 PM , Rating: 5
A few points.

1. Win2K wasn't really a consumer OS; it was oriented to the workstation/server market. If you want to compare XP to its predecessor, Windows ME is a more apt choice. By that, XP was a tremendous leap forward.

2. Yes Vista has some great enhancements under the hood. But the fact remains that, to many consumers-- especially in the business arena-- they just don't see the compelling need to upgrade.

As OSes evolve, upgrading becomes simultaneously more painful and less rewarding. That seems a natural progression. I don't think we'll ever return to the days when the entire consumer base automatically upgraded as each new version hit the market.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 3:15:35 PM , Rating: 3
I don't usually agree with much masher has to say, but as usual, he put it in an eloquent logical fashion.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: This isn't new...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/28/2008 3:32:26 PM , Rating: 1
> "Eh... Win 2000 was actually MS's first attempt at a consumer oriented NT based system "

I reiterate-- it was never marketed or sold as a consumer OS. A lot of the more technologically-inclined (myself included) used it as such, but that doesn't change the situation. XP's consumer-grade predecessor was ME, not Win2K.

> "Now as far as whether vista is compelling or not... I would argue that it is, but it's also a lot scarier to the average user "

I think you just proved my point. Consumers don't want to be "scared" about upgrading. If you can't give them a warm fuzzy, they won't do it.

Arguing over whether its a failure of Vista's design or just a problem with marketing and image is really a moot point. The problem is the same regardless -- a huge section of the user base just doesn't want to upgrade.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: This isn't new...
By tdawg on 4/28/2008 4:08:26 PM , Rating: 3
I definitely agree that the business installation base shouldn't be subjected to the June 30th EOL of XP, since it's much riskier for businesses to upgrade without testing, not to mention the budget cycles not lining up with Microsoft's calendar.

I do think the perception of this demand has been somewhat falsely created. The vast majority of users have no idea what they need/want and most will not think twice about getting a new PC with Vista vs. XP. It's all the magazines, internet articles, and ill-informed friends that cause people to demand that Dell or HP install XP when they don't really understand why they are demanding it. And we all know that there are plenty of writers, reviewers, and publications that don't do their due diligence before submitting their articles.

The statistics in the tech community are going to be much more skewed around this issue than the general public.


RE: This isn't new...
By TomZ on 4/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: This isn't new...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/28/2008 5:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
> "That would be, in my opinion, a complete failure on the part of Microsoft."

I would argue that it's an inescapable result of Microsoft's own success. If we assume that every OS is better than the one before, the bar becomes continually higher, and the list of desireable features not yet in becomes ever smaller. There really just isn't that much one can add to an OS any more to make upgrading compelling, which is why so many perceive Vista as being primarily a "bells and whistles" version. There is truth to that...but honestly, what besides bells and whistles could Microsoft add at this point?

More speed? The percentage of CPU time consumed by the OS is already trivial. Use less memory? Why? 4GB of Ram is a trivial cost already, and getting cheaper every day. More crash resistance? That's always good, but if you have decent drivers, its not really a problem for most people, certainly not enough to go through a painful upgrade process.

For most people, the mantra is "why fix what isn't broken"? XP works...and if Vista works better, then Windows 7 has an even higher bar to jump over.

Furthermore, every day there is more software, more applications, more drivers, and more hardware out there. Which means every upgrade gets more and more difficult. More pain for less gain.

So while I think OSes will continue to evolve and expand for the next 100 years or more, I think it will happen at an ever-decreasing rate. Markets mature, and progress slows.


RE: This isn't new...
By Stranged on 5/5/2008 9:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
More speed? The percentage of CPU time consumed by the OS is already trivial. Use less memory? Why? 4GB of Ram is a trivial cost already, and getting cheaper every day. More crash resistance? That's always good, but if you have decent drivers, its not really a problem for most people, certainly not enough to go through a painful upgrade process.


Ahm... Actually, yes ?

I mean, OSes are so heavy this days, i remember when in the late 90's, when Win95 ruled and Win98 was the "new" thing, that i only had one though about buying softwares "Is this nice? Is this good? Is this game worth buying?"

Now, look at it... What you think about buying a software ? "Is this compatible with my OS? Is this compatible with my hardware? Is my PC good enough to run it?"

And even worse for the consequences ! In those times you only had to BUY the software and install it. Today you can't do this, OSes are so heavier, CPU's and GPU's can't handle the game, and OSes are less stable than they were before.

I remember my K5-100mhz with 64ram 4MBVGA run EVERYTHING i bough... EVERYTHING with my WIN95. When i upgrade to WIN98 i upgraded to a K6-233mhz with 128ram, man it was just blowing fast ! My K6 run the 98 OS faster than my Core 2 Quad today runs XP/Vista.

FOR ME this isn't normal, FOR ME, it's CLEAR to see WHAT they can improve, the question is, HOW MUCH they can improve?

Those days every game run on high and smooth, TODAY we got games that even with a 4.000$ PC, it does not run smooth.

ps : sorry for my bad english, i'm really trying to improve it.


RE: This isn't new...
By Cobra Commander on 4/28/2008 3:14:52 PM , Rating: 4
Unfortunately
XP = NT 5.1
and
2000 = NT 5.0

to say it shares nothing with 2000 at all is in the least misinformed, if not worse. Who you quote is exactly correct: XP is a gussied up 2000. 2000 was supposed to be the first consumer and business OS using NT for both, but it failed and ME was its abortion for consumers. It took another year and change and XP finally brought about what it all was supposed to have been.

Anyways, Windows Driver Model was introduced in 2000 (NT 5.0) and XP utilized the same tech for it. But it's bad to make such bold claims because I don't totally disagree with the first half of this most-recent post of yours, if at all.


RE: This isn't new...
By PrinceGaz on 4/28/2008 3:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And if your going to call me ignorant, I'm really tired of that recycled " XP is just Win2000 " crap. XP was new from the Kernal on up, the NT kernal. It shares nothing with 2000 at all.


I must assume from that, that you know very little about Windows 2000, or XP, or both. What you said would be more or less correct if you were comparing ME and XP, but saying 2000 and XP are totally different is incorrect.

