Microsoft Denies Call-in 'Save XP' Petition 340
CWmike writes "Gregg Keizer digs deeper on a report that said Microsoft was logging calls from customers who requested that the company extend the retail availability of Windows XP to find that some users claimed that they couldn't get through to the support lines. Microsoft denies that it organized any kind of call-in petition and pleaded with users not to dial its technical support numbers to ask for an XP extension. 'As a courtesy to customers in need of technical assistance, we ask callers not to call Microsoft Customer Support Services to request an extension for Windows XP,' a company representative said. Microsoft declined to comment on whether its support lines had experienced a call-volume spike starting last Friday, when the Neowin notice first appeared."
Phone Fury. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Phone Fury. (Score:5, Funny)
Program an Asterisk system to do it for you and show them the power of Open Source.
/ducks
Re:Phone Fury. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Phone Fury. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Phone Fury. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Phone Fury. (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft is making a transition. (Score:4, Funny)
That reminds me of a line from a movie: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."
Customers should not ASK Microsoft for anything. That assumes that the customers have power. Customers should do what Microsoft says and believe anything Microsoft says; that's the social position of customers, judging by the way Microsoft acts.
Microsoft is making a transition, from being badly managed to being even more badly managed.
For War is Peace (Score:5, Funny)
Ignorance is Strength
Vista is XP
Support Lines (Score:5, Funny)
If they gave the extension to XP, they probably wouldn't need the support line as much.
Re:Support Lines (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Tis life, my friend.
Re:Support Lines (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially in the context of software, the negative feedback towards the newer product puts MS in a very awkward position. Aside from security patches and trying to edge out a bit more performance, there's not a whole lot that can be done with XP. And given its lifespan, three major service packs, and hundreds of hotfixes and patches, the codebase is probably a nightmare to maintain as far as operating systems go. Furthermore, it gets them labeled with a lack of innovation right when their competition is really starting to gain on them (baby steps certainly, but look at monthly numbers rather than total market share and it's much more significant) - and the longer that XP lives on, the more trouble you'll cause when you try to get people to move to the latest and greatest. Vista could be lighting-fast and have a perfect UI and you'd still get people freaking out because they've learned and grown accustomed to the stupid quirks of XP over the past seven or so years. Despite what they say to the contrary, most people hate dealing with change so the longer you give them to get used to something, the more aggressively they'll reject the "latest and greatest".
Re:Support Lines (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, however, Vista is a bloatware, and the complains aren't just about the new user interface. Vista is a dog even on a good laptop. MS executive themselves acknowledged this. MS had a chance to break away and put a new foundation on Windows in the 5 year span. Instead, they over promised, mucked around, chopped up Longhorn to pieces and under delivered. In a way, it's a reminder of Apple's Copland (see, MS even copied Apple's failure).
Re:Support Lines (Score:5, Informative)
Not necessarily quirks. I've used XP, 2000, 98, 95, 3.1, and Vista, and I dislike Vista from a non-performance stance (as well as performance). And I've used Linux and Mac OS (and dislike Mac from a non-performance stance as well).
But it IS true that people jump on the bandwagon of hate (tm), and true that the hardware thing is ... annoying. Install KDE 4 on bad hardware and then complain about the performance of KDE... heh.
Re:Support Lines (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista's only faults are abysmal 3rd party support and its nagging "designed by committee" aspects. But it is vastly superior to XP in many ways. Mostly they are:
1) Installation is no longer a pain in the ass. With all the new hardware coming out XP is increasingly in need of extra drivers before install. On a floppy disk... and only a floppy disk.
2) Plug and play is actually plug and play. Very rarely do I have to search online for drivers. I just plug it in and bam. Installed.
3) Connecting to a network and file sharing also no longer a pain in the ass.
4) Hibernate actually works.
5) I run 64-bit and I don't feel like an outcast of society. I run Adobe Premire and After Effects so 8GB of memory is not unreasonable. XP can't see more than 3.25GB of system memory and the 64-bit version of XP is... no. Just no.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you know how PnP works then. You don't search online because Vista is bloated to the gills with decades worth of old drivers. They could make WinXP that way too, you know. But service pack 3 would have been an extra 2 gb in size.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Support Lines (Score:4, Interesting)
I personally prefer Ubuntu. Comes on one CD, and downloads ONLY what you need from the repo as it installs. So you can have a nearly infinite supply of drivers, but the OS still fits on a single CD.
