XP Deathwatch, T Minus 2 Weeks 597
CWmike writes "June 30 is Microsoft's deadline for mainstream computer makers to stop selling new PCs with the old operating system, and the date that it will stop shipping boxed copies to retailers. That's just two weeks away. Computerworld offers a FAQ about XP's approaching retirement after Microsoft's most recent relaxation of the retirement rules, with some details about which machines big-brand computer makers will be selling with XP after June 30. First FAQ: Any sign that Microsoft will reprieve Windows XP's retirement? Sort of."
I hope so (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I hope so (Score:5, Informative)
There's an explicit exception for the mini-notebook market, for the very reason that Microsoft is afraid that Linux will sweep it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hope so (Score:5, Informative)
* it can't join a domain
* the file permissions and file sharing permissions sytems are crippled
* I don't think it can be a remote desktop server (but i'm pretty sure it can be a remote desktop client)
I don't see any of theese as showstoppers for an ultraportable.
BTW you will still be able to get XP pro though vista buisness or ultimate downgrade rights and the big brand OEMs are now allowed to supply downgrade media and even ship systems pre-downgraded.
Re:I hope so (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hope so (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I hope so (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I hope so (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I hope so (Score:5, Interesting)
> There's an explicit exception for the mini-notebook market, for the very reason that Microsoft is afraid that Linux will sweep it.
True. I wonder if that'll help. My daughter (13) last Saturday bought an EEE (with her own money!) and specifically requested Linux because the XP versions were comparatively sluggish. Was soon frustrated with easy mode, but after we got the full Xandros desktop loaded, she's been very happy with it, and hasn't looked back. (I think Asus should just default to the full Xandros desktop -- it's pretty, and even Windows users would be comfortable with it.)
Point is, she chose Linux over XP on the EEE for the same reason we've been choosing XP over Vista on desktops -- less complicated, fewer issues, faster on the same hardware. Put simply, the lighter weight OS provides a better user experience on the same hardware.
Moreover, considering the use to which these sub-subnotebooks are being put, there's very little reason to run XP, any more than a PDA or phone needs to run Windows. (They can, but they don't *have* to.)
Re:I hope so (Score:4, Insightful)
In the UMPC's own little world, Linux is fine. But Linux won't talk to the big computer at home for those who run Windows there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
# dpkg -r dpkg
dpkg: error processing dpkg (--remove):
This is an essential package - it should not be removed.
Errors were encountered while processing:
dpkg
Re:I hope so (Score:5, Interesting)
> yeah I know but its still a market that Linux is very competitive in. XP cant be in that market segment for that long (they say 2011). What will Microsoft's new product for this market be?
After XP is gone, all they'll have in that space is Windows Mobile. I can't imagine Microsoft coming up with a *new*, lighter-weight OS. It's not how they work. They're stuck with Vista, and the next version will be even more hardware-intensive.
Idle thought -- how does Microsoft's business model work in today's "green" market, where running white-hot hardware and upgrading every two weeks is no longer the norm? Will it be global warming that finally kills Microsoft? :-)
Re:I hope so (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I hope so (Score:5, Interesting)
So long as these things can play video and render webpages in a reasonable amount of time, people aren't going to really need more power.
So then we're right back where we are today... they can spend the extra money on Windows or they can get a machine with more space running Linux for the same coin. So long as these machines are under $300, MS (or any OS maker) is going to have a very hard time getting rich off of them.
Re:I hope so (Score:5, Interesting)
Low price of h/w is a new reality that MS failed to grasp when they worked on pricing for Vista.
Interestingly, most normal suppliers that I deal with, when they want to obsolete a product introduce new one, with better specs, providing full compatibility with the old one, and costing LESS. (I'm talking about semiconductors here.) Then everybody have a good reason to migrate.
MS did exactly the opposite -- worse performance, no compatibility, and higher price.
Re:I hope so (Score:4, Interesting)
No. The price of an additional license of Vista is 400USD, of course. But the cost of an additional license of Vista is essentially zero. If MS want to bar Linux from entry and Vista does the job, it can start offering 10USD sub-laptop only licenses to OEM. The problem is, Vista doesn't do the job. It would run too slow. It would eat battery too fast.
