Print 98 comment(s) - last by leexgx.. on Apr 11 at 2:27 PM

  (Source: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)

Rather than retiring Windows XP, Microsoft is going to offer the OS as a downgrade option for Windows 7, allowing users to relive their happiest memories from the start of the new millenium.  (Source: Microsoft)
Party like it's 2001, as Microsoft just won't let Windows XP die!

Windows XP, first released in October 2001, has been a sales hit for years, strengthening Microsoft's ownership of the OS market.  When Windows Vista came along, it faced a tough task building upon Windows XP's success.  Based on critical review and public reception, it fell short of matching this success.

Microsoft had planned to retire Windows XP in June 2008, after having already extended its lifespan longer than intended due to customers picking XP over Vista.  However, June came and went and only saw a partial retirement of XP.  Microsoft still had loopholes retaining support and sales for small systems like netbooks.  It also continued to support an option that allowed customers to purchase Windows Vista and downgrade to Windows XP.

Now Microsoft has revealed another surprise -- rather than offering Windows Vista as the sole downgrade option for its new OS, Windows 7, customers instead will be able to continue to party like its 2001, downgrading straight to Windows XP according to Apple Insider.  The news was first leaked by an HP internal memo:

Microsoft will allow PC OEMs to structure similar downgrade OS SKUs for Win 7 Professional once available. No formal announcement has been made on the General Availability date for Win 7. However, you can anticipate that business desktops, notebooks and workstations will take advantage of this with the release of Win 7 in the October timeframe to allow our customers maximum headroom as they transition away from XP Pro OS. The Win 7 Professional to XP Pro downgrade OS will also discontinue on April 30th 2010.

A Microsoft spokesperson reportedly confirmed this information to Betanews, adding, "This is not the first time that Microsoft has offered downgrade rights to a version other than its immediate predecessor and our Software Assurance customers can always downgrade to any previous version of Windows."

The plan, according to the spokesperson, is still to terminate all sales of Windows XP by June 2010 at the earliest.  Microsoft announced this plan about a year ago.  The spokesperson also declined to comment on, or reject the possibility that XP netbook customers would be given incentives to upgrade to Windows 7.

Currently many PC makers are currently still shipping PCs with Windows XP, via online downgrade options.  The rights to make such pre-downgraded boxes will expire July 31.  HP has already brokered a deal with Microsoft, though, to extend the offer.

The good news for Microsoft is that its new flagship product, Windows 7 should be able to run on most netbooks due to its leaner build.  CEO Steve Ballmer explains, "Windows 7 is Windows Vista with cleanup in user interface [and] improvements in performance."

The bad news, though, is that Windows Vista still remains unviable for netbooks.  And since Microsoft has always offered a downgrade option, that means that Microsoft will continue to offer the venerable Windows XP, a once industry-leading sales star, which many expected to be sent to the OS retirement home long ago.

Comments     Threshold

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

Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By Boze on 4/7/2009 11:27:42 AM , Rating: 5
...and sometimes people forget that fact.

Windows XP became really nice when Service Pack 2 rolled out and nearly all the bugs were squashed, stability became rock-solid, and performance had gone through the roof even on what could be considered mediocre hardware at the time.

Windows XP at release was very good, don't get me wrong - certainly better than Windows 98 in any flavor, and a bit more stable, user and hardware-friendly than Windows 2000 Professional, but it wasn't the XP that we all know and love.

Conversely, I really don't think Windows Vista is that terrible an operating system. My perception may be skewed because I have only used Vista w/ SP1 and I use it on a fairly high-end machine, but it is certainly not the dung heap people make it out to be.

RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By smackababy on 4/7/2009 11:35:47 AM , Rating: 5
Windows XP became really nice when Service Pack 2 rolled out and nearly all the bugs were squashed, stability became rock-solid, and performance had gone through the roof even on what could be considered mediocre hardware at the time.
Shhh Please aren't supposed to know that.

RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By Belard on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By fatedtodie on 4/7/2009 12:27:42 PM , Rating: 5
"But MS had 6 years to make vista, an OS based off of XP "

Are you high?

Vista was not built off XP it was created from the ground up (the Longhorn kernel). It was 90% of the reason the hardware manufacturers balked at designing drivers for it, they didn't know how so they ignored it, and after a year of screaming customers and blaming the OS finally they fessed up it was their fault.

"2012 - There will still be MORE XP PCs than Vista PCs." Only if morons like you proliferate the world seeing as XP doesn't take ANY advantage from multi-core CPUs and by 2012 there will be 8 or 12 core CPUs.

RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By Belard on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By JasonMick on 4/7/2009 1:28:59 PM , Rating: 5
Longhorn is not a kernal, its a codename for an un-named product. Xp was called "Whistler" and like Windows2000, all three are based of the NT Kernal.

Not to jump into you two's row, but, you're both sorta right. XP and Vista are both NT architectures (so are similar "kernals"), but are NOT the same *implementation*. XP and Vista have DIFFERENT kernels, based on the same architecture, in other words. Windows Vista significantly overhauls major portions of the architecture, such as memory management. It certainly has common code with XP/Server2003, but its a mistake to say that by and large its "based on" either of them, to my knowledge. Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 DO have the same kernel as of SP1, which I think is where you're getting confused.

Oh look, a Comparision of XP vs. Vista with 1/2/4 core CPUs on a game THAT uses 4 cores... XP is constantly faster and plays the games as more cores are used.

Again, I would seriously question these numbers. Processor-wise unbiased testing (such as Anandtech) have shown Vista to be as good or better than XP in gaming, by my recollection. Its the video drivers that have been traditionally weaker, but they have been improved as the hardware support has improved, something noted by the original op.

And as far as your argument over when 8/10 core processors will debut/become mainstream I think thats a pretty pointless argument to have.

I also say its impossible to predict the number of XP installs v. Windows Vista installs in 2012, but if I had to guess I'd say there will be way more Vista installs, thanks to the sheer numbers of Vista hardware shipped. Sure it may have "not quite as good" sales as XP, but that's still a WHOLE lot of installs -- way more than the handful of people that knew about/cared enough to downgrade to XP or keep XP systems alive.

RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By fatedtodie on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
By xRyanCat on 4/7/2009 2:14:52 PM , Rating: 5
No. The post above you describes the changes best. They are both still NT and have EXTREMELY similar kernels. Large parts were rewritten, yes... But it was rewritten to do the same job in a slightly different way. They didn't just purge all the repositories and say, "How do we want to build our next OS..."

Vista built on XP just as XP built on its predecessors, granted its not an apples to apples comparison.

RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By TomZ on 4/7/2009 2:35:27 PM , Rating: 5
Vista was built from scratch.
LOL, that's funny. The development time would be 5X longer and application/device incompatibility 100X worse than it was if they had started from scratch.

I don't work for Microsoft, but I can tell you, there is no way they started from scratch.

By Chocobollz on 4/8/2009 4:42:54 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I think no sane person would like to start off from scratch, unless they're dead (that means they're forced to start from scratch :-)

RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By Belard on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
By Belard on 4/7/2009 2:40:54 PM , Rating: 1

The VISTA calculator is still the same exact one from XP...

