The Death of Windows XP 676
bsk_cw writes "Although many Windows users intend to hold onto their copies of XP until it is pried from their cold, dead fingers, Microsoft fully intends to phase out the OS in favor of Vista. If you're unwilling to move to one of the alternatives, and really don't like Vista, the least you can do is be aware of what's in store. David DeJean offers a rundown on Microsoft's timeline for Windows XP, why the company does things that way, and what you can do about it."
XP? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:XP? (Score:5, Interesting)
So there is still a reason? (Score:3, Funny)
No, I think ill still be administering XP boxen for until 2010 at least
Re:So there is still a reason? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:XP? (Score:5, Funny)
We're cool with that. Hey, we've been on the internet for a while. We've seen guys who like their nuts being smacked with bricks, someone using ME willingly is only a notch up from that, I'm pretty sure we can accept that. Somehow. Someday. Well, maybe in a while, at least.
Re:Windows Me (Score:4, Funny)
Re:XP? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:XP? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:XP? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:XP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Something in me admires that.
Re:XP? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a bigger problem than Application upgrades for most people will be drivers. People are going to come with their latest gadget and try to attach it to their XP machine and there won't be a driver for it. I'm finding similar problems with Win 2000 now. Basic this has broken can I repair it reinstall it type issues there will still be plenty of support for. After all most IT guys will still remember how to do stuff from the XP days, and if there still is a bunch of corporate workstations that haven't been upgraded then there is still a bunch of IT guys tinkering with XP all the time.
I think EOLing XP is the way to go. XP is old technology, people still have another 5 years at some level of support, I think 10 years is plenty of time for supporting an OS. I don't agree with taking down existing documentation from your website though. It can't be more than a few GB's, heck lets say it is 1TB, wants the big deal? A few hundred dollars worth of disk. Your new product should sell itself, your old products manuals should still be available, but the industry should be giving a compelling reason to upgrade hardware/software.
DOS apps (Score:5, Funny)
VMs and emulating the A: drive doesn't help if the auditing office insists on receiving the data via snail-mail delivered floppy (no joke!)
Re:XP? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh... wait... you meant "Point Of Sale"... well, yeah, I guess that it could run on those too.
POS (Score:3, Funny)
I'm assuming POS in this particular sentence does not mean Point Of Sale.
I am too - seriously! (Score:5, Interesting)
The key is to install FireFox, never use Internet Explorer or any of the apps that use it (like Outlook), and don't ever expose it directly to the Internet. (The one time I did, it only took an hour or so to get clobbered by the Welchia worm.)
My wife runs XP, but mainly because that's what came on her laptop. The only real advantage I see to XP is the fast user switching. But she's never going to be a Vista user: she just bought an iMac, to run Final Cut on for her video artwork.
Re:I am too - seriously! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's Funny Because It's True (Score:3, Interesting)
These Microsoft "up"-grades pushed me to using Linux full time. I bet that I'm far from alone.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wuss. My abacus works during power blackouts and I don't need ISPs for sending smoke signals.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
60% Windows 2000
20% Windows XP
6% Windows NT / 98 SE
12% Linux - various flavours
We have more than 2000 PCs in all group companies put together.
Windows 2000 is easily the dominant and quick-to-install; easy to maintain OS. XP is a pain - atleast the downloading of patches and service packs part. We have only 3 systems running Vista and all 3 are none too happy with Vista so far.
Re:It's nice to share. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's nice to share. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Although why you would want to use Win98 is beyond me.
Re:It's nice to share. (Score:5, Informative)
Other Win98 'drivers' are actually just hacks - code that must run in Ring 0. They are VxDs, a system that was originally designed to virtualise devices underneath multiple Dos boxes. Antivirus software and the like used this environment to hook filesystem access for example. Obviously this can't work on NT since there are no VxDs and the filesystem layer is completely different.
Even between successive releases of NT based OSs, there isn't any guarantee that drivers will work. Most people know this and write their inf files so the device will only install on one of the OS versions they tested.
Re:It's nice to share. (Score:4, Informative)
Now, if you manage to shield a Win98 box from the external world so that it doesn't need these 3rd party tools running, then sure, you'll have a "GDI load" similar to what such a machine saw on 1998, and it'll be usable. But that requires discipline and tons of good sense on the part of the user. Anything else, and it's either too risky or quite literally impossible.
Re:It's nice to share. (Score:5, Informative)
Unless, of course, you want to run shiny new things. I'll bet he's not running any games past D9 on it.
Re:It's nice to share. (Score:5, Insightful)
Since DX10 is only available for Vista, I'd say that's a pretty safe bet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The debug driver supports DX10 and works on XP, you can install the SDK right now and try it out for yourself. Catch is that you'll get about 0.0001FPS rendering little more than a rotating, untext
Re:It's nice to share. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ideally I would run the scan by unplugging the network cable and booting from directly the malware-scanner CD. Unfortunately nobody makes such a thing -- it's like the "antivirus" companies don't really care about reliability. Running the scan on the target system itself is pointless, since some system-level malware could be tampering with the results. That's why I take the hard drives out of the target systems and attach them to a known-clean system (fresh OS+scanner install, no network) to run the scan.
