Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows

No XP Reprieve; Windows 7 Release Set 609

Posted by kdawson
from the squeezing-out-the-vista dept.
CWmike writes "Microsoft has laid to rest rumors that it might reconsider pulling Windows XP from retail shelves and from most PC makers next Monday. Microsoft's Bill Veghte wrote to customers reiterating that June 30 would be the deadline when Microsoft halts shipments of boxed copies to retailers and stops licensing the operating system directly to OEMs. However, Veghte did leave the door open to all computer makers, even the largest, who want to continue selling new PCs with XP pre-installed. 'Additionally, Systems Builders (sometimes referred to as "local OEMs"), may continue to purchase Windows XP through Authorized Distributors [such as Ingram Micro] through January 31, 2009,' he wrote in the letter. 'All OEMs, including major OEMs, have this option,' said Veghte. At the same time, Microsoft confirmed Windows 7 would ship in January 2010. Who, if they have not already, would install Vista now?" Microsoft has said they will post the letter, but it's not up yet.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No XP Reprieve; Windows 7 Release Set

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:26PM (#23928621)

    Yeah right.

    • Re:January 2010 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mrbluze (1034940) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:29PM (#23928635) Journal

      Who, if they have not already, would install Vista now?
      Not Dell. I just received a promotion in the mail for Dell laptops 'featuring' XP Professional Vista Downgrade 'absolutely free' plus 33% off original purchase price.
      • Re:January 2010 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by lordkuri (514498) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @12:38AM (#23929217)

        That's funny, when I talked to our rep a few days ago and asked about having it installed on a laptop I was ordering, she informed me that it was an extra $50 "labor fee" to get XP preinstalled.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by colfer (619105)

        But WinXP is not available on the least expensive Dell's. The cheapest laptop, home or business, is $499. Vista only.

        • Re:January 2010 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by GeckoX (259575) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @09:38AM (#23933681)

          Really? That's pretty stupid. The machines that are going to give the most obviously poorest performance with Vista and they aren't offering XP? Seems like they should be focusing on keeping XP available on those machines. Can't look good on Dell everyone someone buys a cheap machine and gets it home only to find it crawls along with pathetic performance. Odd.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by peipas (809350)

          The Vostro 1000 [dell.com] laptop starts at $399 and is available with XP ($99 surcharge).

    • Re:January 2010 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Robert1 (513674) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:57PM (#23928887) Homepage

      This is really the worst of two worlds for Microsoft.

      First they announce it'll come out in 2010, effectively killing what little market they had for the OS.

      Second, there's no way it will come out then, effectively cutting off their future income.

      Why would you announce this with those two facts glaring in their face? Wouldn't it be far wiser to announce this in say, August 2009 - when their OS is legitimately 5-6 months away?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by tonymus (671219)

        This is really the worst of two worlds for Microsoft.

        First they announce it'll come out in 2010, effectively killing what little market they had for the OS.

        Second, there's no way it will come out then, effectively cutting off their future income.

        Yeah, I could really see Microsoft going the way of Kaypro...

      • Re:January 2010 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Exatron (124633) <Exatron@hotmail.FREEBSDcom minus bsd> on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @12:38AM (#23929215) Homepage
        But what are the odds that Windows 7 will actually ship when MS says it will?
        • by Majik Sheff (930627) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @01:58AM (#23929859) Journal

          That depends on how many promised revolutionary technologies they need to drop to make the deadline.

          • by vilgefortz (1225810) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @02:03AM (#23929885)
            Can't they just make it work well, for a change?
            • Re:January 2010 (Score:5, Insightful)

              by The End Of Days (1243248) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @08:14AM (#23932583)

              Vista already does work well, the "funny" jokes around here notwithstanding.