Now, before you go "yeah, but you need an internet connection." remember, You need one to complete the install of Vista and activate it. So if you need a connection either way, Why not use the OS that only installs what you NEED rather than piles of crap you don't need?
Food for thought.
Re:Support Lines (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is, we're tired of the bloat. We look at other OS's (not necessarily XP, mind you) that do more with less, and we ask "really, what is this actually doing for me?".
The truth is, not much. It has gotten to the point where Vista is only really good for web browsing, and the like. Thanks to Vista's poor backwards compatibility, with both hardware and software, in a lot of business cases it just isn't an option.
And if you think the windows empire was built on the backs of home users, you are mistaken. Home users are a pleasant result of businesses requiring business machines, and the users of those business machines brought the PC into the home. It's a side market that has become nearly as large as the main market, but it's still not the main market.
I'm all for the latest and greatest, but lets try making it actually better than what was there before, yeah?
Re: (Score:2)
No XP is bad, Vista is worse
Slower
More annoying
More resource hungry
Re: (Score:2)
Think about it, though (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, isn't it the same thing that Microsoft FUD used against, say, Linux? Basically, "OMG, you'll need to learn a different GUI and, verily, as a company retrain everyone from CEO to janitor, if you switch from Windows."
Mind you, I use the term FUD here rather loosely, because I think that, while MS's propaganda did include a lot of exaggeration and fear-mongering, the underlying idea _is_ true. Most people don't think that learning a new OS, just for its sake, is fun. The computer is just a tool, and they want to just do their job with it with a minimum of extra effort. That includes that once they learned a skill set, they want to keep applying it all over the place. It's not even a MS invention, it's how we got the Common User Access [wikipedia.org] spec from IBM. MS just adopted it (and mistreated it like the stereotypical evil stepmother;)
I see you even answered your own concerns at the end of that phrase.
If you're a Mac guy, you have a lot of disposable income to blow on hardware. Now I won't get into whether the Macs are overpriced or not debate at this point, but let's just say they don't cater to the bottom end of the market. There isn't really a new Mac that's equivalent to the 300$ boxes people buy at WalMart. Again, I'm not debating whether the hardware is worth the price, but I'm saying that it genuinely _is_ higher spec than most PCs people have at home. And than what most moms and pops on minimal wage jobs can afford, PC or Mac.
Vista _is_ a resource hog, and it crawls on most new computers. Aero alone spanks and tortures a cheap shared-memory GPU like a bad dominatrix, and once you disable it, you're left with something which, for most normal people's needs and understanding of it... still acts like a bloated and slow XP. It doesn't really offer much that Joe Average would need on his home PC, or even notice the difference, and XP didn't have.
The memory requirements alone are a problem on a cheap 512 MB RAM PC, and make stuff swap that ran perfectly well on XP... especially after half of that RAM gets filled with crapware. (And I don't mean just viruses, but also all the idiocies from RealPlayer to, yes, OOo who think it's a great idea to default to keep themselves loaded in RAM all the time to seem faster-loading. You can end up with a 500 pixel wide tray nowadays without doing anything special.)
Vista's constant indexing can make many computers crawl, especially after you install an antivirus. Which ends up basically scanning each file again and again each time the indexing accesses that file. So basically it's like running with a full antivirus scan in the background at all times. Poor or sometimes wrong IDE drivers also don't help, as they can make any version of Windows basically sit and wait for IDE transfers. Now neither of those is a MS problem as such, but the combination is deadly anyway. Vista essentially amplifies what would have been a minor problem (it's ok to wait an extra half a second when you open a file, while the antivirus scans it) into something horrible (it's not ok to have your computer busy virus-scanning all files in the background, as a result of that indexing.)
Again, that won't seem much for you, if you have a couple thousand dollars to blow on a top-of-the-line Mac, and it wouldn't seem much to anyone who can blow a comparable sum on a l33t PC either. But it can be horribly annoying to someone on a $300 beige box.
They are just testing your love (Score:5, Funny)
Remember Ballmer said "If they want XP..."? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.google.com/search?q=ballmer+if+customers+want+xp [google.com]
So yeah, let's ask him for it, big time. If you know a news agency get them involved, etc.
DDOS attack via customer service, great idea! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Check among former Microsoft employees.
Or civil servants of various kinds.
The very definition of irony (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The very definition of irony (Score:4, Funny)
That should be;
I was the last DOS-based OS, fyi.
