No XP Reprieve; Windows 7 Release Set 609
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.
Re:January 2010 (Score:5, Interesting)
not i... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Who? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
As a proud supporter of open source: (Score:4, Interesting)
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!
Re:You know... (Score:2, Interesting)
I doubt anyone caught the Big FU (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:As a proud supporter of open source: (Score:0, Interesting)
In other news (Score:3, Interesting)
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:As someone who has Vista Ultimate (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually totally agree. I have used every version of Windows from 2.0 to Vista (I have a fairly beastly tower running Home Premium and use Enterprise under Bootcamp on my Macbook Pro), and I find it to be totally stable, full featured and more problem-free than any of the previous iterations of Windows, including XP.
I am NOT a MS fanboy. The best desktop OS I have used is Leopard. I have a pile of linux boxes of various flavors whirring away in my closet. I worked for ages in X Windows on Solaris and AIX. I really, really liked KDE 3.x, though I haven't used it in a long while. Not a fan of Gnome for the same reasons people whine about Vista (bloat, bugs, UI complaints).
But I still fail to understand the reasoning of all the Vista hate. The one major negative I will give it is that it does have burly system requirements. But modern systems all ship with more than enough horsepower to deal with it fine.
If you want to pick on a current-gen Microsoft OS, I suggest you take a hard look at Windows Mobile. Garbage, even in its most current iteration.
ill pass... (Score:1, Interesting)
If i wanted a useless BLOATED OS then vista and windows 7 could be something i would want. But sadly after seeing how vista runs i have lost all faith in MS's capacity to make a decent streamlined product instead of and overbloated POS(just so it can look more like an apple OS) that only makes a brand new computer slower then a 5 year old computer that was never even high end to start with...
Windows 7 ? (Score:2, Interesting)
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 ?
Re:January 2010 (Score:5, Interesting)
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:not i... (Score:4, Interesting)
when it comes time to upgrade, i will be looking towards the lixux distros again. i would have done it by now but my copy of xp is legit and vista isn't worth the bandwidth.
My dad went to OSX and I have migrated to Ubuntu. My employer has finaly officialy stated they are skipping Vista and will wait for the next version. My new dual core machine isn't bothering with dual boot like the old PIII machine. It's all Linux.
Re:January 2010 (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Windows 7 before Windows 2000 EOL (Score:3, Interesting)
...decide among four choices:
>1. Take a shrinkwrapped XP copy off the shelf and upgrade to that
This is why I own 3 copies of XP: Laptop, Main Desktop, Secondary Desktop
I will NOT run Vista - ever! I have tried, and have had far too many problems, even since SP1.
My new laptop came with Vista, and after problems with networking, printing, sound and video, I went back to XP. It's been running smoothly ever since.
>2. Switch to ReactOS
Not realistic. WINE is more useable, and even that refuses to run too much software.
>3. "Upgrade" to Windows 7
I am hoping that this will be an OK OS, but I don't believe that it will be.
From what I have heard, it is based on the same OS architecture as Vista, and so has the same fundamental design problems that are causing user problems in Vista.
>4. Stick with Windows 2000, hoping that a third party keeps up with security patches
Again, not realistic. It didn't happen for Win98, I don't expect it to happen for Win2K.
Re:Reminds me of Novell (Score:2, Interesting)
You take away the generally amazingly thorough backwards compatibility for hundreds of thousands of apps and you take away the very core of the reason I use windows. I couldnt care less about the OS--but you will pry the apps out of my cold, dead hands.
I'm going to say a few things here. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:January 2010 (Score:5, Interesting)
But when the Mac brand is more desirable then Windows, and those who don't feel like spending a fortune on a new computer are looking at Linux... MS is in for a shock. If the $200 gPC has reviews that it is "more responsive then Vista even on higher-end hardware", MS is losing. Perhaps MS won't suddenly go broke, but slowly the monopoly they had is eroding, and every shot to the foot is increasing it. Just wait, if Windows 7 is anything like Vista, MS is dead.