Windows 2000 == Windows NT 5.0
Windows XP == Windows NT 5.1

XP was just an updated version of 2000 with a few extras here and there, such as desktop themes (which I can live without as I always use the 'Classic' theme so it looks and feels like 2000).

Just how similar XP is to 2000 is shown by the fact that the drivers for most hardware can be used with either 2000 or XP without any tweaks required, even if they were only designed with one or the other in mind. This was especially useful for older hardware with discontinued support, as you could simply install the Windows 2000 drivers and the device would generally work perfectly with them under XP. If XP had a totally new kernel compared with 2000, you could hardly use Windows 2000 device drivers on it!


RE: This isn't new...
By TomZ on 4/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/29/2008 1:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
Actually what he posted was fairly accurate, XP wasn't even a major revision number higher than 2000. That actually says a lot... Ever wonder why on the NT line the upcoming still being developed windows 7 is windows 7 and not 8 when 2k was 5?


RE: This isn't new...
By PICBoy on 4/28/2008 2:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's obvious you are not a gamer because Vista is the ONLY OS that supports DX 10 and gamers want all the bells and whistles on with their 300$+ videocard.

I agree that is not a good idea to leave Vista for XP for a lot of reason (I have shown people who have bought new PC with Vista that their older PC with XP runs much faster and problem free) but you can't say:
quote:
There is no reason, no reason at all, to stop using XP right now.
because is a BIG lie.


RE: This isn't new...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/28/2008 2:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's obvious you are not a gamer because Vista is the ONLY OS that supports DX 10 and gamers want all the bells and whistles on with their 300$+ videocard.


Do you realize the pathetically short list of games that actually USE DX10 features ? And of the ones that do, there is actually no noticeable gain in look or performance because of DX-10 itself. And yeah, I'm a " gamer ".

I don't know one damn " gamer " who would pick eye candy over performance. And every single benchmark shows, on the same hardware, that you will get less FPS's using Vista over XP.


RE: This isn't new...
By PICBoy on 4/28/2008 3:50:14 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I'm a gamer too and I have played "DX10 games" like Crysis and World in Conflict (both great games) with my 8800GTS 320MB with my Q6600@3GHz and 2GB of ram with XP (DX 9 of course) and refuse to switch to Vista to get more eye candy and less than 30 fps. I can't afford 2 9800GTX so I'm sticking with XP for at least 1 year more.

My point was that DX 10 is there for those people, I'm just not one of them. I love eye candy but I refuse to play with less than 45 fps (specially on action games).


RE: This isn't new...
By Belard on 4/29/2008 1:26:30 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed... except that I won't wait a year for vista to get bettter.

Some DX10 titles look a bit better than DX9. Halo2 isn't one of them since it's not even a DX9 class game anyways... But heres the thing: ATI & Nvidia have their own hardware language that developers can hit, and BYPASS DX10 all together!

DX10 is the ONLY feature I want/wanted from Vista... it WAS SUPPOSED to be faster than DX9 be removing the bloat... but apparently, it's not working the way it should. So with Vista, MS has failed to make "Games for Windows" make a difference in the market.

With Piracy, WOW and consoles - PC gaming has suffered a lot. Look at UT3. Besides the fact that the developer SCREWED up the player maps (about 32 maps / 5 game types compared to their previous version with 125+ maps) in which half of the limited maps SUCK while looking PRETTY. There is almost NOBODY playing on line to battle with. So there isn't much MAP developement from the user base, which means less players want to play. One of the BEST servers has mostly custom maps, but nobody is playing on the server.

I think its COD4... in the time frame of a few months, only 20K copies sold for the game for PC. (Same for UT3) While when there are update patchs, about 200,000+ downloads happens (hows does 20K users = 200K downloads...? 180K pirated copies) While on the PS3/360 - 2million are sold. As of today, over 9million copies have been sold... they might have broken 100,000k copies of COD4 sold for PC.

If you're a developer, then making games for PC becomes a problem... why bother? With HD-TVs, the PS3 & 360 get pretty close in 1600x1080... even crappy console games will out-sell a #1 PC title.

This WILL effect GAME CARD development as well... if there is LESS games to PLAY on the PC, then there are less reasons to upgrade to a NEW video card. Gotta have the game to buy the card.... and when game cards become stagnet, then the consoles become more powerful.

WOW & other MMORPG: Many of these people (Millions) spend YEARS playing just one game. No time to play anything else... ouch! All of these things are factors for hurting video games for PC.

So if more people BUY Consoles and leave the PC for "Work" - then what would be the point of Windows? Just use Linux to browse the web, etc.

With GTA4 coming out soon and very little word about it coming out on PC... I'm thinking about picking up my first console in 10 years. (Playstation orginal was my last)

Yep, when GTA4 comes out, I'm looking at buying a PS3...

And the need for more powerfule gaming PCs WILL ALSO DIE.

In 2008 or 2010, a 1~2Ghz computer with Linux or XP will surf the web, play videos (porn), view pics (porn), write letters just AS fast as a computer in 2004 or older...

Its been games that have driven myself and others to constantly upgrade their systems. With me buying a PS3, the need to upgrade my PC drops big time. My current setup with XP is good enough for another 2 years... but for a game like Crysis, I need to spend $150~500 to upgrade my hardware... hmmm. That PS3 is looking nice, along with its blue-ray support.

Then Vista's DX10 doesn't mean squat anymore.


RE: This isn't new...
By bryanW1995 on 4/29/2008 10:46:48 AM , Rating: 2
"No reason"??? Don't you you that 3d mark vantage just came out!!???


RE: This isn't new...
By phxfreddy on 5/2/2008 9:53:18 AM , Rating: 3
He's a fanboi
And he thinks like a trink
He's a fanboi
latest fashion he's gotta gink
He's a fanboi
Pretty but breath gotta strange stink


RE: This isn't new...
By pomaikai on 4/28/2008 2:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
Actually businesses migrated to XP because of the stability. At my previous employer our machines went from Windows NT 4 to Windows XP. There was a very short time frame where a few PCs came with Windows 2000, but the majority of employees went from NT 4 to Windows XP. Vista offers little to no reason for businesses to upgrade. Many just see it as a waste of resources to upgrade/verify that all business apps work on vista. This includes homebrewn and one-off software. I will not upgrade my laptop because it is used at work and they have not migrated to Vista. There are several pieces of software we use that is not compatible with Vista and I dont want the hassle of running a virtual machine 95% of the time for work. Its just stupid to get a resource hungry OS so I can run another OS on top of it that will eat up more resources.