Re:I hope so (Score:5, Funny)
- RG>
Re:I hope so (Score:5, Interesting)
But here's another prediction: MS will give XP another stay of execution. They don't want to — it must be damned humiliating to spend a 5 years developing an OS upgrade, only to have everybody reject it — but they must know that killing XP will give Linux a unique opportunity to break their monopoly on desktop systems. Pride will make them wait until the last minute, but dollars and cents will keep them from pulling the plug. Until Windows 7 appears, I think XP is safe.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which support nightmares are that? Vista accidentally came on about 30 laptops I ordered. I converted 10 of them to XP but left the rest and no one has complained at all. Of course our internal apps are all web-based and work just fine with Firefox so that has a lot to do with it.
The only issue I ran into was with the 64bit version of Vista but I have the same issue with 64bit XP in that the Sonicwall VPN client wasn't supported. There is now a functional beta for it and all is well.
It's not even that s
Want support nightmares? Get Linux... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's harder for Linux users to mess up their machines but the monthly patches and frequent updates to the distributions (the whole OS changes every six months or so) is a nightmare to keep up with.
I never saw a Windows update yet which required me to manually recompile the webcam driver. I've spent months of my life recompiling webcam drivers for rooms full of Linux machines (cybercafes).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While all your points are technically accurate about Vista they are not unique to Vista or caused by Vista.
Single images are the very reason Vista is attractive to businesses because it's a hardware independent image based installation. XP required custom boot drivers for each platform.
I don't upgrade the OS on any machine, as the warranty expires I go with what's available and well supported. My new laptops run Vista at acceptable speeds with no noticeable lag. The eye candy is of course turned off as
I'm starting to warm up to Vista... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the grand Longhorn promise of a secure seamless powerful new architecture so it doesn't renew our indenture to this monopolist for another decade. Some few don't hit the pain points and can come to like it so they latch onto it like it's garlic at a vampire festival. It's going to be really hard to pry it away from those folks. It not quite lame enough to give a total pass -- there's always a chance with this tweak and that patch and the other workaround and all new hardware (again!) it might ma
What does Vista bring to the table? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't think of a single good reason*.
When buying new machines, why would you want Vista on them instead of XP. Having to support two different operating systems is crazy.
[*] nb. XP CAN be locked down tight if you make an effort to do so and when users aren't expected to install their own softw
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
it must be damned humiliating to spend a 5 years developing an OS upgrade, only to have everybody reject it
Maybe, but at this time most are rejecting it becuase the previous version is still a pretty good option. Nearly everyone upgraded to 2000, becuase it was a great advantage. EVERYONE upgraded to XP. Now I can buy a dual core computer that runs XP darn snappy for $400. I can also buy used computers for $150 with a P4 2.4 that run XP just fine. Plus all those computers we bought 3 years ago are still running strong on XP.
Where is the Vista advantage? Each previous version was just MUCH better by defau
So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Either way, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, because soon enough, the updates will stop, XP machines will be virus infested and even my grandma will have beef with Microsoft!
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
The "Extended Support" phase is scheduled to end on 04-08-2014 for Windows XP SP3. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-XP-SP3-Brings-the-Death-of-SP2-July-13-2010-85986.shtml [softpedia.com]
Yes, I too agree it must be *meant to be* confusing.... It is just the Microsoft Way. I think there are several amortization table calculations involved in the selection of the dates too... http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy [microsoft.com]
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
I think an example of a "non security hotfix" would be something like the Daylight Saving time fix for Windows 2000 [slashdot.org] (in "Extended Support" at the time), which was only provided for those that paid for extended hotfix support. I think an example of "design fixes and feature requests" would be a Service Pack.
So Windows XP should be secure and usable as long as software is written for it. Since so many people will continue to use Windows XP, this shouldn't be a problem.
Windows 2000 started its "Extended Support" phase 3 years ago [microsoft.com] and I'm starting to see a few new applications not support the OS (e.g. Foobar2000 0.9.5, Photoshop CS3, free Microsoft goodies). I think this will be less of a problem for Windows XP because XP is used by many more home users than Windows 2000 ever was.
Non issue (Score:3, Insightful)
We switched over to the Vista licensed option of the Dell Optiplex almost a month ago. Dell will be shipping with XP for at least a year and the downgrade rights extend into 2010.
There is no issue except that I am sure Microsoft is reporting this as a sale of Vista instead of a failure of Vi
Make people realise the benefit of OSS (Score:2, Insightful)
OSS: You run the software you want to run, according to your business interests.