Think they'd bother recoding that from scratch?

But to a degree, this is MS's problem. The "vista" experince doesn' carry over to all the tools... because its all just skin.

RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By Belard on 4/7/2009 1:39:28 PM , Rating: 1
That is a 2007 comparison. Sp2 XP vs Vista-vanilla. Note: Sp3 for XP added some "vista" security features.

This performance comparision includes Sp1-Vista and Win7 Beta. Also the video drivers are much newer since this is a 2009 review.

Vista has gotten better, XP is still faster in some areas, as is Win7. Where Win7 loses most likely has to do with it being BETA still and drivers are still not as mature as vista or XP.

Vista will never be Win7, even thou they are closer together than XP>Vista. MS is putting its resources into Win7. After SP2 comes out for Vista, I betcha you'll see vista start collecting dust.

XP still has about 65% of the market. Vista as about 23% of the market. For PC gamers, about 30% are using vista.
Nobody is going to say "where can I buy a Vista PC?" - at any time when Win7 comes out. I think Vista will peak about 30% market share and then go down from there.

I'm going to bet that within 12~18months after Win7 hits the shelves;(A) at least half of the Vista users will upgrade to Win7 (B) 30% of WinXP users will buy new PCs or upgrade to Win7... giving Win7 about 40% of the market.

PS: Beta version of Windows95 looks a bit like vista/Win7 with its "start" button :)

RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By TomZ on 4/7/2009 2:39:20 PM , Rating: 1
One thing you missed in your analysis is corporate users. If history is any guide, corporate users will upgrade in large numbers to Vista as XP support goes end-of-life. Corporate IT will NEVER jump ahead to the newest OS version - NEVER. That means they will be supporting Vista while the rest of us are using Windows 7.

RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By dubldwn on 4/7/2009 3:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
So, your claim is that over the next few years you expect corporations to start deploying vista boxes? I’m not trying to be a d!ck, but if, say, July of 2010 rolls around and IT shows up with a vista box, I’ll punch her in the face. I hope my IT group is testing win7 right now. Today. Honestly, I don't see the disadvantage. What would work in vista but not win7?

RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By TomZ on 4/7/2009 4:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
Did large corporate IT groups evaluate WinXP when that OS was in beta, and then roll it out once WinXP was officially released? Maybe Microsoft did internally, but I doubt anybody else did. I don't see why Windows 7 will be any different.

On the other hand, I know lots of large corporate IT groups that upgraded to XP only once Microsoft Win2K mainstream support ended. I would therefore expect that as XP mainstream support ends, we'll see the same upgrade cycle to Vista.

RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By dubldwn on 4/7/2009 4:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well, we were using 2000 until IT was comfortable and ready to go with xp. But we’re still using xp now. So, it’s different this time. Plus most drivers seem to work.

Again, not trying to be belligerent, but I can’t understand why anyone would do that. Why on earth would anyone buy a vista license after win7 is released?

RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By Master Kenobi on 4/8/2009 7:11:15 AM , Rating: 2
Because you don't understand how corporate IT progression works. Leave it at that. I STILL have Win 2000 systems in my environment and that sucker is EOL. XP is going to be around for another few years as the deployed OS of choice, with a move to Vista or Win 7 probably starting in 2012 when XP's EOL date starts nearing.

By jcbond on 4/9/2009 11:33:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not an IT guy, but it seems to me that we (my company) experienced issues with using Vista machines on our network. This could be due to a refusal to use the latest server versions, issues with equipment or services provided to us, etc. But by all appearances, it looks like Vista is going to have a very short front-line life. I can see Vista being skipped by the corporate world.

RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By Belard on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By just4U on 4/8/2009 5:32:26 AM , Rating: 3
With XP being THE OS for about 6 years and vista severe incompatiblites when it first came out (worse than Win2000 > XP)

I think your way off there. WinXP had alot more driver issues than Vista ever did. Atleast by my recollection. I don't know of anyone who moved to XP who didn't have problems with some of their hardware. (Printers, Scanners Software .. you name it) The reason for that was probably because we of the mass transition to the NT type platform.

RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By Belard on 4/8/09, Rating: 0
By just4U on 4/8/2009 9:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
Vista doesn't need a excuse, in comparison to past launches it was relatively smooth overall. Sure it had speed bumps but that is always expected. Some people make it out to be a nightmare and that simply was not the case. I hit alot of brick walls trying to get customers to move over to Vista (instead of purchasing XP for their new systems) because they heard from a friend of a friend's brother who heard from his bosses dad that their computer guy (who knows nothing about computers btw) said it sucked. I mean really..

The way I see it, the voice of those who didn't want to change Operating Systems was just bigger all around this time (with vista) so it generated alot of bad press and hearsay earning it a reputation that was not deserved.

By goku on 4/7/2009 1:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
Can't handle multiprocessors? Multicores? yeah I don't think so.

By LRonaldHubbs on 4/7/2009 2:57:25 PM , Rating: 1

RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By goku on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: Windows XP didn't start out "amazing"...
By Belard on 4/7/2009 2:01:31 PM , Rating: 3
SP2 and SP3 are nice improvements. SP1 was severely needed... as is the case of vista.

But when it comes to SP, they tend screw up when you apply them as an update... (I just put SP3 on recently... nervous, because a game needed HAWX - killer game) and it went well. Service packs work best when included while installing the OS, slipstreamed or a fresh install. I know quite a few people who had SP2 and SP3 nightmares. :(

XP is old... Win2000 is older. XP is a skin-job of Win2000 with important consumer features that were missing from Win2000. Time for you to upgrade :) Wait, I sound like some sort of vista-nut! ;)

Operating Systems are always "upgrading"... you could go back to DOS... no? But hey, there are still people using Commodore128s and Amigas as their mainstream computers.

By leexgx on 4/11/2009 2:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
sp1 fixed some things but have you tryed to plug an XP SP1 or none patched pc Directly to the internet (no router or NAT or firewall) funky things start to happen if not strate away within min's

By Yawgm0th on 4/7/2009 1:19:14 PM , Rating: 2
I actually disagree with one minor detail of this assessment. XP was great once SP1 was released. SP2 was actually a nightmare initially, but was great after a few months. But the OS was solid before SP2.

By piroroadkill on 4/7/2009 8:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
I had XP pirated 2 weeks before its release in October 2001 and I thought not only was it amazing compared to 98 SE, but I never went back and have been using and am still using XP to this day (I even own Vista Ultimate)

By DeepBlue1975 on 4/8/2009 9:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
Vista is a really good OS...

The problem is that now that I have win 7 beta installed, I can't stop using it and Vista looks awkward, clumsy and cumbersome to use for me.

This is the first time that a new MS OS has made me feel that way about the previous one. This is the first GUI overhaul I feel I can't live without, even though vista's search capability on the start menu is really great and I miss it a bit when I come to work and don't have it...

