Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Not Ditching Vista Until At Least 2011
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon May 04, 2009 06:21 PM
from the contrary-to-rumors dept.
from the contrary-to-rumors dept.
CWmike writes "Microsoft will not dump Vista when Windows 7 launches, and plans to keep selling it to computer makers, system builders, volume licensees and consumers at retail until at least January 2011, a Microsoft spokesman said, citing long-running policy. Earlier today, a Microsoft general manager hinted that the company might ditch Vista as soon as Windows 7 ships. He also said that support for all versions of Vista will end in April 2012. Neither is true, according to the company. Michael Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, said, 'to try to stop Vista or make it unavailable, that would just draw attention... The truth is, few people will be likely to order it once Windows 7 is available.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Millenium 2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Well remember MS continued to offer Millenium until 2003 even though XP launched in 2001. Offering and actually selling are two different things, I know I never heard of anyone buying Millenium after XP shipped.
Re:Millenium 2 (Score:5, Funny)
"I know I never heard of anyone buying Millenium after XP shipped."
I did, my computer illiterate aunt. Some time ago, after years of letting them simmer I fixed some parts of their computer. That'll teach 'm not to listen.
But the computer salesman was such a nice guy. Much better than the shop I was pushing. Well, to be fair, that computer was not worth XP. It was a match made by the devil.
Parent
Re:Millenium 2 (Score:5, Funny)
Hey genius, it's "I have." I have heard of someone buying ME after XP shipped. Not I did heard of someone buying ME after XP shipped.
Unless you misplaced a comma and meant to say, "I did my computer illiterate aunt." Which all I have to say is 0_o That's some payment for working on her computer.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If by "features" you mean "lines of code forged by the devil himself," then yes. Or so I've heard.
Re:Millenium 2 (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing like disk caching and virtual memory that'll fight each other while eating up the RAM and disk space.
ME could be thought of as the Retarded Cannibal Edition... the cannibal that eats itself.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Are their any Millenium Editon computers on the network?" Yes? "Unplug them." Problems solved.
That'll be $100
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I bought a Sony P3-600 64MB laptop around 200/2001 or so that shipped with ME. Jesus Christ, I never had so many headaches trying to get a computer to work and not crash. It was like an early version of Vista, it ate memory like a hog eating slop. I blew the ME install away after only one week and installed windows 2000. Best move I could have made. Win2k ran great on just 64MB and when upgraded to 256MB it flew.
Re:Millenium 2 (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the difference was that WinME was DOS/Windows based and Win2K was NT based so there was little in common. Windows 7 is basically Vista SP3 so it's the same core. That makes this news even more of a dah moment and a WTF cares kind of news item. They won't continue _forcing_ OEMs to ship Vista but will let them sell to any sucker who bought their snakeoil sales pitches and asks for it.
LoB
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
>>>Windows 7 is basically Vista SP3 so it's the same core.
I think that diminishes the changes that have been made. XP == Windows NT 5. Vista == Windows NT 6. Windows 7 == Window NT 7. Each one is a different generation from the previous.
Re:Millenium 2 (Score:5, Informative)
Are you sure that's right?
I thought it was:
Windows NT 4 = Windows NT 4
Windows 2000 = Windows NT 5
Windows XP = Windows NT 5.1
Windows Vista = Windows NT 6
Windows 7 = Windows NT 6.1
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, it reports its version as 6.1 for compatibility reasons. How many times does this need to be said?
They should make is 5.2, that would make it even more compatible. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I had a computer that wouldn't run 2k or XP (or 98!) but would run 95 and ME. That computer is gone now... (It wouldn't boot linux either.)
Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>It pisses me off that I won't get the Vista Service Pack (Windows 7) for free.
What a stupid comment. I bought Win98 and nobody gave me a free upgrade to XP (Windows 5). Later I bought to an XP-PC and nobody offered me a free upgrade to Vista (Windows 6). Why do you think you're entitled to get a free upgrade to a totally new OS (Win7), if Microsoft never gave free upgrades for previous OSes?
Wow. Talk about "entitlement generation" - you fit the profile perfectly. Sorry but you're going to j
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
What you say:
Wow. Talk about "entitlement generation" - you fit the profile perfectly. Sorry but you're going to just have to pay, same as I paid for my previous OS upgrades. The real world doesn't hand-out free lunches.