Want to run Linux 2.0 (not that you'd want to)? Sure no probs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Get it while it's hot
Re: (Score:2)
How many large distributions still support sucurity updates for old kernel versions? Sure, the lonely hacker at home can mod and update old kernel versions ad nauseam, but for a company that is no real option.
I love OSS and make money on Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
You can run any software that is written for Windows and it will work! That's what makes Windows wonderful.
OSS: You run the software you want to run, according to your business interests.
This may be true, but, how do you run it? What libraries will you need? What the hell is a kernel? What does it mean to compile?
Until there is a bullet-proof installation method - Linux will remain out of the SMB world. The corporate world has a place for Linux on the desktop but NOT because it is open-source. It's because it works, is cheap(er) and fits a need.
Why is the Apple awesome for SMBs? Easy install using thier DMG files.
I personally use Linux for some development stuff, own an iPhone and Mac Mini AND use my Windows Vista laptop for day to day uses. Why? I use what works.
How I read your post (Score:4, Funny)
Now I know samba has its bugs, but come on... it's not THAT bad.
</deliberate_misunderstanding>
Re:I love OSS and make money on Windows (Score:5, Informative)
Look at the trends: all non-whitebox servers in the world (worth of mention) are sold linux certified and preinstalled. Dell has certified linux laptops. HP/CQ has a pretty nice list of linux certified laptops (they sell them to ya preinstalle as well).
Man... where do this people come from? Linux is already out there! Go buy a box with it on it and youll never, ever, look back.
Re:I love OSS and make money on Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say the installation method on linux is more robust than any other method on any other platform.
I think what you meant to say was "easy installation method." I consider the package management system quite easy. Tell me, what exactly do you do when [your favorite software] doesn't provide a dmg that is available for download. What's that? You need to compile it yourself? For shame, how could Apple make such an unusable operating sytem.
Wrong, bordering on deceptive (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Clearly you haven't installed much windows software or know much about how the API works, what parts of it work under which OS's. Just for example you can't run any windows software that uses DX5 specific calls under NT4. Just like there is no DX10 support for XP. Even outside of DirectX. It's trivial to find software that will install or run under one version of windows but not another.
Until there is a bullet-proof installation method - Linux will remain out of the SMB world.
Windows doesn't have a bullet-proof install method. It's not bad but please lets not play pretend.
Re:Wrong, bordering on deceptive (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it is bad. It's a royal pain, as everyone who supports even a handful of Windows systems knows.
What's really bad, though, is the pain of installing all your application software, one stupid package at a time, after the OS is up and running. If your users need anything much beyond Solitaire and WordPad, it can take an entire shift, sometimes more, just to bring a single workstation up to a usable state. And you can't just set it going and walk away. You have to hold its hand the whole time, because of all the stupid dialog boxes.
Honestly, even something like dselect would be a significant improvement.
Re:Make people realise the benefit of OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I missed your point here. Linux runs on more hardware, more architectures and more platforms than Windows ever has. Linux has support for hardware, protocols, filesystems and technologies LONG before Windows does. Linux had the first, working Wireless USB drivers and specification before Microsoft even thought about it. Linux has more software applications available to it (by several orders of magnitude), and even runs most Windows software if necessary.
So what exactly were you trying to say above? Because I missed it. If you want something that supports current, bleeding edge hardware and software, Linux is the only way to go. If you want something that supports 15+ year old hardware, Linux is the only way to go.
If you want to play games on your computer and not much else, Windows is probably a good fit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But that "Linux" isn't Linux 2.0 now is it?
To run the current stuff you need a current Linux. So you are still on the upgrade treadmill. Its not as forced as windows, but in practice its very similar.
Re:Make people realise the benefit of OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
If you care about security updates and support for newer applications software the linux upgrade treadmill is far worse than the windows one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fortunately that's a vendor problem, not a Linux problem, so we don't have to worry about it.
If the vendors don't provide documentation or aren't cooperative with our efforts to support their hardware, then they simply don't gain a hug
Re:Make people realise the benefit of OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a Linux problem.
If it doesn't work on Linux and it works on Windows, it's still a problem, nonetheless. Shifting the blame doesn't solve it.
Re:Make people realise the benefit of OSS (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Make people realise the benefit of OSS (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Make people realise the benefit of OSS (Score:5, Informative)
What about all the various backup products, such as tape backups and seamless server redundancy? Are there alternatives for this for Linux?
Yes. And I would venture to suggest that linux probably has much better support for remote backups and failover clusters than Windows.
