Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Microsoft Operating Systems Software

One Year Later, "Dead" XP Still Going Strong 538

Posted by kdawson
from the killed-the-wrong-one dept.
snydeq writes "Microsoft pulled the plug on Windows XP a year ago today, no longer selling new copies in most venues. Yet according to a report from InfoWorld, various downgrade paths to XP are keeping the operating system very much alive, particularly among businesses. In fact, despite Microsoft trumpeting Vista as the most successful version of Windows ever sold, more than half of business PCs have subsequently downgraded Vista-based machines to XP, according to data provided by community-based performance-monitoring network of PCs. Microsoft recently planned to further limit the ability to downgrade to XP now that Windows 7 is in the pipeline, but backlash against the licensing scheme prompted the company to change course, extending downgrade rights on new PCs from April 2010 to April 2011."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

One Year Later, "Dead" XP Still Going Strong

Comments Filter:
  • Windows 7 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @06:33PM (#28536473)

    This trend will stop when Windows 7 is introduce.

    Mark it on the wall.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @06:39PM (#28536533)

      Yes, the Windows 7 theme really makes Vista much better.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Yeah, sure does. And I'd like to take this opportunity to give a big shout out to all of those people that Microsoft sold a copy of Vista to.

        Thanks for being unpaid beta testers for Win7 - we appreciate your time, money, frustration, and effort. Your stubborn refusal to ditch Vista will be rewarded - just as soon as you ditch Vista for the paid patch that is Win7. Thanks again, and study your WC Fields next time.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Ruede (824831)

      i sure hope so. because winxp with ie doesnt support sni. thus making it hard for some hosters...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication [wikipedia.org]

    • Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DirtyCanuck (1529753) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @07:27PM (#28536963)

      Where I work we just started taking pre-orders on Windows 7.

      An elderly gentleman came in (today) and was ecstatic to place an order. His son installed it on his computer and he said he has never been happier. He stated he hated Vista and had kept his XP until the beta. I bombarded him with questions and the jist of his satisfaction came from the simplicity and speed Win7 had.

      In my opinion this guy was a prime example that Microsoft might have a winner, both in the eyes of people who are technologically savvy as well as somebody who is anything but.

      I personally still run 32-bit xp on my Core i7 (Except for games, damn DX10), and I have been bitterly against an upgrade for fear of hidden DRM treats down the line. Only time will tell.

      • Re:Windows 7 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by juventasone (517959) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @07:59PM (#28537169)

        Any perceived "speed" improvement in 7 is misguided. You will hear many people say that their PC has better performance after removing the included Vista installation, and installing XP/7/linux. This is actually because of the amount of additional software installed by the hardware vendor.

        This software can be divided into two categories: applications from the vendor that manage updates, backups, connectivity, media handling, recovery, you name it (even though Vista has all of these things already), and applications from third-parties that are trials/demos/upgradable that gives the hardware vendor a kickback if purchased by the end user.

        • Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Interesting)

          by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @08:09PM (#28537227) Homepage
          I had the same experience when change from Vista to Vista on my laptop. I formatted the machine and installed a fresh copy of just Vista, without all the crap ware, and boot times went from 2 minutes to 30 seconds. Also, the entire machine is much more responsive.
        • Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Interesting)

          by shutdown -p now (807394) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @08:30PM (#28537419) Journal

          Casual end user observations may be misguided, but there were a number of performance reviews that clearly showed Win7 as being faster than Vista, and generally much closer to XP, and even faster on occasion (weirdly enough, in some Direct3D games).

          • Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Interesting)

            by w0mprat (1317953) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @09:52PM (#28538007)
            Agreed. There is plenty of published benchmarks to show the tuning in Windows 7 to be significant compared to your typcial service pack patch-up. maybe foss advocates don't read those kind of articles *duck*

            A closer look at 7 and you see how some of the speed was achieved, pretty much a backtrack on a shortlist of Vista mistakes. Part of tweaking Vista was to disable or delay the start of all the frivolous services Vista would start at boot. If you look at Windows 7's default services settings, you'll find many set to manual start or to delayed start by default. Infact it looks just like a tweaked vista installation.

            It's almost as if microsoft scrutinist the how-to-guides on common speed-up-your-windoze sites to see what people were disabling. Indeed Microsoft actually pay attention to the modding commuity is a unprecedented thing.
          • Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Draek (916851) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @10:16PM (#28538173)

            Why would improved Direct3D performance under Windows 7 be considered 'weird'? it *is* a newer version of DirectX, performance improvements are to be expected.