              Maybe you shouldn't get your information on operating systems from zealots who emotionally defend some one true way.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by CastrTroy (595695)
                I am just basing my definition fo "work well" based on experience in actually using it. All experience I've had with Vista has just been a huge disappointment. The other day it rebooted to do updates, right in the middle of when I was actually actively working on it. Apparently the countdown timer doesn't always appear. Why they would ever think it's a good idea to just go and reboot a computer is beyond me. I'm unsure of why that would even be an option, let alone the default set-up. This along with
              • Really? (Score:3, Insightful)

                by tacokill (531275)
                Vista works well. Really?

                All of the I/O functions work properly? Copying files, renaming folders, etc. All that works perfectly?

                If you say yes, you lie. We already know of documented issues with file operations. It is pretty much proven that the I/O performance of Vista is substandard compared with even XP, much less Linux or some *nix flavor. We may not know why that is the case but we can definitely see it in the benchmarks. No doubt about that.

                I may be out of line here but any OS that d
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by flibuste (523578)

              Can't they just make it work well, for a change?
              For Windows, that would be the "promised revolutionary technologies" the parent talks about I suppose.
        • by jollyreaper (513215) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @02:29AM (#23930061)

          But what are the odds that Windows 7 will actually ship when MS says it will?
          That's not the right question. "What are the odds that Windows 7 won't be even more fucked up than Vista with whatever service pack they're up to by then?"
      • by beav007 (746004) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @01:33AM (#23929669) Journal

        Wouldn't it be far wiser to announce this in say, August 2013 - when their OS is legitimately 5-6 months away?
        There, fixed that for you.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @12:29AM (#23929127)

      Hi there! My name is Microsoft shill #59329. I'm here to tell you about the exciting new features in Windows 7, and to assure you all that it will be delivered on-time!

      Now, we at Microsoft, are aware that whilst people love Windows Vista, some are having trouble with a few of the more advanced features, and the number of resources required to support them. So allow me to show you, dear Slashdot reader, the two major features in Windows 7 that will make it your best upgrade yet!

      1. No longer will DRM checking be bound to every system event. We know our users love Vista, and Hollywood movies! We're working hard to make DRM checking a little more selective, so things like moving the mouse pointer will no longer trigger a string of DMCA takedown notices from the MPAA. Innovative!
      2. Our dedicate Windows 7 software team [shreeinfotech.org] is working tirelessly to reverse engineer speed improvements to Vista, if someone could help us figure out how this app [informationweek.com] speeds things up, drop us a line! Exciting!

      We'll certainly be on-time, because we're not actually going to change anything. Didn't see that one coming did you Free software zealots? I prostrate myself at the feet of chairman Ballmer, worshipping his tactical genius. You should too (if you know what's good for you)!

      Overall, we're confident you'll find Windows 7 to be the Best OS EVAR, and even if you don't: we've kidnapped Linus and Stallman and have them secure in our secret, underground base.

      • by RiotingPacifist (1228016) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @12:51AM (#23929339)

        Dear shill #59329, that app simply removes notepad.

        P.S I should warn you that Stallman may be armed with a katana, but tbh you can keep him. If Linus is not released within 48 hours on the other hand, I will be forced to free Reiser in a crazed attempt to free him, much like that general in Rambo: First Blood Part II.

        • by Mathinker (909784) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @01:52AM (#23929811) Journal

          > If Linus is not released within 48 hours on the other hand,
          > I will be forced to free Reiser in a crazed attempt

          Considering that Linus's wife is a six-time Finnish Karate champion, it would probably be a better movie if she and Reiser have to cooperate in this desperate (but ultimately successful, of course) attempt to free Linus. Reiser would have to wave his "I AM McGyver" card around a lot in order to equalize the power of the main characters, and get killed off dramatically (but redeemingly) at the end after he tries to pull a partial double cross in order to force Linus to add support to the 2.7 kernel tree for the new Reiser5 filesystem (note to scriptwriters: find a nice simple analogy for this for the non-geek viewers).

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by CopaceticOpus (965603)

      Actually, I believe the date, because of this quote: "our approach with Windows 7 is to build off the same core architecture as Windows Vista."

      Translation: Windows 7 will be Vista SP2 with a few shiny bits attached. It will be on time, and pointless.