What your sig says:
My $7 per month dialup connection can download TORCHWOOD in just three hours! Who needs broadband internet? (wink)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
His problem right there is 512mb of RAM. That's simply not enough for Vista. It's marginally enough for XP. Increasing RAM requirements is nothing new. When I had Windows 3.1 my computer had 2MB of RAM. I remember running Windows 95 on 16MB. Windows 98 I started at 64MB. When I finally moved to Windows 2000 I moved up to 256MB and my friends thought I was just showing off with such an insane amount. The simple fact is that Vista needs 1GB minimum to run even acceptably. 2GB would be better (my home
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting.
If Microsoft does something incremental (eg. 2000 -> XP, or Vista -> 7), people complain that too little has changed, that it's basically just a "service pack" which Microsoft is charging money for.
If Microsoft does something too radical (eg. XP -> Vista), people complain that too much has changed, that they should have just touched up XP a bit, given it a visual makeover and a few core updates and that would have been enough.
Conclusion - Microsoft can't win. At least with the fussy pricks on Slashdot.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So if Microsoft fucks up and creates a piece of shit, you call that producing something radical?
If Microsoft releases the exact same OS with a few minor changes and a different theme, you consider that a completely new OS deserving of more money?
Conclusion - we look at it as above, differently to you. You seem to accept whatever Microsoft tells you, we look at the actual product and make our own decision. So someone who actually looks at the product is fussy in your book.
And before someone says that we jump
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is scary is those videos are showing the head of one of the most powerful fortune 500 companies. The guy comes off as a cross between a used car salesman and a self help guru. And the microsoft shills can mark anything negative about Ballmer as flamebait ALL you want, I have enough karma I really don't give a shit.
What I DO give a shit about is a company (MSFT) that I have been supporting for nearly 15 years has been run into the ground by the piss poor management and direction of Ballmer. Ever since he took over the company has been hopping from one idea to the next like it has ADHD, while its CORE market, the business and enterprise desktop, has been all but ignored as Ballmer has chased the home users in his attempt to be as hip as Jobs. Vista is a complete and total failure, the Xbox 360 has been hemorrhaging cash, their attempts to get into search and the cloud have been disasters....hell can you name me ONE thing besides MS Office, which from what I've read has basically been left alone by Ballmer, that hasn't been a failure under Ballmer? I bet you can't. He is simply a lousy CEO.
The company has lost focus and direction, they are for some reason chasing a market that they already have a lock on (home users) while at the same time risking the market (business) that could most easily switch to another OS like OSX or Linux. I could fill this post with links of many saying the exact same thing as this, but why bother? Everytime I have dared say Ballmer is a bad CEO or that Win7 risks going down the Vista road of failure I have had the post marked up only to have it then buried under flamebait or troll for daring to say Win7 has no clothes [infoworld.com]. So mark me down ALL you want. MSFT will keep losing market share and Ballmer will keep stumbling from one failed idea to another, until finally the board gets tired of the waste and fires his dumb ass.
By completely destroying backwards compatibility and not bothering to give a transition period (As Apple did with OS9-OSX) they have screwed the one thing that has kept businesses buying their product-the fact that their old apps will continue to function. His answer of "Running XP in VPC" for Win7 is about as lame and pointless as you can get. Whereas with OS9->OSX you could still run your apps because it was close to the bare metal and simply used a translation layer, with Win7 those apps that companies depend on will have the choice of running slower than before or being broken. And mark my words, screwing up all those apps and screwing all that hardware by not supporting XP drivers WILL come back to bite them in the ass with Win7, just as it did with Vista.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I'm an Open Source advocate as well and I use Linux and OpenBSD... However lumping together Windows 2000 and Windows ME is just not fair. Windows 2000 was pretty much their best operating system ever, and Windows ME their worst. Just in case you didn't know: Windows 2000, meant for the business world and used in the business world was a big hit. It was and is still very popular in corporate environments.
Windows XP has exactly three things that make it "better" than 2000: Fast user switching, good wireless support and terminal services (only in Pro). The first and the second are good for home use, the terminal services only for business use.
Windows 2000 is used to this day in controlled secured environments.... I wouldn't call it unsuccessful in any sense of the term.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first and the second are good for home use, the terminal services only for business use.
Oh, man, you have no idea. I use RDP and terminal services daily around the house. Until I found mpd and Pitchfork, it was how my music machine ran. I still use RDP to another old computer that runs my IRC and Pidgin stuff (VNC and NX ran like shit, but RDP was fine, so RDP it was).