Businesses are migrating from CRT to LCD because of cost savings, not because it was newer technology.


RE: This isn't new...
By TomZ on 4/28/2008 8:26:55 PM , Rating: 1
I have to take issue with a number of your points.

First, a lot of businesses widely deployed Win2K. In fact, among my customers (large automotive OEMs and suppliers), I don't know of any that skipped Win2K. And most of those now upgraded to WinXP because of Microsoft's ending sales and support for Win2K. If Microsoft didn't do the latter, I'm sure most of my customers would still use Win2K even today.

Regarding testing of apps with Vista, your view is extremely short-sighted. To not test and fix your apps with Vista makes no sense, if you intend to continue to maintain those apps in the long-term. First, some of the more progressive businesses will be and are migrating to Vista today. And obviously lots of consumer machines are running Vista. Second, if you want your app to run properly on Windows 7, then getting it to work properly on Vista is a logical stepping-stone. Third, many businesses will put off upgrading to Vista until Windows 7 comes out. In other words, there are many businesses on the 'n-1' upgrade schedule, meaning that they always run the OS version that is older than the current one. Those businesses will probably be running Vista in 5 years. Actually, I predict most businesses will be running Vista in 5 years.

As to the LCD, I agree that cost is a major factor, but so is availability (CRTs are effectively not available for purchase), and I think business users like the extra desk space with LCDs. So there are other reasons apart from cost.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 2:11:04 PM , Rating: 1
The problem with your argument is that you're comparing apples to oranges.

First of all, plenty wanted DVD, the cost of admission initially didn't allow everyone to jump on board. And its adoption rate had plenty of time prior to VHS almost complete phase out. In fact, you can still purchase new VHS players and content. Same with HD content- the question was which do we want more, HD DVD or Blu-Ray.

Plenty of people wanted LCD- lower power utilization, lower desk foot print- are you kidding me?? It was a bit more expensive, but for many, it paid for itself in longer life and lower power utilization. And people didn't have to break their backs transporting them.

As far as OS's, plenty of techies wanted Win2K, even the tech sites were clamoring for better vendor support in Win2K- why? Networking and user management was lightyears better than Win9x series. The better comparison is 98 to ME- ME was unnecessary and for all practical purposes, the same as 98.

People stuck with Win2K for its maturity and stability, but started to move to XP after the introduction of service packs because of better security features and a smoother experience. But the thing that really helped XP get pushed was the fact that it was capable of running on legacy platforms- it can even run on PIII's with only 256 megs of ram. On top of that, it was a far better gaming platform than Win2K. It had a low cost of admission, and you got every feature out of the box, regardless of hardware configuration.

That's the problem Vista has- it's very sketchy even on modern hardware, and for most people, it doesn't provide much in terms of real tangible features over XP. Part of the problem is with vendor support (drivers, etc), but even still, the cost of admission sucks, and sysadmins don't like trying to manage Vista based systems due to instability and the extra need for management. When you take into account the fact that you don't get all the major new features unless your hardware support, it's not really an attractive upgrade. It's not as simple as making the OS work perfectly with every CPU/GPU as you state it.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 2:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
Lets not get into this again, we all know there are opponents and proponents of vista. Regardless of the pros and cons, in the end you will have to use vista (or vista variant when windows7 comes out)whether you like it or not, or you will be stuck with aging hardware on an aging OS. hmm thats weird,I think I had the exact same conversation regarding the move from 98/2000 to XP. How very interesting =P


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 2:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
The problem isn't just that an "aging" OS will work better on aging hardware. The secondary problem is that the major "new" features of Vista even on NEW hardware won't necessarily work.

Without proper hardware to support Aero, Vista really is just XP with a few addons and higher utilization/footprint. You've never had the same discussion- there was no issue of "I need X hardware to support X feature." You just needed a basic minimum hardware to support all of XP, or all of 2000.

And the secondary problem is, even if you have X hardware to support Aero, it could render the OS unstable. I'm not necessarily blaming Microsoft for nVidia's driver instability- but it does become a hinderance to the attractiveness of Vista.

The final analysis is this- the one major feature that really sets Vista as a major revision over XP requires specific hardware support, and the hardware support is buggy.

If you can name one feature in XP that had a similar issue, I will concede that it was the same discussion as 2K to XP. But XP at its inception had this going for it: if you could support the OS, you could use all the new features it introduced that set it apart from 2K (security center, etc).


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 2:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
There is a reason, greatly ehanced security and a much better system for running in a limited user account and only elivating privileges when required. That's a huge reason to go ahead and do use Vista... I will agree that one could get by fairly well with XP for a while yet, but that doesn't mean there's no reason (even with out aero) to run vista.

Further, If intel hasn't cleaned up their display issues yet I'm sure they will soon. They're actualy starting to focuse on graphics now... Other than a low end intel solution (very low end) there really isn't a case where you can get a computer that won't run aero. My parents just spent $400 on a new desktop and it runs aero just fine with it's S3 "GPU".


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 3:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
You can lock down XP to almost the same degree. But enhanced system security isn't going to mitigate the risk applied by stupid users who don't know what they're installing or why. Trying to use techology to solve a human intelligence problem is never a good idea.

Second, it's not just Intel hw, it's nVidia's drivers too. And who wants to spend $400 on Vista Ultimate now so that eventually it will work??

But, you pretty much answered my question- XP has had no issue of needing specific hardware to support a specific major feature.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 3:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can lock down XP to almost the same degree.

Running as a restricted XP user is not the same thing as enhanced security or UAC in Vista. This feature is not designed for computers running on a domain either, most of these security features are already implemented regardless of what windows NT variant OS you use.