  • Who? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SilentChris (452960) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:29PM (#23928641) Homepage

    "Who, if they have not already, would install Vista now?"

    I heard Mac OS X 10.6 is supposed to come out next year. Who, if they have not already, would install 10.5 now?

    • Re:Who? (Score:4, Informative)

      by AkaKaryuu (1062882) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:33PM (#23928669)
      10.5 was such a bitch for me and my Macbook Pro. Keyboard issues, slow loading, not waking from sleep, windows disappearing. God, it was my first Mac experience and I was thrilled for the month up to the Leopard release. They've since fixed the issues... but I still feel foolish for rushing out for the new OS and now it's being updated already. I really like how their computers and electronics work (happy owner of iPod and upgrading to iPod 3g) but I really felt dicked over with my first experience. But I would buy their product again. Even with the issues which slowed my system down considerably for a month or two, when it's working right it's a beautiful thing.
      • Re:Who? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by iocat (572367) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @03:34AM (#23930539) Homepage Journal
        Barring bug fixes, why would you ever update your OS. OS are like girlfriends. You can usually do different, but it's hard to do better.

        Especially with a laptop, if the OS that shipped with it works, why ever change? Chances are, any new OS will add "features," aka "be slower," and since it's "new" it will also be buggy and worse. Modern OSes already do too much, you don't need every shareware utility ever made to autoload thanks to MS or Apple.

        Frankly, if I could get ProDOS to boot on this MacBook, I'm sure I'd be better off...

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mrbluze (1034940)

      I heard Mac OS X 10.6 is supposed to come out next year. Who, if they have not already, would install 10.5 now?

      Not me. Why would I go out and buy a new OS when the one I already have (10.4) is working perfectly well, set up just how I like? I'll get 10.6 or 10.7 with my new Mac whenever I get to the stage of wanting to upgrade.

      I won't be buying Windows either, but if they offer it with the hardware for a low enough price then I won't say no.

    • Re:Who? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HomerJ (11142) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:38PM (#23928709)

      Because their next set of software updates will require it.

      Their major applications now require Tiger, so the next ones will require Leopard. You're pretty much forced into OSX upgrades if you like them or not.

      People put up a HUGE stink when DirectX 10 was Vista only. But this is par for the course with OSX releases and libraries. So people will have to upgrade.

    • Re:Who? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by countach (534280) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @12:04AM (#23928951)

      OS-X upgrades are perceived to be much more painless than Windows upgrades. For one thing, less changes in one upgrade. For another, since they control the hardware better, there are fewer device surprises. And there was never such a bloat discrepency between 2 releases as there is between XP and Vista.

      • Re:Who? (Score:5, Informative)

        by jsebrech (525647) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @01:58AM (#23929853)

        Apple switched hardware architectures from 10.3 to 10.4. They rewrote their networking stack from 10.4 to 10.5 (admittedly, there were a few issues in the new stack related to wireless). They're going to change to a different filesystem from 10.5 to 10.6.

        It's not the degree of change that's the issue, it's the degree of architecture. Windows is built by separate teams that build layers and components that somehow have to be fit together, resulting in a hodge-podge of programming API's that's a nightmare to keep supporting. OS X seems to have a more centralized vision, with a programming API that is mostly consistent, and probably way easier to maintain.

        It also helps that mac developers are more willing to rewrite software (basically because the ones that aren't were weeded out a few transitions ago). When apple wants to make some radical change, like dropping support for an entire API, or moving to a different CPU architecture, the developers just go along with it. On windows they'd scream bloody murder.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by k33l0r (808028)

          Apple doesn't have to deal with hardware issues. Windows and Linux have to try and handle any piece of hardware thrown at them. The hardware Mac OS X has to handle could be counted on one hand, almost.

  • by OglinTatas (710589) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:33PM (#23928673)

    the release date they announce in June of 2010 will probably be a more accurate one.

  • You know... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ethan Allison (904983) <slashdot@neonstream.us> on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:34PM (#23928687) Homepage
    I actually like Vista.
    • by mrbluze (1034940) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:42PM (#23928751) Journal

      I actually like Vista.