But really the elaborate malware scan is just window dressing so I can provide some tangible evidence that my systems aren't infected; I know they're clean because I keep them clean on a day-to-day basis by not installing tons of random crap I found in the net.toilet, keeping applications and plug-ins (and pointless upgrades!) to a bare minimum, and keeping an eye on the security bulletins. It's not rocket science, but it is kind of computer science.
ClamAV + Slax, or something (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ClamAV + Slax, or something (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's nice to share. (Score:5, Informative)
Which is why every computer shop, or company worried about security, or technician, should make their own.
It's pretty easy actually - through about a dozen methods, including *nix or eComStation live boot disks with ClamAV, et al installed, or using BartPE and building the tools into the ISO, or using Hirens and doing the same, or... well, you get the point... the list of choices are plenty.
And with a rewritable, it is pretty easy to update the disk every day by dragging the updated definitions/apps into the correct directory (or with the tiny cost of CDs, burn a new one every day - or with a good selection of NIC drivers on a Bart disk, let the programs auto update the definitions through the Internet before it even touches the machine's hard drives).
I agree it would be kinda nice if a company made such a product - but what company out there does a good job at dealing with all the threats possible on a PC? You'd still need multiple solutions... the only one I know of that comes close is Spyware Terminator since you can enable ClamAV support. But even so, I prefer the "multiple solutions to each issue" method, namely because even with every program updated, while there is a high level of overlap (eg: they all agree on/find 99% of the viruses and spyware and trojans on a computer; each finds just a few more that the other programs in their category dont). As a neat example, one machine that the customer insisted we could not wipe and needed to clean (5 digit list of infections) required 6 different software packages to find them all... oddly there were two viruses that everything but an outdated McAfee found (we checked, they definitely were infected)... yet ClamAV and 3 other packages missed it. On the other hand, we clean one of our customer's systems with ClamAV to grab everything that Norton and McAfee miss.
So, I prefer the "roll your own" approach :-) And I am guessing that anyone who needs to do true scans/cleaning of their systems also use multiple tools if such issues are critical to them.
Sadly, as anyone who does this day in and day out can tell you, that is not enough to ensure a system is clean. Windows (any version, any service pack) does not need any user intervention or use to get infected. I'm not saying it is horrendous (nor am I saying it's not - not making any statement either way)... what I am saying is that machines do get infected even with all updates installed - and no user in front of the keyboard.
Re:It's nice to share. (Score:5, Informative)
Mcafee [aol.com] disagrees.
AVG [grisoft.com] disagrees.
Or... if you don't want those, you can just make a "live cd" using any of the countless utilities [nu2.nu] out there for it.
Or if you're feeling crazy, toss vmware onto a knoppix dvd and boot windows from either an image on the dvd or boot it straight from the drive, isolated in vmware.
DOS? (Score:3, Insightful)
DOS is a new-fangled OS. Run CP/M. Completely malware free, since none of the malware is compatible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Satisfying (Score:5, Insightful)
This will be very satisfying. I've had so many people tell me they absolutely HATE Vista, but they're stuck with it when they bought their new computer. They frequently ask me to put XP on, no matter what it takes (buy it, hack it, put their mothers key on).
Killing XP off finally, while I love the idea of killing Windows will really hurt Microsoft. Since people hate Vista so much, they'll start being more open to other options.
Maybe it'll mean friends and family will be asking me to do more Linux installs. I like those better anyways, they go a lot faster and they don't involve 2 hours of install plus 2 days of Windows Updates.
Re:Satisfying (Score:5, Insightful)
When they started developing Vista, they could not imagine the rise of Ubuntu's success or the coming of the XO PC and, eeePC, which is why they thought they'd give a hand to their friends the computer vendors by making 2G of RAM a requirement. (I would check the dates if was not in a hurry).
It looks like they understood this now, and reacted by making that "minimal kernel" stuff on the next windows (even a non graphic server version), and by planning to release it one year early.
What I'm saying is: we (linux evangelists) have a huge opportunity right now, but it might not last. So let's make the most of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that it has marketshare that is a fraction of OS X, I don't think Microsoft is exactly reeling at the 'rise of ubuntu' right now. Its a blip on the radar.
or the coming of the XO PC and, eeePC,
This might have taken them by surprise, but really, the RAM requirement is not really the issue there. The PRICE is. Sure RAM factors into that, but the Windows license is a bigger factor.
which is why they thought they'd give a
Re:Satisfying (Score:5, Interesting)
Developers and sysadmins were always allowed to run linux. Now anyone else can via a supported corporate image.
if you don't want linux (Sales, Product Managers, etc) you now get a MacOSX laptop or desktop.
This has impacted other Software vendors, Our ticketing system with a windows client (dev/sysadmins rdesktopped in to use) got replaced with a cross platform solution.
I think in 2 years we will be windows free, previously 60-75% of the employees were windows users. The reasons for this was the LAN department hates MacOSX less than Vista, and people heard all the buzz about Macs and were willing to give it a shot.