But boy, the actually usable thumbnails, the ability to use gestures to manage windows, the way you can pin programs and have jump lists... That's really great and has made win 7 leaps and bounds more usable than any other windows upgrade I did before, at least for me.

By rburnham on 4/10/2009 9:48:28 AM , Rating: 2
XP seemed better than it was partly due to coming after the undeniably horrid WinME. After using Vista for the last couple of years, XP just feels clunky and old. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Windows 7
By Brandon Hill on 4/7/2009 11:31:06 AM , Rating: 5
After using various builds of Windows 7 64-bit on my Lenovo X300, I don't see why anyone would want to downgrade to Windows XP on current hardware.

Bad move by Microsoft IMHO.

RE: Windows 7
By suryad on 4/7/2009 11:33:40 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I think Windows 7 is Windows Vista done properly this time around! It is staggering just how much better it is overall than Vista was.

That said I do agree with the other commenter that XP was not as good as it is now as it was when it didnt have the Service Packs when it came out. It was a massive nightmare at that time. It was incredible how bug/security holes prone that OS was. But it has definitely matured into something good. I still use XP x64 since I refused to install Vista on my machine.

Hopefully when W7 SP1 comes out I will be upgrading my whole system to the latest and greatest hardware out there. Looking forward to it.

RE: Windows 7
By Brandon Hill on 4/7/2009 11:40:51 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'm using Windows 7 as my main OS on my machine. My only issue is that HP doesn't have Windows 7 drivers out for my networked Photosmart 3310 printer so I can't use its scanner/fax capabilities (I haven't tried to connect it via USB, but it may give me full functionality that way). I can, however, use it for printing using the built-in XP drivers over the network.

During a clean install, Windows found all of my notebook's drivers with the exception of the fingerprint reader. Windows 7 pointed out the issue and directed me to the website where I could download updated drivers -- kudos to Microsoft.

Windows 7 is everything Vista should have been and Microsoft is selling itself short by allowing XP downgrades.

RE: Windows 7
By Garreye on 4/7/2009 8:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
My printer and my sound card both don't have Win7 drivers, so I just used Vista drivers and they worked fine. For my sound card I had to run the driver installation in Vista compatibility mode, but it worked fine once I did that. No guarantees that this will work for your printer, but it's probably worth a try..

RE: Windows 7
By DFranch on 4/7/2009 12:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
It is amazing how many people forget that most of the same complaints people had about upgrading to XP are the same complaints they had when moving to Vista. Let's see if this sounds familiar. XP needs too much memory, my old ##### doesn't work with XP. I had to replace a logitech mouse because Logitech refused to create a vista driver for it. XP wasn't perfect when it first came out, it was just better then Win 98. The difference this time is XP is so much better than 98 was it had more to live up to. Vista with SP1 has been working fine for me, I tried the Windows 7 beta, and I don't see any compelling reason to upgrade from Vista to Win 7. Maybe when 7 actually comes out there will be something to compel me to upgrade.

RE: Windows 7
By HinderedHindsight on 4/7/2009 1:23:50 PM , Rating: 4
It is amazing how many people forget that most of the same complaints people had about upgrading to XP are the same complaints they had when moving to Vista.

Some complaints were the same, yes. But to my recollection, upgrading to WinXP did not mean degraded transfer performance over its predecessor; Vista's networking stack was far less efficient than XP's until SP1 came out.

But the biggest failure of Vista was at the marketing level- they failed to convince (or perhaps did not provide enough time for) hardware manufacturers (such as nVidia, Intel and others) to develop solid drivers for Vista. You can blame the manufacturers for not developing them, but if Microsoft decides to implement substantial shifts in the way drivers are implemented, they need to get manufacturers along for the ride in the first place. Developer relations are not just technically driven, but also marketing driven.

And then once the manufacturers are on board, not break the drivers as MS did with Vista SP1. While it is up to the manufacturer to make the driver, it is up to Microsoft to ensure a positive end user experience. When Microsoft fails in its task of getting manufacturers on board (and makes it difficult for them to play in Microsoft's sandbox) they damage the end user's experience.

This is one of the biggest reasons that Linux still has a small minority market share in the desktop world, they're not unified, and can only get so much manufacturer support.

RE: Windows 7
By Master Kenobi on 4/8/2009 7:13:43 AM , Rating: 2
What was left out is that this is corporate only. Regular consumers are not permitted to downgrade to XP.

RE: Windows 7
By leexgx on 4/11/2009 2:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
not realy Most HP laptops that comes with Vista bis Comes with the downgrade HP XP Pro Product recovery disk (the propper one that restores the pc)
you just have to make sure you boot into Vista First and Burn off the HP Vista Product recovery disks before putting the xp on as it Wipes out the HP vista recovery parttion

if you do wipe it before makeing the disks you have to download vista ISO (any ver or 32/64bit) or get an copy of the dvd form some one to do it your self

If XP is soo horrible, then...
By Belard on 4/7/2009 5:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
Then for all those vista lovers out there, why didn't you try Linux before Vista?

Try Utunbu, its free. A 700mb download. Here is a tour:

Its pretty much right up there with XP/Vista and its easily newer than XP.

My games and such require Windows... as PC Gaming dies, the need for MS-Windows dies as well. All we need is Quicken, Adobe products and the need for Microsoft products can go away.

RE: If XP is soo horrible, then...
By yxalitis on 4/7/2009 8:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
1. Linux will FOREVER remain the OS for nerdy little dweebs who actually like command line interfaces, and upgrading kernels, it will NEVER be mainstream, EVER!
2. "as PC Gaming dies" WHAT?? Are you SERIOUS? Have you SEEN the sales figures for PC games recently??
PC Gaming is NOT dying, the fact that you even suggested it shows you have a poor grasp on reality...

RE: If XP is soo horrible, then...
By Screwballl on 4/7/2009 9:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
1. Linux will FOREVER remain the OS for nerdy little dweebs who actually like command line interfaces, and upgrading kernels, it will NEVER be mainstream, EVER!
2. "as PC Gaming dies" WHAT?? Are you SERIOUS? Have you SEEN the sales figures for PC games recently?? PC Gaming is NOT dying, the fact that you even suggested it shows you have a poor grasp on reality...

Wow spoken by someone who probably has not used linux since the 80s or 90s???

Anymore the CLI is rarely used or suggested except BY the geeks. Otherwise you can do pretty much anything using the regular GUI, just as you can in Windows. As a matter of fact I use the CLI more in windows than I do Linux. Even the kernel upgrades are done automatically with most distros nowadays, so still no need to go into the CLI.
Linux is growing faster than any other OS currently available and I do expect it to start putting up competition against OSX and then Windows as more people get fed up with the crap from the 2 big OS camps. The numbers show a faster percentage growth for linux than Apple or MS. Two things caused this: expansion of the netbook sales, and this junk OS called Vista.

PC gaming is declining partially because of the sheer number of crap titles available, but also as more powerful multi-purpose consoles hit the market. I doubt PC gaming will ever fully die. The line between consoles and PCs will start to blur some as they add more functionality to consoles and dumb down the PCs.

