Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software

XP Deathwatch, T Minus 2 Weeks 597

Posted by kdawson
from the how-to-really-spike-linux-and-mac-adoption dept.
CWmike writes "June 30 is Microsoft's deadline for mainstream computer makers to stop selling new PCs with the old operating system, and the date that it will stop shipping boxed copies to retailers. That's just two weeks away. Computerworld offers a FAQ about XP's approaching retirement after Microsoft's most recent relaxation of the retirement rules, with some details about which machines big-brand computer makers will be selling with XP after June 30. First FAQ: Any sign that Microsoft will reprieve Windows XP's retirement? Sort of."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

XP Deathwatch, T Minus 2 Weeks

Comments Filter:
  • I hope so (Score:2, Insightful)

    by omar.sahal (687649)
    With Liunx getting in to there market (with moblie PC, sub note books) this can only help.
    • Re:I hope so (Score:5, Informative)

      by hardburn (141468) <hardburn@@@wumpus-cave...net> on Monday June 16, 2008 @07:21PM (#23816723)

      There's an explicit exception for the mini-notebook market, for the very reason that Microsoft is afraid that Linux will sweep it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by alexborges (313924)
        Thats only for XP home isnt it? And thats a dog of an Os. Even more so than vista home.
        • Re:I hope so (Score:5, Informative)

          by petermgreen (876956) <plugwash@@@p10link...net> on Monday June 16, 2008 @07:47PM (#23816969) Homepage
          iirc XP home is crippled in a number of ways. The ones that spring to mind are.
          * it can't join a domain
          * the file permissions and file sharing permissions sytems are crippled
          * I don't think it can be a remote desktop server (but i'm pretty sure it can be a remote desktop client)

          I don't see any of theese as showstoppers for an ultraportable.

          BTW you will still be able to get XP pro though vista buisness or ultimate downgrade rights and the big brand OEMs are now allowed to supply downgrade media and even ship systems pre-downgraded.
      • Re:I hope so (Score:5, Interesting)

        by roc97007 (608802) on Monday June 16, 2008 @07:58PM (#23817077) Journal

        > There's an explicit exception for the mini-notebook market, for the very reason that Microsoft is afraid that Linux will sweep it.

        True. I wonder if that'll help. My daughter (13) last Saturday bought an EEE (with her own money!) and specifically requested Linux because the XP versions were comparatively sluggish. Was soon frustrated with easy mode, but after we got the full Xandros desktop loaded, she's been very happy with it, and hasn't looked back. (I think Asus should just default to the full Xandros desktop -- it's pretty, and even Windows users would be comfortable with it.)

        Point is, she chose Linux over XP on the EEE for the same reason we've been choosing XP over Vista on desktops -- less complicated, fewer issues, faster on the same hardware. Put simply, the lighter weight OS provides a better user experience on the same hardware.

        Moreover, considering the use to which these sub-subnotebooks are being put, there's very little reason to run XP, any more than a PDA or phone needs to run Windows. (They can, but they don't *have* to.)

        • Re:I hope so (Score:4, Insightful)

          by dotancohen (1015143) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @07:34AM (#23821177) Homepage

          Moreover, considering the use to which these sub-subnotebooks are being put, there's very little reason to run XP, any more than a PDA or phone needs to run Windows. (They can, but they don't *have* to.)
          One advantage of running Windows on these portable devices is to sync with the 'big computer' at home. Even getting my Nokia 6288, which supposedly supports SyncML, to sync with Kontact is a pain. I currently don't have the week to invest in fixing this issue. I know that with Windows I would have been good to go the minute that the Nokia was out of the box.

          In the UMPC's own little world, Linux is fine. But Linux won't talk to the big computer at home for those who run Windows there.
    • Re:I hope so (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fm6 (162816) on Monday June 16, 2008 @09:31PM (#23817737) Homepage Journal
      No, Linux people should want XP withdrawn, the sooner the better. That's because there are a lot of corporate buyers who have nightmares about the support problems Vista-based machine represent. If MS pulls XP as planned, I predict that major PC vendors will start offering Linux/Wine/Microsoft Office bundles very soon. I wouldn't be surprised if they're already QAing that setup, and are ready to announce it next month.