Re:Satisfying (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, I see this happen with Windows 98SE quite a bit. Some old machines run perfectly well; for example, a 233MMX system with 128MB RAM with plenty of longevity cannot run Vista, let alone XP SP2. When this machine is relegated to nothing more than print server, POS, or work which would not take it onto the Internet, I will see Windows 98SE installed with a hacked or "borrowed" key, and it runs perfectly and does everything the user needs. And no body gives it a second look because Windows 98SE is perceived as perfectly functional in the context of what the user wants out of it. More staunch security advocates would prefer to pirate Windows 2000 on a such a box, and again the perception of the situation is dead-on. But whichever gets used, updates are no problem since the unofficial Windows 98SE Service Pack is available, as well as several similar post-SP4 Roll-up cluster updates for 2000.
Just a thought, my first Windows XP machine back at release was a 233MMX with 192MB RAM, and it ran surprisingly well. Those specs would not cut it today.
The same will happen with Windows XP once it leaves the market place. Although then it will not be as easy to "borrow" a Windows XP key since it requires online activation. Then an installer will have to hack the activation but, from what I understand, this is a trivial process. SP3 might change the game a little, but negligibly.
And talking about old operating systems, I took a moment this weekend to have a laugh while I was working on my internal network server upgrading the tape drive. It is an AMD K6-III/400 with 128MB RAM and 20GB IDE drive, and provides DNS, DHCP, and outbound SMTP for my home network. I built this as a study in small network management and it became permanent after I just could not kill the bugger, even with the now defunct experimentation installs of Apache and MySQL. Here is the startup banner:
Sun Microsystems Inc. SunOS 5.8 Generic February 2000
Eight years later and still rockin' strong. And I can still get cluster patches from Sun. Had I invested money in this box, I would definitely feel I saw a return on the investment over the past eight years, and I certainly would not feel like I am getting monkey-fondled to have to retire the hardware in favor of a new operating system (I drool over Solaris 10 x64.)
Not like a machine which is only two to three years old and have to be massively over-hauled or replaced just to run Vista.
I think I have said this before on
Vista feels like Microsoft just told us to go phuq ourselves.
I am in the process of completing my migration to Windows XP x64 now that I have a 64-bit capable dual-core machine. I love it. Every piece of hardware has a driver and it is peppy and responsive, seemingly more so than XP 32-bit. I believe we should have been at 64-bit computing a decade ago, but Intel has kept beating the 25 year-old 32-bit horse well beyond death. Given both, I take a moment to ponder on how Vista x64 performance compares to Vista 32-bit, and think that perhaps I can give it a try sometime.
Of course, all things considered, Vista is still the desktop equivalent of the phone tree, and still frustrating to navigate and get things done. I hope for better from Windows 7.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, your OpenOffice example is pretty valid.
Several times, people have asked me "Can you get me Office?" I tell them they have a few choices. Pay for it (nope). Get a hacked copy (maybe). Download the perfectly free version that does just about everything you want (yes).
A few people have been bent on "I HAVE TO HAVE MICROSOFT OFFICE", but they're the exception. On shared machines, a few didn't even realize the difference until I pointed it out.
Re:Satisfying (Score:5, Informative)
Are you serious?
You should think about that for a moment. Then think about a little bit more, and then you might realize how astronomically stupid of a statement that is. (Not you, just Microsoft attempting to do it).
Those stickers that are on the sides of computers, or in my case on a piece of paper, are worth 175$ approx. right now. The EULA forces Microsoft to provide activation FOREVER.
That's right. FOREVER. If they don't provide you with a activation key to accomplish an installation, they are in default of their contractual agreement. That's the problem with activation. A customer has purchased the right to use that software for an indefinite amount of time. It is the software developers responsibility to provide the activation service for as long as their customers EXIST.
Pain in the Ass huh? Well that's what they get for being Big Brother. Big Brother has to always be there to hold your hand and make sure you are doing the right thing. It's like kids. It's a lifelong job, with no end in sight, except DEATH. For any company that uses activation as a protection mechanism, there are costs associated with it. The only way out is to file bankruptcy to protect them from pissed off customers who cannot activate anymore.
Of course, there is always the option of running a pirated copy that bypasses activation. Nothing wrong with that, especially since you still possess the Certificate of Authenticity.
I have always felt there should be a congressional investigation into Microsoft's practices with bundling software. I feel it should be illegal to do so, without methods in place to obtain rebates through the mail. Why? That sticker.
You have the right from the EULA agreement to transfer that product FOREVER. Without Limitations Even.
Furthermore, Microsoft made no provisions in the EULA, which "constitutes the entire agreement", to actually stop providing the activation services. If they did you would be well within your rights to sue them.
Check out this link: http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx [microsoft.com]
Re:Satisfying (Score:5, Interesting)
So they disable the internet activation, and make the telephone activation an expensive call, thus recouping the costs.
There's their privilege to disable the Internet-based registration. Heck, there is their privilege to disable _your_ Internet connection. Maybe in 2014, the Windows IP stack stops working (hmm, that's one way to stop the botnets...)
A short play (Score:5, Funny)
31 June 2008, 8:00 AM EST: Nasdaq and NYSE both crash as the big three PC vendors and their suppliers discover nobody's willing to buy a PC any more.
Midmorning Bill and Steve get a call from Ben Bernanke.
Afternoon DHS executes warrants on One Microsoft Way. Attorney general reopens antitrust investigation. Steve gets a call from the IRS regarding the structure of financing for one of his sports teams.