Terminal services is a vastly underappreciated piece of awesome.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait let me get this straight?
You take a very low bandwidth, plain text protocol and then you use it over Remote Desktop which sends images flying around the network?
You flipping idiot. :P
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now answer this question: why do I give a fuck how much bandwidth it uses? The cost of bandwidth up to my cap is zero, and I don't use Bittorrent so I never even come close to the cap.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can confirm that Windows 2000 was quite popular in corporate environments. But it had no cheap "Home" version, so GP may have gotten the impression that it was unsuccessful from not seeing much Windows 2000 use on home PCs.
But even in that environment, some people happily pirated and used it. Of course, the same people also have no qualms about pirating XP, and by now hardware vendors often don't bother with Windows 2000 drivers anymore. Which makes the Windows XP Corporate Edition more desirable these da
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The geek's obsession with activation can be really puzzling to others. ;-)
We geeks have a strong aversion against giving up control of our toys
That includes wanting to reinstall the OS when we feel like it, without asking someone for permission. And the typical geek does this more frequently than every 8 years.
Parent
Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
They may drop the support for consumer versions and keep the business ones available. Sounds logical to me, for consumers there is very little reason to stick to Windows Vista for new systems. Those companies that did switch (the sorry sods) however will need new systems with the same OS.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people do.
I'm pretty sure if you hang around nuclear weapons enough, you could very well get killed with no other humans being involved...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know it might look like it's a service pack, because for the first time since 2003, it's a release that's an improvement on their previous OS, and the only other times they've released stuff that's improved a previous OS have been service packs, which makes it very easily confused... but it's still not a service pack.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Conclusion: You're a giant idiot.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, to be fair, the Open Source community has produced Ubuntu 9.04, which is probably one of the best operating systems ever made.
I don't know if I'd call that fumbling exactly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Erm... Microsoft's like, a business, an entity, that can have policy, direction, a road map, and can make decisions. "Linux" isn't... so... your post makes no sense. If your argument is really "people shouldn't disagree and should all just use the same system" then... that would be Windows. The whole point is that it isn't that.
Nothing exclusive to Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem here is that the successful Linux app is ported to Windows or begins as a native Windows app.
There is no compelling reason to migrate.
Two-Way Street (Score:2)
plans to keep selling it to computer makers, system builders, volume licensees and consumers at retail until at least January 2011
Of course, for them to keep selling it, requires that people actually buy it in the first place.
2012 (Score:5, Funny)
He also said that support for all versions of Vista will end in April 2012
End of the world prophecies in 2012 - coincidence? I think not.
Obviously Microsoft will only stop pushing Vista at the behest of the four horsemen.
But what about their other great OS? (Score:3, Funny)
I'm appalled Computerworld doesn't mention Microsoft's greatest success ever, Windows ME. Just how long was the extended support for that operating system? They talk about Windows 98 as being succeeded by XP - just as if ME never existed! ME's many, many fans will be outraged at such an omission, and suspect they would treat Vista, Microsoft's second-greatest success ever, the same way.
And how about extended support for Microsoft's third-greatest success ever, Microsoft Bob [today.com]? I think we should be told.
It's about time to migrate (Score:2)
Having had more than a good run with XP, our office is seriously considering a mass upgrade to 2008 server, Exchange 2010, and Windows 7. We saved quite a bit in migration and training costs by skipping major versions of Server, Mail, Office, and OS products.
Downgrade options (Score:4, Funny)
Billy Goat (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Billy Goat (Score:5, Funny)
(You inspirational bastard. Credit on post.)
With the release of Windows 7 set for October 23rd, Microsoft marketing marketer Richard Francis says computer manufacturers may not be able to ship Vista once Windows 7 is available.
Outrage at the news was rapid. Microsoft quickly backtracked, claiming it would remain available until at least 2011 ("we kept 98 support up for 18 months when XP was out"), but customers were not mollified by promises that Windows 7 buyers would be allowed to downgrade ("we call it an upgrade”) to Vista.
A "Save Vista" [today.com] campaign has been organised by InfoWorld. "We detected a deep anxiety over Vista among technologists and consumers alike," said editor Galen Gruman. "We decided to do something about it, launching a petition drive to ask Microsoft to keep selling Vista after the planned October 23 end-of-sales date." The petition has already gathered over ten signatures (most recent signatories: L. Torvalds, S. Jobs, M. Shuttleworth).