        • Re:Windows 7 (Score:4, Interesting)

          by UltimApe (991552) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @09:10PM (#28537763)

          I call bull.

          I can't run vista on my eee pc... it chugs to a halt.

          Windows 7 RC runs without a hitch.

          Time to internet is significantly reduced (measureable in minutes), by timed tests w/ stop watch, and I can run many more instances of excel / word / chrome without alt-tabbing causing pagefaults (about 5 more tabs in chrome, and 4 instances of excell/word, before the page faults start to go up).

          It may not sound significant, but it makes using the thing practical. I can take it out and use it without having to wait.

          It is comparable to XP, but it vastly more usable out of the box.

          This is coming from a highly optimized Debian install. I even wrote my own custom ram-drive loader for it... I still have it on there w/ dual boot, but Firefox sucked compared to chrome (i could barely keep 4 tabs open without it taking 30 seconds to switch, whereas in chrome 15 tabs and switching is instantaneous)

          The only thing that's faster is the xandrox OS that came with the thing. But it feels so gimped compared to win7.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by rdebath (884132)

            The Firefox on Linux issue is well known, it's caused by the ext2/3 drivers converting an fsync() call into a sync() call in the sqlite library.

            The workaround is to move the entire Firefox profile onto a ramdisk, copied to disk and from disk at appropriate times of course. It works well for me with loads of tabs on an old 1.3GHz minilaptop, with only flash (as usual) causing problems.

            As Linux almost never crashes this works fine. There are even distributions (puppy) that work like this for everything.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by BikeHelmet (1437881)

          The UI is more responsive, which is the best indicator of what makes something "fast". People don't care if a task finishes in 18 seconds, or 20, or 22, if the UI isn't dog slow.

          XP nailed UI responsiveness, even on slow hardware. (by today's standards)

          Windows 7 is quite responsive, even on slow machines like Netbooks, which is impressive because it packs more features.

          Vista though - ever seen that on a Netbook? I have - the first Compaq Mini-Notes. Vista isn't responsive on a netbook. Lots of time is spent

      • Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @08:47PM (#28537567) Homepage

        Most of the simplicity of W7 is that they returned to naming conventions and menu layout and some naming from XP. It's closer to XP than Vista and many people I tested it with mentioned that right off the bat.

        Vista's renaming of things in control panel was flat out stupid and retarded. when I look for software install, I look for add-remove programs not "fluffy fun software thingy" I have seen more users flat out frustrated with Vista because of the complete morons at microsoft that think rearranging menus and renaming things is a good idea. It's not. stop it. In fact murder every employee there that even mentions it. Throw them off the roof then throw chairs down after them to make sure.

        I'm just waiting to see how they throw in last minute DRM to completely screw up the OS. I know they will, they are too much whores for the media industry to not to.

        • Re:Windows 7 (Score:4, Informative)

          by daver00 (1336845) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @09:59PM (#28538057)

          Add/Remove programs was changed to: "Uninstall a program". It is even plainly displayed on the standard (non-classic) control panel view in Vista. Seriously dude, what is confusing about that? In fact it makes MORE sense, who on earth *installs* a program through the windows program manager? Further, in Win7 RC1, they *have not* returned to the XP naming conventions, the Win7 control panel features the same layout as Vista with good ole "Uninstall a program" listed under the "Programs" category.

          What is it with this? Do you simply look at the new layout, fail to recognise anything because it has been renamed and categorised, then just throw your arms in the air and give up, declaring the new OS an utter failure? Microsoft is not reversing the changes made in Vista. As someone who has used Vista for nearly two years and has now used 7 a good deal, I find it belly achingly hilarious that people are falling over themselves to praise 7 for its sensible layout changes, speed, and better UI when all of these things are imperceptibly different from Vista. Win7 tends to not force you so deep into dialogue boxes as Vista does, but essentially they contain the same content, in the same places. The UI is exactly the same as Vista, barring the new taskbar. Everything is almost identical to Vista.