By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2009 11:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
Wow spoken by someone who probably has not used linux since the 80s or 90s???

Exactly what I think when I hear a Linux user talk about Windows. It's obvious the last time they used Windows was in '95. Or at least that's the impression I get.

RE: If XP is soo horrible, then...
By Belard on 4/8/2009 12:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
Linux will FOREVER remain the OS for nerdy little dweebs who actually like command line interfaces, and upgrading kernels, it will NEVER be mainstream, EVER!


1 - CLI is handy and useful. Amiga's CLI is worlds better than MS-DOS and Windows2000~Win7's CLi.

2 - How do you get to the MSCONFIG or IPCONFIG? That little RUN window/command in Windows is CLI. To get to IPCONFIG, user goes to START>RUN> type CMD, CLI window pops open, type in IPCONFIG with commands... like IPCONIG /RELEASE

Gee MS, its 2001... why not have this tool as a button in the networking control panel for novices?

The Registry... thats so VERY nice and tidy.

Back in my Amiga days, yeah - power users used CLI because you can do many things faster than with a mouse. Both CLI and GUIs have their place.

3 -
as PC Gaming dies

Yeah, sales figures are in the toilet. Try playing UT3 online and see NOBODY playing. Maybe 20 populated servers out of 200... compared to 2000 when UT-Classic had hundreds of populated servers. The articles by the game makers say the same thing... THEY make MONEY selling console games. Gee, wheres your shiny copy of HALO3 for PC? GOW2? Along with STUPID developers adding SecureROM7 to their titles with limited re-installs - I refuse to BUY any EA game or others that use that DRM. I played the demo of HAWX and I bought it... great game. But I'm not buying DRMed-make me buy another copy $50 game from anyone. In the course of 2 years, I've had to re-install SuCom 3 times because of PC upgrades or troubleshooting. With some of those titles, I'd be in trouble in the next 1-2 years. Also, game pirating doesn't help. But the amount of people pirating games doesn't equal the amount of people BUYING the console version. IE: Call of Duty 4 a year or so ago, sold under 100,000 units. (Console was over 1million in same time frame) and yet their servers were showing that about 400,000 people were upgrading their COD4 game! That tends to piss off people... so again, development goes down.

4 -
you have a poor grasp on reality
LOL... funny. PC game section at Best Buy, Frys is tiny compared to consoles. PC gaming will never truely die. Upstarts will do PC games (lower overhead than consoles) but will migrate to consoles or get bought out by EA. So PC gaming will be like Amiga computers... there are thousands of people still using Amigas or AmigaOS as their primary computer saying "We're not dead"... yeah, they are. Theres millions of Linux users out there, Amiga never had such numbers.

5 - you know... around the 1990, an IBM salesman said "Color graphics and sound" were for game machines. Of course, all PC had was CLI. MAC had GUI, Amiga had sound and fast graphics... it took years for MS to make the Clone have such abilities... and you call Linux such silly names? What do you call SP or revised windows... ALL OSs get upgrades... and a Linux user doesn't HAVE to upgrade their kernels.

The ONLY thing Linux needs is Adobe & Intuit products and things would start to really change. MS-OFFICE has only its "compatiblity" going for it, but how compatible is Office2007 > Office2003? While OpenOffice is far more compatible across all operating systems and has an ISO standard. With the browser becoming THE application and IE losing market share... yeah, Windows can only go down. But it won't die anytime soon. But with luck, maybe 10~20 years it won't be the dominating OS. But I'm not worried about it.

RE: If XP is soo horrible, then...
By Hieyeck on 4/9/2009 9:54:15 AM , Rating: 1
You're both tools.

1. CLI is CLI. Everyone loves it because you can easily compose scripts to automate tasks for you. Everyone hates it cause you have to type so damned much and remember/manpage every single finicky little switch

2. Start > Control Panel > Network Connections
Double-click on the connection to bring up status window.
Click on support tab.
Magic little button called "Repair"

2.5 If you knew ANYTHING about Windows development, you'd know the registry is a holdover from the days of 16-bit OSs. Because people still wanted to run their legacy apps it was carried over. Because it was carried over, developers still used that crappy little shit. Vicious cycle.

3. Have you actually PLAYED UT3? It's UT2K4 with some modern shiny. It's an example of the piss poor creativity in ALL game development, NOT an example of poor PC gaming. And last I checked, UT2K4 is still an active, if not thriving community. You ask where's Halo 3, I ask where's your active patching. I admit that console gaming has a better POTENTIAL for competitive gaming, but it doesn't translate to real numbers as it's hindered by the fact that the games have to be absolutely PERFECT on release, which never happens. TF2 for example - a thriving game by any means, is actively patched and map exploits removed.

In fact, you say PC gaming is dying, yet you still buy games for the PC. A little hypocritical... no doubt the quality of releases have gone down, but console releases don't impress me either.

4. The reality is, you're a little behind the times - but you're not alone, so are companies like EA. Of course in-store sales are falling. Online distribution is much easier, safer, faster. It's already the perfect balance between DRM and ease of use. No disc protections, no hassle. In fact, between formats and computer moves, I literally pack up my Steam folder and drag it over. It even has it's own mechanism to fix itself if the files get corrupted in the move, fixing/re-downloading just the broken parts instead of the whole game. Classic games are being resold in significant numbers thanks to online distribution. If anything, PC gaming is facing a revival.

5. 2K7 > 2K3 is very compatible. Open Office is great... except it's written in Java. Everyone will have their gripes with everything. It's preference. Just like everyone has their preferred browsers.

RE: If XP is soo horrible, then...
By Belard on 4/10/2009 3:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
CLI has it place... and its not that hard. But many things are easier to do with a mouse. But yes many of us use keyboard short cuts (CTRL-V, CTRL-X, etc)

2.5 If you knew ANYTHING about Windows development, you'd know the registry is a holdover from the days of 16-bit OSs.

WTF? And just WHAT 16bit OS are you talking about? Oh yeah, WINDOWS. Mac, Amiga, Linux - 8bit, 16bit, 32bit... nope no registry. MS-DOS didn't use a registry either. So obviously you don't have a clue. And no, if its not that important for "modern" programs, why does new programs still use it? You see, with OLD "16bit" OSs like Mac and Amigas, to delete a PROGRAM you no longer want, you THREW IT IN TRASH or DELETED the folder. Thats it. Not dozens or hundreds of registy links.

3. Have you actually PLAYED UT3? It's UT2K4

I bought UT99, UT2003/2004 and UT3. UT3 is new tech that is well made, but map design is crap and they took out Vec zoom control so you can see what you're shooting at. But a guy has made a VecZoom module that works... makes UT3 fun.

In fact, you say PC gaming is dying, yet you still buy games for the PC. A little hypocritical...

And yes, PC gaming is dying - doesn't mean I have to NOT buy a game I want to play... nothing hyprocritical about that.