"Just how long was extended support for Microsoft's greatest success ever, Windows ME? Microsoft talks about Windows 98 as being succeeded by XP — just as if ME never existed! ME's many, many fans will be outraged at such an omission, and we're afraid they'll treat Vista, Microsoft's second-greatest success ever, the same way.
"And how about extended support for Microsoft's third-greatest success ever, Microsoft Bob? By the wife of the founder, no less! I think we should be told."
Parent
-1 Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So the real question is: Why in the world would I install it then? To deliberately waste resources?
I can do that better with CompizFusion, and still have left over enough for a couple of needless gcc and java processes, or XP in a VM. ^^
(In fact I have that setup right now. And the only thing that feels a bit sluggish is the VM, which is kinda what I expected.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Vista 64 is a very stable operating system when your computer is fast enough to support it and the drivers are good. I have been running Windows Vista 64 on a Dell XPS 210 I bought in December 2006. Dell has good drivers for all the components, and I bought a printer and wireless card that had well-supported drivers. I plugged in 4 GBs of RAM that I bought for $40 on sale at Frys. It is one of the most stable operating systems I have ever used. Ubuntu 8.04 freezes my Dell Mini 9 when connecting to a wireles
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the big problem is that it was not able to be run on the hardware they claimed would run it at the time of release. I bought my wife a brand new laptop a few months after Vista became the "standard" on new computers. It came with a dual core 2.3Mhz CPU, a gig of RAM and an Nvidia Go video card. Pretty decent mid-grade specs at the time for a desktop replacement type laptop. It was crap. She couldn't play WoW (not a high-end graphics game, even then), Photoshop ran like molasses, anything remote
Ah, Vista (Score:5, Funny)
Unmourned. Unwept. Perpetually left unloved because your ugly older sister XP always came across with the full release and a happy ending while you were still whining that you wanted another 2G of RAM to show the boy how pretty you were.
I'm sorry I could never be the user you wanted, Vista. I tried. I really, really tried. I even had Millennium on my system for a while, so I know I'm not a completely unreasonable task manager. You wanted too much from me. You wanted to be my Trophy OS...pretty...never doing a real job...pretty...profligate with my hard-earned RAM...pretty. It wasn't enough. I'm so very, very sorry. Your sister XP gave me that dirty smile, and threw my RAM back in my face and performed like a trapeze artist. I was lost, dear Vista. She did everything I wanted, and she never said no, and she just kept going and going and going.
I don't care too much that you're prettier...much prettier. In fact, I'll never tell her, but sometimes when she's happily multi-tasking away, I close my eyes and pretend she's you.
But there's something about her that makes her a magnet. Something you'll never understand. Even when she's making my old CPUnit, do things I thought it could never, ever manage, she doesn't just swallow. She gargles.
Win 3.11 (Score:3, Informative)
I recall being able to buy win 3.11 (or at least it was available, new, on the shelf at gamestop) when win98 was out. No reason to kill the product if customers are willing to pay for it (XP SP3 excluded of course). Somebody has to help make the Vista sales figures look better and not immediately axing it will do that.
Buying a new computer? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been considering buying a new computer lately. But now that I hear Win7 is coming in about 6 months or so, that pretty much ensures I won't be buying anything with Vista on it.
I don't really care to use windows myself, but it's handy to have some exposure to whatever OS the majority of people use. If I'm going to pay the windows tax, I'd like to try to get something that has a better chance at success, and is more likely to get long term support.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
WHY DOES AN OS have to be written for fucking morons? Why cant the advanced features be displayed by DE-FUCKING-FAULT?!?!?!
Because those are the overwhelming majority of the people who use computers. This is not a hard concept.
Its fucking time they stop making crayola fucking operating systems because i cant stand it
Clearly, Slashdot users are Microsoft's target market. Really. No, really. It isn't the legions of people who buy the first Dell they see.
See, it's so clear. It's obvious that they should change what works so successfully just because Jackie_Chan_Fan on Slashdot doesn't like it.
Re:FACT: Vista is fucking shit! MS doesnt care (Score:4, Funny)
Why the hell cant you get it right microsoft? WHY?
Because obviously they hadn't had the luxury of your well-reasoned, thoroughly detailed, and above all, well-worded criticism. 'S obvious innit?
Parent