      It's ok ... there is good, anonymous help available. The twelve-step-journey-to-software-freedom. We meet every Thursday afternoon as a group at the church hall. There's complimentary coffee and biscuits.

      You're welcome to join. Bring a friend!

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I actually like Vista.
      Even if you don't like Vista, it should be obvious that Windows 7 will be Vista+something and not XP+something. If you're anticipating W7, you might want to get used to Vista first.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by mrbluze (1034940)

        If you're anticipating W7
        Somehow I think most people are beyond anticipating anything good from Microsoft.
      • Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by clampolo (1159617) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @12:38AM (#23929211)

        I think you hit the nail on the head. Vista has a bad name in the marketplace. So W7 is just going to be a fixed up version of Vista sold under another name.

        My guess is the main thrust will be to speed the thing up and get it to use less memory. And then at the end they will attach some eye candy to try and entice people to buy it.

        I'm suspecting that it won't work. They had 6 years to come up with a compelling reason to upgrade to their latest OS and they failed.

  • by fm6 (162816) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:37PM (#23928701) Homepage Journal

    Who, if they have not already, would install Vista now?

    Typical, clueless geek-centric comment. We geeks install a new OS every other month, but almost everybody else just uses whatever came with their system. When they begin to feel out of date, they don't upgrade the OS, they get a whole new system.

    So nobody's outside geekworld is saying "Should I install Vista". If they think about OS issues at all, they're thinking, "Hey, I hear Vista really sucks. Maybe I should get an XP system while I still can."

    • by igb (28052) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @01:36AM (#23929689)
      One of my guys went to a workshop last month run by VMware, looking at some of their new technologies. We (1000 desktops) were at the small end of the attendees: the rest of the people there were mostly from large corporates. The guy in charge wanted a quick straw poll on some issues, one of which was ``are you doing or planning to do Vista?''. Seventy attendees. One hand. A common reason for home upgrades is ``that's what I'm using at work / school / etc.''. As Vista has no traction in those markets, it's losing at home as well. ian
    • by symbolset (646467) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @02:11AM (#23929937) Journal

      So nobody's outside geekworld is saying "Should I install Vista". If they think about OS issues at all, they're thinking, "Hey, I hear Vista really sucks. Maybe I should get an XP system while I still can."

      A lot of real people are really trying to implement Vista and finding it does not work for them. Trying hard. A lot of people who know their stuff. People who believe in their "Windows shop".

      They're buying new equipment that is supposed to work. They're tasking teams to test their apps. They're downloading patches and searching Google for workarounds. In every case they're finding their enterprise has some people who just can't migrate, some apps that just don't work. People and stuff that have to work in order for the organization to fulfill its mission. In many cases these are apps built on Microsoft's own recent application development technologies. If your "critical" apps won't run you have no choice - it's downgrade to XP or migrate. When downgrading to XP ceases to be an option, migrating is the only choice. Microsoft thinks they're forcing people to adopt Vista and nothing could be further divorced from what's happening on the ground.

      Thankfully, wine runs those apps just fine. Even Microsoft technologies that Microsoft wants to deprecate run great under wine now. More and more people are discovering that Linux is the cure to their Vista Virus. Just wait until they discover how easy it is to port to open architectures - how nice it is to use an IDE like Eclipse, how easy it is to maintain projects not written in the proprietary platform of the week. They won't be back.

      Vista does not fit. Vista is bad. If W7 is Vista II, we need not even try it.

  • I think my next box will be linux. It's time to try again.

    I bounced off of open office from 1.02 to 2.4- I preferred 2.4 to Word after about a month of usage. 3.0 and onwards looks to only be better.

    Same thing with linux. It looks like it is getting close-- I'm thinking a fit-pc or something like that to start.

    Keep my windows beast for Everquest I, but maybe all my art, browsing, etc, over to linux by december.