2K7 > 2K3
If you create a Power Point file with 2007 and want to edit and such, the templates are not the same... the file formats are not the same. But that is not too unexpected... its moving forward and no reason to blame Microsoft on that.

RE: If XP is soo horrible, then...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2009 11:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
Its pretty much right up there with XP/Vista and its easily newer than XP.

And it can't run a SINGLE piece of one of dozens of software titles I use on a daily basis. Not to mention can't play games.

But hey it's okay, I'll tell my guild tomorrow night I can't make the Naxxaramas raid because some Linux fan on DT said PC gaming is dying ! :)

You Linux guys just don't get it. I'm glad you like it, I completely 100% mean that. But there is something you just don't get, Linux is NOT ready for prime time on the desktop. Anyone saying it's "right up there with Vista/7" isn't even being remotely honest with themselves or realistic at all.

I know I know, spoken like a true 'M$ loser'. That's another thing ! Know what the worst part of Linux is ? It's condescending, patronizing, and egotistical fan base and community. You keep giving the OS a bad name. Like anyone who picks Windows because it's the obvious choice for an OS in the REAL WORLD ( duh ! ), is some kind of idiot who's too stupid or lazy to use Linux.

Personally I think you're all a bunch of fuking geeks who get off on keeping a draconic OS up to date on desktops so you can feel good about yourselves.

RE: If XP is soo horrible, then...
By Belard on 4/10/2009 3:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
And it can't run a SINGLE piece of one of dozens of software titles I use on a daily basis. Not to mention can't play games.

Same here... hence, I don't use Linux either. Oh I could do the emulation thingy, but blah... not worth the bother.

But I am saying, try out Linux on its LiveCD, no installation required.

draconic OS? Linux is more elegant... but I agree with you on the geek factor. It is why Linux is NOT the dominating desktop. They've spent years doing in-fighting and also fighting to creat a "standard" that would allow it to be a desktop that anyone could work with. Like DUH, agree on a desktop standard that endusers and business people can workwith - then KEEP your 100 flavors for your own uses. Ubuntu seems to be doing a GOOD job of doing that.

Another dumb move from Microsoft
By Chiisuchianu on 4/7/2009 1:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
This is yet another dumb move that will slow down progress in the market of computers. Just like still making 32bit versions of Windows 7 is a dumb move that's just keeping us in the past for absolutely no reason. People love to stick with what's familiar, even if the newer thing has more advantages.

RE: Another dumb move from Microsoft
By TomZ on 4/7/2009 2:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ironic that you would post this comment on an article about netbooks. Netbooks are a perfect environment for a 32-bit OS, since they are memory-constrained. Applications and OS components require more memory if they are compiled for 64 bits, so running 32-bit software on a netbook makes a lot of sense.

Bottom line, there's nothing inherently "bad" about 32-bit Windows. The only question is whether you need more than 4GB of RAM - that's where 64-bit shows a real benefit.

By Chiisuchianu on 4/9/2009 1:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
I believe you are misinformed. 64-bit does not REQUIRE more memory, it has the capability to access more memory. Like I said, 32-bit anything is worthless.

By tehbiz on 4/7/2009 11:31:04 AM , Rating: 2
just so i understand, can i use my vista key to install windows xp? or do i have to call MS support? or do i just have to buy xp again?

RE: so..
By Belard on 4/7/2009 12:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
If you bought your desktop or notebook with Vista Business Edition AND the company supports that product with drivers, then XP-PRO is free.

Lenovo ThinkPad & ThinkCenters easily do this.
Some DELL and HP business models allow this.

Home computers don't or there isn't driver support (notebooks) which would make the computer useless.

If your computer is a desktop, you can buy XP-MCE for $115 at newegg. The audio & network onboard will be the biggest problem... unless you built your own computer.

Best feature in Vista
By StraightPipe on 4/7/2009 12:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
The new Volume Control.

Hands down the best feature. You can control volume per appllication instead of per sound type. Now I dont have to hear Windows sounds blow out my speakers every time I reboot.


RE: Best feature in Vista
By Spivonious on 4/7/2009 4:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
And that's only possible because MS rewrote the entire sound system in Vista.

It's amazing how many people think Vista is XP with a shiny interface.

Simple Question....
By makots on 4/7/2009 12:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
Why isn't Microsoft allowing users to directly upgrade to Windows 7 from XP instead of having to install Vista first. Many companies are not going to like having to use Vista at all even as a temporary measure.

RE: Simple Question....
By PitViper007 on 4/7/2009 1:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
The question is why would you want to? Too many things that work fine in XP will not work after an upgrade to Win7. The best thing to do is back up your data, then do a clean install. MS is allowing you to use the Win7 Upgrade for a clean install from XP, just not an in-place upgrade. From a tech standpoint, which is the viewpoint I look at it from, it makes lots of sense.

Dump it.
By Whaaambulance on 4/7/2009 11:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
I have been using Win7 beta for quite some time now, on several different hardware configurations. It runs smooth on any level of hardware I have used it with.

By Microsoft offering XP to people at this stage, it is hurting the industry as a whole. This is mainly because it's removing the need to upgrade software/hardware.

Microsofts actions on this front, don't tell the consumer that they are confident in their product and could easily let Win7 slip into the same negative public light that Vista did.

It reminds me of legacy devices on a motherboard. Do we still want to take up precious space for that printer port?.........

RE: Dump it.
By 67STANG on 4/7/2009 11:48:28 AM , Rating: 1
Problem is that any business that has a product that is profitable, wants the profit. The margin is huge on XP as it sells at a comparable price to Vista, and has next to no maintenance to do as far as development on the backend, save for hotfixes/security patches. It's almost pure profit. With Netbooks, the market is especially still there.

The bottom line is that Microsoft is still making money off of XP. They'll pull it when it makes fiscal sense.

Screw them
By Etern205 on 4/7/2009 5:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft needs to kill of XP because supporting a ancient OS is getting ridiculous. Plus with the fact that Vista sucks for some is because they won't accept change.

Similar to Mother Nature, if a animal can't adapt then too bad.

By mechBgon on 4/8/2009 1:09:31 AM , Rating: 2
It's normal Windows licensing policy to grant downgrade rights with an OEM license of the business-oriented versions, e.g. WinXP Pro, Vista Business/Ultimate, and of course Win7 Business/Ultimate. It's about as newsworthy as cars being equipped with traction control.

which many expected to be sent to the OS retirement home long ago.

Microsoft's lifecycle policy is not a mystery. Anyone wanting to know when support for a Microsoft product will expire, or change from one stage to another, can simply look it up:

Here's An Idea...
By DiscipleOfJobs on 4/9/2009 11:47:54 AM , Rating: 2
Okay I'm not even kidding. When was the last time you say the red bulb with that much plastic? This stuff is really starting to get it even melon?

By pwnsweet on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
WTB Less Bloat
By EricMartello on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: WTB Less Bloat
By Zshazz on 4/7/2009 11:27:28 AM , Rating: 4
I still have no idea why people are still complaining about RAM usage.