          Its not that Win7 is bad, its more that Vista is actually pretty good.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @06:35PM (#28536495)

    After we took a look at Vista, Who Knew XP would look so good? Actually XP was never "bad", and it's pretty stable considering all the garbage people install on their PCs. Although people say (in surveys) that they don't like "renting" their OS software, I (and my corporate clients) wouldn't mind at all paying a yearly fee for ongoing maintenance of XP, or, perhaps for a new 3 or 5-year license with "support". And since the Web is so good for self-support for some time now, we would just be looking for maintenance releases and security updates. And we already "rent" many of our applications, from security suites to corporate apps with support. Microsoft would benefit because they would effectively get "us" to be purchasing OS licenses just the same as if we bought Windows 7 (or whatever). The resellers would be losers of course, coz we wouldn't be buying so much new hardware, but that's not especially "our" problem. For business use, anything over 1.6 GHz (sometimes even slower!)/512MB RAM or so is just icing on the cake for XP. It runs pretty well in that minimum configuration. It would be much cheaper than a change to a new version of Windows. And it does EVERYTHING we need, doesn't it? ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sexconker (1179573)

      Give me:

      XP
      Updated installer / boot loader (loading drivers from USB, etc.)
      64 bits ONLY
      DirectX 10 & 11
      UAC + not defaulting people to administrator
      The SATA and SSD support of Vista/7

      Don't give me:

      Shitty shiny baubles for the UI
      Extra DRM that makes my audio card useless
      Endless indexing
      Pointless bullshit like ReadyBoost

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        Why 64bit ONLY? Given the amount of compatibility problems I've read with 64bit OS's, and some games developers state in the system requirements 64bit is NOT supported.

        I agree with the rest, but curious why you're essentially saying "And I want a whole bunch of software to NOT WORK".

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @07:02PM (#28536757)

          32bit is a dead end. How much RAM would you stuff into your computers if your OS and applications could use it. The price of RAM is through the floor and nobody buys the stuff because more than 3GB is completely useless in a typical Windows PC due to architecture limitations.

          • by Spike15 (1023769) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @08:46PM (#28537557)

            32bit is a dead end. How much RAM would you stuff into your computers if your OS and applications could use it. The price of RAM is through the floor and nobody buys the stuff because more than 3GB is completely useless in a typical Windows PC due to architecture limitations.

            Someone mod this man UP.

            What he speaks is 100% the truth. 32-bit is at an end and it's only lazy program and [especially] driver developers that are keeping us using it. Vista 64-bit functions almost transparently running 32-bit applications -- I've never had a problem -- it's only drivers that it gets stuck up on (not everyone is coding 64-bit drivers). Over the lifespan of Vista, however, I've seen that problem slowly decline (been using 64-bit Vista since the day it went gold), and now (with Windows 7) I think it's time that they went 64-bit ONLY.

            I see Microsoft embracing 64-bit fully internally. Forefront TMG is 64-bit ONLY, and Server 2008 R2 is going to be 64-bit only also.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by wiredlogic (135348)

            32-bit Windows can support more than 4GB of RAM [microsoft.com] on processors that support PAE. This capability is not available to XP but can be had on some versions of Win2K, Server 2003, and 2008.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by rdebath (884132)
              That is ALL versions of Windows 2k. W2k Professional can use exactly 4Gb of RAM independent of how much is allocated to the video card. As could XP before service pack 2.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by rdebath (884132)

            The simple fact is the x86 processors allow any OS to use the entire of memory in both 64bit and 32bit modes.

            I have 12Gb of RAM and a 32bit OS, it's all usable.

            Windows 2000, 32bit only, could use 64Gb of memory. We have some 32bit Windows 2003 machines with 8Gb of memory. But there's one application that needs 64bit; MS-SQL works a lot better with a 64bit userspace.

            That's really the point. There are very few applications that need a 64bit userspace, they're usually pretty easy to recognise, they're t

        • The only thing that doesn't work in 64-bit land is kernel-level shit (drivers). You can run 32-bit apps in 64-bit land.

          (Yeah, there are some stupid exceptions, I don't give a fuck.)

          (I mean only one version of the OS. Obviously we're not cutting out the 32 bit instruction set, or the 64-bit OS's support of 32-bit software.)

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Mad Merlin (837387)

          Why 64bit ONLY? Given the amount of compatibility problems I've read with 64bit OS's, and some games developers state in the system requirements 64bit is NOT supported.

          I agree with the rest, but curious why you're essentially saying "And I want a whole bunch of software to NOT WORK".

          You mean 64-bit Windows? Sure, it's a trainwreck at best, but so is 32-bit Windows, so it's really not saying much. But I've been using 64-bit Linux since 2006, and it's exactly like running 32-bit Linux, except you can use more RAM.

          • Not only that, but if 64 bit were the only option, it would have to be at least as well supported as 32 bit is now.

            Why 64bit ONLY? Given the amount of compatibility problems I've read with 64bit OS's, and some games developers state in the system requirements 64bit is NOT supported.