If you don't like UAC or enhanced security than turn it off, it sure doesn't make vista a bad OS. I have said it many times before, DT users are obviously very computer literate, but people like my sister and mom are not, they can screw up a computer in less time than it takes to login. And don't get me started about little kids, they will click on anything. I do not understand why everyone complains about a feature than can easily be deactivated. If you don't like it turn it off, otherwise stop complaining, the last thing we need if for millions more peoples computers being hijacked because UAC is not turned on by default. Remember its much easier for an experienced user to turn something off, then it is for a unexperienced user to turn something on.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 4:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you don't like UAC or enhanced security than turn it off, it sure doesn't make vista a bad OS.


I don't think you realized you made my point for me.

Why should I pay for Vista's features when I will either turn them off, or they may not necessarily work (as is the case with integrated Intel chipsets, and the driver issues with nVidia, which I have personally experienced).

I'm not saying that Vista should not be sold, which is the point of view you take with XP. For people who want Aero or UAC, go ahead and eat your Vista cake.

My point is that for many of us power users (those like me who like a stable HTPC) who hold lower resource utilization, driver stability, and overall system responsiveness, Vista just doesn't make sense as a permanent replacement for XP yet. Or for IT admins (again, like me) who don't want to go through the headache of administering KMS and dealing with stringent activation issues, or dealing with the currently larger base of issues that affect Vista vs. XP.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 4:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
You could do the same thing with XP, so could you not have said the same thing about XP v. Windows 2000 or ME?


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 4:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
You could, perhaps say the same thing about XP v. 2K, but then again, XP was NOT 2K's successor.

WinMe, on the other hand was tied to FAT32, which could not support the same security features that the NT systems could, nor was WinME designed to have very many security features.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 5:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
Are you implying that people are only buying Vista for its UAC feature? It is one of many features, I don't use the rear cupholders in my car, but I am not going to take it to heart just because I don't use it. Just as with UAC its not like the dealership charged me 2000$ for the extra holder.

Look past UAC and Aero and you will see that Vista is a great OS. Indexing on Vista(yes even with google desktop on XP) does not compare to anything else. Prefetch makes daily activities much faster if you have a sufficient amount of ram.
The list can go on about the many features XP is missing over and beyond eye candy and UAC. And as somewhat of an audiophile, don't even get me started about the differences in the way audio is handled.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 3:47:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The secondary problem is that the major "new" features of Vista even on NEW hardware won't necessarily work.
Please elaborate, because I have no idea what you speak of. Just because you meet the minimum specs does not mean your vista experience is going to be seamless. Please give me one example of a game that is actually playable on its minimum recommended hardware, it just does not exist. You are confusing features not working with user ignorance.
quote:
Without proper hardware to support Aero, Vista really is just XP with a few addons and higher utilization/footprint.
Lesson of the day: Just because you dont see it, does not mean it is not there. Vista has many changes under the hood, that will in the future allow us to do much more than you could ever imagine on XP. both Video and sound API's were entirely reworked with the future in mind.

One of the biggest problems with PC's is the mass amounts of available hardware that can be utilized. With mass amounts of hardware comes mass amounts of drivers and different ways of implementing the features of said products. What you call specific hardware support and crappy drivers, I call it MS choosing a standard, something that needed to be done. The real problem here is manufacturer support for 64 bit drivers. In order to be a vista certified driver, both 32 and 64 bit variants are required. Even if a company has a fully working 32bit driver, it can not be certified until a working 64 bit driver is available.

Gone are the days where a manufacturer can merely put out one crappy 32bit driver, and call it a day for the lifetime of the product. I call this a step forward not a step back. I have had no problems with drivers on vista, with both old and new hardware. People assume that because their crappy directshow soundcard/capcard no longer works that vista is complete crap. Well you can peg that issue with the manufactuer, MS notified everyone about the sound api changes long before even the vista beta releases were out.

quote:
And the secondary problem is, even if you have X hardware to support Aero, it could render the OS unstable. I'm not necessarily blaming Microsoft for nVidia's driver instability- but it does become a hinderance to the attractiveness of Vista.
Get a clue, this is untrue and unfounded. Current ATI and Nvidia drivers are stable, and have no major issues in regards to Aero.

quote:
If you can name one feature in XP that had a similar issue, I will concede that it was the same discussion as 2K to XP.
How about, the first year after the release of XP, creative(along with other manufactuers) didnt have a driver until almost 6 months after XP release.How about when SP2 was released, when many wireless cards ceased to work, hell SP2 in general(admins worst nightmare)? XP has had just as many if not more blunders than vista. In fact one could solely blame the year of the blaster worm etc the reason for vista features such as winFS being cut out in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, XP is a fine OS, I still use it on all my older computers, I just find Vista a better all around OS for my daily activities.

Vista is not a bad O/S, MS just made the stupid choice of waiting so long in between releases. It is no secret down in redmond that the reason MS has confirmed ongoing 3-4 year release cycles is solely based on the fact that MS allowed its users to enter a certain comfort zone. After 7-8 years it can be hard to let go, regardless if we are talking about a windows OS or your dog named sparky ;)


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 4:19:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Please elaborate, because I have


I was talking about Aero, you even responded to it.

quote:
Get a clue, this is untrue and unfounded. Current ATI and Nvidia drivers are stable, and have no major issues in regards to Aero.


First, tell that to the nVidia users (including myself) that have had driver issues in Vista. Second tell that to all the people that are running Intel chipsets (35-40% of the market).

quote:
I have had no problems with drivers on vista,


You are a single fortunate case. I on the other hand have over 250 server class systems (used for testing) in my datacenter as well as my own personal systems worth of experience which beg to differ.

quote:
How about, the first year after the release of XP, creative(along with other manufactuers) didnt have a driver until almost 6 months after XP release.


This wasn't an issue of minimum hardware requirements, as was my point. This was an issue of manufacturer support. XP had soundblaster support, which, if you could deal with the lack of enhanced audio features (eax, which are offered by manufacturers to begin with, and not the OS) you still could play sound. If you don't meet Aero's hardware specs, you don't get it- a feature offered by the OS- and it is a major feature that differentiates Vista from XP. Sound support did not differentiate XP from any previous OS- your point is completely apples to oranges. Most of XP's issues to begin with were resolved within six months, Vista's issues (administration, deployment, featurelevel) will probably not be fixed anytime soon.

quote:
In fact one could solely blame the year of the blaster worm etc the reason for vista features such as winFS being cut out in the first place.