Evening: XP gets a reprieve! We're all friends again.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Recognize the error and wait for Win7 (Score:3, Insightful)
I can not imagine all corporate users migrating to vista just because MS want so.
Re:Recognize the error and wait for Win7 (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never cared for XP's eye candy or Vista's eye candy... all I want in a Windows-compatible OS is a Windows 2000-like GUI, support for the latest hardware, updated security patches, and a minimum of bloat. XP can do it, Server 2008 can do it, and any future OS (or OS emulation like WINE) that can do it will be fine with me, too.
I don't use a computer to look at pretty transparent windows. I use a computer to run applications. Any OS "feature" that steals CPU cycles away from my applications does not give me warm fuzzy feelings. Such "features" send me on a search for the method to turn them off and get back to the stripped-down, efficient GUI of Windows 2000. My hardware and my apps are where it's at for me. If the OS wants to be the star, it can take a hike. That is where MS went wrong with Vista.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Downgrade (Score:5, Informative)
Wow. Just for changing my hard drive.
I fully intend to downgrade to XP in the near future.
-JB
Re:Downgrade (Score:4, Funny)
Security Fixes until 2014 (Score:5, Insightful)
---Dedicated Ubuntu user
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The day this becomes an "apples-to-apples" comparation, I'll show you.
Opportunity for Third Party -- maybe even Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
(1) Microsoft Systems shops that have the ability to provide support or
(2) Competition that's open source ("Don't like being moved off your platform when your *vendor* decides it's time, not when you decide it's time? When you have the source, you can maintain or hire someone to maintain it as long as the cost is worth it to you.")
Eee PC (Score:4, Insightful)
Does anyone else think sales are going to soar? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if XP will get a reprieve before or after the 30th of June. It _will_ get a reprieve. That's my bet. I just don't know for sure when.
Of course, I'm feeling a bit smug typing this on an Eee PC without Windows and knowing that my wife is about to buy a MacBook. I use Windows at work, but in every place where we make the decisions, we've given up on it.
Nature of an OS (Score:5, Insightful)
This is sort of empirical proof, to me at least, for what I have long thought, and I'm sure a lot around here thought as well. The days of an OS revolutionizing or vastly enhancing the way someone, especially a consumer, computes are long behind us. The OS has suffered from feature bloat for forever, and for the most part, a successful new OS is one that just doesn't hinder the work to be done. For most people, their computing needs have been satisfied, but they are pushed into a perpetual cycle of upgrading for upgrades sake. This "rebellion" is a symptom of this. XP satisfied people, and some of them are starting to realize what the terms "lock-in" and "monopoly" actually mean.
We're coming to a point where freedom in software is gaining in market value. I know it's cliche, and people have been spouting it for a over a decade, but I suspect that the general populace has come to a point where they can see that dollars and cents are in favor of not being tied to a corporation that makes money by selling solutions for the same problems over and over again. I don't know what iteration of "free" software will fill this void, but this mess with XP is not good for them. It won't be the downfall of Windows, they are far to crafty and firmly positioned for that to happen. However, the old business model of theirs is losing its effectiveness.
I hope I'm right, but even more so I hope I'm not turning into a linux nut that shouts "It's the year..." every time MS slips up.
Re:Nature of an OS (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure the issue is that people with XP are unwilling to fund Microsoft. The issue from where I'm standing is two-fold: first, XP works. It's a fairly stable system, and one that people have been using for the past *seven* years. Second, everybody has "heard" that Vista is terrible. My dad, not a techie by any stretch of the imagination, simply refuses to use it. Why? Well, it's not because of first-hand experience -- it's because a few of his co-workers "heard" that it was a terrible OS. More tech-oriented people are more resistant because we don't really see the advantage of switching over to a new OS when the old one works just fine. The general populace is not as savvy as you might think. They're not as concerned about Microsoft's monopoly as they are about spending an extra couple of hundred dollars to upgrade to a new OS that they've "heard" is not so great.
Besides, their business model is just fine. The product that they're selling, on the other hand, has a terrible reputation - deserved or not. I've used Vista, but I haven't put any real time into it, and I'm completely unwilling to do so until... well, I suppose until I have a final-patched Windows XP SP3 system that's been hacked because of an unfixed security hole. Let's see what happens in two years.
Re:Nature of an OS (Score:4, Insightful)
The merits of Vista aside, I think most people have finally realized what everyone on slashdot already knew. To use e-mail, browse the web, and do some word processing you don't need a new OS every five years or so. Once the illusion that MS, coupled with hardware pushers, had going is broken, well then the whole market changes. People will start to realize that freedom is important, and maybe they should be a little more skeptical about when someone pumps them for money on a regular basis for what is little more than a black magical box, to quite a few.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Until you can buy 'Linux boxes' (and there's enough TV advertising to raise awareness) then nobody is going to go opensource.
What about activation servers? (Score:5, Interesting)
When Microsoft turns off the activation servers, that basically REALLY means the end of WinXP... or is there a chance, any chance, that Microsoft will release a super-secret "unlock all" patch in 2014 that will allow XP to be activated. I am pretty sure the answer is NO, but I can still hope.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I went to Google, found what I needed and I've been happily running new installs of XP since.
