One Year Later, "Dead" XP Still Going Strong 538
Posted
by
kdawson
from the killed-the-wrong-one dept.
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."
ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Duh (Score:1, Insightful)
Naturally businesses do not want to migrate to a more expensive OS. XP works.
Actually (Score:0, Insightful)
Success (Score:5, Insightful)
"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:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Count me in (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
and from all the botnet owners out there (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's dead, Jim (Score:5, Insightful)
This is another reason to switch to Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Most, not all. Some still use 2000. And many large business only switched to XP within the past couple of years. This is no surprise. No pre SP1 version of Windows can be trusted in mission critical environments. It's unlikely that any large firm will fully switch to Windows 7 in the first 5 years of its lifetime.
There remains no compelling reason to upgrade to Windows 7. XP will be around for a good few years yet.
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm paying so much more for an OS, I expect much more value.
Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Windows XP will never die (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (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?
Re:My Story with XP/Vista (Score:2, Insightful)
To be honest, I felt the same way switching over from XP to Vista, but I didn't eschew the experience -- I was open to new things.
Now I find a similar experience going back from Vista to XP, and to be honest, it was worth it. Especially now that Windows 7 is here. The Vista UI was nascent, the 7 UI is the full-blown Vista UI. I feel much more productive using the 7 UI, not because of any big feature, but because of a dozen small thing. The ability to have all the windows but one fade to glass in a crowded environment is a god-send, allowing you to check certain windows without actually bringing them to the front or selecting them, the ability to mouse over the taskbar and have an instant live preview of the windows you're mousing over. The way that program integrate with their historical files list in the start menu. I administer a home network with an Active Directory and several servers, and it's impossible to judge how much time this feature has saved me with RDP. All the RDPs that I use frequently are right there...I can access them with two clicks.
The ability to have all files indexed, and search them instantly, was another feature that was majorly overlooked by many people, and yet it's something I use everyday. You can even use the Start Menu search field as if it were the Run dialog, saving you further time. Rather than clicking the Start button, and then Run, and then typing your command, you can simply hit Start and start typing your command. It's just more efficient.
Vista was slow on older hardware, I'll admit that, but if you had semi-modern hardware it ran decently, and if you were on the bleeding edge you actually saw performance gains over XP. It was Microsoft's bold way of casting off the old and fully embracing the new. In 7 they're re-optimized, and the OS runs like a dream on all hardware.
From what I can tell Vista was like a less severe ME. ME was a tragic operating system, I'll be the first to admit it, and while Vista isn't tragic, it is certainly nothing compared to its successor. But something has to pave the way. ME introduced concepts that we take totally for granted now, like Plug And Play, the intuitive and easy-to-use network stack that we loved in 2k and XP, and the removal of real-mode DOS. I feel that while Vista is nothing like the total failure of ME (I maintain that it was a good OS...so sue me), it did somewhat of the same thing for 7 as ME did for 2k and XP. What I see in 7 is that Microsoft has taken all the good from Vista, along with all the feedback they've received over these ~3 years, and made the best operating system that they've made so far.
I remember when XP came out, there were some pretty hellish issues, but thanks to the segue that is Vista, most of the compatibility problems have been overcome, and the driver base is there, ready. I see 7 sealing the coffin of x86 and bringing us into a fully 64-bit world, as well as bringing us a newer, more efficient UI. Sure, it's shiny, but that's a total aside. If you look past the fact that it's shiny and sexy, you'll notice that it's also sleek and functional.
But the M$-haters will always hate on M$. It's just the way of the world.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Skewed stats. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This is another reason to switch to Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally speaking:
That's because as soon as you run the distribution update, it becomes FC10 or 11, or whatever it is now. Linux distributions are really only a snapshot of files of a particular version at any range in time. If you want to compare it to Windows, it would be like running Windows update in NT3.5 and getting Windows 7. You'd upgrade the Kernel, the HAL, the services, DLLS, and all the files on the computer individually making it the latest build of Windows.
But that's not how Windows works. It's not as robust as the Linux versioning and if Microsoft can keep it that way, they can keep you purchasing the latest snapshot build they create and burn on disc instead of letting you update your system with all the latest fixes. They'll make claims that they are starting from scratch, but that's just ludicrous. I'm willing to bet they have a version server that they patch on a regular basis and their "built from the ground up" only means that they checked out the whole tree and built all the files again.
Re:Reminds me of something that happened (Score:3, Insightful)
WIN 7 64bit on an SSD - feels like next gen (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reminds me of something that happened (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Count me in (Score:2, Insightful)
Two women fighting is the scariest thing in the world when one of them is your partner and you just know you're going to be hearing about "that fucking bitch" and "her fucking problems" every ten minutes for the rest of the month. At least I hope it stops after a month...
Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (Score:5, Insightful)
But you can't use more than 64G of RAM. I never said 4G was the limit.
Either way, PAE is ugly and kludgy at best.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:3, Insightful)
No just don't install CRAP on your system, you can install as many programs as you like.
Anyone could tell you this.
On the networking... apk (Score:1, Insightful)
"2) Windows 7 networking is far more advanced than the usual XP crap." - by freedom_india (780002) on Tuesday June 30, @10:41PM (#28537951) Homepage
Are you aware of this -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1206409&cid=27661983 [slashdot.org]
?
AND, if so, on the HOSTS file bloat being caused by MS now in VISTA onwards (as well as the older 3-part "greek phalanx/zone defense" door lock (tcpip.sys + ipnat.sys), chain lock (Ipfltdrv.sys), & deadbolt lock (ipsec.sys) model of networking defense being 'phased-out' for a SINGLE PART ONLY "WFP" model) issues I noted therein...??
Thanks!
APK
P.S.=> I haven't gotten a WHY from MS even, 3x now asking them, even in their "Engineering Windows" blog last I looked... maybe you, or someone here, has an answer that sounds LOGICAL & SECURITY SOLID ENOUGH, to make sense (as well as promoting bloat in a HOSTS file)... apk
Re:Windows 7 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 waiting, and even the graphics lag a tad. :P
Re:Windows 7 (Score:3, Insightful)
Because "Uncomfortable truth" isn't a modding option.
Re:NOPE. Re:I still install XP everywhere... (Score:2, Insightful)
I used to love XP. Not anymore. Once i installed Windows 7, i have no intention of going back to stupid XP. Windows 7 for me is more stable, faster and less crashing. Benefits: 1) Windows 7 installs faster and less intrusive than XP. 2) Windows 7 networking is far more advanced than the usual XP crap. 3) Display drivers crash do not cause a BSOD. Hell my nvidia beta driver crashed when i was running CoH:ToV. Windows 7 quietly told me the situation, restarted the driver and asked me if i wanted to roll back to previous version. I did. 4) Windows 7 is faster than XP in many ways. Multitasking, file operations, USB access, etc., all are much faster. 5) Device Manager shoots XP out of the water. I can pin point exact problems, roll back only those that are needed, and more.
For me, Windows 7 is a god-send. I haven't used Vista, but i love Windows 7 and would definitely pay good money for this.
I've been seeing things like this a lot recently. There's a little problem with that reasoning to me; how can win7 be more stable and crash less then a completely stable and never-crashing OS? The only reason XP could be brought down is by having faulty hardware or faulty drivers. By the way; your first benefit really isn't worth as much. You only install once (at least i do, and then make a ghost of the clean install). your third is also nearly impossible in XP; the drivers are just good, so no crashes.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad a lot of the crap I have to install to use my computer to do stuff. I'm looking specifically at YOU ADOBE! I don't want increasingly annoying notifications to tell me to update Adobe Reader, nor do I want you to make me go through and delete a billion shortcuts again because your updater conveniently noticed that they were gone and decided to replace them without asking. Oh, and it also noticed that I don't have their software loading at bootup, so they make sure to reinstate that without telling me as well. Oh how I wish there was a decent replacement for Adobe Reader.
There are a ton of programs out there that are legit and you have to use most of the time. Those programs like to needlessly start at bootup, eating up resources while doing nothing, and spreading shortcuts and files all around your system like it's raining on your hard drive.
For some reason, this isn't a problem with Linux (specifically Ubuntu, but relevant to others as well) where one central repository controls the majority of software and installs, updates, and removes it simply and completely. Compare that to .exe and .msi packages that all are different and like to spread files wherever they please with or without user permission. I'll take Apt over downloading .exe packages all day long.
Sun, FYI, you're not off the hook for the hell that is Java.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:2, Insightful)
Utter bullshit... I dual boot Winshit XP with Linux. XP is faster and slower than Linux, and Linux is slower and faster than XP. Depends on what areas you look at. Then I installed the Windows 7 beta (Redmond, start your Kubuntu photocopiers this time!) and everything was a thousand times slower than XP and Linux together, except for the boot process, which I bet isn't a real one, since the first boot of the installed Win7 was loooooooooooong and all the others were somehow fast. 10seconds into the desktop.
Installed Crysis to see how the DirectX 10 settings would measure up to the hidden DirectX 9 graphics that look just like DX10. Rofl... Now let's test high settings VS high setting on XP abd Windows 7. Guess which was framerate hell? Windows 7.
My hardware:
-AMD Phenom X4 9950 non-oc
-ATI Radeon HD4870 X2
-8GB Kingston RAM with perfect timings in the bios
-Gigabyte Ultra Durable 2 motherboard with 128MB is onboard RAM for Vista fast-boot-shizzle, or something.