Bowing to pressure from customers and computer makers, Microsoft plans to keep Windows XP around a little longer.
Large PC manufacturers were slated to have to stop selling XP after January 31. However, they have successfully lobbied Microsoft to allow them to continue selling PCs with all flavors of Windows XP preloaded until June 30, a further five months. Microsoft also plans to keep XP on retail shelves longer and will allow computer makers in emerging markets to build machines with Windows XP Starter Edition until June 2010. The move indicates the continued demand for the older operating system, some nine months after Windows Vista hit store shelves.
"This allows the installed base of Windows XP users more time to manage the transition to Vista, which is important for some smaller companies with limited resources," Paul Moore, senior director of mobile product marketing for Fujitsu, said in a statement.
Dell also said it support's Microsoft's decision. "We believe the additional time will help some customers to prepare for the transition from XP to Vista," the company said in a statement. Microsoft, for its part, sought to downplay the impact of the move, disagreeing with the notion that there is still strong demand for XP.
News source: Cnet News.com
Large PC manufacturers were slated to have to stop selling XP after January 31. However, they have successfully lobbied Microsoft to allow them to continue selling PCs with all flavors of Windows XP preloaded until June 30, a further five months. Microsoft also plans to keep XP on retail shelves longer and will allow computer makers in emerging markets to build machines with Windows XP Starter Edition until June 2010. The move indicates the continued demand for the older operating system, some nine months after Windows Vista hit store shelves.
"This allows the installed base of Windows XP users more time to manage the transition to Vista, which is important for some smaller companies with limited resources," Paul Moore, senior director of mobile product marketing for Fujitsu, said in a statement.
Dell also said it support's Microsoft's decision. "We believe the additional time will help some customers to prepare for the transition from XP to Vista," the company said in a statement. Microsoft, for its part, sought to downplay the impact of the move, disagreeing with the notion that there is still strong demand for XP.
News source: Cnet News.com
Hopefully Vista will come through after Service Pack 1 and finally take the place of Windows XP on reliability.
Hopefully Vista will come through after Service Pack 1 and finally take the place of Windows XP on reliability.
+1, XP is IMO a good OS, which is why people are taking up an "If it ain't broke..." attitude.
However I think Vista may well have to wait until SP2 to displace XP.
I luv XP Pro too much.
I will go on the 'if it aint broken don't fix it' phrase.
the wireless problem continues, something I NEVER had with XP. If you put the computer to sleep, while on a wi-fi
network, wake it up on a different wi-fi network, it either takes forever to recognize that you are on a totally different
network, or, it will connect with "limited connectivity". You either have to turn off the wi-fi or reboot the computer to
fix it. One thing I DID like was the improved sleep mode. Other than the wi-fi problem, which could be a Vista or
Dell problem, I didn't have any problems with Vista, but, I am off & on different wi-fi networks 7-8 times a day and it's too much of a pain to have to turn off the wi-fi or reboot the computer.
It's the fact there is so much crap there - so much is done differently.
Not just different as in "just because its different doesn't mean its bad" - but actually because it's different in a BAD way. Design choices that make no sense, commonly used features REMOVED for no apparent reason, parts dumbed down, intrusive switch to "all search, all the time" interface at the same time making the standard file management a lot less intuitive. Deciding for a user what folders should display, with no easy way to make it stop.
Generic "Access Denied" messages without telling the user as to WHY they are denied (usually new NTFS permissions for folders that don't Administrators full write access to every folder any more).
The list goes on and on for annoying crap. To top it all off, system requirements are about four times higher than for XP.
It's the fact there is so much crap there - so much is done differently.
Not just different as in "just because its different doesn't mean its bad" - but actually because it's different in a BAD way. Design choices that make no sense, commonly used features REMOVED for no apparent reason, parts dumbed down, intrusive switch to "all search, all the time" interface at the same time making the standard file management a lot less intuitive. Deciding for a user what folders should display, with no easy way to make it stop.
Generic "Access Denied" messages without telling the user as to WHY they are denied (usually new NTFS permissions for folders that don't Administrators full write access to every folder any more).
The list goes on and on for annoying crap. To top it all off, system requirements are about four times higher than for XP.
It's the fact there is so much crap there - so much is done differently.
Not just different as in "just because its different doesn't mean its bad" - but actually because it's different in a BAD way. Design choices that make no sense, commonly used features REMOVED for no apparent reason, parts dumbed down, intrusive switch to "all search, all the time" interface at the same time making the standard file management a lot less intuitive. Deciding for a user what folders should display, with no easy way to make it stop.