Ok, this is coming completely out of left field. Microsoft has a historic problem as a company delivering on promises on time. Between OS delays and omitting features completely, this is an issue of development and resource allocation time lines- separate from support issues like the blaster worm. Unless you have some substantial evidence to show that Microsoft somehow diverted a substantial amount of Vista development resources to support I'm sorry, that's just hogwash.

Further, the worm was an attack on the OS- and security holes are MS's speciality. Vista's issues are self inflicted, not due to attack. Further, no one has come up with any issues in XP that were as widespread AND lasted as long as they have in Vista.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 4:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was talking about Aero, you even responded to it.


Except as I've already pointed out you're incorrect. The Aero Glass SOFTWARE behaves exactly as microsoft said it would.

quote:
First, tell that to the nVidia users (including myself) that have had driver issues in Vista. Second tell that to all the people that are running Intel chipsets (35-40% of the market).


Until a couple of weeks ago I was an AMD/Nvidia platform owner and I am currently a 100% AMD (and ATI brand) owner. The fact is that omnicrox (sp?) is totally correct... There are no current major driver issues with either platform. These were resolved months ago, if you're still having issues turn on your windows update. Windows update now even provides that latest MANUFACTURER drivers, not just the basic "it works" microsoft ones.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 4:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously you're talking about Aero working from a technical standpoint- and I agree, from a technical standpoint, Aero works as MS advertised.

I'm looking at it from the reality of a MARKET standpoint, which you fail to understand. I'm not arguing from a whitewashed technological perspective. I'm arguing from a practical market perspective. Unfortunately for you, you cannot argue from a market perspective that it works with the market as it is.

And the issues with nVidia drivers aren't gone (in spite of my keeping WinUpdate on), although a good amount of it has been resolved. Again, from a practical market perspective, the issues are still there, and it Vista doesn't make sense for everyone on that basis.

I think you're also confusing your extreme position of Vista for everyone with my position of XP is still wanted, is more practical and useful for many, if not most.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 4:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
And don't forget, cheaper, even moreso than basic. Why should I have to pay for Vista features that I don't want or will not use?


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 5:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't this the whole point of basic? If you don't want certain features, like Aero for those users that will use the classic theme anyway why should they have to pay for them?


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 5:12:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why should I have to pay for Vista features that I don't want or will not use?

Lol thats a new one, so .. i guess you use domain services, and active directory, ODBC connections and just about every other hidden feature in XP (or any other version of windows for that matter)?

What a load of crock! Of course there are going to be features you do not use, the OS is not personally customized for you!
It has to curtail to business, home, advanced users, beginners, system admins.. need I continue?

I didn't use most of the features embeded in XP professional, in fact at home except for RDP, there is not one thing I can not do on a XP home machine. I guess this makes XP professional a useless piece of software with features that I paid for but will never used.

Thanks for the laugh, you made my day..


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 5:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
Truth is, I do use all those features- I'm a sysadmin. On top of that, I have a TV server on my HTPC which utilizes a database accessed via ODBC.

My point is this, because you obviously don't get it-

If one does not use the features that differentiate Vista from XP, then one should not buy Vista. Can you process that logic?

As it stands, XP's predecessor (ME) lacks several features that many users use and hold important. Which is why it makes sense for them to use XP.

The real crock was you trying to convince my that the blaster worm held up WinFS' release when WinFS wasn't announced until after Microsoft released patches for blaster.

As for your use of XP- if you did not join a domain, and did not use RDP (which you can get on Home), then it would make more sense for you to pay and stick with Home edition. Is that so incomprehensible? I'm not saying Pro is useless to everyone, and I'm not saying Vista is useless to everyone. I'm saying that for a substantial number of people, it does not make sense to eliminate XP. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 4:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well firstly, my position is that Vista as is is actually fine and does not have any major issues. This is true now, both in a practical market sense and from a technical perspective. I'll agree that durring the launch period there were real "issues" with vista mainly in terms of poor driver quality but those are resolved. The current crop of vista drivers are no more or less buggy than what we had with XP, so I really don't get how in those terms XP has any sort of advantage.

Now is there demand for XP? Sure I've already stated that and I've even already stated taht obviously MS is just trying to force that OS out of the market which IMHO given the very real core problems with XP security wise this is a good thing. There are certain specific cases where it's desirable to keep XP on longer, in a corperate setting for instance where IT staff are typically more conservitive for good reason. Vista like any new OS repersents an unstable element to the corperate network, that is true of any new OS being introduce on to the network and is not inherently an "Vista" issue. However typically in these envornments the corperate IT staff is taking steps for the users which will make the computing environment sigificantly more secure than it is for the average home user.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 5:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
with vista mainly in terms of poor driver quality but those are resolved. The current crop of vista drivers are no more or less buggy than what we had with XP, so I really don't get how in those terms XP has any sort of advantage.


But that's the thing, XP's drivers are NOW much more stable, moreso than Vista.

Why does this translate into an XP advantage? The lower cost of XP for one. The lower foot print on your hard disk and lower resource utilization for two, and less things to disable post install for power users

And if you're in IT factor in that you'll have a smaller headache at the end of the day administering and maintaining XP, and you've got several advantages.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 5:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But that's the thing, XP's drivers are NOW much more stable, moreso than Vista.


I disagree, the quality of the software is now the same thanks to the focus on vista. Only Vista has user mode drivers which helps in stability so I would give the nod to Vista at this point in time. Additioanlly thanks to the vastly improved error reporting system in vista microsoft can actually track these issues, just how do you think microsoft was able to provide these statisics about vista's reliability issues in the first place?

As far as the rest of your agument, this is only true if your computer is only just borderline vista compatible/capable to begin with. If you're a user buying a vista compatible computer today that basically nullifies the footprint argument, vista computers ship with more ram, cpu resources and hard drive space thanks to moors law.

