Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Businesses

Microsoft Not Ditching Vista Until At Least 2011 297

Posted by kdawson from the contrary-to-rumors dept.
CWmike writes "Microsoft will not dump Vista when Windows 7 launches, and plans to keep selling it to computer makers, system builders, volume licensees and consumers at retail until at least January 2011, a Microsoft spokesman said, citing long-running policy. Earlier today, a Microsoft general manager hinted that the company might ditch Vista as soon as Windows 7 ships. He also said that support for all versions of Vista will end in April 2012. Neither is true, according to the company. Michael Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, said, 'to try to stop Vista or make it unavailable, that would just draw attention... The truth is, few people will be likely to order it once Windows 7 is available.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Not Ditching Vista Until At Least 2011 More

Microsoft Not Ditching Vista Until At Least 2011

Comments Filter:

  • Millenium 2 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grapeape ( 137008 ) <mpope7.kc@rr@com> on Monday May 04, 2009 @06:29PM (#27823579) Homepage

    Well remember MS continued to offer Millenium until 2003 even though XP launched in 2001. Offering and actually selling are two different things, I know I never heard of anyone buying Millenium after XP shipped.

    • Re:Millenium 2 (Score:5, Funny)

      by owlstead ( 636356 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @06:36PM (#27823701)

      "I know I never heard of anyone buying Millenium after XP shipped."

      I did, my computer illiterate aunt. Some time ago, after years of letting them simmer I fixed some parts of their computer. That'll teach 'm not to listen.

      But the computer salesman was such a nice guy. Much better than the shop I was pushing. Well, to be fair, that computer was not worth XP. It was a match made by the devil.

      • What's wrong with M.e? Isn't it just Windows 98 with a few new features added?

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:Millenium 2 (Score:4, Insightful)

          by camperslo ( 704715 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @09:56PM (#27825771)

          What's wrong with M.e? Isn't it just Windows 98 with a few new features added?

          Nothing like disk caching and virtual memory that'll fight each other while eating up the RAM and disk space.

          ME could be thought of as the Retarded Cannibal Edition... the cannibal that eats itself.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by mrbcs ( 737902 )
            The most fun I ever saw was when a small business put a Mistake Edition computer on their network. Unbelievable the problems that caused. After I "solved" the ME problem on the first network, from that point on, it was my first question of any new business.

            "Are their any Millenium Editon computers on the network?" Yes? "Unplug them." Problems solved.

            That'll be $100

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by beav007 ( 746004 )
          ME was horribly unreliable, compared to 98SE, which, as far as I'm concerned, is the best home/consumer OS released by Microsoft to date.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by LoRdTAW ( 99712 )

          I bought a Sony P3-600 64MB laptop around 200/2001 or so that shipped with ME. Jesus Christ, I never had so many headaches trying to get a computer to work and not crash. It was like an early version of Vista, it ate memory like a hog eating slop. I blew the ME install away after only one week and installed windows 2000. Best move I could have made. Win2k ran great on just 64MB and when upgraded to 256MB it flew.

      • Re:Millenium 2 (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04, 2009 @08:10PM (#27824855)

        "I know I never heard of anyone buying Millenium after XP shipped."

        I did, my computer illiterate aunt.

        Hey genius, it's "I have." I have heard of someone buying ME after XP shipped. Not I did heard of someone buying ME after XP shipped.

        Unless you misplaced a comma and meant to say, "I did my computer illiterate aunt." Which all I have to say is 0_o That's some payment for working on her computer.

      • I did, to play certain old Win9x based games. Also, it was cheaper to get Win9x and put Linux on a second hard drive to do any real work.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Locutus ( 9039 )

      the difference was that WinME was DOS/Windows based and Win2K was NT based so there was little in common. Windows 7 is basically Vista SP3 so it's the same core. That makes this news even more of a dah moment and a WTF cares kind of news item. They won't continue _forcing_ OEMs to ship Vista but will let them sell to any sucker who bought their snakeoil sales pitches and asks for it.