            I agree with the rest, but curious why you're essentially saying "And I want a whole bunch of software to NOT WORK".

            Read? You mean you haven't even used them? Then who are you to complain?

            I've used nothing but 64 bit operating systems for the last several years, with my server being the only exception (32 bit processor). I haven't had a single issue related to 64 bit operating systems. The only reason people are still able to complain about these things is because they refuse to adopt the new technology

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by X0563511 (793323)

              In addition...

              If your user-land level stuff is breaking under a 64-bit kernel, "You're Doing It Wrong [tinyurl.com]"

              The only thing that I'm aware of is funky pointer-math voodoo, which you should NOT be even considering touching unless you are deep down in the hardware.

              So, point your fingers firmly at the commercial software vendors for this problem.

          • by moogsynth (1264404) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @07:58PM (#28537161)

            I've been using 64-bit Linux since 2006, and it's exactly like running 32-bit Linux, except you can use more RAM.

            You can use more than 4gb of RAM on 32-bit Linux, too. All you have to do [cyberciti.biz] is install a Physical Address Extension (PAE) aware kernel:

            sudo sudo apt-get install linux-headers-server linux-image-server linux-server
            sudo shutdown -r now

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Given the amount of compatibility problems I've read with 64bit OS's, and some games developers state in the system requirements 64bit is NOT supported.

          I have over 40 games in my Steam account. I've yet to see a single one which wouldn't run on my Win7 x64 (or Vista x64 that was before it).

          Some of those games are fairly old (e.g. Jagged Alliance 2, Morrowind). There's also a bunch of old non-Steam games that I have (e.g. Age of Wonders) that are even older. They all run fine.

          Can you give an example of a game which doesn't run on Win64, or which at least officially claims that such a configuration is not supported?

      • If you are all upset by having your audio card be made useless, why are you pushing 64-bit only?

        There are far more 32-bit x86s in the world than there are tweaky audio cards. Do you have some reason for accepting the obsolescence of the former but not the later(beyond owning the latter but not the former, and being self centered and whiny?)
  • Zombie XP (Score:5, Funny)

    by geekgirlandrea (1148779) <andrea+slashdot@persephoneslair.org> on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @06:37PM (#28536509) Homepage
    Clearly, Microsoft used worcestershire sauce as an embalming fluid.
  • Count me in (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SlashGordon (1127617) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @06:38PM (#28536527)
    I've been defending Vista for some time now since it worked just fine on my laptop. Now, however some sort of incompatibility between Vista, Firefox and Zone Alarm keeps freezing my browser. It's not happening on my XP systems. And suddenly, within the past couple of weeks, even IE is freezing. So I'm building a new system for my wife and be sure that I'm going with XP.
    • Re:Count me in (Score:4, Interesting)

      by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @07:07PM (#28536817) Homepage Journal

      Wait until you create a new directory while logged in with admin rights and then try to transfer something from an XP box over the network to your vista box only to get an odd error message indicating you don't have permission to put the file in the directory you just created.

      Bastards.

      Vista has some issues. Overall I like the interface. Files moving is still slow,and weird rights issues keep popping up.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by anagama (611277)
        I don't get your complaint. You are essentially saying that if one user creates a folder, all other users should be able to have write access to it automatically? That sounds like a security issue to me and I'd think the correct behavior would be for the file owner to intentionally give the appropriate "group" and "other" permissions in the event the owner wants to open up the folder. Till then, it should be restricted. I don't use Windows, but the behavior you describe is what I'd expect an OS to do, a
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by X0563511 (793323)

          No, thats not what he is saying.

          He's saying that if you create the folder, and then try to put stuff into said folder from a WinXP share, you get permissions denied.

          Note, that he is still performing the operation as the Administrator that created the folder in the first place.

        • by Jartan (219704)

          You didn't understand his complaint because the bug is so stupid that explaining it leaves anyone going "huh?". Basically if you try to copy files from a network drive it will in some specific circumstances tell you that you don't have write access even when you are admin with full access.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by maxume (22995)

      Unless you are absolutely certain you need it, stop running Zone Alarm. The inbound software firewall in XP(SP2+)/Vista works fine, and you probably don't need an outbound firewall.