Sometimes it's hard for a non-native speaker to understand how and when to use pronouns.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The very definition of irony (Score:4, Interesting)
Technically true, but it doesn't take a genius to see the similarities that both 2000 and XP/2003 have with all the DOS-based versions that preceeded them. Put another way, it still smells like DOS.
If the continuing abundance of 16bit icons on XP didn't raise any eyebrows, the 8.3 all-uppercase style names on the installation CD (and just about everywhere else) should, or knowing that your NTFS file system generates and stores (by default) 8.3 version names in addition to the typically pathologically Windows-style names that we've come to use and love. I suppose anything different would conflict with that certain je ne sais quoi of NETBIOS naming standards.
For fun, open a cmd.exe window and type help. Given the output, it's unsurprising it's still referred to as a "DOS prompt". Same old same old, but new and improved, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Phone slashdotting... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Phone slashdotting... (Score:4, Funny)
UAC in vista may be poorly implemented... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, many people use XP while logged in as an admin, but the vast majority of software doesn't require you to do that.
With a few exceptions (like the CEO), the vast majority of users at my company don't have local admin access, and they get all their work done just fine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:UAC in vista may be poorly implemented... (Score:5, Insightful)
No user should ever run as a local admin, even in XP. They should use RunAs to escalate privilege when needed. I would never trust my CEO with local admin rights. They're just install some variation of a britney spears virus.
The sooner XP disappears, the better.
Re:UAC in vista may be poorly implemented... (Score:4, Funny)
And now, mouth wash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:UAC in vista may be poorly implemented... (Score:4, Interesting)
Depends on where you are talking about. In a work environment where you have someone who is knowledgeable acting as the admin and everyone else is non admin. It is not much of an issue
However on home computers at least ONE person in the house is an admin and often has no clue what they are doing.
I have a friend who just went back to college. Got a laptop in March so she could do online coursework. Well, right before Mothers Day she downloads a "free" "Mothers and Fathers Day Cardmaker sponsered by Freeze.com". Several clicks on the ol' UAC and she is off making cards and after the next reboot. Well lets just say the computer was moving so slow, she was going to go down to the college and ask to get out of the online classes so she could take a regular class. Her computer was to slow to ever surf the net, let alone use for schoolwork.
The UBCD4win and three hours to run all the spyware scanners had her computer fixed right up. However the point remains. She has no clue online what is safe to download and what is not. Everything both good and bad out there is made to look pretty and free to download.
It is unfair to turn the "average" user over to a machine with a Microsoft OS on it. Since they don't know what is safe to install. They end up having to buy security software and slowing you machine down to a crawl to protect it. Or worse yet, not installing any security software. It is like watching a baby seal get clubbed to death.
Setting her up to dual boot. Vista is for doing school work. Ubuntu for everything else. Then I am showing her how to use Adept Manger to download software. I am going to tell her if it is not in the Adept Manager, then it is not possible to run it.
Re:UAC in vista may be poorly implemented... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
[Accept] [Deny]
Re: (Score:2)
So obviously the solution is to teach users to click on Accept every time a box comes up. Because that's all that the Vista UAC has done, is train hundreds of thousands of users that when a box pops up, you hit accept to do what you were trying to do.
In an alternative universe this would read:
So obviously the solution is to teach users to enter "sudo $application" before running the apps. Because that's all that the Ubuntu sudo has done, is train hundreds of thousands of users that you need to prefix that to do what you were trying to do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:UAC in vista may be poorly implemented... (Score:5, Insightful)
personally, I dont think it's really microsofts fault, and that's coming from a mostly happy apple user. MS are an easy target because they have the most clueless users but if you moved all those users to another platform they would not suddenly start caring what the computer says. people in general seem to try and be as completely ignorant as to how things work as possible. it's almost like they think that by being ignorant to how it works, they can then pass off the blame when the computer does what they told it to do.
"do you want to delete the file 'final report.doc'? doing so is a permanent operation and can not be undone."
"ok, whatever! just hurry up and stop asking me stuff... hey, where'd my file go? fucking worthless computer! always doing the wrong thing!"
Re: (Score:2)
95% (a figured pulled from my butt) of computer users DO NOT READ the messages that pop up in front of them. I'm completely amazed by the number of people I've encountered studying computer science that could have a dialog box pop up that says "click yes to reformat your hard drive and kill everyone you've ever cared about, or click no for a blow job" who would not read the fucking thing and click yes to get it out of their way.