      LoB

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by theaveng ( 1243528 )

        >>>Windows 7 is basically Vista SP3 so it's the same core.

        I think that diminishes the changes that have been made. XP == Windows NT 5. Vista == Windows NT 6. Windows 7 == Window NT 7. Each one is a different generation from the previous.

        • Actually Windows 7 reports it's version as 6.1. Vista Ultimate x64 SP1 reports 6. Windows 7 is really vista with slow parts taken out and new UI splashed on.

        • Re:Millenium 2 (Score:5, Informative)

          by zamboni1138 ( 308944 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @10:19PM (#27825939)

          Are you sure that's right?

          I thought it was:

          Windows NT 4 = Windows NT 4
          Windows 2000 = Windows NT 5
          Windows XP = Windows NT 5.1
          Windows Vista = Windows NT 6
          Windows 7 = Windows NT 6.1

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      I had a computer that wouldn't run 2k or XP (or 98!) but would run 95 and ME. That computer is gone now... (It wouldn't boot linux either.)

  • Why? (Score:2)

    by dov_0 ( 1438253 )
    They finally spit out a half decent product (Win7) and they want to hang on to their most unsuccessful release since Win2000 or ME? I wonder if the copies of Vista sold after Win7's release date will still have the free upgrade to Win7 option?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by clampolo ( 1159617 )
      I bought a pc about 2 years ago and it had Vista on it. I mostly use Linux but keep the Vista partition around so I could easily use Windows-only apps. It pisses me off that I won't get the Vista Service Pack (Windows 7) for free.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by theaveng ( 1243528 )

        >>>It pisses me off that I won't get the Vista Service Pack (Windows 7) for free.

        What a stupid comment. I bought Win98 and nobody gave me a free upgrade to XP (Windows 5). Later I bought to an XP-PC and nobody offered me a free upgrade to Vista (Windows 6). Why do you think you're entitled to get a free upgrade to a totally new OS (Win7), if Microsoft never gave free upgrades for previous OSes?

        Wow. Talk about "entitlement generation" - you fit the profile perfectly. Sorry but you're going to j

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by misexistentialist ( 1537887 )
          Windows 98 and XP actually worked. Vista has several unacceptable flaws that need to be fixed. Windows 7 fixes these, and adds a few new features and cosmetic changes. I don't care about getting the new dock, etc., but if MS won't make the frustrations of Vista go away, my hand-outs to MS are over. I certainly feel like I paid for several lunches over at Redmond without getting what I expected in return. Next time I'll be taking Linux to lunch.

          • I understand your frustrations but several court cases against Microsoft for their Vista creation have already been rejected. If a company makes a shit product, you just take the loss and move-on. Nobody got refunds for Millennium Edition, or free upgrades to the next OS.

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by misexistentialist ( 1537887 )
              You usually move on to a product made by a different company. MS's semi-monopoly rewards it for defective products. I can't help but wonder if some executive came up with the idea to get suckers to pay for a beta OS release, thus forcing them later to pay again for the final release. An easy way to more than double profit.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Malc ( 1751 )

            I've been very happy with Vista. I won't upgrade any Vista systems I have because I see no need, and Win 7 will undoubtedly require more/better hardware. You sound like you won't really be happy and find a reason to tout Linux, whatever Microsoft does. That's ok, it's a popular attitude to espouse her in /.

        • Microsoft IS handing out free Windows 7 licenses to people who buy Vista during a certain time period, as some sort of apology. But... NOT ALL OF US. (Actually, my laptop came with an XP/Vista license, I used XP, and still do... in a VirtualBox, under Ubuntu Jaunty.)

        • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by jabithew ( 1340853 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @01:48AM (#27827329)

          What you say:

          Wow. Talk about "entitlement generation" - you fit the profile perfectly. Sorry but you're going to just have to pay, same as I paid for my previous OS upgrades. The real world doesn't hand-out free lunches.