  • by ToasterTester (95180) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:40PM (#23928731)

    I don't remember the exact version but I think it was Netware 3 that was solid as a rock. Then the next version was total crap upon release use users didn't upgrade. Even the following update were flaky so users stayed on the old version. The Novell was in getting into deep sneakers without upgrade revenue coming in. They finally started getting the problems worked out, but users were content with the old version and still had little interest in new version. After another major upgrade users started updating slowly.

    MS seems to be in the same situation the got XP patched up to be a solid Windows OS and what problems there are are well known so not a big deal. Vista price and stability isn't a attractive enough move the masses. MS has far deeper pockets than Novell so it hurts, but isn't lethal.

    Personally I wish MS would grow a pair like Apple has over the years and build a new OS from scratch and not worry about backward compatibility. Apple has done it what three times since the beginning. They give developers and users a couple years of warning and move forward. MS talks about it but never does it, they definitely have the deep pockets to do it.

    • by JeffSh (71237) <jeffslashdot&m0m0,org> on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @12:14AM (#23929015)

      your daft if you compare microsoft's installed base to apple's. corporate users would not be able to tolerate such a dictatorial switch.

      if microsoft were to enforce such switch (require everything to be re-written? lol), business users would be forced to stay on their old platforms... but wait, businesses require a supported platform to ensure that when there is a disaster, someone will be around to fix it.

      no reasonable business would tolerate that situation. it's a huge deal moving an entire business from one platform to another, I think you seriously underestimate the scope of the task you flippantly suggest.

    • by mysticgoat (582871) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @12:47AM (#23929305) Homepage Journal

      If only all it took to develop a good OS was deep pockets.

      Microsoft has lost the fight to prevent brain drain: Vista and Office 2007 have shown that they no longer know how to do innovation any more. They can't even put a new shine on the old shoes. It's sadly pathetic, really. Watching Microsoft attempt to do anything that requires corporate smarts is like watching a Dean of World History with Alzheimers try to hold up his end of the conversation at a dinner party. He's still the Dean, until he can be shuffled into retirement, so you kind of have to pay attention to him. But as to the future of the Department, well, he's just not that relevant any more.

      All the bright young programmers are now seeking opportunities at Google, IBM, and even Yahoo, where there are new horizons and cutting edge stuff happening. All those armies of developers developers developers are now doing gee-whiz things with Javascript (!), the DOM, PHP, and MySQL. The state of affairs at Microsoft has gotten so bad and depressed that it's hardly worth the effort to toss a chair.

  • by Fluffeh (1273756) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:40PM (#23928733)
    This is FANTASTIC news for operating systems competing with Windows.

    The choices to a complete new users have just improved from an open source point of view:

    a) Install Windows Vista. High system specs, buggy to use, even harder to fix, has stupid problems. Also very pricey.
    b) Install Linux Distro. Low system specs, buggy to use, some things can be very difficult to fix, has techie aura surrounding it. Did someone say its free?

    Gone is good old option c - just install XP which is pretty stable, just about everything works with it and anyone can fix it.

    Rejoice opensource!
    • by ludomancer (921940) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:58PM (#23928893)

      You know what sucks? I hate microsoft a LOT. More than most people possibly, but it doesn't matter how screwed up their OS's get, I will never switch to Linux which I love dearly (in its use and philosophy). That's because Linux will most probably NEVER:

      -Let me run my old PC games
      -Let me run current PC games (without great hassle)
      -Let me run applications specific to my line of work (3d studio max, maya, premiere, photoshop, and various game engines)

      I've a relatively good idea that a large number of people are stuck at the same problem. There's just no way, no matter how good Linux gets, that it can make up for years of an MS-owned market. They've clinched two decades of my life and PC usage, and my investigations have shown me that I need to do a great deal of tweaking to get a linux install to the level of a crippled windows OS.
      It totally. Fucking. Blows. The open source Windows OS project someone pointed out a few months back was the only sign of a real, working alternative I've ever seen. :(

      • by EnsilZah (575600)

        Hmm, Maya does run on Linux, I sympathize with you on the other (mostly Adobe) stuff though.