That worked really well for Microsoft didn't it
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When Microsoft turns off the activation servers, that basically REALLY means the end of WinXP... or is there a chance, any chance, that Microsoft will release a super-secret "unlock all" patch in 2014 that will allow XP to be activated. I am pretty sure the answer is NO, but I can still hope.
According to Microsoft Norway's Product Activation FAQ [microsoft.com]:
No, Microsoft will not use activation as a tool to force people to upgrade. Activation is merely an anti-piracy tool, nothing else.
Microsoft will also support the activation of Windows XP throughout its life and will likely provide an update that turns activation off at the end
Bend over, just not yet (Score:5, Insightful)
THIS is what's wrong with proprietary software. If Vista were better - more compatible with existing software, less buggy, less DRM crap, I would WANT to move. I don't, but in the long run I don't have a choice. If you'd told me 3 years ago I'd be fighting to keep XP, and buying older hardware to ensure support for it, I'd have laughed at you.
XP, then Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
I used Vista, and I don't really like it. I like Ubuntu, but there are some things like games, that it doesn't run. I feel choosing the OS, then the applications is like putting the cart before the horse. When I can run rFactor(a PC driving sim) in Linux, I can migrate to it. I fully believe I'll be able to do this before XP is dead.
Unexpected Benefits (Score:5, Interesting)
Vista's reputation is justifiably bad, and I'm never buying a copy. If I suddenly need a new Wintel machine, there's always someone like tigerdirect that has overstocked machines with XP pre-installed, and they'll probably be selling them for a year after XP is pulled from the shelves. But I think MS is only going to cause customers to truly hate their guts for this. They'd be smarter to allow XP sales until Windows 7 is ready (assuming they don't fuck that up.... a big if).
I've already done it (Score:4, Interesting)
I may get forced in the Vista direction at some point, and I'm pretty sure that at some point I'll be forced to at least support it, but so far I've been able to pretend it isn't there and just hope for it to go away. My company is the main locus of such possible force, but they are so far mostly avoiding Vista. Unfortunately the in-house Linux that they prefer is Red Hat... It might be more secure, but I feel Ubuntu is much closer to being ready for the masses to work with.
Anyone care to speculate as to why? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is no classic example of market demand guiding any invisible hand to deliver. People want it, Microsoft says "too bad!"
Would anyone care to speculate for logical reasons why Microsoft would take this approach? I'm really out of ideas on this matter. Most people can agree that they dislike the idea... even people who LOVE Vista can't actually approve of Microsoft forcing people out of something they like can they? (Don't answer that, I know they can...)
So why are they doing this?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably, but what good are they? If you saw a survey claiming that 90% of PC users say "Vista sucks/rules", would it change your opinion if it happened to be the opposite? No, you'd be saying to yourself "what a load of bull, that's SO not true" and you'd go digging for proof it was fabricated by fanboys/corporations etc.
When the subject is something that everybody has their own strong opinion of, polls and survey's don't matter muc
Not really an issue... (Score:4, Insightful)
Be realistic 13 years of support is amazing long, and if that's not enough XP for you there isn't any rule that says you can't continue to use it after they stop patching it.
Put all your efforts behind KDE (Score:5, Interesting)
One could say we in the free software business are our own enemies. We shoot ourselves in the feet all the time. Imagine...after all this time, with the [free] availability of specs of every kind, there is no decent ODF application beyond OpenOffice.org...which at version 2.4, still sucks bigtime by the way! Do not think I blindly support KDE because KDE's KOffice is a joke!
By the way, some author outlines ways for that other environment to improve. [earthweb.com]
Linux very likely for me. (Score:3, Interesting)
Openoffice 2.4 has added the features I wanted and seems to mangle my existing huge documents very little so that I can patch them in a few hours (these are 150 page documents with hundreds of pictures). The smaller documents I only need to change the table of contents and indices column count.
P2P- Azureus.
Sound- Audacity.
Graphics-- still an issue- but Draw looks decent. I need a good pixel editor tho.
Browsing-- Firefox.
Just do not see the point in upgrading again and paying money again. I guess I'll get some $399 PC with Vista or Windows7 but no more $1899 (heck last XP pc was only $1199).
Focusing my dollars on retirement, boardgames, my house--- do not see putting out $3k for a computer each year like I used to.
Oh noes! (Score:4, Insightful)
You guys DO realize that this would be like someone running Windows 95 today, right? XP came out in 2002 and was replaced in 2007. A full seven years after that, XP will be phased out. There will likely be two major OS releases, plus Vista, by the time that happens.
Not to mention this has already happened with every other Windows release to date, including Windows 2000. In fact, Windows 2000 (Professional and Server) officially lost Mainstream Support in the middle of 2005, and its Extended Support (security updates only) will end in 2010. That's a 10 year lifespan.
The real story here is that Microsoft has committed to supporting an OS for 12 years after you paid less than $200 for it.
who cares?! (Score:3, Insightful)
At the risk of trolling, who cares? Microsoft has been doing this sort of thing since Windows 3.1.