      But here's another prediction: MS will give XP another stay of execution. They don't want to — it must be damned humiliating to spend a 5 years developing an OS upgrade, only to have everybody reject it — but they must know that killing XP will give Linux a unique opportunity to break their monopoly on desktop systems. Pride will make them wait until the last minute, but dollars and cents will keep them from pulling the plug. Until Windows 7 appears, I think XP is safe.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Vancorps (746090)

        Which support nightmares are that? Vista accidentally came on about 30 laptops I ordered. I converted 10 of them to XP but left the rest and no one has complained at all. Of course our internal apps are all web-based and work just fine with Firefox so that has a lot to do with it.

        The only issue I ran into was with the 64bit version of Vista but I have the same issue with 64bit XP in that the Sonicwall VPN client wasn't supported. There is now a functional beta for it and all is well.

        It's not even that s

        • Linux support is far worse than Windows support.

          It's harder for Linux users to mess up their machines but the monthly patches and frequent updates to the distributions (the whole OS changes every six months or so) is a nightmare to keep up with.

          I never saw a Windows update yet which required me to manually recompile the webcam driver. I've spent months of my life recompiling webcam drivers for rooms full of Linux machines (cybercafes).
      • It's not the grand Longhorn promise of a secure seamless powerful new architecture so it doesn't renew our indenture to this monopolist for another decade. Some few don't hit the pain points and can come to like it so they latch onto it like it's garlic at a vampire festival. It's going to be really hard to pry it away from those folks. It not quite lame enough to give a total pass -- there's always a chance with this tweak and that patch and the other workaround and all new hardware (again!) it might ma

        • If you're a big corporation with tens of thousands of machines, many of which will struggle with Vista, what does Vista bring to the table? Why should you spend tens of millions upgrading all those machines to Vista?

          I can't think of a single good reason*.

          When buying new machines, why would you want Vista on them instead of XP. Having to support two different operating systems is crazy.

          [*] nb. XP CAN be locked down tight if you make an effort to do so and when users aren't expected to install their own softw
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by iamhigh (1252742) *

        it must be damned humiliating to spend a 5 years developing an OS upgrade, only to have everybody reject it

        Maybe, but at this time most are rejecting it becuase the previous version is still a pretty good option. Nearly everyone upgraded to 2000, becuase it was a great advantage. EVERYONE upgraded to XP. Now I can buy a dual core computer that runs XP darn snappy for $400. I can also buy used computers for $150 with a P4 2.4 that run XP just fine. Plus all those computers we bought 3 years ago are still running strong on XP.

        Where is the Vista advantage? Each previous version was just MUCH better by defau

  • So... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alarindris (1253418) on Monday June 16, 2008 @06:51PM (#23816445)
    Does this mean that they will stop all updates and patching for XP as well? Or is that farther down the road?

    Either way, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, because soon enough, the updates will stop, XP machines will be virus infested and even my grandma will have beef with Microsoft!
    • Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zymergy (803632) * on Monday June 16, 2008 @07:09PM (#23816603)
      Support for Windows XP SP2 ends on 07-13-2010. http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean31 [microsoft.com]
      The "Extended Support" phase is scheduled to end on 04-08-2014 for Windows XP SP3. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-XP-SP3-Brings-the-Death-of-SP2-July-13-2010-85986.shtml [softpedia.com]

      Yes, I too agree it must be *meant to be* confusing.... It is just the Microsoft Way. I think there are several amortization table calculations involved in the selection of the dates too... http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy [microsoft.com]
      • Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)

        by MojoStan (776183) on Monday June 16, 2008 @08:13PM (#23817201)

        Does this mean that they will stop all updates and patching for XP as well? Or is that farther down the road?
        Support for Windows XP SP2 ends on 07-13-2010. http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean31 [microsoft.com] The "Extended Support" phase is scheduled to end on 04-08-2014 for Windows XP SP3. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-XP-SP3-Brings-the-Death-of-SP2-July-13-2010-85986.shtml [softpedia.com]

        Just to make things clear for those that don't want to open more tabs/windows: "Extended Support" (ends April 2014) includes security updates, but does not include "non security hotfixes" and "design fixes and feature requests."

        I think an example of a "non security hotfix" would be something like the Daylight Saving time fix for Windows 2000 [slashdot.org] (in "Extended Support" at the time), which was only provided for those that paid for extended hotfix support. I think an example of "design fixes and feature requests" would be a Service Pack.