      • by Cyvros (962269) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @01:13AM (#23929501)
        From what I understand, you can do all of that stuff with VirtualBox [virtualbox.org] (virtual machine), DOSBox [dosbox.com] (x86 emulator w/ DOS) and Wine [winehq.org] (cross-platform implementation of the Windows API).

        DOSBox takes care of basically every vintage game I've ever played and even though VirtualBox needs Windows installed in the virtual machine, it has a 'seamless' mode that allows you to have the Windows apps running 'outside' of the virtual machine. That's a sucky explanation and it'd be easier to explain if I had a pencil and paper.

        Wine recently reached version 1.0 and, as I believe a sibling post pointed out, it should be able to run Photoshop perfectly well. The open source Windows project you mentioned, ReactOS, shares some of its code with Wine (which is how the two projects have managed to make some great advances in certain areas), so there's a nice little tie-in.

        ReactOS is currently at about version 0.3.5, so we'll probably have to wait a while for a fully stable version to come out. The day it does will be a good day. A very good day.
  • Microsoft just threw to resellers and OEM's. It forces what little cash a reseller has *now* to all flow to Microsoft for product used for the next six months including Christmas.

    Last purchase of XP: June 30.
    Can distribute XP: January 2009

    1. Basically, any cash-strapped reseller stands a much greater chance of being run out of business.
    2. It will certainly shift the cost of financing the license pre-buy onto consumers in the form of higher product prices.

    Wow.

  • January 2010? Naw! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smchris (464899) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:49PM (#23928811)

    When does SP1 appear? That's the date that matters. You figure 2011 and it starts to seem like a decade with XP.

  • In other news (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Alpha830RulZ (939527) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:50PM (#23928831)

    Ubuntu downloads strike a new high water mark.

    I am wrestling with a Toshiba A215 that came with Vista Home Premium. It reliably pukes five minutes after waking up from suspend, and requires a hard boot to recover. I tried to run Ubuntu, but it won't recognize the wireless, even after the Mad wifi drivers were installed.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mrbluze (1034940)

      I am wrestling with a Toshiba A215 that came with Vista Home Premium. It reliably pukes five minutes after waking up from suspend, and requires a hard boot to recover. I tried to run Ubuntu, but it won't recognize the wireless, even after the Mad wifi drivers were installed.
      Remind me when I upgrade my laptop to make sure someone out there has had success installing linux on it [linux-laptop.net].
  • I'll probably get a new computer with Vista. I'm just not a Mac person, Linux doesn't support some software and peripherals I need, and my old desktop is, well, 5 years old at the end of July. I'm cheap but not that cheap.

    That doesn't mean I won't install Linux on my old computer and use my old copy of XP on the new one, of course. I'm a real sucker for shiny, transparent, blurry things though. The problem with Mac stuff is that it looks too much like plastic, or fondant, whereas Vista looks more like f

  • Vista (Score:3, Insightful)

    by digitalhermit (113459) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:52PM (#23928845) Homepage


    I wish XP would be around for longer. Vista sucks donkey balls. I bought a Dell XPS M1530. It has some awesome specs, 4G RAM, beautiful display, wonderful keyboard... But Vista sucks. Even with the service pack it has bizarre problems. It freezes for 30 to 40 seconds every so often (the mouse won't even move), every day it goes into this weird mode where the hard drive thrashes for hours, it doesn't go to sleep properly when I close the lid, it blue-screened when I plugged in my AT&T USB Sigmatel 881 card, it keeps on bouncing between access points, etc., etc... XP works great on the machine however. I want to buy another laptop like it soon, but not with Vista. I hope this is still an option..

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:56PM (#23928865)

    By reducing the ability of its own customers to choose their operating environment, Microsoft drives them toward Linux and Apple.