By now, I think people have figured out the proprietary software game. You pay for gloss, for the "privelege" of upgrading every few years. People who run Windows by choice do so because they want to have the latest thing. They don't care how well it works; they don't care if it's slow, or needs constant updating, or has umpteen million security holes.
It's what everybody is using. Period. And that's reason enough to use it.
You know, we could go on a rant about other operating systems that are more secure, run faster, have better legacy support, more features and options, etc...
But it doesn't matter. The kind of people who run XP by choice don't care that Microsoft is going to discontinue support. When that happens, they'll just shell out another few hundred for a brand new PC. Why? Because it's new, and therefore better.
It doesn't matter. Nobody cares. Linux will still be around for those of us who actually care about the quality of the software we run. And Apple will still, gladly, cater to those who are fed up with being abused by their technology vendor. And no one will care - not Microsoft, not Apple fanboys, not Linux zealots, and least of all, Windows users. They've become so accustomed to computers as slow, unreliable, and insecure, that honestly, they won't notice any difference.
Because Vista is new, and therefore more advanced....
XP not dead.. But UNDEAD (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx [microsoft.com]
XP licenses can be transferred indefinitely. You don't have to ever buy another XP license as long as you are getting rid of the older machine. As for drivers, there will be drivers for XP for at least another 10 years. I can still download Windows 2000 drivers; it's a safe bet there will be Windows XP drivers for quite a long time.
I also find it ironic that XP is about to be "dead" and certain manufacturers still don't have XP 64-bit driver support.
Activation has to be provided by Microsoft for as long as their are stickers out in the "wild". There are no contractual provisions for Microsoft to NOT provide activation. At some point, Microsoft may elect to just allow any request to be activated. Those service centers which run 24/7 giving out activation codes when too many activations have been performed on the license don't run cheap. There is no alternative however. To not provide activation denies a customer the ability to run the operating system that they paid for.
Unless I am really clueless, which is possible since I do have some pretty spectacular "DUH" moments, the EULA does not provide a time frame or conditions for them to discontinue activation.
It will be even worse in corporations, since there is a pretty good rebellion going against Vista right now in the workplaces. That is just what I can see, I am not trying to start a war here
My point though is that corporations are even more aware, and more sophisticated about licenses, COA's , CALS, TS CALS, etc. and are far more likely to transfer a XP license from an older machine to a newer machine rather then purchase a newer OS like Vista.
So no, XP is not going to die. Far from it. This is just another article stirring up blogs like rocks hitting a wasp's nest.
Not Just Microsoft (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, an upgrade from one Microsoft OS to the next is often much more disruptive (to your system and to your wallet) than upgrades to some other OSes. For example, Debian upgrades are free and usually very smooth.
Plus, the free operating systems are largely mix and match. You don't have to accept the package as a whole. With Apple and Microsoft, for example, if they decide to litter their new OS with DRM or other junk, your choices are to accept it or to not use the new OS. With, say, Linux or OpenBSD, you can just leave out the parts you don't want (usually by simply not installing them. in the very worst case, you will have to edit the source and recompile - but at least you _can_ do that).
Hold out for Windows7 (Score:4, Informative)
HA! (still using Dos 6.0!) (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt they know though if they would install XP or Linux on there the laptop would absolutely fly and that's why they don't seem to have problems with it, if they would install XP or Linux and compare it to Vista they would find Vista is a major slow down on their computer.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't really have a hard time believing this. Between video acceleration (non-restricted drivers) and things like networking support (ndiswrapper aka the spawn of satan) it might be easy to get a situation where some things are or just feel more speedy on Vista. I have Vista on a desktop at home just trying it out and performance (aside from file copying) has never been a problem. While I think there are some serious design issues with Vista I do not find any fault with response time or performance on moderately new hardware.
An extreme case is startup/shutdown/hibernate times. On XP/Vista it takes about 30-45 seconds goes from off to usable and about 8 seconds when in hibernation. I may as well shut down the Ubuntu partition since coming out of hibernation is no faster than just starting it up normally (which takes a lot longer than 30 seconds) and occasionally hibernation fails to resume correctly.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Flash 9 on Linux is terrible. (Score:5, Informative)
But Flash 9.0.115 on Linux is TERRIBLE. That plugin is so unstable it crashes Youtube every other video and eats RAM. This isn't Linux's fault its Adobe's.
But there is a work around. Extract the FLV and use ffmpeg or mencoder and change it into another format, it looks MUCH Better. Just get it out of that horrid flash plugin.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably, but I don't know that speed is everything to the average user. They'll put up with a bit of slowdown for an OS that feels powerful, looks pretty and has lots of neat little toys. And Linux has certainly had issues with looking pretty, which is understandable as talented designers aren't as generous as programmers,
And yes, I could be talking about OS X here too; only in the last few years has it not been an OS that's slow as molasses.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, but as someone who has just painstakingly managed to install Windows XP on a Dell XPS 1530 (which is officially Vista-only) I can attest to the fact that it's not "a bit of slowdown" - it's an imprecise measure but I'd say my laptop now "feels" at least two times faster/more responsive. We are talking about a pretty zippy dual core machine with 3 gigs of RAM and a powerful video card, too (256MB DDR3 nvidia 8600gt), which ran like treacle with Vista on it.