        So Windows XP should be secure and usable as long as software is written for it. Since so many people will continue to use Windows XP, this shouldn't be a problem.

        Windows 2000 started its "Extended Support" phase 3 years ago [microsoft.com] and I'm starting to see a few new applications not support the OS (e.g. Foobar2000 0.9.5, Photoshop CS3, free Microsoft goodies). I think this will be less of a problem for Windows XP because XP is used by many more home users than Windows 2000 ever was.

  • Windows: You run the software MS tells you to, according to MSs business interests.

    OSS: You run the software you want to run, according to your business interests.

    Want to run Linux 2.0 (not that you'd want to)? Sure no probs.

    • What is this Linux you speak of? I'm curious and wish to read a brochure on the subject.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.0/linux-2.0.40.tar.bz2

        Get it while it's hot :).
    • by Bender_ (179208)

      How many large distributions still support sucurity updates for old kernel versions? Sure, the lonely hacker at home can mod and update old kernel versions ad nauseam, but for a company that is no real option.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16, 2008 @07:17PM (#23816671)
      Windows: You run the software MS tells you to, according to MSs business interests.

      You can run any software that is written for Windows and it will work! That's what makes Windows wonderful.

      OSS: You run the software you want to run, according to your business interests.

      This may be true, but, how do you run it? What libraries will you need? What the hell is a kernel? What does it mean to compile?

      Until there is a bullet-proof installation method - Linux will remain out of the SMB world. The corporate world has a place for Linux on the desktop but NOT because it is open-source. It's because it works, is cheap(er) and fits a need.

      Why is the Apple awesome for SMBs? Easy install using thier DMG files.

      I personally use Linux for some development stuff, own an iPhone and Mac Mini AND use my Windows Vista laptop for day to day uses. Why? I use what works.

      • by shrikel (535309) <hlagfarj.gmail@com> on Monday June 16, 2008 @07:29PM (#23816811)

        Linux will remain out of the [server message block] world.

        Now I know samba has its bugs, but come on... it's not THAT bad.

        </deliberate_misunderstanding>

      • by alexborges (313924) on Monday June 16, 2008 @07:39PM (#23816901)
        Bullet proof means preinstalled on certified hardware, I guess...

        Look at the trends: all non-whitebox servers in the world (worth of mention) are sold linux certified and preinstalled. Dell has certified linux laptops. HP/CQ has a pretty nice list of linux certified laptops (they sell them to ya preinstalle as well).

        Man... where do this people come from? Linux is already out there! Go buy a box with it on it and youll never, ever, look back.
      • by Rutulian (171771) on Monday June 16, 2008 @08:20PM (#23817247)
        Until there is a bullet-proof installation method

        I would say the installation method on linux is more robust than any other method on any other platform.

        I think what you meant to say was "easy installation method." I consider the package management system quite easy. Tell me, what exactly do you do when [your favorite software] doesn't provide a dmg that is available for download. What's that? You need to compile it yourself? For shame, how could Apple make such an unusable operating sytem.
      • by sarkeizen (106737) on Monday June 16, 2008 @08:23PM (#23817281) Journal
        You can run any software that is written for Windows and it will work! That's what makes Windows wonderful.

        No. Clearly you haven't installed much windows software or know much about how the API works, what parts of it work under which OS's. Just for example you can't run any windows software that uses DX5 specific calls under NT4. Just like there is no DX10 support for XP. Even outside of DirectX. It's trivial to find software that will install or run under one version of windows but not another.

        Until there is a bullet-proof installation method - Linux will remain out of the SMB world.

        Windows doesn't have a bullet-proof install method. It's not bad but please lets not play pretend.
        • by jonadab (583620) on Monday June 16, 2008 @09:37PM (#23817777) Homepage Journal
          > Windows doesn't have a bullet-proof install method. It's not bad

          Yes, it is bad. It's a royal pain, as everyone who supports even a handful of Windows systems knows.

          What's really bad, though, is the pain of installing all your application software, one stupid package at a time, after the OS is up and running. If your users need anything much beyond Solitaire and WordPad, it can take an entire shift, sometimes more, just to bring a single workstation up to a usable state. And you can't just set it going and walk away. You have to hold its hand the whole time, because of all the stupid dialog boxes.