      (If you are using some integrated security package called Zone Alarm, just turn off the firewall part)

    • by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @07:22PM (#28536917) Homepage Journal
      You know what amazes me. Back in the days when Windows 95, the OS constantly ate itself. Blue screens were common. Rebooting was a constant need when things started going south. Reinstalling the OS became habit for even the least technical of computer users.... and you know what? For whatever reason, they didn't complain nearly as much as you people do. You have a piece of shit software firewall that isn't playing nice with your Vista and *BAM* that's it. The OS blows and that's that. Back in my day we wrote init strings to our modems over a serial connection AND LIKED IT! Now if the newfangled cheap-as-dirt wireless card doesn't plug in, magically know which network is yours and your password without asking, and give you theoretical limits in speed then you BREAK OUT THE PICKFORKS and demand the head of a virgin.

      I'm out of beer.

      I'll be back.
      • Re:Count me in (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DJRumpy (1345787) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @07:58PM (#28537159)
        It's probably related to the fact that you could pick up Windows 95 for about 90 bucks. There was no 'home', or 'home premium', or whatever. There was just a full version for 90 bucks. To get the 'full' version of the newest flavor of Windows 7, we must shell out almost 4 times the cost. This in just a little over 10 years. It's a bit ridiculous when you look at the rate of inflation. The product offers new features, but so do many software products on the market, yet they tend to retain the same costs.

        If I'm paying so much more for an OS, I expect much more value.
        • Re:Count me in (Score:5, Informative)

          by genner (694963) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @08:17PM (#28537303)

          It's probably related to the fact that you could pick up Windows 95 for about 90 bucks. There was no 'home', or 'home premium', or whatever. There was just a full version for 90 bucks. To get the 'full' version of the newest flavor of Windows 7, we must shell out almost 4 times the cost. This in just a little over 10 years. It's a bit ridiculous when you look at the rate of inflation. The product offers new features, but so do many software products on the market, yet they tend to retain the same costs. If I'm paying so much more for an OS, I expect much more value.

          The full version of Windows 95 was Windows NT and it wasn't cheap.

      • by bill_kress (99356)

        We never complained because things always got better, not worse.

        (Except Windows ME--I think I heard a complaint about that somewhere along the line)

        And you had a modem!?!? In my day we had to write our data on a magnetic cassette made for voice and walk it over to it's destination!

        We were happy to get those 110 baud half-duplex acoustic modems!

    • Re:Count me in (Score:5, Informative)

      by saleenS281 (859657) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @07:51PM (#28537107) Homepage
      Great story, except it is a KNOWN zonealarm issue. 20 seconds on google would've told you that. But this is slashdot, so let's blame Microsoft!

      http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=759555&sid=3ece4d689adbaac6cb9dd8a75d47843f&start=30 [mozillazine.org]
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by numbski (515011)

      So I'm building a new system for my wife and be sure that I'm going with Ubuntu.

      There, fixed it for you. :) You really gotta learn to spell that right. It isn't that hard!

    • by moon3 (1530265)
      So one small glitch and people immediately downgrade to "trusty" XP ? No wonder Linux has such a low deployment then.
  • by MarcoAtWork (28889)

    ... I upgraded to vista on my gaming box (for dx10 and to experiment with it) but on my main box there would be no way for me to do that, due to several things I'm using not having drivers for vista at all (or only for vista32). I guess we'll see how things are with windows 7, if the virtual XP included is going to be able to run XP drivers directly then maybe I would consider upgrading, but I kind of doubt that is likely as if you allowed the virtual box direct access to the hardware then it would be easy

  • Success (Score:5, Insightful)

    by truthsearch (249536) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @06:45PM (#28536591) Homepage Journal

    "the most successful version of windows ever sold"

    sold (or really licensed) != used

    The user base is never the same size as sales or downloads.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by snl2587 (1177409)

      Though if by "successful" they mean "successful at making their users' lives more difficult one bizarre error at a time", I'd say they're spot on.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Vectronic (1221470)

      I was going to comment on that as well, shouldn't every new OS by ___ developer be more successful than the last? Especially since most PC's are tied to an OS when purchased, there are far more people buying computers now than in 2001, and probably more in 2010 than in 2006. The same could be said for most software in general, Pidgin is more successful than Gaim, WinAmp 3 was probably more successful than WinAmp 2 (going by downloads), which is less successful than WinAmp 5, etc...

      Their success is measured

    • Indeed. The most licensed OS would have to be Linux. Or maybe BSD. But that's another debate.

      I might just write a new license, the General Organism License, and license my own OS under it. By Microsoft's mechanism for counting "use", mine will be the most used OS of all time! Until someone writes a license that rocks can use, I suppose. Hmmm...