Dude. It's 2009. 4GB of RAM is $20 after rebate at newegg. That's why they use "so much RAM" ... its because RAM is super cheap and there's no reason not to.

Fine, if you run an old computer, you ought to stick with Windows XP. But modern computers that cost more than $300 have at least 2GB of RAM, and that's if the computer blows. There's no reason that Vista and 7 shouldn't try to preload programs so they start faster and there's no reason they shouldn't be optimized so that their algorithms use more RAM, but produce faster results.

Plus, 7 is less bloated than Vista... it automagically shuts off services that the user doesn't use ... so, basically, it's like having a pre-tweaked service list, standard! I don't know about you, but I find stuff like that extremely satisfying.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By EricMartello on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: WTB Less Bloat
By Zshazz on 4/7/2009 11:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
Nice that you didn't really read my post.

That's the whole thing, it's OPTIMIZED to run FASTER by using MORE RAM.

Hence, why programs are preloaded in Vista. Yeah, it uses more resources, but it ends up with faster program startup. And why not use those resources to boost speed? It's NOT the same as using C# to write a program, and it's not carelessly occupying it.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By EricMartello on 4/7/2009 11:57:08 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, vista has an application preloading feature which can help speed app load times, but a well-designed OS would be so snappy that the applications would load fast without relying on a preload crutch. Granted, it's not the OS's fault that many applications nowadays are just as bloated.

The reference to C# with flew over your head is in regards to the emergence of the "managed language developer" who focuses on making applications faster using a point-and-click interface and minimal skill, rather than hand coding something intelligently (which would take longer but would yield a resulting application that runs faster and uses less resources).

uTorrent vs Azureus is a great example of intelligently-coded vs bloat, Azureus being the bloat.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By Zshazz on 4/7/2009 12:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
That's crazy. Do you even have a clue what you're saying?

The time the OS contributes to loading a program is in the single-digit milliseconds (if not microseconds) ... the best OS possible would be unable to speed up an average application loading time beyond .1% ... not only completely unnoticeable, it'd be nearly unmeasurable due to the natural fluctuations that tests give.

The limiting factor of application loading performance is purely "how fast it can be put into memory"... there are 2 ways to minimize it. A: You get a faster hard drive (or switch to SSDs). B: You preload parts of the program in RAM, so it's already there.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'd rather spend $20 on 4GB of RAM and get a large increase in application loading performance than spend $200 on an SSD and get a large increase (which will be slightly slower in some cases) in application loading performance.

Also, the reference to C# didn't fly over my head. However, I think you don't understand OS development/general computer science enough to realize how absurd the comparison is. C# is slower in performance PERIOD. What we're talking about is various techniques to accomplish a task, which have their positives and negatives. XP's app loading: Slow, but doesn't use RAM. Vista's app loading: Very fast, but consumes RAM (which doesn't matter anymore because it's cheap). The net result is that Vista's app loading is BETTER in today's world.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By phatboye on 4/7/2009 12:04:39 PM , Rating: 1
The problem with your argument is that Vista does not run faster than XP, even with the extra memory usage. I wouldn't mind if Vista truly did use more memory is order to have a faster overall OS but as any XP to Vista benchmark can verify (other than maybe a DX9 to DX10 benchmark) XP is still faster than Vista.

I'm not hating on MS either so don't vote me down, I could run a full blown GNU/Linux box or Win XP with 512MB ram and an older single core cpu just fine. If Vista was so optimized then it should be able to do the same or better.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By Belard on 4/7/2009 12:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
Lets see...
MS Word loads up in 2 seconds (the first time) with XP-MCE on my Q6600@ 3.0Ghz. After that, it loads in a split second. Sooo... lets make the user wait another 30+ seconds to load up apps that he may or maynot use.

With the web browser being the most used tool, thats about the only pre-load app to be considered... or give it user options.

Lets... oh yeah, we can do that with XP! Drag an item into the START UP Menu (something we've been done with Amiga and Macs long before Windows came along) and it'll start right up. I have Windows Explorer in there, since I always use that... I could drop Opera in there... but I don't always use it.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By TomZ on 4/7/2009 2:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather have Vista or Windows 7 pre-load apps into RAM, rather than having the RAM sit idle. There's marginal benefit there, and besides, Windows still considers that RAM as being free in case an application needs it. Where's the downside?

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By Garreye on 4/7/2009 8:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
Sooo... lets make the user wait another 30+ seconds to load up apps that he may or maynot use.

So you think Vista just randomly loads programs into memory? Do some reading before you make assumptions. Vista monitors usage patterns and loads the most commonly used programs into ram when it thinks you will need them in the near future:

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By Belard on 4/8/2009 4:40:34 AM , Rating: 3
I didn't say it was random.

Perhaps if vista wasn't SO bloated, it wouldn't need suck up more resources of the user to try and make itself "faster". Readyboost, Superfetch... all signs of failed tools for a crappy design. Look at their own data.

Readyboost a stupid... Wow, shove in a slow flash drive to make a 512mb PC a bit faster... when buying 1-2GB of more ram would be cheaper and make a far bigger difference. And of course the wasted HD space and resources used to run it... or wasted HD space when you don't.

With todays fast hardare... good code makes a difference.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By TomZ on 4/8/2009 9:56:02 AM , Rating: 2
That logic makes no sense. Superfetch allows applications to load faster than XP. How does that prove that Vista is bloated?

Readyboost really only makes sense for RAM-constrained machines. Adding more RAM - for machines where that is possible - will be better than using Readyboost. But again, how does this "prove" that Vista is bloated. You're not making any sense.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By Belard on 4/8/2009 11:51:16 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah it does. Considering HOW fast Hard drives and multi-core processors, a well written and non-bloated software will load up quickly. If you even read the article in that response, you'd have some clues. A very basic example of bloat. Notepad is a 69K program, its very featureless. A text file editor I used on my Amiga back in the 90s is 17K, it has more menu options than MS-Word 2000 (most of them, functions) and does things I've yet to see on a Windows platform. For 1990, its undo history and search abilities made the "notepad" in MS-DOS look like a Wagon missing its horses. Yeah 69K is nothing, but apply that to ALL that is windows, how big is your registry? In XP, mine is 72mb. 72MB for what is basiclly a text file with all your settings and keys? Windows is the ONLY OS that has a registry. Its complicated and idiotic by design... sure its neat that you can change things in the OS with the reg, but you have to dig deep and know what you're looking for. On other computers, you go to the settings of the app or tool you want to mess with. A startup-sequence file on an Amiga was about 5k. And while a 1988~94 computer like that is VERY OLD - those computers actually have the ability to surf the internet. (I wouldn't want to) So if your reg file gets corrupt, what happens to your computer? Why do you think its such a mess with malware programs?

Here's part of that article:
Repopulating the SuperFetch buffer is a time and disk intensive process; think about how long it takes to copy 1GB of data off of your disk and you'll have a good idea of how long it will take for SuperFetch to recover evicted data.