I have since played with another, similar Vista laptop trying to figure out what is doing all the damage. The worst individual offenders seem to be the (well documented) user account control bullshit which interferes with every aspect of the operation of the computer, and "supercache", which would have to be in the top 5 worst Microsoft innovations of all time.
For the uninitiated, supercache watches everything you do and records a log of what you cause to be loaded into memory and at what time/date it happens (this automatically introduces an overhead into every single memory related operation because Vista has to spend some resources on surveilling you). It then attempts to predict what you are going to use at a given point in time, and pre-caches as much of it as it considers to be reasonable. So for example, if I played Quake III every Wednesday night between 7-8pm, Vista would start grinding away at about 7pm on Wednesdays loading the texture files into RAM. Supercache apparently considers about 1.5 gigabytes on a system with 3 gigabytes of RAM to be a reasonable amount of physical memory to use for this process.
The net effect of all of the above is that Vista spends a hell of a lot of time sitting there churning away using your disks and RAM to load "stuff" into memory that you "might" need. All of this for the 1-2 seconds you are likely saving by not having to load Word or Quake III or whatever from disk should you happen to want to use it.
Turning UAC and Supercache off (both pretty straightforward once you know where to look) improves performance a lot - but not enough. Vista still has an offensively huge footprint and runs like a dog compared to XP.
Which returns me to the original point - XP is already a challenge to get running with some newer hardware. But if hardware manufacturers have the guts to stand up to Microsoft and keep producing XP versions of their hardware drivers (which should be trivial if they are doing 32 bit Vista drivers) then there's really very little we need from Microsoft.* XP is a stable, solid, mature OS which does what it does pretty well. I for one intend to keep using it into the foreseeable future.
* This is the main issue at the moment - most laptop manufacturers in particular have abandoned XP support on newer machines.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
I can attest to the fact that it's not "a bit of slowdown" - it's an imprecise measure but I'd say my laptop now "feels" at least two times faster/more responsive. We are talking about a pretty zippy dual core machine with 3 gigs of RAM and a powerful video card, too (256MB DDR3 nvidia 8600gt), which ran like treacle with Vista on it.
I can attest the opposite. I don't notice any slowdowns in vista when it has loaded. In fact, I just know that my firefox on vista loads way faster than on xp. I will admit the fancy animations can simulate less responsiveness (but those can be turned off) and that vista cold boot time is fairly slow. But XP cold boots can be just as slow with poor drivers and enough software set to run themselves in the background on startup (aka quicktime and other stupid programs).
I have since played with another, similar Vista laptop trying to figure out what is doing all the damage. The worst individual offenders seem to be the (well documented) user account control bullshit which interferes with every aspect of the operation of the computer, and "supercache", which would have to be in the top 5 worst Microsoft innovations of all time.
You went in the wrong direction in my opinion. I left UAC on but run as a normal user so anytime the UAC pops up I have to type in the admin password. It is how I know that software is either written incorrectly or trying to do something I probably don't approve of. There have been many instances where I installed a piece of software only to find itself trying to install other crapware because the UAC window would popup when the other software tried to start installing itself.
I didn't disable vista's memory caching features first because I think that better memory utilization is a good idea for any OS especially with today's cheap memory prices. So instead I disabled other culprits that cause high disk activity. First I disabled indexing because there aren't very many times when I want to search my entire hard disk. I just don't have that many document files that are worth searching. But the disk activity was still too high. So next I disabled windows defender which is window's new built-in malware scanner (aka antivirus). Bingo, disk utilization has dropped significantly.
Supercache apparently considers about 1.5 gigabytes on a system with 3 gigabytes of RAM to be a reasonable amount of physical memory to use for this process.
And I say let it use every bit of "free" memory. Free memory is like letting that fancy convertible you bought sit in the garage while you go off and use your old car. You paid for the resource, now your OS has magically decided that it should not be used!? If I knew that my OS didn't need that extra 1.5gb most of the time then I ought to take that 1.5gb of ram and sell it on ebay.
People think that cached memory is some kind of huge tax when it isn't. If a block of memory is allocated to a program, it does not need to be zero'ed out. It can be handed with all of its garbage to the program requesting a new block of memory. So a block of cache or a block of free memory is all the same. The only tax paid in caching is filling the cache.
Additionally, Windows XP already "surveys" you. When you go into the add/remove programs control panels in XP it will show you how often you utilize each piece of software you have installed.
Turning UAC and Supercache off (both pretty straightforward once you know where to look) improves performance a lot - but not enough. Vista still has an offensively huge footprint and runs like a dog compared to XP.
Turn off windows defender.
I have a vista machine with an intel dual core 1.8ghz and 2gb of ram. I'd rather use it than my single core laptop with 1gb of ram or my work desktop with a 3.4ghz p4, 2gb of ram, and windows xp.
hardware manufacturers have the guts to stand up to Microsoft and keep producing XP versions of thei
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with the sibling comment regarding the concept of pre-caching data in RAM. Why would we want to waste the money we spent in RAM and leave it filled with zeros? That's n
Tried it lately? (Score:5, Informative)
When you post stuff like this people are just going to point out the youtube.com video WINDOWS VISTA AERO VS LINUX UBUNTU BERYL [youtube.com]. 3 million people have seen it. Why haven't you? It's from February of last year. Compiz has improved some since.