Re:Who? (Score:5, Interesting)
0. On my 3 different PCs that use wireless that are all running Linux (Desktop, laptop and EEE) neither my HP printer nor my various wireless drivers have had any issues. Now granted, if I want the one on my desktop to work out-of-the-box I have to use a *gasp* Ubuntu distro, or for the EEE a customized disto, but my laptop has an Intel wireless card that works perfectly with just about every distro made in '07 and some in '06. And after getting my HP printer set up, it never malfunctioned any more then it did when I ran Windows. And I disagree, Linux has various distros which give more flexibility with appealing to niche audiences (want speed, get Gentoo, want stability, try Debian, want something really easy-to-use try Ubuntu, etc).
Re:Reminds me of Novell (Score:3, Interesting)
Things like removing drive lettering, would be quite helpful. But would break everything ever written for Windows. /blah. The problem with this is other drives; the CD drive would have to be translated to /media/cdrom for instance. I'm not sure what the list of such translations would be, and I could see this as being very ad-hoc.
It wouldn't have to. There are a couple ways that things could be done. First, the / directory could be treated as C:. If a program asked to open C:\blah, it could just translate that to
The second option would be to implicitly prepend a / before open requests starting with a drive letter; e.g. C: would become /C:, and D: would become /D:. Set up links at /C: and /D: that point to probably / and /media/cdrom, respectively.
(Actually this second option is really just like the first, just at a different layer; in the first, the translation would be done by "fopen" or whatever, in the latter by the file system.)
Things like completely redoing the start bar from scratch to make it actually useful would break every program installer that wants to create a shortcut.
Installers for Windows 3.1 are still able to create Program Groups even though Program Manager no longer exists.
Or making Internet Explorer swappable for another browser, as in, being able to completely remove it. There goes everything hard coded to use IE and expects it to be there, such a Steam.
This is actually at least close to being possible, at least in the most direct sense, in Vista. The (Windows) Explorer/IE integration I think has basically been completely severed. However, the MSHTML component, which is what actually provides the HTML rendering, is still pretty tightly coupled into Windows, and there's not really any way to remove that (unless they were to make it a pluggable API so you could replace MSHTML with something else). You remove that component, you break Windows Help and who knows what else.
Actually the fact that if you uninstalled IE it would break stuff like Steam isn't a big deal I think, because you could just not uninstall IE in that situation.
Backwards compatibility is an interesting animal for MS. I would say that MS's commitment to breaking almost nothing (you can still run many MS-DOS programs from two and a half decades ago on 32-bit Vista for instance) may be the biggest single reason why Windows is in the position it is today. If it isn't, it's at least up there. Way too many companies have old DOS programs, or Excel macros written for Excel 6, etc. that are business critical to easily change platforms. About the best they can do is stay with what they have, but they'll cease to get security updates in that case. So MS is understandably and reasonably very uncomfortable with the idea of breaking compatibility.
But at the same time, it has brought them heaps of trouble. A lot of the security vulnerabilities are due in part to it, a lot of the complexity is borne out of it (though MS has gotten very good at isolating this sort of thing).
I think the answer is to do something where for the base system they revamp and break compatibility, but they also maintain a backwards-compatible layer, probably using the technology they have in VirtualPC and in the Server 2008 hypervisor. Do basically what Apple did with OS X. I wouldn't be surprised if you see this in the next couple release cycles. (Though I may break from /. wisdom and say that I think they should base the ground kernel off of NT, not off of a Unix like Apple did. I have various reasons for thinking this which I'm too lazy to write now.)
In my business market, it's failed utterly (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:January 2010 (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft is by no means "dead" even if Windows 7 is anything like Vista. Whether you like Vista or not it is still a better OS than XP. I held of installing Vista until SP1 and I'm happier with the XP->Vista transition than I was with 98->XP.
Microsoft aren't stupid. They have admitted Vista wasn't the success they expected it to be. If Windows 7 fails, Windows - as a brand name in general - won't be the same OS it used to be and Microsoft knows this. Do you really think they won't do something about it? Take IE6->IE7, now that was a helluva improvement and it's really going to show in IE8. I'd bet they can do the same with Vista->7.
We know next to nothing about Windows 7. I'm prepared to sit back and wait for what Microsoft can pull out of their collective to save the slowly eroding Windows name.
Re:Who? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:As someone who has Vista Ultimate (Score:5, Interesting)
For example:
Car geeks build them from parts in their garage on the weekend.