Would XP technically utalize fewer resources on my Phenom quad core with 4GB ram than 64bit vista? Technically I suppose, but vista manages those resources better. Additionally since I was smart and went 64bit I'm able to do certain things for my work which I could not do on XP Pro 32bit such as work with 3GB text files.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 5:50:23 PM , Rating: 1
Vista 64 bit definitely has a lot more going for it than XP 64 Bit. But most of the market still operates in 32 Bit, even at the Enterprise level. There is only one somewhat corporate wide application that I can think of that explicitly requires 64 Bit support, and that's Exchange 2007, and you don't run that on Vista, do you? And many are holding off on upgrading to Exchange 07, or using the 32 bit version of exchange 07 that microsoft doesn't provide support for (still think I don't know anything about the market and what people in general are using?)

As for you, you represent one usage case that is not common. How many other people open 3 GB text files? Most of my arguments are issues faced by a substantial number of people. For your use case (when you're in my position, you study use cases a lot) Vista 64 Bit makes perfect sense. My arguments are for the more common use cases.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 5:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
. But most of the market still operates in 32 Bit, even at the Enterprise level. There is only one somewhat corporate wide application that I can think of that explicitly requires 64 Bit support, and that's Exchange 2007, and you don't run that on Vista, do you?


Is it appropriate to run Exchange on Windows XP Pro? That's what your suggesting right now, long horn sever on the other hand would be an appropriate paring for exchange server.

quote:
As for you, you represent one usage case that is not common. How many other people open 3 GB text files? Most of my arguments are issues faced by a substantial number of people. For your use case (when you're in my position, you study use cases a lot) Vista 64 Bit makes perfect sense. My arguments are for the more common use cases.


Perhaps not text files but gaming is indeed very common and there area already games on the market that put their toe over the 2GB per process limit of 32bit windows. As time goes on and games improve the situation is only going to be getting worse and worse for 32bit windows including the 32bit varient of vista which IMHO should never have been released. But again, this is microsoft being conservitive much like they were in revoking Win2k's "consumer approved" status even though the OS worked very well for consumers.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 6:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is it appropriate to run Exchange on Windows XP Pro? That's what your suggesting right now, long horn sever on the other hand would be an appropriate paring for exchange server.


No, my suggestion was that 64 bit processing, even in the Enterprise environment where greater computing resources are in demand, isn't common. You interpreted my suggestion as something different.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/28/2008 4:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was talking about Aero, you even responded to it.
I know exactly what you were talking about, and my comment stands, Aero works with out a hitch on any machine that are dubbed Vista-Ready. Vista-Capable machines have a much lower minimum requirements, and as such are not guaranteed to be able to run Aero, in fact Vista-Capable machines clearly states that the computer will not have aero activated by default. My old Radeon 9600 and 9800 work perfectly fine with aero, and that is 5 year old hardware.
quote:
First, tell that to the nVidia users (including myself) that have had driver issues in Vista. Second tell that to all the people that are running Intel chipsets (35-40% of the market).
Please, judging by your comments about vista I can pretty much bet you are not a user. I am one of those Nvidia users, and I have no problems whatsoever. Intel on the otherhand just plain has crappy drivers, whether it be 2000/XP/Vista or probably any OS in the near future. I am sorry but I have never used a stabled setup that utilized an intel video card, I am sure countless others will agree with me. As for ATI, although I do not use a recent ATI card, ATI drivers seemed to be alright from the beginning while Nvidia did have its problems for the first few months.

quote:
If you don't meet Aero's hardware specs, you don't get it- a feature offered by the OS- and it is a major feature that differentiates Vista from XP. Sound support did not differentiate XP from any previous OS- your point is completely apples to oranges. Most of XP's issues to begin with were resolved within six months, Vista's issues (administration, deployment, featurelevel) will probably not be fixed anytime soon.
Obviously if you do not meet the required specs it will not run, I don't know what you are trying to say here.

As for sound support, thanks for making my point more clear, XP barely differentiated at all from previous versions of windows in the way sound was handled. Yet it did take a few months to get working drivers, and I do not consider windows legacy drivers, which had terrible sound quality a good driver. Yet vista, which has a totally reworked sound API has working soundcard drivers for any company that actually put the money and energy into it. I had stable and working auzentech drivers less than 2 months after release, and they are a new company.

quote:
Ok, this is coming completely out of left field. Microsoft has a historic problem as a company delivering on promises on time. Between OS delays and omitting features completely, this is an issue of development and resource allocation time lines- separate from support issues like the blaster worm.
Its a simple google search away go look for yourself, XP venerabilities played a huge role in the delays and eventually the pulling of WinFS from Vista. Of course bad coding, and delivering promises were all pieces of the puzzle, XP security problems essentially stopped all work on vista in late 2002 and early 2003. As for blaster, who cares what it was, or how it different from Vista's problems, the fact remains XP was not a very secure OS for a very long time. Microsoft even had to go as far as to let unauthorized windows users upgrade to SP2 just to stop computers from being infected by certain venerabilities , something they were very much against a little more than a year before hand with SP1.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 5:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please, judging by your comments about vista I can pretty much bet you are not a user.


I mentioned here and other posts that I have over 250 server class systems that I personally deployed for a test environment. I have also tested it on an extended basis on my personal machines. I have used it, but am not a current user in favor of XP.

quote:
Obviously if you do not meet the required specs it will not run, I don't know what you are trying to say here.


My point is this, for most of the market that don't have (I have explained my market perspective elsewhere) graphics adapters that can support Aero, it's one less feature to have with Vista. Hell, certain versions of Vista don't even have Aero support. If you don't have Aero, then Vista doesn't differentiate itself that much from XP for most users. Therefore, it doesn't make much sense to buy Vista over XP if it doesn't differentiate itself. Is that hard to understand?

quote:
XP venerabilities played a huge role in the delays and eventually the pulling of WinFS from Vista.