    • by mrxak (727974)
      It's successful if people buy Vista, then buy a copy of XP afterwards. Two OS sales for one computer, that's a win in Microsoft's financial books.
  • XP dead? I think even netcraft confirms it isn't, despite what Microsoft would like. The latest advertisement from the local Microcenter is covered left and right in computers that are listed as being "downgradeable" to Windows XP. This is obviously something people and businesses want or need.

  • Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dave562 (969951) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @06:50PM (#28536639) Journal
    Can we do away with the "XP still alive" stories? At this point "everyone" knows that people are going to continue using XP for as long as possible. The other people with Software Assurance or other Microsoft volume licensing programs are going to stay on XP just until they can plan a migration to Windows 7. A small minority will finally make the shift to Linux, and a couple people will slurp up the Jobs flavored Kool-Aid and justify spending significant amounts of money to be locked into a completely proprietary hardware/software "solution".
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Savage-Rabbit (308260)

      Can we do away with the "XP still alive" stories?

      Why? I was kind of hoping "XP is dying" would replace the "BSD is dying" joke since the latter is pretty much worn out and needs a replacement.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by alienunknown (1279178)

      and a couple people will slurp up the Jobs flavored Kool-Aid

      Where can I buy this Jobs flavoured kool-aid? I'm so glad all these big tech companies are investing in the flavoured beverage market. Why, I'm sitting here enjoying a cold glass of Google Gulp [google.com] as I type this. They really should make an MS-branded kool-aid beverage though, as long as its not Ballmer flavoured which would probably taste like armpit sweat [youtube.com].

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by blind biker (1066130)

      Can we do away with the "XP still alive" stories? At this point "everyone" knows that people are going to continue using XP for as long as possible. The other people with Software Assurance or other Microsoft volume licensing programs are going to stay on XP just until they can plan a migration to Windows 7. A small minority will finally make the shift to Linux, and a couple people will slurp up the Jobs flavored Kool-Aid and justify spending significant amounts of money to be locked into a completely proprietary hardware/software "solution".

      Can we do away with these retarded posts that complain about a story but comment on it? And yours was actually a juicy little useless rant - you really put your heart into it!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @06:56PM (#28536703)

    XP is going to die rather quickly once one or more of the following happen: 2.5TB or bigger hard disks drop below $100 (no GUID partition table support in XP), applications make good use of more than 4GB RAM (XP64 driver support "could be better"), USB3 devices become available in mass quantities (no USB3 support in XP), IPv4 addresses run out and major ISPs offer IPv6 access (IPv6 support in XP is incomplete and lacks a UI), Duke Nukem Forever is released for Windows 7 only.

  • XP is Good Enough. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by solios (53048) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @07:07PM (#28536815) Homepage

    (everyone who Knows Better will know I'm talking about most users, IT shops, etc - not the technical "merits")

    Microsoft is finally getting bit by cultivating and preying on the culture of Good Enough. XP supports current hardware, runs current apps, ISVs are still writing for it. Users are comfortable with it, it handles games well (hey, check out the number of Big Name Games that require DX10), and while it's a security nightmare, most competent shops know enough to be able to keep their machines STD-free.

    Vista is a host of new problems, support issues, and sucks on the same hardware XP zips on. Windows 7 isn't officially out yet... and when it is, most IT shops are going to wait. They'll poke it with a stick, sniff it like a dog, and rather it's a genuine improvement or not, they're not going to hop on it until they have to.

    XP is the new BSD. It'll be "dying" for the next five to ten years. It's going to take a massive paradigm shift* in computing to get rid of it.

    * I don't mean quad cores or eight-way cores or 64 gigs of ram for a nickel. I mean something equivalent to a massive rendering farm running an OS with a pile of APIs that'll securely handle every windows (and mac, while we're fantasizing) application ever written, with a battery life measured in decades. Said hardware would be the size of an iPhone, even easier to use, and you'd be able to buy them in vending machines at bus stations for $1.25. I mean that kind of paradigm shift.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I agree. And we're already mostly the way there. The iPhone is a computer, pure and simple. I has input, processing, ram, storage, etc. It has output. It's a computer. Now, if Apple just gave it some serious storage, boodles of RAM and a sufficient video for HDMI out, and put in 2 USB jacks, (one for external storage and the other for kbd/mouse) and sold it for $29.95 at WalMart - there is your computer of the future.