Audio geeks spend years building their audio set-up.
Electronics geeks build robots in their spare time.
Computer geeks write scripts, compile stuff, delve into the lowest parts of the computer, and just generally do stuff that "humans" don't do.
Geeks aren't "human" (in the sense of the average human being talked about). That's why they're called geeks, shunned, and have a reputation for not getting laid. I embrace my geekiness. I come to Slashdot to be with fellow geeks.
Is Slashdot now a site for mere "enthusiasts?" Instead of "Guy installs Linux on calculator watch" articles, are we going to start seeing "How to use your calculator watch the way it was meant to be used" articles?
Re:Who? (Score:2, Interesting)
For example create a new word document. The default ribbon here does not include the obvious save button. A function that was available with a single click is now hidden deep in a menu structure (admitedly the key binding of ctrl-s still works). It is a complete WTF. My father who has been using spreadsheets longer than there has been windows could not figure out the new UI. He decided to uninstall Office 2007 and has moved to Open Office - without any propting from me.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:As someone who has Vista Ultimate (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would you read Slashdot unless you were a hardcore geek?
Well, I'm probably not what you'd call a hardcore geek. I'm a professional programmer, but I mainly do Java for a web agency.
On the other hand, I have compiled from source the Linux kernel, gcc and associated libraries, upgraded from libc5 to glibc2 by hand, hand-hacked modeline entries in an XF86Config file because my monitor wasn't correctly recognised, to name but a few of the things I've done over the years in the name of tweaking my machine.
But you know what? I really can't be bothered any more. I want my machine to just work. I don't mind tweaking the odd thing here and there, but my days of compiling large chunks of the OS from source are well and truly over. I simply don't have time for that crap any more.
So while I'm perfectly capable of doing geeky stuff on my computer, it has long since lost its appeal. I have more important things to do.
Re:January 2010 (Score:3, Interesting)
AKA the Poo that I paid for w/ my laptop and still don't run. It is dual boot Vista and Ubuntu; guess which is more stable, memory efficient and compatible with my older windows apps... Guess the penguin and win a prize.
Addintools - Office 2007 classic menus (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:January 2010 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who? (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally love the new Office. Most people saw the new "ribbon" interface and just dismissed it. I did as well until I started to use it. I'm not an Office power user, so I never knew what options were under three deep menus, a popup box, and an advanced tab.
I have the opposite perspective.
I actually defended the new Office UI here on Slashdot for a while, mainly on the basis that people I knew who were actually using it tended to like it once they got used to it.
Then I started using it myself, and I too was impressed. They did a pretty good job of identifying the commonly used controls and slapping them front and centre where they should be.
But then the rot set in. You see, I would describe myself as a power user. I don't just write letters in Word. I set up templates and stylesheets for technical reports, design publicity materials with non-trivial layouts, use mail merge, and a whole host of other things... other things that are what set a modern word processor apart from a glorified text editor with a couple of formatting functions. I also use spreadsheets as more than a quick way to create a trivial table. And my problem today is that many, many of the features necessary to do these things are just hidden away so cleverly in Office 2007 that I can't find them browsing through the UI any more, and I don't know what they're called these days to look them up in the on-line help.
I have to resort to searching the web for an article telling me what things are called nowadays so I can do something I used to do with a couple of mouse clicks. If and when I do find it, it's still harder to do, and often the UI looks like they've pulled in some arbitrary dialog boxes from an old version and not updated the whole UI properly. In some cases, I have failed to work out within a reasonable period of time how use Office 2007 to perform some simple tasks, even with the aid of Office help and search engines. Moreover, I find plenty of articles on-line from others frustrated in the same ways.
That is something that has never happened to me before with any version of office software from any source, and is the most damning indictment there can possibly be of any user interface: users can't make it work.
Re:January 2010 (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, their customer base is really different. A lot of them will buy it just because it's new and it's out, and it's somehow "better" since Jobs told them so.
Of course I kind of understand why the fanboys trust him: if you go by Apple's past record, upgrades from 10.0 to 10.1 to 10.2, .3, and .4, were in fact "better," the system did get a lot faster (and I mean a lot: 1 min bootup for 10.2 to 12 seconds for 10.3, on same hardware!), more responsive, etc.