          What your sig says:

          My $7 per month dialup connection can download TORCHWOOD in just three hours! Who needs broadband internet? (wink)

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by GF678 ( 1453005 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @08:20PM (#27824963)

        It pisses me off that I won't get the Vista Service Pack (Windows 7) for free.

        Interesting.

        If Microsoft does something incremental (eg. 2000 -> XP, or Vista -> 7), people complain that too little has changed, that it's basically just a "service pack" which Microsoft is charging money for.

        If Microsoft does something too radical (eg. XP -> Vista), people complain that too much has changed, that they should have just touched up XP a bit, given it a visual makeover and a few core updates and that would have been enough.

        Conclusion - Microsoft can't win. At least with the fussy pricks on Slashdot.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by BrokenHalo ( 565198 )
          Conclusion - Microsoft can't win. At least with the fussy pricks on Slashdot.

          Correct. This fussy prick won't buy ANY Microsoft OS. After all, there are alternatives.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mgblst ( 80109 )

          So if Microsoft fucks up and creates a piece of shit, you call that producing something radical?

          If Microsoft releases the exact same OS with a few minor changes and a different theme, you consider that a completely new OS deserving of more money?

          Conclusion - we look at it as above, differently to you. You seem to accept whatever Microsoft tells you, we look at the actual product and make our own decision. So someone who actually looks at the product is fussy in your book.

          And before someone says that we jump

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jawtheshark ( 198669 ) * <slashdot.jawtheshark@com> on Monday May 04, 2009 @06:42PM (#27823799) Homepage Journal

      their most unsuccessful release since Win2000 or ME?

      Look, I'm an Open Source advocate as well and I use Linux and OpenBSD... However lumping together Windows 2000 and Windows ME is just not fair. Windows 2000 was pretty much their best operating system ever, and Windows ME their worst. Just in case you didn't know: Windows 2000, meant for the business world and used in the business world was a big hit. It was and is still very popular in corporate environments.

      Windows XP has exactly three things that make it "better" than 2000: Fast user switching, good wireless support and terminal services (only in Pro). The first and the second are good for home use, the terminal services only for business use.

      Windows 2000 is used to this day in controlled secured environments.... I wouldn't call it unsuccessful in any sense of the term.

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by FishWithAHammer ( 957772 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @06:52PM (#27823955)

        The first and the second are good for home use, the terminal services only for business use.

        Oh, man, you have no idea. I use RDP and terminal services daily around the house. Until I found mpd and Pitchfork, it was how my music machine ran. I still use RDP to another old computer that runs my IRC and Pidgin stuff (VNC and NX ran like shit, but RDP was fine, so RDP it was).

        Terminal services is a vastly underappreciated piece of awesome.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by cheater512 ( 783349 )

          Wait let me get this straight?

          You take a very low bandwidth, plain text protocol and then you use it over Remote Desktop which sends images flying around the network?

          You flipping idiot. :P

          • No, I take mIRC and Pidgin and use it over Remote Desktop, because I like having them active 24/7 on the machines in the basement rather than having to leave my laptop running all the time. It's like using programs in a screen shell, only it doesn't suck.

            It's not like I'm using the entire gigabit transfer of my network anyway. Why should I care?

            • Try irssi. Loads better than mirc.
              Not sure what is best for CLI IM, maybe mcabber? or maybe bitlbee+irssi.

              • pork [sourceforge.net]
                naim [ml.org]

                Pork hasn't been updated in 4 years, but I've used it constantly since I found it ~5 years ago and it does everything I need to.

                If I really want video chat I'll fire up iChat.

            • I use Quassel.

              It comes in two halves, one half connects to irc, the second half connects to the first half.
              So I'm constantly online, and I can access it where ever I am.