    I was just musing ... Microsoft have now effectively dictated that you can't run XP on a new computer (ignore the matter of "downgrade" rights for the time being). I guess they won't allow a customer to get a new license for XP for an existing computer (say they wanted to switch away from Linux and don't have any current Windows license). So they're effectively saying that if you want to run Windows, you have to run Vista. It's really a matter of denying choice, given how different XP and Vista are. How long can it be until Microsoft says that you're not allowed to _continue_ to run XP?

    Looking at the parallels with Linux ... who would want to run a Linux distro from 2001? (That's how old XP is). Answer is nobody, unless your hardware is so old that you can't run anything newer. No linux folks will support a distro dated 2001. Isn't this a forced upgrade? I don't think so, because with linux, upgrading is a continuous process ... when you upgrade from 2001 versions of software through to 2008 what you are getting is basically the same thing, just better. Your kernel gets faster (and bigger), your devices work better, your window manager gains more features (and sometimes changes entirely, but you can choose your window manager). So, barring old/slow/small hardware, there's no reason not to upgrade linux.

    Contrast with Windows - upgrade is a discontinuous process. You have to pay them for the later version, of course. And a lot of things change (for Microsoft's reasons), and you don't really get to choose much.

  • by mqduck (232646) <<ten.kcudqm> <ta> <kcudqm>> on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:57PM (#23928877)

    Microsoft's Bill Veghte wrote to customers reiterating that June 30 would be the deadline when Microsoft halts shipments of boxed copies to retailers and stops licensing the operating system directly to OEMs. However, Veghte did leave the door open to all computer makers, even the largest, who want to continue selling new PCs with XP pre-installed.
    Would somebody please reconcile these two contradictory sentences for me? Thanks.

    Who, if they have not already, would install Vista now?"
    People who buy new computers, it should go without saying (sure, sure, they aren't "installing" it).
  • Windows 7 ? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Gothmolly (148874)

    What the hell is Windows 7, and other than a new desktop theme, why would I ever want it? Same viruses, same stupid Windowsisms, same IE-is-secretly-your-WM-and-vice-versa crap. What compelling features will it have ?

  • by the linux geek (799780) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @12:10AM (#23928997)
    I recognize Vista was a turd, but can you folks even bother educating yourself about what 7 is supposed to be before bashing it? Right now this is being advertised as performance and security increases, not "a new desktop theme," as people keep saying it. The leaked internal build shows a 40-50% memory usage decrease since Vista. In my book, that's a good thing, even as a Linux user.
  • by wicka (985217) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @01:01AM (#23929393)
    I fully believe that Microsoft management asked the engineers when 7 would be ready, they replied "January 2009" and the managers said "January 2010 it is." I find it highly unlikely that it will be significantly delayed again. No matter how much you want to believe it, Microsoft is simply not retarded.

    Windows 7 won't suck. It won't be great either. It'll be pretty decent, probably above average. People will use it and say, "Hey this is better than Vista, and it's sorta fast too." Linux users will keep saying that Linux is better and hipsters will keep saying that OS X is better. Status quo antebellum; this is unlikely to change in the near future. Microsoft's market share will probably dip once Linux hits its stride, but there is definitely a wall for OS X adoption (closed-down software that only runs on high-priced hardware from one manufacturer? It must appeal to the masses).

    I've tried to be less extreme in predictions than I usually am. It's just that you get a few people saying that Windows will dominate again, a few people saying that Linux will rise up and defeat them, and then another few saying that OS X will take over. All are equally laughable scenarios.
  • by Tumbleweed (3706) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @02:08AM (#23929911)

    ...for sufficiently large values of '2010,' which, as used by MS, is a variable name.

  • Windows 7 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by abigsmurf (919188) on Wednesday June 25, 2008 @03:49AM (#23930663)
    I'm actually pretty interested in Windows 7. It looks like there's a big shift in focus in it's design, concentrating more on performance than glitz which is the opposite to vista. The 25mb customisable lightweight version looks designed to eat into Linux's increasing market share in low powered budget systems.

    It's easy to forget that MS followed up Windows ME, possibly their worst ever OS with XP, their best ever OS. At least Vista doesn't BSOD unless you've major hardware/driver issues.

Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse

Working...