Generic "Access Denied" messages without telling the user as to WHY they are denied (usually new NTFS permissions for folders that don't Administrators full write access to every folder any more).
The list goes on and on for annoying crap. To top it all off, system requirements are about four times higher than for XP.
Vista represents a new generation of software. The real target audience is a new generation of high school and college students and not those of us in our mid twenties or later. I think the idea with Vista is to copy as much as Unix as possible (permissions, run by default as not admin, caching memory) because they saw the faults with the current design of NT being exposed to daily assaults on the internet. It is true that you could secure a Win2k and XP box but it involved a lot more steps than Vista (and my only claim is that Vista is more secure by default).
As for problems with Vista. I have two. One, network performance when running multiple networks is worrisome. Two, the drivers provided are by default and through vendors leaves much to be desired. The will be addressed in SP1 and is semi workable in the recent hotfixes. The second is not really Microsoft's fault. Businesses are being required to write better drivers and many are simply not up to the task (at least in x64). They also have to keep profits in mind, and this often requires them to abandon the current range of hardware every four years. An example would be Visioneer no longer offering a driver compatible with Vista for my 9020 scanner.
Overall I am sort of satisfied with Vista. It is slight more stable, has better power management, a workable search, a nice mainline interface and a number of options that simply were not available in XP. That being said after having used it since the release date I do get a little nostalgic for the classic interface and a more simplified approach that the earlier NT releases took (less services, less registry activity, and yes, less resources consumed overall).
It's the fact there is so much crap there - so much is done differently.
Not just different as in "just because its different doesn't mean its bad" - but actually because it's different in a BAD way. Design choices that make no sense, commonly used features REMOVED for no apparent reason, parts dumbed down, intrusive switch to "all search, all the time" interface at the same time making the standard file management a lot less intuitive. Deciding for a user what folders should display, with no easy way to make it stop.
Generic "Access Denied" messages without telling the user as to WHY they are denied (usually new NTFS permissions for folders that don't Administrators full write access to every folder any more).
The list goes on and on for annoying crap. To top it all off, system requirements are about four times higher than for XP.
It's the fact there is so much crap there - so much is done differently.
Not just different as in "just because its different doesn't mean its bad" - but actually because it's different in a BAD way. Design choices that make no sense, commonly used features REMOVED for no apparent reason, parts dumbed down, intrusive switch to "all search, all the time" interface at the same time making the standard file management a lot less intuitive. Deciding for a user what folders should display, with no easy way to make it stop.
Generic "Access Denied" messages without telling the user as to WHY they are denied (usually new NTFS permissions for folders that don't Administrators full write access to every folder any more).
The list goes on and on for annoying crap. To top it all off, system requirements are about four times higher than for XP.
+4
Glassed Silver:mac
It is obvious that Microsoft has little interest in XP. It won't matter what consumers think and, or expect. The only two things guiding them are market dynamics and corporate America. The XP OS had a good life from 2001 to 2007. A full six years. This would be like having Windows 95 fully supported in the year 2001.
It is simply time to move on whether that be Vista, Linux, OSX or some other OS of your choice.
I'll admit that microsoft made an annoying move by removing several useful tools from the system but it is definatly the future of Windows. The way they marketed it; with "Flip3D" as the front page selling point and overhyping its release is the reason why it has been recieved badly by some; in my opinion at least. However, this does not mean that the OS itself is poor. If they had said something similar to "the underlying code has been re-done to provide a more secure system" and left out alot of the "You can make it have a Sidebar!!!" it would've been seen much better.
Some points people seem to forget:
The abilities of the removed items can normally be achieved in alternate ways if you're in desperate need for them. e.g. File context menus->Registry edit.
People seem to forget UAC can be turned off.
Newer OSs nearly always require newer hardware.
Vista is pre-SP1 - XP is SP2. Compare the pre SP version of XP to Vista and you'll see how much worse XP was at this stage.
Drivers are for other companies hardware; the reason there are fewer is because Vista hasn't been around for 6 years.
Finally, new hardware and software will slowly force XP out as the OS will be unable to support it when its development stops, despite efforts by XP entusiasts for its continuation. That'll be when XP "is broke" and needs to "be fixed" with Vista for those still wanting a Windows OS. Rather than complaining that XP is better, they'd be better off suggesting or coding improvements for vista to make their lives happier when they're finally forced to change.
I use Vista on this one computer at work and it's tiresome. It's so unintuitive and makes me feel like everything is more complicated than it needs to be. I end up going back to the XP ones.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.