              Oh and it doesnt send images around. :P

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by beav007 ( 746004 )
                I used psyBNC to do that - it works well (except when it crashes and nukes your config file :( )

              • Yet my solution works perfectly for me, and doesn't involve changing my flow of usage. I use mIRC because I've used mIRC for ten years. In addition, Pidgin is also running on the same machine, and all of my messengers are logically grouped within one RDP session. I don't care if anything "better" exists. It's not better for me, because it's not what I want to use.

                When the Linux children start to realize this, they might see some traction in software adoption.

          • Sounds like you need to figure out how remote desktop works. It's actually fairly efficient, and doesn't "send images" as you phrased it. It's actually quite usable over a 28k dialup. Try that with VNC.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by jawtheshark ( 198669 ) *

          Yes, it is awesome... I agree... I routinely login from my Linux machine to a Windows machine offering RDP. However, is it enabled in Windows XP Home? It is a great system, but do home users use it? The closest I've seem was "Remote Assistance", which is in Home.... Alas, I only had the experience of this over a 56K modem, and that was far from fun.

          I control my Linux machines over ssh with the command line and that works fine over a 56K modem... Just saying...

          • It's not enabled in XP Home, which is why I was bemoaning it. It really *should* be.

            And RDP works passably over a 28.8k modem. I don't really care about bandwidth usage, though, because I have enough to spare. It is a non-issue for me in every way.

        • Hey I love mpd and pitchfork too, with icecast I can play my music on any computer in the house (albeit with a 6 second delay)!

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Lonewolf666 ( 259450 )

        I can confirm that Windows 2000 was quite popular in corporate environments. But it had no cheap "Home" version, so GP may have gotten the impression that it was unsuccessful from not seeing much Windows 2000 use on home PCs.

        But even in that environment, some people happily pirated and used it. Of course, the same people also have no qualms about pirating XP, and by now hardware vendors often don't bother with Windows 2000 drivers anymore. Which makes the Windows XP Corporate Edition more desirable these da

        • Which makes the Windows XP Corporate Edition more desirable these days, as it is activation free like Windows 2000 and still has good driver support ;-)

          The geek's obsession with activation can be really puzzling to others. I activated this old Dell workhorse in 2001 - and that was that.

          • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Lonewolf666 ( 259450 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @08:09PM (#27824843)

            The geek's obsession with activation can be really puzzling to others.
            We geeks have a strong aversion against giving up control of our toys ;-)
            That includes wanting to reinstall the OS when we feel like it, without asking someone for permission. And the typical geek does this more frequently than every 8 years.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dov_0 ( 1438253 )
        I think if you carefully read what I said in my post, you will find that I didn't explicitly call Win 2000 unsuccessful either. Is Vista the worst general release since the two operating systems mentioned? Yes. No other release in that time frame (ie this century) has caused MS more loss, so to speak, in reputation or custom. I rest my case.

      • Windows XP has exactly three things that make it "better" than 2000: Fast user switching, good wireless support and terminal services (only in Pro). The first and the second are good for home use, the terminal services only for business use.

        As long as we're including "home use," I think Windows XP is currently "way better" than Windows 2000 in application compatibility. Among the (mostly free) apps my Windows 2000 desktop cannot run (in their most recent versions):

        • iTunes, Quicktime, Windows Media Player, Foobar2000, Zune software
        • Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Safari
        • Picasa, Adobe Photoshop/Premiere Elements or CS, Adobe Lightroom, paint.net, Sony Vegas
        • Google Gears
        • Windows Live Essentials (Mail, Photo Gallery, Movie Maker, Messenger, Wri
    • Why is easy. Think of a large business that after a few months of debating decides that they need to migrate from XP (or earlier!) to a more modern OS, so they decide to roll out a few test systems with Vista on them. They get to wrapping it up and see that most of their critical apps work, but the ones that don't they test alternatives, etc. And they are about to buy some Vista licenses for the many computers they have. If MS discontinues Vista, they delay any sort of profit till a year or two after Window

  • Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)

    by owlstead ( 636356 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @06:31PM (#27823621)

    They may drop the support for consumer versions and keep the business ones available. Sounds logical to me, for consumers there is very little reason to stick to Windows Vista for new systems. Those companies that did switch (the sorry sods) however will need new systems with the same OS.