It's part of your argument, you prove it. The peak of Blaster infections happened in August 2003, several years prior to even the beta candidates of Vista, and on top of that, Microsoft had a patch for blaster released one month prior to the peak of blaster infections- the issue was for all intents and purposes resolved in July of 2003. ISP's began filtering traffic and blocking ports that Blaster spread on. It had little effect on WinFS's schedule. So please explain to me how Microsoft diverted resources from when they had a patch released one month prior to the peak of infections? Further, WinFS wasn't even first announced until later in the second half of 2003. This sequence of events indicates that Microsoft had every expectation to launch WinFS in spite of the blaster issues. The reason why it wasn't was due to the performance issues of the file system.

Lastly, if you were a true audiophile, you wouldn't use the integrated tools of an OS like Vista to manage, play and handle your music. I'm not even and audiophile and I use much better third party apps dedicated to handling music.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 5:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
Just for clarification- I deployed quadboot images of Vista, XP, Server 2k3 and CentOS on these 250 servers.


RE: This isn't new...
By Locutus465 on 4/28/2008 5:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mentioned here and other posts that I have over 250 server class systems that I personally deployed for a test environment. I have also tested it on an extended basis on my personal machines. I have used it, but am not a current user in favor of XP.


No offence but you just invalidated all of your arguments about poor driver quality in vista... It's obvious you're not informed as to the current state of drivers in vista.

quote:
My point is this, for most of the market that don't have (I have explained my market perspective elsewhere) graphics adapters that can support Aero, it's one less feature to have with Vista. Hell, certain versions of Vista don't even have Aero support. If you don't have Aero, then Vista doesn't differentiate itself that much from XP for most users. Therefore, it doesn't make much sense to buy Vista over XP if it doesn't differentiate itself. Is that hard to understand?


I'm sorry but for most of the market they'll only get vista with a new PC, in which case your argument is invalid. Most new PCs have hardware capable of supporting aero glass unless specifically labled vista capable and shipped with home basic. And then in this same paragraph you go on to contridict your arguments about vista forcing features you don't want by pointing out that vista home basic doesn't have Aero... Home basic v. premium v. ultimate is all about giving customers choice.

quote:
It's part of your argument, you prove it. The peak of Blaster infections happened in August 2003, several years prior to even the beta candidates of Vista, and on top of that, Microsoft had a patch for blaster released one month prior to the peak of blaster infections- the issue was for all intents and purposes resolved in July of 2003. ISP's began filtering traffic and blocking ports that Blaster spread on. It had little effect on WinFS's schedule. So please explain to me how Microsoft diverted resources from when they had a patch released one month prior to the peak of infections? Further, WinFS wasn't even first announced until later in the second half of 2003. This sequence of events indicates that Microsoft had every expectation to launch WinFS in spite of the blaster issues. The reason why it wasn't was due to the performance issues of the file system.


Do you seriously think that microsoft started developing vista and then a day later released the first public beta? You did nothing to disprove his argument, delays at any point in the development life cycle can kill major features, I know... I'm a software developer and I've had it happen to me...

quote:
Lastly, if you were a true audiophile, you wouldn't use the integrated tools of an OS like Vista to manage, play and handle your music. I'm not even and audiophile and I use much better third party apps dedicated to handling music.


Your ignorance of vista shows through yet again. OpenAL is what is being discussed here and there is *NOTHING* that can get around it. If you want to produce audio on vista you're going to do it through OpenAL period, regardless if your talking about microsoft utilities and 3rd party utilities... The point behind OpenAL is Microsoft saw certain sound companies (i.e. creative) creating their own standard (EAX) to monopolize the sound device market... OpenAL levels the playing field much like directx did by providing a common set of features that all hardware supports. The difference is in how well the manufacture supports the features allowing for greater diversity in the audio device market... So far this is working as planned.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 6:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No offence but you just invalidated all of your arguments about poor driver quality in vista... It's obvious you're not informed as to the current state of drivers in vista.


In your opinion- again, I've got 250 servers worth of data I've been having to troubleshoot issues on for months with enough reinstalles to make you shudder. I've encountered more individual use cases than most technical people have. I'm very well aware of Vista's driver issues.

quote:
ultimate is all about giving customers choice.


Keeping XP around is about giving customers choice as well. there are several reasons yet to be invalidated about using XP over Vista.

quote:
Do you seriously think that microsoft started developing vista and then a day later released the first public beta? You did nothing to disprove his argument, delays at any point in the development life cycle can kill major features, I know... I'm a software developer and I've had it happen to me...


No, but my point exactly was the MS first announced WinFS after the blaster issues were solved. If the blaster issues have been solved, and then they ANNOUNCE (not a beta release, but an initial announcement) after the worm problem is resolved, how is a resolved problem likely to delay a product release? Come on, the timeline doesn't track.

Now, I don't deny your experience in development, but Microsoft develops products much differently than most small to midsize companies. In the case of Vista, where much of the development work was divvied out to vendor firms and subcontractors, they would not have diverted these contract based resources which were dedicated to developing Vista to the support of XP. For a midsize company with fewer engineering resources, this might happen- but its not likely to happen at Microsoft.

This article explicitly references performance issues due to development- not worms:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winfs_preview...

quote:
Your ignorance of vista shows through yet again. OpenAL is what is being discussed here and there is *NOTHING* that can get around it.


Ok, now you're just reaching for arguments, and if you had done any research or had any knowledge of OpenAL, you'd know how ignorant you sound right now. OpenAL was developed by Creative and introduced long before Vista. In fact, the inclusion of OpenAl due to the fact that DirectSound was being eliminated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAL
http://www.openal.org/openal_vista.html

Read these two first before brining up OpenAL again. OpenAL is open source and not Vista specific. Its quite technically a feature for all OS'.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/2008 6:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
And just in case you miss the quote in the links I provided:

quote:
OpenAL was launched at the Game Developers Conference in 1999. Initially it was a joint collaboration between Creative Labs and Loki Entertainment.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 9:54:58 AM , Rating: 2
I've already answered all your other comments in previous posts so ill skip to the audio. What exactly did you disprove? That creative has a stake in an open source project that they do not control? Microsoft is planning to do exactly what the previous poster had said, trying to get away from proprietary formats like EAX.

I suggest you read up on Vista and its new audio features, and why changes needed to be made.
quote:
http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2005/0...