Remember, Vista is using up disk and CPU resouces that make it sluggish to run "faster". My XP box feels far more responsive than a vista system. And some of the things they are doing with Win7 is reducing bloat (that is what MS says they're doing). I loaded up Photoshop7 just now, almost 5 seconds from click to functionality. When I restarted it again, almost 3seconds.

Why do you think people love SSD drives for Vista? It actually makes Vista a dream to work.

Then you said:
Readyboost really only makes sense for RAM-constrained machines.

If you read that article... Readyboost is a joke. Why spend $5~10 (nowadays) for a 1~2GB flash key that will be sticking out of your computer AND will eventually die from usage (Flash drives, like SSD have a limited write life cycle) when a person can buy a 2GBs for $20? When Vista was new, 1GB of RAM was about $100. A 512mb Flash drive was $20~30. And as shown in the article, Readyboost is ONLY MARGINALLY useful with 512mb Vista Computers. 1GB if DDR2 is faster than 512mb of DDR2 + 1~4GB of FlashDrive - then its a useless performance feature, considering that a cheap $350PC has 3GB of RAM.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By TomZ on 4/9/2009 9:37:19 AM , Rating: 2
Again, you make no sense. You complain about the so-called "problem" of bloated executables, and then claim that is the fault of the operating system? Sorry, but the operating system does not cause executables to be large.

I also don't buy your argument about the registry being such a serious problem. There's nothing wrong with the idea of a registry. Consider the alternative - storing configuration information in files. In that case, each application developer needs to invent their own format, figure out where to store the files. And you have the same problem - if those configuration files get wiped or corrupted, bad things are going to happen to your computer.

At least with a centralized registry, application developers can use its organization easily, and the user can easily back up all their settings because they are all in one place.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By TomZ on 4/7/2009 2:28:50 PM , Rating: 1
This kind of McDeveloper "hay look mom i can program in C# because i'm so smart" mentality leads to sloppy, inefficient coding
All you managed to accomplish with that statement is to demonstrate your gross ignorance about C#. Hello McFly - it's 2009 - managed execution is not significantly slower or more memory-consuming than native executables. I've done a lot of development in C++ and C# on Windows, and the C# apps are every bit as fast as the C++ ones, from a user's perspective.

If you carefully benchmarked them, a C++ application might be a tiny bit faster, but the developer gains to be had using C# over C++ are significant (25-40%). This allows you to write better, cleaner code and/or to deliver more functionality per unit of time. The language and underlying framework is more evolved. These benefits far outweigh a few % increase of CPU performance or a few MB of memory. No contest.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By phatboye on 4/7/2009 5:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
and the C# apps are every bit as fast as the C++ ones, from a user's perspective.

I call BS on that line.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By TomZ on 4/8/2009 9:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
Call what you want. A few years back when .NET 2.0 was in beta, we re-wrote a couple of C++ apps in C# targeting .NET 2.0. Our customers were thrilled with the outcome because performance was great, and it was quicker and easier and cheaper for us to add new features.

Since then, we've never looked back. We're written and sold a number of C#-based applications. I can't imagine writing another C++ application ever again.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By Mitch101 on 4/7/2009 12:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
I have no idea why people are still complaining about Vista but thats fine. Microsoft is giving people the option of still using XP. Really this is about finding the OS that works best for you be it Linux, Apple, XP, Vista, or Windows 7 and Microsoft seems to be supporting if you really prefer XP still over Vista or Windows 7. There is no denying XP is certainly a great OS for older and even newer hardware and drive support is by far the greatest ever.

Kudos to Microsoft maybe they realize that this is better than forcing people to upgrade to the newest OS for whatever reasons. Recognizing that XP is still a major cash cow that can still rake in the dosh is good buisness sense. Fine you dont like Vista/Windows 7 you can certainly use XP still. Its smart for Microsoft to do this as it keeps thier user base from moving to Apple or Linux. Someone in Redmon is definatly thinking options are a good thing.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By MrTeal on 4/7/2009 11:34:04 AM , Rating: 2
Given that Vista came out 6 years after XP, you can hardly fault Vista for using more RAM than XP. Keep in mind you can by 4GB of RAM for half the price you would have paid in 2001 for a 1GB kit.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By Belard on 4/7/2009 12:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
But when Vista first came out, 4GB of RAM was about $200.
When I setup about 12 computers for a clint when vista was about 6 months old, we easily went with XP.
1 - Total cost for the systems would have gone up to $3500 for more CPU and memory requirements.
2 - Some of the software they use wasn't compatible with vista (still isn't)

So for a company with about 1000+ computers, thats a huge hit for a flashy OS that doesn't do a thing for them. For your typical home user, as long as the memory or CPU is good, fine.

But even today, there are vista users who say positive things about vista and say "some problems here or there", in which if it was an XP system, no problems.

So yes, thank vista for making RAM cheap, but also blame vista fore requiring so much more ram because of sloppy developement for bloated OS.

For the amount of memory and resources, vista does do anything that XP can't. Okay DX10 which MS did on purpose. Whatever...

4GB of RAM is $25 nowadays. Any new Win7 box should be 4GB with 64bit version of the OS as STANDARD. The XP boxes I build (or buy) or setup for customers today have 4GB of RAM because its so cheap... and for use of Win7.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By fatedtodie on 4/7/2009 12:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
Except if you do a Total Cost of Ownership between a XP machine and a Vista machine over the lifespan of the computer the Vista one will be less (Ignore that idiot state legislator in Texas he is a moron luddite). It isn't just that 90% of programs are designed to work fine with Vista it is that it is the current OS, (also if you didn't take note "regular" support for XP ends next week and it begins extended support (basically they hire even dumber people to help you when you call tech support).

So you advised him to buy old crap that he will need to upgrade next year anyway... you are awesome. Wait, I think I meant moronic rather than awesome.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By Belard on 4/8/2009 4:23:56 AM , Rating: 1
TCO between a XP machine and a Vista machine over the lifespan of the computer the Vista one will be less

Based on what? Figures need to be based on long term use of deployed vista systems and include costs for training, etc. The TCO of use XP until Windows7 is going to be less than XP > Vista > Win 7. That includes licencing costs, deployment, R&D, hardware upgrades and training.

If a company deployed Vista a year ago (that didn't happen much), they paid out the nose for the memory and complaints. If a company is looking to do it now, just before Win7, they'd be foolish.

It isn't just that 90% of programs are designed to work fine with Vista it is that it is the current OS,

Where do you get your 90% figures from? Mainstream programs, not a problem. But many business rely on software that may costs thousands of dollars... and they can be 100% SURE than XP can run 99+% of the software out there. Keep in mind, now that Vista's growing pains are pretty much done, Win7 is around the corner.

(also if you didn't take note "regular" support for XP ends next week and it begins extended support (basically they hire even dumber people to help you when you call tech support

Who the hell calls MS for support? Business call their IT department or their computer guy or Geek Squad (LOL). Whoopie, extended suppot - XP will continue to get FREE security updates for the next 5 years. What more does XP need? There are plenty of 3rd party toys that anyone can add to XP at any time... Want XP to look like vist, no problem - takes about 5~10 minutes.