    • Besides, if they decide to drop support, they will need to either refund the cost of vista the users have paid, or at least provide an upgrade to windows 7.

      If they keep minimal support, people wanting to stop using vista will have to pay the upgrade themselves.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by dissy ( 172727 )

      Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people do.

      I'm pretty sure if you hang around nuclear weapons enough, you could very well get killed with no other humans being involved...

  • plans to keep selling it to computer makers, system builders, volume licensees and consumers at retail until at least January 2011

    Of course, for them to keep selling it, requires that people actually buy it in the first place.

  • 2012 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jamamala ( 983884 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @06:45PM (#27823847)

    He also said that support for all versions of Vista will end in April 2012

    End of the world prophecies in 2012 - coincidence? I think not.
    Obviously Microsoft will only stop pushing Vista at the behest of the four horsemen.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by rubycodez ( 864176 )

      that 2012 doom business is just a popular misinterpretation of Mayan prophecy. It's just the end of a cycle to be followed by another new one. Therefor 2012 will be the end of the Windows desktop and the beginning of the Long Year of the Linux desktop. Or something like that, I'm pretty sure a saw a Mayan glyph for a penguin on the doom prophecies...

  • I'm appalled Computerworld doesn't mention Microsoft's greatest success ever, Windows ME. Just how long was the extended support for that operating system? They talk about Windows 98 as being succeeded by XP - just as if ME never existed! ME's many, many fans will be outraged at such an omission, and suspect they would treat Vista, Microsoft's second-greatest success ever, the same way.

    And how about extended support for Microsoft's third-greatest success ever, Microsoft Bob [today.com]? I think we should be told.

  • Having had more than a good run with XP, our office is seriously considering a mass upgrade to 2008 server, Exchange 2010, and Windows 7. We saved quite a bit in migration and training costs by skipping major versions of Server, Mail, Office, and OS products.

  • Downgrade options (Score:4, Funny)

    by Faustust ( 819471 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @06:56PM (#27824029) Homepage Journal
    'Customers who purchase a PC with Windows 7 pre-installed will be allowed to downgrade to Vista," Francis said.' That's the hardest I've laughed in a while. Thanks Richard Francis!

  • There were supposed to die before Vista came out,
    but it sure looks like they will outlive Vista.

  • Billy Goat (Score:5, Funny)

    by CuteSteveJobs ( 1343851 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @07:06PM (#27824177)
    We should troll Microsoft by starting a 'Save Vista' campaign. Imagine the warm glow Steve and Bill would share on hearing it. It's almost too cruel. Almost.

    • Re:Billy Goat (Score:5, Funny)

      by David Gerard ( 12369 ) <{ku.oc.draregdivad} {ta} {todhsals}> on Monday May 04, 2009 @07:46PM (#27824613) Homepage

      (You inspirational bastard. Credit on post.)

      With the release of Windows 7 set for October 23rd, Microsoft marketing marketer Richard Francis says computer manufacturers may not be able to ship Vista once Windows 7 is available.

      Outrage at the news was rapid. Microsoft quickly backtracked, claiming it would remain available until at least 2011 ("we kept 98 support up for 18 months when XP was out"), but customers were not mollified by promises that Windows 7 buyers would be allowed to downgrade ("we call it an upgrade”) to Vista.

      A "Save Vista" [today.com] campaign has been organised by InfoWorld. "We detected a deep anxiety over Vista among technologists and consumers alike," said editor Galen Gruman. "We decided to do something about it, launching a petition drive to ask Microsoft to keep selling Vista after the planned October 23 end-of-sales date." The petition has already gathered over ten signatures (most recent signatories: L. Torvalds, S. Jobs, M. Shuttleworth).