      RS

  • by smash (1351) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @07:12PM (#28536841) Homepage Journal
    ... a massive "Thank-you, you dumb bastards."
  • Why would they? (Score:4, Informative)

    by tsotha (720379) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @07:24PM (#28536933)

    In fact, despite Microsoft trumpeting Vista as the most successful version of Windows ever sold, more than half of business PCs have subsequently downgraded Vista-based machines to XP, according to data provided by community-based performance-monitoring network of PCs.

    That's not necessarily mutually exclusive. There have always been a substantial number of businesses which don't see a compelling reason to upgrade when a new version of Windows comes out. 85% of those machines are used primarily for word processing, after all, something which has been "good enough" for a couple of decades. I worked for a company which was still happily using Windows for Workgroups in 2001. Add the people who always wait for Service Pack 2 and you're at a pretty big percentage of the market.

  • by gmuslera (3436) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @07:29PM (#28536977) Homepage Journal
    According to unofficial sources, the planned "End of Life" for Windows XP will be in December 21 of 2012.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @07:32PM (#28536999)

    With Linux, I know I can still go download updates for some ridiculously old distribution like Fedora Core 3 and that it will still work. It will never be sunset and I'll always be able to download it. Killing off an operating system when it's no longer profitable to keep it alive, despite the concerns of customers, is a reason why community-developed open source software is better.

  • A couple of months ago, my brother has his XP installation is such a bad shape that I had to come over to fix it. While we were walking on the street we started discussing about XP vs. Vista and how much Vista sucks.

    After a few minutes a random stranger on the street barges in on the discussion how much Vista really sucked. Yes people, a total stranger chipped in on a discussion to say his opinion on Vista. It simply sucks that much.

    Windows 7 will probably be a lot better since it is pretty much impossible

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sayfawa (1099071)
      The only thing I can objectively say is that Vista feels about as quick as XP did on my older computer. So yeah, that's not good, considering my older computer is a 1.73GHz Celeron with 1.5 gigs of ram, and my new one is a 2.1GHz Turion with 4GB of ram.

      But, having said that, it certainly doesn't feel slow. I got rid of as much bloatware and extra crap as I could, which helped a lot. It doesn't feel like it gets in my way. Honestly, I wouldn't go back to XP if I could.

      Of course, I would never have actually
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by selven (1556643)
      The fact that its beta stability was what you would expect from an alpha, its release stability was what you would expect from beta and its SP1 stability was what you would expect from release. Vista looks fine now of course, now that it's so late in its life cycle.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MrCrassic (994046)
      Marketing and consumer ignorance are a force hard to stop.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by adolf (21054)

      Personally, I am wondering. What the hell is wrong with Vista? I know it sucks since I suffer using it but it simply feels so hard to describe. What made Vista suck?

      I really am not sure.

      A couple of years ago, I heard all about how bad Vista would suck. I'm traditionally a Linux user, and had a good working Linux desktop machine before most folks had even heard of Teh Intarweb, but my laptop (a 4-year-old Inspiron 6000) ran XP for business reasons. Also, I make a fair bit of cash doing odd Windows work on the side.

      So, when Vista got released, I figured: Well, if it's so horrible, then I should get myself a copy and use it, so I can at least understand how to fix it w

  • Sometimes I wonder how much of the resistance to the new Microsoft OSes is XP being good or the OS being bad.

    The truth is, computers are still a relatively recent thing; this is the first major, major OS change in a world largely dependent on the well-being of its various corporate networks; the only similar major transition I can think of is OS 9 to OS X, but Macs weren't (and aren't) as widespread in corporate, industrial, or small business environments.

    So how much of this resistance to change is du
  • Maybe this is a backlash against being milked by the upgrade gravy train.
  • by sasha328 (203458) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @08:01PM (#28537189) Homepage

    I've used Vista for a short while and also some users (bought new PCs preloaded).
    I, as the support person, hated it because it took me longer to find my way around it. It is not intuitive for people used to where MS used to place things. I'd say it was similar to going from OS9 to OSX in Mac userland. After a handful to users buying into Vista and then coming to lots of problems in terms of figuring out how to use it, I started recommending downgrades for their and mine sanity's sake.
    Then I landed a corporate job, and our policy (I set my own, with advice from HQ in the UK) is to stick with XP. My primary reason is that my users are mostly set in their ways, and Vista from UI perspective will be a disaster. The other reason in that some legacy apps will probably cause problems to run. They even cause problems in XP.
    So, when I order a PC from Dell, I always specify XP as the OS. It comes pre-installed.
    On a side note, I also downgrade Office 2007 to 2003 Pro, again for usability reasons. I have Select Licenses, so I am "legally" entitled to.
    Long live XP.