What assurances does a large company who absolutely can not afford significant downtime have that the software is well supported by professionals on call and that bugs are constantly being fixed?
This is Red Hat's entire business. If you need that kind of support, they would be more than happy to oblige. A number of other vendors also can provide that level of support.
There are thousands of tools that are necessary for full production environments
Yes, you are correct. And those thousands of tools are all available for linux as well...with the added bonus that they will play nicely with your Windows clients. Novell puts together a distribution that provides all of this out of the box. The only things that is really lacking is an Exchange replacement, but I see that coming in a couple of years from the various Mozilla projects. Thing is, Exchange is slowly dating itself. There are a few web services out there already, like Google Apps, that let you easily integrate email and shared calendars...and you don't need an expensive and massively proprietary application (along with the expensive and massive hardware to run it on). As these mature, Exchange is going to have to evolve or die out.
if you go to a business and tell them that they will likely say, "and what happens if it goes down?"
Hand them the business card of your local Red Hat or IBM sales representative. This is why these companies are in business, and they know how to talk to and reassure PHBs.
Re:Make people realise the benefit of OSS (Score:4, Interesting)
Not paying attention to consumer demand (Score:5, Insightful)
But, that's not what they are doing. They figure people want excessively high system requirements, "more secure" environments (which aren't really better security models, just annoying prompts often) and pretty graphics. Hell, I was happy with the graphics in Windows 2000, and in fact when I use XP I turn it back to Win2K themes always.
Re:Not paying attention to consumer demand (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not paying attention to consumer demand (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is making a strong move I feel with Snow Leopard. People like Leopard. They are releasing Leopard, but "better".
Now you are being a little bit naive. Saying that Apple is doing right when Leopard (while completely leaving people running Tiger on their PowerPCs) is right and Microsoft dumping XP is bad is really short signed.
I know a bunch of people that completely refuse to use Leopard. They have the first version MacBooks, where Tiger runs faster than Leopard. They completely hate the visual effects on Leopard.
I'm not sure, but your post sounds like a fanboism (and I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but that's the impression
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know a bunch of people that completely refuse to use Leopard. They have the first version MacBooks, where Tiger runs faster than Leopard. They completely hate the visual effects on Leopard.
You know, I'm typing this from a recent MBP, but I have an ages-old G4 1,25 GHz with a mere 768 MB RAM at home, both running 10.5.3. Actually I have no idea what those people you know are talking about. What "visual effects"? They can't possibly mean the transparent menu bar which can be turned back to solid or Spaces, which are disabled by default (but are too great to miss out!).
As for performance - my G4 has half the horsepower than the abovementioned MacBooks, and it runs 10.5 just fine, without any no
Re:Not paying attention to consumer demand (Score:4, Interesting)
Let me clarify that this applies to big-ticket consumers as well.
I work for a large multinational corporation in the Emerging Technology group. We're on the same floor as the IT team that has to deploy Vista across 50,000 computers or so. The company as a whole employs more people than Microsoft. (according to the all-knowing Wikipedia)
None of the IT squad are happy about the prospect of company wide Vista default install. Their XP deployment is quite honestly one of the tightest managed environments I've seen. I don't know if they've even set a date for it. They'll just install XP on new machines from HD images as always.
So the individual consumer becomes beta tester for the big company consumer... wacky.
Now, I get IMs from a friend saying "Vista just keeps rebooting, at random." And I see that all consumers, whether Giant Co. or joe schmoe have the same issue with Vista.
Cool new features are cool, but... stability is all anyone has ever wanted from a PC.
All of which makes me wonder the following Q, when is Microsoft rolling out Vista in house?
-Rich
Re:Not paying attention to consumer demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Now vista, compared to XP.... ill let you finish this one.
Re:Not paying attention to consumer demand (Score:4, Insightful)
CD
Or in other words (Score:2)
Of course, as all nerds know, anything that dies can come back as a zombie to eat that which is alive. But we're rational people here and could never imagine that. [itbusiness.ca]
Inaccurate ... (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing dies in the Torrent (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone check the spot price! (Score:2)
I heard a rumor that oil speculators were moving money into XP Home retail box.
Too late. I got mine on Saturday.
And two years from now, if they wont activate, boy 'o boy is Balmer going to get a good chair-throwing!
For those who don't care (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Today our labs discussed WinVista (Score:4, Interesting)
Even with the effects turned off it's dog slow.