          Honestly, even something like dselect would be a significant improvement.
  • by TibbonZero (571809) <Tibbon.gmail@com> on Monday June 16, 2008 @06:52PM (#23816457) Homepage Journal
    This is a clear case of a large company making what they want and totally ignoring consumer demand. What people really want is a better version of XP and for continued support. I for one (if I am to use Windows (and then only in a virtualized environment)) would gladly pay $99 or whatever for an upgraded version of XP that is still very much like XP. Apple is making a strong move I feel with Snow Leopard. People like Leopard. They are releasing Leopard, but "better". I'd pay for it in a heartbeat, as stability and speed is well worth money to me. If they made an XP "better", I'd go for it and pay for the upgrade. That's the goal isn't it? For people to pay for the next thing?

    But, that's not what they are doing. They figure people want excessively high system requirements, "more secure" environments (which aren't really better security models, just annoying prompts often) and pretty graphics. Hell, I was happy with the graphics in Windows 2000, and in fact when I use XP I turn it back to Win2K themes always.
    • by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Monday June 16, 2008 @07:00PM (#23816521)
      I have over 200 machines in my domain. I tend to replace one or two a month and they can pry my corporate copy of XP from my cold dead hands. For folks like me that don't necessarily have the latest and greatest hardware Vista isn't even an option (the majority are single-core P4's with less than 1GB RAM). I use Linux on all of my servers and my personal workstation but until I can run AutoCAD, Rhino, and Photoshop without glitching and at full-speed I can't make a complete switch. The way Microsoft is alienating their lower-end customers like this is so tragic it's funny. I have to believe that there are other admins out there with the same problem.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BRSloth (578824) *

      Apple is making a strong move I feel with Snow Leopard. People like Leopard. They are releasing Leopard, but "better".

      Now you are being a little bit naive. Saying that Apple is doing right when Leopard (while completely leaving people running Tiger on their PowerPCs) is right and Microsoft dumping XP is bad is really short signed.

      I know a bunch of people that completely refuse to use Leopard. They have the first version MacBooks, where Tiger runs faster than Leopard. They completely hate the visual effects on Leopard.

      I'm not sure, but your post sounds like a fanboism (and I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but that's the impression

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Doctor O (549663)

        I know a bunch of people that completely refuse to use Leopard. They have the first version MacBooks, where Tiger runs faster than Leopard. They completely hate the visual effects on Leopard.

        You know, I'm typing this from a recent MBP, but I have an ages-old G4 1,25 GHz with a mere 768 MB RAM at home, both running 10.5.3. Actually I have no idea what those people you know are talking about. What "visual effects"? They can't possibly mean the transparent menu bar which can be turned back to solid or Spaces, which are disabled by default (but are too great to miss out!).

        As for performance - my G4 has half the horsepower than the abovementioned MacBooks, and it runs 10.5 just fine, without any no

    • by Goner (5704) <(nutate) (at) (hotmail.com)> on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:28AM (#23818887) Homepage
      "This is a clear case of a large company making what they want and totally ignoring consumer demand."

      Let me clarify that this applies to big-ticket consumers as well.

      I work for a large multinational corporation in the Emerging Technology group. We're on the same floor as the IT team that has to deploy Vista across 50,000 computers or so. The company as a whole employs more people than Microsoft. (according to the all-knowing Wikipedia)

      None of the IT squad are happy about the prospect of company wide Vista default install. Their XP deployment is quite honestly one of the tightest managed environments I've seen. I don't know if they've even set a date for it. They'll just install XP on new machines from HD images as always.

      So the individual consumer becomes beta tester for the big company consumer... wacky.

      Now, I get IMs from a friend saying "Vista just keeps rebooting, at random." And I see that all consumers, whether Giant Co. or joe schmoe have the same issue with Vista.

      Cool new features are cool, but... stability is all anyone has ever wanted from a PC.

      All of which makes me wonder the following Q, when is Microsoft rolling out Vista in house?

      -Rich
  • The Linux desktop lifewatch, T minus 2 weeks.

    Of course, as all nerds know, anything that dies can come back as a zombie to eat that which is alive. But we're rational people here and could never imagine that. [itbusiness.ca]
  • Inaccurate ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by schwit1 (797399) on Monday June 16, 2008 @06:56PM (#23816489)
    Dell has already stated that they will continue to install XP [dell.com] if the customer requests it.
  • by mqduck (232646) <<ten.kcudqm> <ta> <kcudqm>> on Monday June 16, 2008 @06:59PM (#23816513)
    Now all you pirates will have an excuse for downloading your Windows XP disc image.

