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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments     Threshold

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmm...sounds familiar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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