If they kill the ability for us to buy XP we're going to an all Linux/Unix shop.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I tried Vista back when I had an Athlon XP 3200+ and a whole 768 megs of ram with a GeForce 5900. It
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to slight your comment, but my experience was the exact opposite. Now mind you I was using a testbed computer: single core 2.6 ghz P4, 2 gigs DDR RAM, nvidia 7300gt video card.
My experiences were as follows:
leo4allv2 ran flawlessly, faster than I'd ever seen Apple's OS run on any Apple hardware...I was actually stunned.
Vista - about as I expected, slow and laggy
Server2008 - everything Vista should have been, but isn't. Ultra fast, clean interface, hyper responsive, etc.
Just an informal post.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, wow, yeah, I guess VMWare is probably supported.
Boy, now Windows has worse driver support than Linux? Whodathunk?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have run Gentoo on my laptop and desktop for many years and love it - I still have it on my laptop. But I built a new watercooled desktop for two reasons - I missed my PC games and I wanted to build a watercooled computer for the hell of it. Now it's a bit high end - Q6600 processor, 8gb ram (why not?) and two 8800GT's in SLI. I installed Vista Ultimate because I wanted to run DX10 games and I wanted to see what Aero looks like. I also have a pir
Vista is Microsoft's Vietnam (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vista is Microsoft's Vietnam (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Vista is Microsoft's Vietnam (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong.
lacks drivers
Wrong. (Vista can run XP drivers, as long as the number of bits lines up. i.e. 32-bit XP driver on 32-bit Vista driver{1})
and is slower than molasses.
Wrong.
Admit that Vista was the disaster it is: Every else already knows that.
"The majority of people who post on Slashdot" != "Everybody."
Sanction the developers that screwed it up so badly, and Fire the bureaucrats who would rather see Microsoft go down the tubes that admit they made a huge mistake with Vista.
Oh, I agree that the development process was screwed up, and the that Microsoft cut far more QA people than they should have. (They're making a big move towards "XP", complete with the 'no testing other than automated testing' thing, which IMO is a recipe for making terrible products.)
But the end Vista product is not anywhere close to as bad as people on Slashdot seem to think of it. Of course, most of those people have probably never used it, they're just echoing the crowd. (Kudos on actually trying it for a few months.)
{1} I was going to link to the driver page for my Netgear WG111v2 which quite clearly stated a few months ago that no Vista support was forthcoming, but they've now released a Vista-compatible driver for it. WTF, Netgear? In any case, trust me, I was running the XP driver for ages, and it worked fine.
Why move? Because you have to, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
The restructured Users folder, for example. Finally 'My Music' is moved out of the My Documents folder, making backups, once again, possible for basic end users.
The improved desktop rendering, which small matter though it may be, was well overdue for an overhaul.
There are some things which are worse in Vista, and we all know about them.
The copying speed.
The shutdown menu, and the fact that hibernation NEVER works.
Ultimately however, and this is where I intend to get relevant, there is nothing significant enough to recommend a switch from XP to Vista. And that's a statement that few people would argue with, and it's a damning statement. The more you think about about, the worse it gets.
And when you step into the world of Enterprise, and big business, things are even worse. In Enterprise, you really, really don't care about shiny baubles. All you care about is that it works, and it stays working, and it never works any worse than it used to.
Aging though it may be, XPs relevancy is not in decline. Windows Server 2003 does not want for much, in the way of mission critical upgrades, and what it does want for, Windows Server 2008 will not be providing.
Re:Why move? Because you have to, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
The speed of copying/moving files was fixed in SP1. Of course it shouldn't have been so bad to begin with, but still, fixed.
Hibernation works fine for me. It doesn't work in Ubuntu however (at least with the most recent kernel), and a lot of people have complained about it.
My point? Everyone's experiences are different. Is it wrong for me to actually like Vista?
Re:Why move? Because you have to, that's why. (Score:5, Informative)
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/02/04/2826167.aspx [technet.com]
Mayan Calender (Score:5, Funny)
Support (Score:3, Funny)
Remember: support for XP will be available through the year Jaguar-Basket-Jaguar-Snake.
Abandonware? (Score:4, Interesting)
If I needed to build a new PC tomorrow, I'll want to install XP on it. But if Microsoft won't sell it to me, what can I do about it?