Here is Compiz running on a seven year old 800 MHz PIII with 128 MB of RAM. [youtube.com] It runs better than Vista did on the last dual core notebook with 1GB I tried it on, and it looks better too.
Here's Compiz running on an eee PC [youtube.com]. Isn't that sweet? I hate lugging around 15 pounds of kit and the eee will be my next PC purchase. It weighs two pounds. Did you hear they're only 300 bucks (No, not the software. The whole thing!)?
I hear Vista comes with a few docklets or widgets or whatever they're calling them now. Ubuntu comes with this small collection [ubuntu.com] of neat little toys. I didn't count them. I think there's thousands of them in there. People might find one or two interesting things in there.
Now what were you saying again? Oh, yeah,
Now you're projecting. In design are you? Apparently others are more giving. Perhaps that's because what they get back is "Progress" and that's good value.
I am trying Ubuntu right now. (Score:4, Interesting)
I might be a rare bird to install some of those app, but plain freaking dosbox was runnning out of the box in windows, and I have to install and download third party stuff in ubuntu. Argue as much as you wish, but I am nowhere to recommend ubuntu to anybody without a lot of time and knowledge.
Re:vista's not really that bad.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not? Generally the reasons that people use Windows when they know there is Linux is because of legacy apps, if they don't work in Vista there is no need to move from XP and not move to Linux/OS X. On most other OSes unless there has been a major change (Like 9X to NT, major changes in scripting languages such as python, PPC to x86) you should expect backwards compatibility. With Linux you don't have that problem, most apps written 3 years ago for the first Ubuntu will work fine with 8.04 or any other distro. With OS X the OS had such a major change from PPC classic mac based to x86 Unix-based you can't make a claim of backwards compatibility but in general there's no reason to expect that NT X App shouldn't run on NT X+1. MS killing backwards compatibility is killing the entire MS monopoly and moving people to OS X or Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And of course Microsoft is forcing a time line on XP. Do you expect them to sit around and make constant improvements f
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I take it you don't use any applications that require access to hardware that doesn't have a Windows driver model for it, or for which the Windows driver is crappy (such as, for example, sound cards and cameras)?
Those have perfect excuses for not working in Vista. But the
Re:vista's not really that bad.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. Backward compatibility is always blamed as the problem, but these legacy apps cost MONEY for new versions (if they are even available). This is one thing that always irritates me about Microsoft. Even on products they don't make any money on, like IE, they have to re-invent the wheel every time they release it.
Absolutely. The other great thing about Linux, if you are using FOSS, you can probably just download a version that works with your distro. A pain in terms of time, but at least it's not cash out of your pocket. If that doesn't work out for you, you next option is to modify the source code and recompile under the latest OS. Again, doesn't always work, and can be difficult for some apps, but in general a viable solution.
In general, Microsoft is an incredibly wasteful company. They spend millions of man-hours re-inventing products with minimal improvement. I have heard very little about Vista that is an improvement on XP, yet they spent a ton of work on it. Their whole business model is banking on the idea that software is continually obsolete, and that just isn't the case. A Word Processor is a Word Processor. An OS, as long as it's compatible with the hardware, is an OS. I can write a letter in Word 95 just as easily as I can in Word 2007, gets the same job done. Why would I spend thousands of dollars on all of the upgrades between now and then if Microsoft didn't periodically break all the backward compatibility.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At work (I'm a PC game developer), pretty much everyone has upgraded to 64-bit Vista. Here's a rundown of some of the software we're using:
Visual Studio 6, 2005, & 2008
Visual Assist X
3D Studio Max
Maya
Photoshop
Perforce
Various PC games (including ours, our parent company's games, and various competitors)
Various in-house tools and utilities
All this with zero (that I'm aware of) compatibility issues. Note that these software packages are 32-bit binaries as well. We've been using
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cisco Systems VPN Client [cisco.com] doesn't. That's (one of) the deal-breaker(s) for me.
Re:vista's not really that bad.. (Score:5, Informative)
Er, Compiz isn't a memory hog though. I just measured it, and with all the standard features turned on it seems to use about 8MB more than a standard non-compositing window manager (e.g. metacity). It's also very fast and responsive with even minimal hardware acceleration (I'm using a machine with built-in intel 845G graphics, and compiz works very nicely).
I don't know what MS did to fuck up Vista so much, but you can't lay it at the feet of "compositing window managers."
Re:for those of us old enough to remmeber... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's what you're missing... Win95 did have a number of significant improvements over 3.11. Vista does not have significant improvements over XP. It's a few security fixes, lots of eye candy, and lots of DRM or similar protectionist practices that mean you have to contact MS every time you switch your hard drive.
There is no benefit whatsoever in switching to Vista. There are, however, consequences in terms of performance and in the freedom to change hardware etc. It might have been a different story if they'd delivered the Vista they initially promised -- the one with the new file system etc. The Vista they eventually delivered had none of that -- no significant improvements, no "must have" features whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and you can turn the eye candy shit off.
Re:XP is dead (Score:4, Funny)
Well, at least I'm confident that by the time Windows 7 comes out, ReactOS will be in a usable state.