That's partly because Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, engineered dialogue boxes so developers don't have to rewrite the buttons for different languages. Hence, a box which says "Yes/No" (and, for that matter, "Yes/No/Cancel") is part of the API and the "Yes/No" automagically becomes "Oui/Non" in a French installation of Windows.
This doesn't really help localisation that greatly, because the text within the dialogue box still needs to be translated. Unfortunately, because it's part of the API which h
Re:UAC in vista may be poorly implemented... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh I hate to write this post on SlashDot, but here goes...
Despite the ignorance or inherent hate around the UAC, it works well, and does what it is supposed to do. Sure users are still allowed to run as administrators, but with Vista the administrator level is no longer equivalent with root as it was in previous versions of Windows. Administrator is a power user that doesn't have to type root password for elevation, but doesn't inherently get upper level rights.
In Vista, root is a non-user level of security, which is a far more secure and elegant than good old root in *nix. Something with complete control should not be a user-wide available level of security in a modern OS. (This is an argument that needs to be taken to heart by *nix OS developers as well more far than it is.)
Note: In Vista, administrators can obtain root level elevation, and can do anything they want; however, it is conditional based on process or need and is also something that is controlled and logged by the OS. Users could also boot into WinPE 2.0 on Vista, which is a full NT CLI without the Win32/64 subsystems running and screw with whatever they want if they have physical access to the machine a install DVD.
Now...
The whole psychological argument is NO different than an OS X user saying, "Ya, I have to type in a password every time I do this or run this application." And then you watch them do this mindlessly while watching them authorize a piece of spyware. And then of course they then tell you how much more secure and cool OS X is because they had to type in a password. (And this is a freaking elevation to let OS X run the spyware they are having problems with, none the less.) Then comes when you are uncontrollably doing the obligatory *smacking head on table* and considering how to explain 'security' to them all the while have to de-program from the Apple commercials on TV and be the horrible person that tells them their beloved Apple tends to lie a little bit. Ok, recent incident, went a bit cathartic.)
Anyway, clicking 'Allow' and mindlessly typing in root are NO different in psychological terms of redundancy. OS X users are just as open to user engineered security problems. (I could say the same of other *nixes, but most of them get the important of root elevation.)
The argument could also be made that Vista does a better job with elevation prompts than OS X, as Vista doesn't allow the privilege to propagate or remain open as OS X does. OS X instead of just flat out allowing the process to do what it needs, goes the extra (lazy) step and leaves elevation open for a period of time past the required need. Which is a horribly bad idea.
Besides, there is no way to win on this if you are Microsoft.
Microsoft could have locked the UAC down harder, but enough people turn it off already, and people would bitch. Just like they bitch when NT security wasn't enforced for applications like in XP, compromising security, and now are bitching because their application was written by an idiot and never even looked at or consider the OS had security APIs.
With XP they considered locking down the applications, but in getting consumers to migrate from the Win9X world would have failed, as Win9x software was security ignorant. They made a 'bad' decision to allow the migration to be easier and push developers to start writing with Security in mind. The second part of this didn't happen, developers don't do crap if they don't have to.
The UAC:
1) Does force developers to FINALLY realize there is a security model to NT applications and code for them.
2) Is able to not only handle elevates, but is able to detect the request for elevation, which is far more important, not only for noticing security compromise a
Re:UAC in vista may be poorly implemented... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is sharply contrasted with Vista: you are in the middle of doing something you want to do, and are interrupted with a security message that you didn't expect.
The first becomes a natural part of your workflow; the second becomes an unpredictable (and hence annoying) interruption of your workflow.
Also, on Linux, the set of things I do that requires me to be root is reasonably small and changes slowly. It's also mostly confined to administrative tasks.
I don't have first-hand experience, but my understanding is that on Vista, too many user-level applications have to ask for permission to do their job, which means that interrupting the user becomes a more common event.
Re:UAC in vista may be poorly implemented... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of work do you do? (Score:5, Interesting)
This morning I got to work and had to update VMWare (I work at a small shop as an intern, if I'm not using VMWare server to test stuff, then I'm playing Russian Roulette with my desktop being a testing grounds). Before I could install the new version, I had to uninstall the old version(requires escalation). After installing the update (requires escalation), it screwed up all my network settings and I had to manually set my network adapters (requires escalation). Moving on to testing my Latest And Greatest idea, I had to uninstall an app or two (requires escalation) to have enough room to create one more VM (requires escalation) to model a three computer network. I fell back to working and controlling all three VM from the VMWare web GUI (requires escalation) and tabbed terminals inside of one of the VMs. To test what effect my idea would have on files from the backup archives (requires escalation, but that is by design). Finally, I had to create a subversion repo (requires escalation, but that is by design) to commit to.