Re:Abandonware? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could have sworn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Somewhere along the line, XP mostly shed it's poor reputation, and replaced it with one of stability and speed on modern to previous-generation machines. Somehow, even though Win2k's death clock was ticking, few seemed to notice or care. At some point, if you weren't running XP, you were either a die-hard 2k fan, or you were a business.
Fast forward to now. Vista has been out for 20 months and has seen a service pack. Much of the tech community still throws flak at Vista for having poor driver support, being a resource hog, and often such flak is accompanied by a vow to never leave XP. Vista's reputation may be slowly turning, but inside tech circles, throwing flak is still the norm.
What's the difference?
Quite simple really, XP had a catch-22 situation with buying a new machine. Most users with half a brain cell would turn down Windows ME, as it was as stable as a vial of Nitroglycerin. Here's where XP had the advantage: Windows 2000 was a Business OS, and wasn't put out by Microsoft for Home users, so hence system vendors didn't market it on their machines. Thus, buyers were essentially given a choice: Unstable ME, or Unproven XP.
Vista, on the other hand, isn't coming from such a situation. The 9x line has long since been discontinued. Vista's SKU's are only competing against one predecessor: XP. New system buyers have a different choice than a few years ago: Proven XP, or Unproven Vista.
As far as I'm concerned, Vista isn't half bad. If there's a faulty driver, it will be brought to it's knees, but then again, so will XP. I'm running 2 machines and both have Vista as the OS, and thus far I've had only minimal problems.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't use it myself, but I have a friend [jerrypournelle.com] who does. I mentioned once, shortly after SP1 came out that somebody had asked me if she should get Vista. "NO!" he cried. "Tell her not under any circumstances should she get Vista."
Alas, it was too late; by the time I got back to her, she'd bought a new computer with Vista. So it goes. The point of this is, I gather that if Vista were, in fact, half bad, it would be a vast improvement.
SP1 (manual install) & File copying (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to bash Vista for something, bash it for removing the NTDVM and Win16 support from the 64-bit version, the weird versioning and language support, or maybe the lack of 100% backwards compatibility - bash it for something that's actually true, not pre-SP1 performance (which was abysmal, but HAS BEEN FIXED).
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Informative)
No need for that (Score:5, Funny)
Why should they extend support beyond December 21st, 2012? [greatdreams.com]
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Problem support can be provided by third parties, especially with an open source system like linux.
Security update support basically means someone has to monitor all the software in the distribution for secrity issues and then work out how to backport those fixes. While it would certainly be possible to do this for an indvidual customer I suspect few could afford it.
Of course not everyone cares about security updates. If the machi
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:4, Insightful)
OTOH, Linux distros generally improve significantly with each new release, in fact so well and so quickly that supporting 12 year old tech just isn't feasible on any kind of large scale, especially when the upgrade path is so easy. Bonus - because of how Linux is designed, there isn't any need for you to run a 12 year old OS, either. There are always newer distros which run fine on really old hardware (Puppy, DSL, Antix, etc...).
I don't think that this "12 years of support" is a good comparison, there's really no basis for it that I can see. It's not like MS *wants* to do it... Instead, it's a fait accompli for them, or people will leave in droves, IMO.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To what? Apple would be making OSes, not phones and MP3 players if selling their OS on beige intel boxes didn't constitute corporate suicide. People talk about Linux, but its just not viable. Its an awesome OS but it will *never* be the dominant OS for the same reason that perfectly awesome products which are cheap rarely outsell the well marketed corperate 'pass the buck' options. Linux is much much more friendly to anybody that li
alternatives are always better... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:4, Informative)
What does it matter? (Score:4, Funny)
Who cares about free downgrades?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
By the way, I will explain responding to my own post since no one else wants to engage in a respectful or intelligent way. (Typical testosterone rage based behavior.)
XP automatically patches XP so that it goes from an outdated OS that's near its end of life to an outdated OS that's near its end of life. They do not upgrade to the CURRENT version of the Windows operating system whereas Linux updates DO. The enti
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:4, Insightful)
Excuse me, I think you have Microsoft confused with Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
I find it extremely hard to believe that by 2014 there will be nobody in the world willing to support older Linux installations.
Yeah, but their "support" is likely to be "just upgrade to 2.10 - it's free - and recompile your software from source".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but three years ago they would have said the same about 2000 Pro, and would have told you that XP was a bloated piece of crap with a playskool theme.
And now people are whining and griping about Vista the same way they were about XP when it came out. Yawn.