      "Just how long was extended support for Microsoft's greatest success ever, Windows ME? Microsoft talks about Windows 98 as being succeeded by XP — just as if ME never existed! ME's many, many fans will be outraged at such an omission, and we're afraid they'll treat Vista, Microsoft's second-greatest success ever, the same way.

      "And how about extended support for Microsoft's third-greatest success ever, Microsoft Bob? By the wife of the founder, no less! I think we should be told."

  • -1 Troll (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cashman73 ( 855518 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @07:19PM (#27824329) Journal
    I'm certainly going against Slashdot groupthink here, so I'll undoubtedly be modded "-1 Troll", but Windows Vista is really not as bad as people think. The key thing to keep in mind is to make sure your system has enough resources to run it, because it is demanding. Don't try and put it on your P4 with only 512 MB RAM with integrated graphics. You'll regret it. I also wouldn't recommend upgrading to it from Windows XP -- it doesn't offer anything of significant value over XP that makes it worth rushing out to upgrade for. But if you're buying a new system, and it happens to have Vista AND at least 2 GB RAM with a decent graphics card, I wouldn't worry about it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hurricane78 ( 562437 )

      So the real question is: Why in the world would I install it then? To deliberately waste resources?
      I can do that better with CompizFusion, and still have left over enough for a couple of needless gcc and java processes, or XP in a VM. ^^
      (In fact I have that setup right now. And the only thing that feels a bit sluggish is the VM, which is kinda what I expected.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by darkmeridian ( 119044 )

        Vista 64 is a very stable operating system when your computer is fast enough to support it and the drivers are good. I have been running Windows Vista 64 on a Dell XPS 210 I bought in December 2006. Dell has good drivers for all the components, and I bought a printer and wireless card that had well-supported drivers. I plugged in 4 GBs of RAM that I bought for $40 on sale at Frys. It is one of the most stable operating systems I have ever used. Ubuntu 8.04 freezes my Dell Mini 9 when connecting to a wireles

    • Absolutely. I was very hesitant to install Vista but once I did, I loved it, at least once I switched it back to using the Windows Classic theme (which I also used in XP). It has a few useful improvements, but by far the best is that it's 64-bit which means I can install (and use) as much RAM as I can fit in my machine, and it still runs 32-bit apps just fine. I'm sure there's a lot of hardware which doesn't have good 64-bit drivers, but I haven't run into any problems myself yet.

    • But if you're buying a new system, and it happens to have Vista AND at least 2 GB RAM with a decent graphics card, I wouldn't worry about it.

      The quad core CPU, 6-8 GB RAM and 64 Bit Vista is mainstream at WalMart.

      4 GB of DDR2 Kingston Value RAM is $50 almost anywhere you look. Gog.com has Vista ready versions of classic PC games available for download at $6 and $10.

      The hardware requirements and software incompatibilities that look so forbidding at launch of a new Windows OS - fade away into insignificanc

    • The major hassle with the 32 bit version is that the memory floor (2GB or so) is so close to the maximum memory ceiling (around 3GB) which heavily limits what you can run on the thing. If proper support for the Pentium Pro and everything since had been included then it wouldn't be an issue - and yes roll out the old excuse of Microsoft not having control over buggy drivers if you wish but it they managed to do it properly with the server versions. Personally I think it's time to give up on it - run XP if
    • The key thing to being able to use Vista is to disable all of the graphical trash and the "Wait 500 ms after receiving a click to do anything" registry key. On a dual-core 4GB ram 512-meg 8800 GT system it was horrible to use for me until I did that. It is entirely true that it's only slow because

      • The key thing to being able to use Vista is to disable all of the graphical trash and the "Wait 500 ms after receiving a click to do anything" registry key. On a dual-core 4GB ram 512-meg 8800 GT system it was horrible to use for me until I did that. It is entirely true that it's only slow because

        Apparently you need to enable the "Wait 500ms after receiving a click" in firefox.

