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."
Count me in (Score:3, Interesting)
not a big surprise... (Score:2, Interesting)
... 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 for it to bring down the whole system.
Re:Success (Score:3, Interesting)
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 in units sold, but if you asked all the people who had used XP for a significant amount of time, then used Vista, I'm sure that "success" would be much different. And a lot of PC users that use Vista, have never used another version so have nothing to compare it to.
Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (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".
XP is Good Enough. (Score:5, Interesting)
(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:Count me in (Score:4, Interesting)
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:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (Score:3, 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".
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.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs. (Score:1, Interesting)
Forget regular XP, forget Vista, forget 7, heck even forget the Linux. Windows FLP is the stripped down version you want. Doesn't even require a Genuine Advantage check.
Reminds me of something that happened (Score:2, Interesting)
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 to do worse. Vista simply feels like a big step back. It's hard to really describe the flaws of Vista but using it simply feels so annoying.
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?
Re:Vista just not worth the cash (Score:3, Interesting)
"OSX is $129"
You realize how ridiculous this is when part of the cost of running OSX is the hundreds or thousands of dollars extra an Apple computer costs?
Re:Windows 7 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
My Story with XP/Vista (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Duh (Score:1, Interesting)
No version of Windows can be trusted in mission critical environments.
FTFY.
You know Windows is a bug-infested security nightmare, and deploy it anyway. "Oh, but it can be properly locked down once the kinks are worked out." How the hell do you know? Do you have the code? Why is five years of bug testing necessary?
Nothing about Windows makes the slightest bit of sense. Seriously, five years? That's ten Ubuntu releases: a lifetime! It's like saying you're going to deploy Duke Nukem Forever after it gets a bit more beta testing.
It's just marketing. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My first experience with Vista (Score:1, Interesting)
Anyone who touts User Account Control as a downside to Vista is certifiably dumb.
First off, if it annoys you that much, you can disable it.
Second, the reason it asks you for permission to continue at "anything but the simplest tasks" is a defense mechanism. It allows you oversight into the internal workings of your operating system. In XP you'd double-click something -- give it permission to run -- and after that it could totally ravage your operating system if it felt like it (assuming that you had the privileges to ravage the operating system yourself, something most home users have as they are local admins).
In Vista, when you give that same program permission to run, Vista sees that it's trying to ravage the operating system, and gives you a pop-up, informing you of what the program is requesting permission to do, and allowing you, with this new knowledge, to allow or deny continued action.
Additionally, the User Account pop-ups offer a convenient way for administrators to allow users to perform tasks normally exclusive to administrators. Rather than logging the user out and logging in as themselves, or exiting the program, using "Run As..." and then entering their credentials, the administrator can simply enter their username and password into the UAC pop-up, and thus allow the process to continue under the pretense of the currently logged in user.
To complain about UAC and say that, that was your reason for switching away from Vista shows that either you don't understand the concept of configuring an operating system to meet your specific usage needs, that you don't understand a good operating system security measure, that you are stupid, or that you were biased going in, and were looking for the very simplest thing to tout as the reason Vista is bad.
Personally I used Vista from the time that it went gold, to the time that the Windows 7 RC came out. I couldn't've been happier. I gamed, I power-used, I tinkered...100% satisfied with Vista.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
XP activation (Score:2, Interesting)
Q to you all: Can I still activate new XP installation?
- I haven't even tried, been happy with them (servers) running Linux OS since day 1
I got few servers some years ago with XP Pro license sticker on them (that doesn't have any expiration date)
- NOTE: these licenses have never been activated.
So, when would be the last date (or was it already?) to activate already purchased and paid licenses?
- if it was already, can I ask for refund?
Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Reminds me of something that happened (Score:3, Interesting)
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 bought the damned thing if it didn't come with the computer I wanted. I'm just saying, I don't hate it. Which is a pretty good endorsement coming from me.
virtualbox ftw (Score:1, Interesting)
Screw Windows 7. It might be nice,... but.....