  • by r0tu (956689)
    Why is it that M$ can simply put out an OS with a new face and a couple of new features and sell it as a new product, yet no one wonders about how they are being limited to their freedom of choice by their obvious attempt to control the market with crap and make you happy to pay for it. I think it's funny watching the monkeys pay for crap they already paid for and love paying way over it's value for it. M$ research is paid by the users who complain their asses off and still use their crap, they exploit th
  • by Orion Blastar (457579) <orionblastar&gmail,com> on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @08:29PM (#28537417) Homepage Journal

    people will still run Windows XP Pro in Virtual Machines just to run "legacy software" that does not run on Windows Vista, Windows 7.0, etc.

    VirtualBox [virtualbox.org] by Sun just reached version 3.0.0 and supports Windows XP, Vista, and 7.0 as both host and guest operating systems. It can even run DOS virtual machines, but has no addons support for DOS.

    For DOS support most people just use DOSBox [dosbox.com] but it has no printing support. For example Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS runs in it, but since it has no printer support, just select Postscript for a printer and then use Ghostscript or some other Postscript program to drop the Postscript data file on to print it out. After Microsoft went to the Windows NT and up and left the Windows 9X platform, it broke a lot of DOS applications. DOSBox is cool, as it even supports Tandy 1000 standards so that means those DOS video games that selected CGA or Tandy graphics can be played in Tandy mode. That was before EGA and then later VGA was invented.

    Retrocomputing is more than just a fad, for some that have "legacy software" issues they have to use older hardware and older operating systems, or run older operating systems in virtual machines and/or emulators.

    The cost of upgrading "legacy software" to Windows Vista or even Windows 7.0 standards is too high and too difficult for most software companies, plus Windows Vista broke a lot of software development tools including some old versions of Visual Studio as recent as 2002 or 2003. There is a lot of software that businesses need, that cannot be converted to run on Vista or 7.0, which is why Microsoft has that XP Virtual Machine, but they futzed up the XP Virtual machine and it is not 100% XP compatible. So I am guessing virtual machines like VirtualBox, VMWare, etc will be used to run XP in a virtual machine for better compatibility.

  • Skewed stats. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrCrassic (994046) <deprecated@ema . i l> on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @08:57PM (#28537643) Journal
    If you observe the stats collected in this [infoworld.com] page of the article, one will see that Lenovo and Dell machines constitute a very high percentage of downgrades. However, the other manufacturers are starkly lower in comparison.

    I can't help but believe that this is because Dell and Lenovo are the main suppliers of business laptops in the United States. It's a well-known fact that businesses are super slow at transitioning to new versions of anything significant, especially operating systems. If one is going to make this sensational claim, people in the server community might as well bicker about how adoption to Server 2008 is as slow as molasses right now.

    This will naturally slow once Windows 7 comes to the forefront, but considering how the release dates between the two are so close (Vista came out in 2007, 7 is coming out late this year or next year) and how vastly improved 7 is to Vista, there's no net benefit for businesses to adopt to Vista on user machines.

    It's not like this is new information; it's always been like this. The big difference is that Microsoft is now suffering from taking so goddamn long to release a "meh" operating system and then release the awesome so soon afterwards.
  • by Latinhypercube (935707) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @09:18PM (#28537819)
    Upgrade people ! XP is a great OS. Windows 7 64 bit supporting over 4gb of ram running on a brand new Solid State Disk (5x faster). It feels like the future is meant to feel !!!!!
  • Due to monopolists (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HermMunster (972336) on Tuesday June 30, 2009 @11:21PM (#28538533)

    When people want XP you give it to them. People demand a product you produce the supply.

    When the company that controls the main product is a monopoly the goal is to keep soaking you for everything.

    You don't need Vista. You don't even need Win7. In fact, there is absolutely no need for either, nor is there a need for XP. 90% of the people do 99% of the same things. Those things can be performed by Linux.

    Stop dictating that the people using computers have to upgrade to a specific product. Let them use what they want.

    This is so stupid that it even happens. It is just so incredibly insane. We've gotta end this somehow. End the monopoly and people will have free choice again. There's no benefit to Microsoft's monopoly. It isn't benefiting society in any way.

The meta-Turing test counts a thing as intelligent if it seeks to devise and apply Turing tests to objects of its own creation. -- Lew Mammel, Jr.

Working...