To sum it up for you:
quote:
Over the years, we've realized that there three major problem areas with the existing audio infrastructure:

1. The amount of code that runs in the kernel (coupled with buggy device drivers) causes the audio stack to be one of the leading causes of Windows reliability problems.
2. It's also become clear that while the audio quality in Windows is just fine for normal users, pro-audio enthusiasts are less than happy with the native audio infrastructure. We've made a bunch of changes to the infrastructure to support pro-audio apps, but those were mostly focused around providing mechanisms for those apps to bypass the audio infrastructure.
3. We've also come to realize that the tools for troubleshootingaudio problems aren't the greatest - it's just too hard to figure out what's going on, and the UI (much of which comes from Windows 3.1) is flat-out too old to be useful.


I am one of those users (from the bold text) that feel that audio in previous versions of windows was not up to par. In an ideal situation the audio stream should not directly pass through the windows mixer at all.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/29/2008 11:24:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've already answered all your other comments in previous


You still haven't answered how WinFS was delayed by the Blaster Worm. In fact, I'm the only one that showed any kind of evidence as to why it was delayed, and ultimately abandoned. You trying to claim that blaster delayed WinFS makes no sense, the blaster issue was patched before WinFS was initially announced, before any version of it came out. In fact, if you need another source that cites performance related issues (rather than worms) here it is:
quote:
Was WinFS "killed" because of its design?
No. In fact, the Beta was coming together really well. People have speculated on "redesigns." The original goals of WinFS have never changed, but the technology we are building isn’t easy – so we did take a number of internal design changes and re-writes. And I am not going to apologize for that. Getting the relational engine to behave and perform like the Windows filesystem isn’t a matter of a few lines of code – it has to be done very carefully and architected right. The bars on performance, compatibility, etc. are all super high.
http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/
In fact, your whole idea is ludicrous when you dissect it from a logical architectural perspective. The people who were developing WinFS are a filesystem team. The blaster worm was network security issue. You don't divert resources developing a file system to combat a network security issue. They don't have the expertise.

In conclusion- you haven't responded to this claim, and you have show no evidence to substantiate this claim. Unless you can provide one bit of documentary evidicen citing blaster as the cause of WinFS eventual abandonment, I fully expect you to ignore this issue.

As far as the audio features:

A) Separating running device drivers from the kernel is not a new thing- take a look at linux.
B) you actually helped my argument again without realizing it:

quote:
but those were mostly focused around providing mechanisms for those apps to bypass the audio infrastructure.


Which was exactly my point. If you're a true pro audio enthusiast you don't use anything IN the OS, you use a 3rd party app. Even free third party apps such as WinAMP provide their own mixers, their own application specific volume control, and just about every other modification that it took Microsoft years to finally (and poorly) integrate into Vista. Hardware makers and third party developers (for audio enthusiasts) will continue to provide their tools, mixers, etc for their own software.

C) And finally, it boils down to this, a better user interface and troubleshooting for audio- that's your argument as to why I should switch to Vista's higher resource utilization? A better UI??? If I want a better UI, I can have it in several third party applications that handle media of all kinds far better than MCE in any version of Windows.

And better audio handling is still not a compelling enough argument to have existing IT infrastructure switch to Vista (which makes up the majority of Windows Users to begin with). The fact that users can manage their sound better still does not overshadow the increased management overhead that Vista presents to IT management infrastructures- this is an argument you still have yet to respond to either.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 12:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A)Separating running device drivers from the kernel is not a new thing- take a look at linux.
B) you actually helped my argument again without realizing it.
Whats exactly is your point here? That Windows XP does not have this functionality yet a community driven open source OS does? Which I perceive as yet more proof that this functionality is needed... You sure showed me.. not like that is what I have been saying all along.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 1:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
I didnt answer back your WinFS rant because you are going off on a tangeant.
quote:
In fact one could solely blame the year of the blaster worm etc the reason for vista features such as winFS being cut out in the first place.
'The year of' you moron not the blaster worm specifically, within a 1-2 year period Microsoft got slammed by various worms and viruses. Stop going off on tangents about other topics just because your original statements are wrong.


RE: This isn't new...
By nolisi on 4/29/2008 3:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
You didn't answer because I had documentary evidence from the WinFS team themselves as to why it wasn't released. You have ZERO evidence showing worms as being even a potential cause. You were wrong and you knew it.

You went off on a tangent to begin with by even mentioning WinFS's nonexistent relationship to worms.


RE: This isn't new...
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 3:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
I didnt answer because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.. Who cares when WinFS was cancelled, but here you go because you called me out.

WinFS was not demonstrated until 2003 and was not cancelled until 2004. Blaster according to wiki peaked on August 13, 2003. I dont know about you but the timeframes seem to line up.

Its also a well known fact (i remember reading it in many places) that Microsoft pulled many people from the Longhorn.. you can still find blogs about it to this day
quote:
http://scoble.weblogs.com/2003/11/03.html
quote:
One thing we've done is pull tons of people off of Longhorn development to get a major security fix done (code-named Springboard). Windows XP +is+ job #1. We're continuing to invest in that and bring out great new products, games, and services for XP.

Many people do not realize that Microsoft basically stopped everything to work on the problems in Windows XP, but it did happen regardless of what you may think. I am not saying blaster or other viruses were the only cause either, it was a bunch of things from worms like blaster to bad coding to just plain lack of time.

I would also like to note WinFS is not dead, expect to see it in Windows 7.

As for your stupid comment about it not being possible because they are a file system team, thats a load of crock. Most of the guys working on WinFS were longtime MS employees working in various fields, considering MS has only ever used a grand total of 3 filesystems, 2 of which were basically the same, I don't know why you think they would have a huge team dedicated to filesystems that are not able to do any other kind of programming. Once again a simple good search will verify this.
quote:
My name is Quentin Clark, I run the Program Management team for WinFS – directing the team that is shaping WinFS. Many of you have seen me on a few WinFS bits on Channel 9, and from the PDC in 2003. I have been working on WinFS since 2002. Overall, I’ve been at Microsoft for over 11 years – pursuing 1.0 projects the whole time everywhere from Office, to developer tools, to manageability software and now WinFS.


This concludes my posts on the subject, please feel free to call me out anytime.