Virtualbox 3.0.0 just got released from Sun, which enables experimental OpenGL and DirectX inside the virtual machine.
If this version makes it into the next Ubuntu, I'll be quote happily playing all my games inside a virtual system.
Linux, here I come.
Re:Reminds me of something that happened (Score:2, Interesting)
There's something to that about Vista being annoying in an indescribable way.
Then I looked at my screen, I'm using XP, but there's no shiny green start menu button... and when I click on the start menu, it just displays a normal start menu... no guessing about what I want based on what I use the most often.
I think any future version of Windows would be unbearable for me if I couldn't turn off the new UI to go back to the old Win95/98/2000 style windows and start menu.
And the odd thing is... I'm primarily a Mac user.
I see what MS is trying to do, and I just think they're doing it wrong.
Re:XP is Good Enough. (Score:3, Interesting)
RS
Re:Windows 7 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
NOPE. Re:I still install XP everywhere... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Reminds me of something that happened (Score:3, Interesting)
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 when it breaks for my clients.
I picked up a copy of Vista Business, and did a clean install with it on my laptop.
And guess what? It worked fine. Out of the box, it figured out how to deal with my hardware in a very sane fashion (including the winmodem, the SD card reader, the Bluetooth module, the Intel 802.11a/b/g wireless, and the ATI x300 graphics), and presented me with a working computer in short order.
It wasn't slow. It wasn't hoggy. It worked fine, flashy Aero interface and all.
I eventually did turn off Superfetch[1], because I found that it made bad decisions because of the wide variety of software that I run and that it was faster without it. And I ended up replacing most of the drivers, because I'm a control freak that way. But it worked.
I ran that Vista install until the public beta of Windows 7 hit the streets, and then I did a clean install of that. It, also, just worked. (Is still working, in fact.)
Nothing all that special about the computer: 2 gigs of RAM, slow hard drive, 1920x1200 display, 1.83GHz Pentium M.
*shrug*
I think the biggest problem with Vista is that everyone (including layfolk) had been hearing all about just how horrible it was supposed to be, long before it was even released. I submit that this has more to do with people being human, than any technical problem with the system.
[1]: My wife's computer also runs Vista, and it also works fine. I even left Superfetch turned on for her, because her usage is typical (read: predictable) enough that it's faster with it enabled.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been happily running Vista since it came out and have never once noticed that stuff in the control panel was renamed. Everything is dirt simple to find. And, if you can't find it, there's a search box in the top right hand corner. I just now typed the word "add" in it and that was all it took - Add/Remove Programs is at the top of the list. There are some valid things to complain about with Vista - renaming stuff in the control panel doesn't even make the top 100.
Re:Count me in (Score:3, Interesting)
You obviously have no idea what a kernel is, or what it does.
Your all missing the point.
The question was why did we have one version of Windows 95 and several versions of Vista. The answer is they made a seperate OS (Windows NT) to sell to businesses instead of making a business version of 95.
Due to monopolists (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 the ones with multi-gigabyte data files. And that's the difference between this transition and the 16bit->32bit one. In the previous transition there was so much pain in staying with 16bit for the majority of applications; eg a book can easily contain 60000 words so a 16bit wordprocessor has to be able to swap chapters (or use "far pointers" in a bastard crossbreed mix of 16 and 32bits). What's more is that a 64kb program is only a few thousand lines of code, easy to exceed. To exceed a 32bit program you need over 100 million lines of code, that's a huge 'application'.
This switch over is being entirely driven by Microsoft, they have reduced their artificial limit to 4Gb of address space, they are saying you MUST have 64bit. If you look at Linux, it has no problems with 64bit but very few people use it, they don't need it. I believe the reason Microsoft are pushing 64bit so hard is that they still only want to support one real version of their OS, it can't be 32bit because there are a couple of Microsoft applications that benefit (erm; I can only think of one .. MS-SQL) from the larger address space so everybody must switch to 64bit for Microsoft.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:3, Interesting)
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.