So you advised him to buy old crap that he will need to upgrade next year anyway... you are awesome. Wait, I think I meant moronic rather than awesome.

What are you talking about? The $3500 savings with 12 PCs?
The guy was using Windows98 on computers I built in 2001, before XP came out, other than 1 PC - all those Celeron700s with 64/128mb of RAM lasted until they were replaced with smaller, cheaper and much faster XP boxes last year. Now that memory is cheaper and if he cares to go to Win7, he can add memory cheaply. Besides, were you there to offer to pay the $3500 difference in hardware costs + somehow develop his software to work with Vista?

In many business, what people do is enter data, save it, look at data and perhaps some web browsing. A 1GB XP box is more than enough to get THAT job done. A 3~4GB PC to replace it such a computer is as stupid as it sounds.

I already stated that new PCs I build have 4GB of RAM, even an ex-GF of mine bought 4GB for her new quad-core XP system. Memory is cheap and Win7 will make use of it.

You DON'T know the requirements of what other people use thier computers for. Face it, vista isn't required or demanded by most. Hell... look at NASA with their space-craft computers. Those CPUs are highly specialized and they sure as hell not running any form of MS operating system to drive these things... if they did, our probes would total miss Mars and crashed into Ur-anus.

Understand this concept: I and others wanted Vista to be better than XP in everyway. Microsoft didn't deliver. I know it, Corps around the world know that and even Microsoft knows that.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By Darkness Flame on 4/7/2009 12:04:25 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. When XP came out, 1GB of RAM was a royalty to have. Most people's computers had 128-256 MB of RAM, and if they're lucky and had a new one at the time, maybe 512 MB. It was very rare to see computers with more than that. However, any person who uses XP for more than one year will notice it slowing down if it only has 1 GB of RAM, unless you know how to clean up after yourself.

When Vista came out, most computers in the past year or so were being sold with around 1 GB of RAM. Sure, Vista wasn't the fastest thing ever on 1 GB of RAM, but it's no slower than XP with 256 MB of it.

As operating systems like Windows XP, and Vista come out, they drive the hardware market forward. All the old machines need replacing, and the recent machines need upgrades. That, drives sales, and the sales drive the economy.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By leexgx on 4/11/2009 2:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
xp will work fine with 1gb of ram its more when its only got 512mb or less you see perfoamce loss (if you are gameing then 2gb is needed more norm does not give any benerfits), you need to open an large program to hit 1gb on XP like an game or an picture editing program

Vista you need 1gb to make the OS work ok (but slow as i found out today waiting 30 mins to do an 10 min task) 2gb if you want to run like XP and gameing you should have 3-4gb of ram as your pc will page like mad with 2gb of ram as there is only around 800MB left on an 2gb system on most pcs i have seen running vista

other note SSD makes most of the speed problems go away on vista due to its Low access time, as long as its one of the SSDs that are SLC or MLC with cache on them OCZ Vertex or any based of the Indilinx on the SSD are good (JMicron are bad for the time been untill they bring there new chips out)

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By aebiv on 4/7/2009 11:58:58 AM , Rating: 2
Running on a Core Duo @ 2ghz, x1600, 5400rpm 120gb drive, and 1gb of DDR, Vista Ultimate never gave me issues. It sure has benefited since I upgrade to 2gb of RAM, but ran fine before.

My laptop origionally came with XP, and I've reinstalled XP a few times in the past when I've misplaced my Vista DVD. I don't understand why people thing it is so bloated. Am I the only one that uses the features? I love the fact that I can install Vista and not immediately have to go find all my programs to make the OS half useable.

Progress is good. Vista takes more resources. Get over it people. If you didn't want bloat, go for a w2k install.

W7 though is a great improvement. I'm running it on a different laptop and must say that it is far more efficient.

RE: WTB Less Bloat
By suryad on 4/7/2009 4:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think you just made the point for those people who dislike Vista but like W7 a lot more.

By Alphafox78 on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Downgrade
By Whaaambulance on 4/7/2009 11:32:14 AM , Rating: 3
Ummm.. that has to do with the video drivers, not Windows...

RE: Downgrade
By Alphafox78 on 4/8/2009 12:16:01 PM , Rating: 1
According to Nvidia this is an issue with Vista and DRM and they wont support it any more. So yes, its a driver issue, but its mainly a vista issue. dont ask me why Matrox is able to get a dual head video card to do the horizontal spanning...

Sorry if I angered all those who are on vista, I was running it for over a year before I ran into this monitor issue and had to go back.

RE: Downgrade
By 67STANG on 4/7/2009 11:41:31 AM , Rating: 4
I tried Vista Ulitimate (32) pre-SP1 and was disgusted-- prompting a quick switch back to XP. I installed Vista Ultimate (64) about a month ago with SP1 and I can say I think it's quite a bit faster than XP. It does use a bit more RAM than XP, but it can also address much more. Besides, at $10/GB, who really cares?

I have 8GB of RAM on the way from New Egg for less than $100. I'm pretty sure that should put the final nail in my "ultimate XP fanboy" coffin and get me ready for Windows 7.

RE: Downgrade
By Belard on 4/7/2009 12:36:28 PM , Rating: 1
Well that's the thing...

Vista needs at least 4GB or more to be "speedy"... then you hit that 32/64bit issue. And with 64bit, you need 6~8GB to hit its sweet spot.

So to do the same work performance on an XP box... 1 or 2GB will do just fine. I have 2GB on my XP system, even under heavy use... I rarely use over 1GB.

So yeah, that is the point... 8GB of RAM to do what? Browse the web, use photoshop, type letters and email. Gaming? Gaming is dying on PC, look at the numbers. A crap game will sell millions on a 360/PS3... on the PC, they'd be lucky to sell 50~100K copies for an AA title.

I'm glad that Win7 is looking good... and if its as good as it should be - then XP shouldn't be needed for netbooks.

Actually, Windows7 BASIC will be used for netbooks... not the standard HOME edition. Stupid MS... I hope they change their names... At least they've gone back to "PRO".

Win7 should be these models, ONLY.
Starter = 3rd world 1Ghz systems (whatever)
Basic = Reduced feature set and bloat for netbooks
Home = Desktop (We DON'T need HOME Basic Home Premo!)
Pro = networking, business tools.
Ultimate = for geeks with too much money.
Enterpise = duh.

And all should be 64bit, with 32bit support for older programs.

RE: Downgrade
By omnicronx on 4/7/2009 12:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
Vista 64 pretty much needs at least 4gb, the 32bit version performs exactly the same for me with only 2GB ram.

Unless of course you play games, but I feel these days you need 4gb of ram even on XP to play the latest and greatest.

RE: Downgrade
By Belard on 4/8/2009 3:55:16 AM , Rating: 1
XP can only give an application access to 2GB at the most. There are ways around this, but that creates its own problems.

Only 2-3 games actually make use of 3+ GB of RAM. XP rarely needs more than 1GB for day to day operaions.

"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

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