    • You are not a troll. I have had nothing was positive experiences with Vista. It seemed weird, with all the complaints. You do need a decent computer to run it, true, but not a maxed out one.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DrgnDancer ( 137700 )

      I think the big problem is that it was not able to be run on the hardware they claimed would run it at the time of release. I bought my wife a brand new laptop a few months after Vista became the "standard" on new computers. It came with a dual core 2.3Mhz CPU, a gig of RAM and an Nvidia Go video card. Pretty decent mid-grade specs at the time for a desktop replacement type laptop. It was crap. She couldn't play WoW (not a high-end graphics game, even then), Photoshop ran like molasses, anything remote

  • IMO that all depends what downgrade rights 7 comes with.

    If OEM vista buisness comes with downgrade rights to XP and OEM 7 buisness doesn't ( afaict both XP pro and vista buisness came with downgrade rights for one version back only ) then I can imagine there being quite a few orders.

  • Ah, Vista (Score:5, Funny)

    by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Monday May 04, 2009 @07:34PM (#27824493)

    Unmourned. Unwept. Perpetually left unloved because your ugly older sister XP always came across with the full release and a happy ending while you were still whining that you wanted another 2G of RAM to show the boy how pretty you were.

    I'm sorry I could never be the user you wanted, Vista. I tried. I really, really tried. I even had Millennium on my system for a while, so I know I'm not a completely unreasonable task manager. You wanted too much from me. You wanted to be my Trophy OS...pretty...never doing a real job...pretty...profligate with my hard-earned RAM...pretty. It wasn't enough. I'm so very, very sorry. Your sister XP gave me that dirty smile, and threw my RAM back in my face and performed like a trapeze artist. I was lost, dear Vista. She did everything I wanted, and she never said no, and she just kept going and going and going.

    I don't care too much that you're prettier...much prettier. In fact, I'll never tell her, but sometimes when she's happily multi-tasking away, I close my eyes and pretend she's you.

    But there's something about her that makes her a magnet. Something you'll never understand. Even when she's making my old CPUnit, do things I thought it could never, ever manage, she doesn't just swallow. She gargles.

  • Win 3.11 (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hadlock ( 143607 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @07:37PM (#27824529) Homepage Journal

    I recall being able to buy win 3.11 (or at least it was available, new, on the shelf at gamestop) when win98 was out. No reason to kill the product if customers are willing to pay for it (XP SP3 excluded of course). Somebody has to help make the Vista sales figures look better and not immediately axing it will do that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cdrguru ( 88047 )

      Absolutely. What possible reason would there be for ever discontinuing any software product, anyway? Shouldn't everything be supported still? We wouldn't have an unemployment crisis if every single software product ever made was still supported, now would we?

  • Buying a new computer? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MikeUW ( 999162 ) on Monday May 04, 2009 @08:00PM (#27824749)

    I've been considering buying a new computer lately. But now that I hear Win7 is coming in about 6 months or so, that pretty much ensures I won't be buying anything with Vista on it.

    I don't really care to use windows myself, but it's handy to have some exposure to whatever OS the majority of people use. If I'm going to pay the windows tax, I'd like to try to get something that has a better chance at success, and is more likely to get long term support.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Extide ( 1002782 )
      Machines currently sold with vista come with free upgrade certificates to windows 7 in most cases I believe, so it's a non-issue.
  • And I like it. I was a little hesitant about taking the time to "evaluate" W7 for a year until it expires, but now I'm glad I took the plunge. It does seem quicker than Vista, but I did go from 32bit to 64bit Ultimate and am able to utilize all of my 4GB of memory. All my (Acer Ferarri 5000) drivers were found with the exception of my built-in webcam and a Mass Storage Driver. The installer found my XP partition and adjusted my boot menu as well so no complaints so far. Having a bit of trouble installing M

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close