  • I heard a rumor that oil speculators were moving money into XP Home retail box.

    Too late. I got mine on Saturday.

    And two years from now, if they wont activate, boy 'o boy is Balmer going to get a good chair-throwing!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16, 2008 @07:01PM (#23816531)
    I'm sure the Pirate Bay will continue to carry Windows XP for a long long time.
  • by WillAffleckUW (858324) on Monday June 16, 2008 @07:01PM (#23816537) Homepage Journal
    And the fact that our few boxen with it run like dogs even with dual core high end processors.

    Even with the effects turned off it's dog slow.

    If they kill the ability for us to buy XP we're going to an all Linux/Unix shop.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by r_naked (150044)
      I call FUD. Over the weekend I decided to slap another drive in my box and install OSX (leo4allv3 if anyone cares). I am not going on a Mac bashing rant, but suffice it to say it didn't stay on that drive very long -- OSX sucks. Anyway, I had that other drive in there, I figured I would give Vista a shot. I grabbed me a copy Vista Ultimate x64 SP1 (pre-cracked of course) and slapped it on there. I was in awe.

      I tried Vista back when I had an Athlon XP 3200+ and a whole 768 megs of ram with a GeForce 5900. It
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Interesting-

        Not to slight your comment, but my experience was the exact opposite. Now mind you I was using a testbed computer: single core 2.6 ghz P4, 2 gigs DDR RAM, nvidia 7300gt video card.

        My experiences were as follows:

        leo4allv2 ran flawlessly, faster than I'd ever seen Apple's OS run on any Apple hardware...I was actually stunned.

        Vista - about as I expected, slow and laggy

        Server2008 - everything Vista should have been, but isn't. Ultra fast, clean interface, hyper responsive, etc.

        Just an informal post.
  • by Hackerlish (1308763) on Monday June 16, 2008 @07:01PM (#23816539)
    XP is here. It works. It works well. It has drivers. It's fast. Vista has been a complete disaster for Microsoft. It's here, but it doesn't work well, lacks drivers and is slower than molasses. The record 'sales' of Vista that Microsoft has been bragging about is only due to preinstallations, and everyone knows it. I got Vista on a new laptop, loved the pretty colors but within a few months learned it was pure crap, deleted it, installed XP and never looked back. Microsoft: It's time to fall on your sword. Admit that Vista was the disaster it is: Every else already knows that. Sanction the developers that screwed it up so badly, and Fire the bureaucrats who would rather see Microsoft go down the tubes that admit they made a huge mistake with Vista.
    • by verbamour (1308787) on Monday June 16, 2008 @08:17PM (#23817227)
      I like that it took Vista to make people refer to XP as fast...
    • by Blakey Rat (99501) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:06AM (#23818741)
      Vista has been a complete disaster for Microsoft. It's here, but it doesn't work well,

      Wrong.

      lacks drivers

      Wrong. (Vista can run XP drivers, as long as the number of bits lines up. i.e. 32-bit XP driver on 32-bit Vista driver{1})

      and is slower than molasses.

      Wrong.

      Admit that Vista was the disaster it is: Every else already knows that.

      "The majority of people who post on Slashdot" != "Everybody."

      Sanction the developers that screwed it up so badly, and Fire the bureaucrats who would rather see Microsoft go down the tubes that admit they made a huge mistake with Vista.

      Oh, I agree that the development process was screwed up, and the that Microsoft cut far more QA people than they should have. (They're making a big move towards "XP", complete with the 'no testing other than automated testing' thing, which IMO is a recipe for making terrible products.)

      But the end Vista product is not anywhere close to as bad as people on Slashdot seem to think of it. Of course, most of those people have probably never used it, they're just echoing the crowd. (Kudos on actually trying it for a few months.)

      {1} I was going to link to the driver page for my Netgear WG111v2 which quite clearly stated a few months ago that no Vista support was forthcoming, but they've now released a Vista-compatible driver for it. WTF, Netgear? In any case, trust me, I was running the XP driver for ages, and it worked fine.
  • by wild_quinine (998562) on Monday June 16, 2008 @07:04PM (#23816553) Homepage
    There are some things about Vista which are better than XP.

    The restructured Users folder, for example. Finally 'My Music' is moved out of the My Documents folder, making backups, once again, possible for basic end users.