Unfortunately, I have to do things that normal users just don't do that often. And, "run as..." isn't much of an option for several reasons. As a side note, it is fun to watch automated "run as" jobs clobber each other's roaming profile on the hour as ntuser.dat gets locked and you end up with AdminUser.network.1 - AdminUser.network.12 on each desktop during contention. Furthermore, my choices are to leave a weakly hashed NTLM2 (what are they, unsalted MD5?) admin password on my harddrive or type in a mixed case, alphanumerical, finger contorting password once or twice an hour. I'll pass.
I run Firefox, keep my patches up to date, run spybotSD every morning, spyware blaster about every other week, moonsecure (clamav with real time protection for windows) and I try to be very careful when browing and opening emails. For what its worth, I'd rather waste an eight hour block of time reimaging a hosed machine than have Windows and Clippy breaking my flow and concentration every few minutes. I'd almost suspect that the aggregate time I would waste would be about equal. But, as it stands my XP install is over three years old now (although, it has 'character' after how much its been messed with). My boss is on his fourth or fifth install in that same time period, however, and he also runs as an admin...
Re: (Score:2)
WinXP rules (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WinXP rules (Score:5, Interesting)
The only reason XP is pretty good by MS standards is because Vista was delayed so often. When XP first came out, the only good thing about it was that it wasn't ME; it was uber slow, crashed apps constantly and tons of HW and SW just wouldn't run on it. After SP1, the intial bugs were largely worked out, and SP2 added some huge oversights. In the meantime hardware caught up, making XP's once huge demand's miniscule.
I honestly think that people who think Vista is the biggest pile of crap to come out of MS, have short memories. Every home OS that MS has released since win 95 has been aweful when it was first released. Then gradually updates come out, HW gets better, and devolopers learn all the tricks.
I think the one thing all of those who are trying to "save" XP or otherwise hinder Vista are doing is sending a very strong message to MS to never again let us get used to an OS. Expect them to keep the life cycle short and sweet from now on.
Re: (Score:2)
Then also expect MS to have less customers in the future.
Re:WinXP rules (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck Microsoft and just use a consistent OS which doesnt give you crap.
Re:WinXP rules (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When XP first came out, the only good thing about it was that it wasn't ME; it was uber slow, crashed apps constantly and tons of HW and SW just wouldn't run on it.
I hear this a lot, and I distinctly remember holding out on XP for a few years, because 98 was 'good enough'.
When I bought a new computer, winXP only added $6 to the system price, so I bought it, expecting to hate it, format and install 98. but i was stunned, XP was actually good!
stuff worked, but it was windows...a windows that works? i couldn't believe it.
plug and play didn't require restarts, hardware often worked without installing drivers. a program crash didn't take down my whole system, it was gr
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how XP got so stable in just a few years?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason XP is pretty good by MS standards is because Vista was delayed so often. When XP first came out, the only good thing about it was that it wasn't ME; it was uber slow, crashed apps constantly and tons of HW and SW just wouldn't run on it.
Funny, I remember XP being more stable than Win9x and compatible with more software than Win2k. If you were running Windows 98 or ME, XP was a big step up. If you were running Windows 2000, you might've only noticed the eye candy, but then you weren't a typical home user anyway.
Re:WinXP did rule, Vista not so much... (Score:2, Interesting)
What XP are you talking about? I bought XP on release day and it was great. No hardware issues, a very few software incompatibilities, and it was much faster and more stable than 98SE which is arguably one of MS's best consumer OSes ever released. XP raised the bar several notches out of the blocks, Vista lowered it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Um, no. You're going to get a couple of new computers over the next couple of years, and by the time everything doubles in speed around then and by the time MS puts out a few service packs, Vista is going to be the coolest thing on the block. People will be mad when Vista support is pulled in 2015.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully Windows's next version might be something more like XP.
I would not hold my breath on that one. We know that the next version of Windows will: 1. Not be based on miniwin 2. Is going to be pushed out the door done or not in about 18 to 24 months. 3. Is going to come in both 32 and 64 bit flavors. 4. Will be able to use all Vista drivers.