    The improved desktop rendering, which small matter though it may be, was well overdue for an overhaul.

    There are some things which are worse in Vista, and we all know about them.

    The copying speed.

    The shutdown menu, and the fact that hibernation NEVER works.

    Ultimately however, and this is where I intend to get relevant, there is nothing significant enough to recommend a switch from XP to Vista. And that's a statement that few people would argue with, and it's a damning statement. The more you think about about, the worse it gets.

    And when you step into the world of Enterprise, and big business, things are even worse. In Enterprise, you really, really don't care about shiny baubles. All you care about is that it works, and it stays working, and it never works any worse than it used to.

    Aging though it may be, XPs relevancy is not in decline. Windows Server 2003 does not want for much, in the way of mission critical upgrades, and what it does want for, Windows Server 2008 will not be providing.

  • by retech (1228598) on Monday June 16, 2008 @07:10PM (#23816617)
    This was foretold on the ancient Mayan Calender.
  • Abandonware? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Now15 (9715) on Monday June 16, 2008 @07:48PM (#23816975) Homepage
    So if you won't be able to buy a new copy of XP any more, how long until one could reasonably consider it abandonware?
    If I needed to build a new PC tomorrow, I'll want to install XP on it. But if Microsoft won't sell it to me, what can I do about it?
  • by Jorkapp (684095) <jorkapp@[ ]mail.com ['hot' in gap]> on Monday June 16, 2008 @08:07PM (#23817159)
    As I recall, when XP released, the tech community was quite quick to throw flak at Microsoft for releasing a "bug ridden feature bloated OS that hides it's inadequacies behind a pretty interface", with a great cluster of users vowing to never leave their precious, mature, stable, and resource-efficient Windows 2000.

    Somewhere along the line, XP mostly shed it's poor reputation, and replaced it with one of stability and speed on modern to previous-generation machines. Somehow, even though Win2k's death clock was ticking, few seemed to notice or care. At some point, if you weren't running XP, you were either a die-hard 2k fan, or you were a business.

    Fast forward to now. Vista has been out for 20 months and has seen a service pack. Much of the tech community still throws flak at Vista for having poor driver support, being a resource hog, and often such flak is accompanied by a vow to never leave XP. Vista's reputation may be slowly turning, but inside tech circles, throwing flak is still the norm.

    What's the difference?

    Quite simple really, XP had a catch-22 situation with buying a new machine. Most users with half a brain cell would turn down Windows ME, as it was as stable as a vial of Nitroglycerin. Here's where XP had the advantage: Windows 2000 was a Business OS, and wasn't put out by Microsoft for Home users, so hence system vendors didn't market it on their machines. Thus, buyers were essentially given a choice: Unstable ME, or Unproven XP.

    Vista, on the other hand, isn't coming from such a situation. The 9x line has long since been discontinued. Vista's SKU's are only competing against one predecessor: XP. New system buyers have a different choice than a few years ago: Proven XP, or Unproven Vista.

    As far as I'm concerned, Vista isn't half bad. If there's a faulty driver, it will be brought to it's knees, but then again, so will XP. I'm running 2 machines and both have Vista as the OS, and thus far I've had only minimal problems.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      As far as I'm concerned, Vista isn't half bad.

      I don't use it myself, but I have a friend [jerrypournelle.com] who does. I mentioned once, shortly after SP1 came out that somebody had asked me if she should get Vista. "NO!" he cried. "Tell her not under any circumstances should she get Vista."

      Alas, it was too late; by the time I got back to her, she'd bought a new computer with Vista. So it goes. The point of this is, I gather that if Vista were, in fact, half bad, it would be a vast improvement.

  • by DimGeo (694000) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @03:41AM (#23819925) Homepage
    To everyone bashing Vista, install SP1 first, please. It's not in the automatic updates, so you will actually have to google for it and install it manually. It fixed the file copying problem and if you revert to the 2000 theme, it works as well as 2000 used to work (if you apply a few tweaks [dyndns.org]).

    If you want to bash Vista for something, bash it for removing the NTDVM and Win16 support from the 64-bit version, the weird versioning and language support, or maybe the lack of 100% backwards compatibility - bash it for something that's actually true, not pre-SP1 performance (which was abysmal, but HAS BEEN FIXED).

He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.

Working...