With that kind of time frame and having two code bases. There is a limit to what Microsoft can get done. Since they are sticking with Vista drivers. The kernel is going to be close to what we have now.
So what can we expect? 1.
If there were a petition to save Win Xp (Score:5, Funny)
Why Comment on the Obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, if you ask people not to call, doesn't that strongly imply that people are calling?
doc
Re: (Score:2)
That's going to stress most support lines, especially over the weekend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Opposite of Business (Score:5, Insightful)
Company: No!
Customers: Um...please?
Re: (Score:2)
Company: No!
Customers: Hey piratebay, we want product pls.
PirateBay: Here you go, and have some free corporate keys too.
(Yeah yeah I know MS won't let you use Windows Update with that method, but they're threatening to turn it off for XP anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid people (Score:5, Interesting)
People need to stop thinking XP is going to last forever for one thing and they need to either completely switch to another OS or at least use applications that use open formats on Windows. Even preferences can be transferred from one OS to another for Thunderbird, Firefox, OpenOffice, aMule, and so many more (just have to be placed in the right folder). I am glad on Windows for my 'real work' I use applications that run on Linux and Windows.
Let's start with open formats. The two reasons people want XP to last forever: 1) They use applications that only run on Windows (and also think Wine cannot possibly match) and closed source formats (that includes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Show me Linux games. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So this is what paying for software gets you? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft Denies Call-in 'Save XP' Petition (Score:2)
Let me guess...
That would be "there is no customer demand" again??
Don't throw me in that briar patch! (Score:3, Funny)
Next month's headline: "Microsoft to revamp XP" due to customer demand and their focus on end-user satisfaction, followed by "Vista EOL 1Q 2010: 'Oops'".
Their stock will inexplicably rise on the news that they're doing, well, nothing.
Need a little help here..... (Score:5, Funny)
TS: "Is that all? Right-click the clock display then drag the hands around to the desired time."
Me: "Got it. Thanks!"
TS: "Is there anything else I can do for you today?"
Me: "Well, now that you mention it, can you extend Windows XP for me?"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Cust#1: "Hi, this is Bill in Missouri. Can you extend Windows XP for m--" *cut*
TS: "And, moving on, onto our next caller. This is Joe from Montana. Hi, Joe! How are you doing?"
Cust#2: "Fine, thank you."
TS: "I'm fine. What can we do for you today, Joe?"
Cust#2: "Well, I'm having a little trouble setting the clock on my XP machine..."
TS: "Is that all? Just right-click the clock display and click 'Adjust Date/Time.'"
Cust#3: "Great! Thanks!"
TS: "You're welcome; is the
This must be a first (Score:2)
Reminds me of Netscape back in the mid 90's... (Score:3, Interesting)
Slightly different situation, but back in the mid 90's Netscape used to have a webpage where you could submit feature requests, and have it displayed to their developers using an electronic marquee. At one point, a significant number of the requests submitted were for an OS/2 port of Navigator, which prompted Netscape to modify their page with a message akin to the following:
It would seem to me that Microsoft is finding itself in a similar situation with Windows XP, and is following the spirit of Netscape's response. However, as good news for XP users, in the end Netscape relented and released OS/2 versions of Navigator and Communicator, and to this day Firefox is built for that now unsupported platform.
So don't give up, XP users! Let them know what you want and how you feel!
Yaz.
I bought a brand new copy of OEM Vista 64 (Score:2)
I don't know what I was thinking, but I am quite underwhelmed by it. I installed it on my new AMD spider system that I made, with a Phenom-X4, Radeon HD 3870, AMD 790FX motherboard, and 8G of DDR2.
Windows 2000 was great! XP-x64 was pretty good too, but Vista 64, bleech... It took me a couple weeks to debug it to keep it from crashing constantly, and even still, it crashes *a lot*.
This system just flys on Gentoo amd64, it is wonderful and rock solid. Never crashes at all, ever. But reboot into Vista 64 and
Why on earth? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is, after a certain date, Microsoft would continue to allow you to update XP, you would just have to pay $20 a year or something for the privilege.
With this money, they would port over Direct X 10 and make other essential changes so that XP could be used until at least 2015.
Save XP Online Petition (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Full story [wordpress.com].
Re:The number (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ghostbusters!
Or alternatively, call Jenny at 867-5309
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)