The End is Nigh for XP

SlinkySausage writes "Computer makers have been told they'll no longer be able to get Windows XP OEM by the end of this year, despite strong ongoing demand for the OS. Analysts and computer makers are wondering if the move is premature given Vista's ongoing performance and compatibility issues. Dell recently said it would reintroduce XP on a range of machines due to customer demand but Microsoft will only allow this until the end of the year."

Comments

Will anyone gain anything from this?

[Reverse Gear]

Is it just me or does this move from Microsoft seem rather desperate?
Was Microsofts older versions of Windows phased out this fast too?
I guess the people at Microsoft have a really hard time accepting that many people (and companies!) have gotten comfortable with XP and does not want to get something different. Maybe Microsoft have been taking to long to come with a "new OS" this time?

I think this will definitely be a good thing for those who wish more people would use Linux on the desktop and possible also laptop market. People like Mark Shuttleworth and his fanboys can start cheering already.
I myself am no longer so certain that getting everyone to use Linux is what is best for Linux as a whole right now.
My main reason for thinking this is seeing how little Ubuntu contributes to the rest of the "open-source community".
Maybe I am wrong, in that case I would love to hear why.

I gladly leave the picking up of unsatisfied Windows users to other flavors of Linux, I myself prefer to stick with Gentoo and wish that all the developers at Gentoo would realize that Gentoo just isn't and is not supposed to become an "click and go" OS.

Others who will cheer at this news will probably be those trying to earn some money by selling cracked software, only this time people are not going to come to them to get the newest software but will want the "good old XP". I don't think they care much though, as long as they can make money.
Maybe there will even become a real market for buying and selling those XP-licenses that people have lying around?

Re:Will anyone gain anything from this?

[thePsychologist]

My main reason for thinking this is seeing how little Ubuntu contributes to the rest of the "open-source community".

I don't know how much Ubuntu developers/official people contribute to the community directly (whatever that means), but because there are thousands of people moving to Linux because Ubuntu exists (Ubuntu is what got me to switch), there is a large increase of patches (most software on Ubuntu isn't Ubuntu exclusive), guides + FAQs + community help (which makes Linux and more user-friendly), bug reports, and a greater exposure to Linux in general. How is that a little contribution to the community?

Re:Will anyone gain anything from this?

[Nadsat]

The End of the Year deadline won't happen. It's not a question of if you like XP or Vista better, its a question of the corporate world upgrading. Say a company has 5000 XP computers. Well, to upgrade those 5000 requires extensive testing plans, pilot groups, developer testing for in house apps, etc. Plus the bureaucracy meeting with Sarbanes-Oxley compliance! Companies have a need to continue buying new computers with XP until they have the time to fully upgrade in house to Vista. No way people can do this End of Year.

Re:Will anyone gain anything from this?

[adrianbaugh]

Not forgetting the things that were developed specifically for / by ubuntu and are now available to the wider linux community (eg upstart).
That's the great thing about linux though, there's room for user friendly distributions like [k|x]ubuntu as well as distributions aimed at people who are allergic to sunlight, like gentoo. (I've used both distributions, liked both very much, and have stuck with one. No, I'm not saying which...)

Re:Will anyone gain anything from this?

[mobby_6kl]

>In the past, when a new version of Windows came out, there was no real need to phase out the old Windows - people wanted the newest version when they bought a new PC.

That's just revisionist bullshit, IMO. When XP came out, everybody was bitching about how it was a lamed-down 2000, with ugly interface, stupid features, etc., and claimed that they wouldn't use it until at least 2 service packs came out. Now everybody likes (as much as it's possible) XP and complain about Vista in exactly the same manner.

Re:Will anyone gain anything from this?

[fyngyrz]

I'm not normally a grammer nazi, but I assume English is not your first language, so here's a few suggestions

I'm not normally a grammer nazi, but I assume English is not your first language, so here are a few suggestions

:-)

Re:Will anyone gain anything from this?

[sumdumass]

That is only true if you were going from 2000 to XP. The vast majority of users were going from 98/ME to XP and after the disaster of ME, they welcomed it.

But there was something else going during these switches that wasn't present with Vista, The hardware market had made so many advances that some popular software needed the increase power to run on so people were happy to buy new computers to get the extra performance. Right now, they are just replacing them or getting new ones. This incentive isn't there and from the way it looks, it would be a sideways if not downwards move if someone upgraded to new hardware with Vista pre-installed.

Re:Will anyone gain anything from this?

[Heywood J. Blaume]

You're kidding, right? Someone sitting on an IRC channel helping newbies (like me, who has switched completely to Ubuntu at home), that's one of the pillars of the tech support model for open source software. Someone helps me with a problem, then as I gain experience, maybe I can pay it forward, increasing good will toward FOSS.

Re:Will anyone gain anything from this?

[contrapunctus]

Well it's better than the elitist guys that tell you to RTFM and turn people off from linux based OSs.

It's a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the many hours of frustration it's caused me, it remains the best OS they've made so far.

Re:It's a shame

[Grinin]

I would say the best OS MS has ever put together has been Windows 2000, especially with Service Pack 4. But out of the box, I feel that 2000 was the fastest (Not really. Windows 98 SE was the fastest, given new hardware) and most secure out of the box. I can't stand Windows Vista, and neither can common users. More and more of my clients are calling me saying "you were right..." and "I should have listened to you" but of course... curiosity killed the cat. Its unfortunate that Microsoft is allowed to get away with such things like this. They are basically forcing Vista down the throats of the entire market with no remorse. I think this latest effort is Microsoft trying to make sure that Linux will not harm their market share. I am personally losing faith in the Linux community in their attempts to take on Vista. Its a true tragedy.

Somebody help us

Re:Another bad move by MS

[Boandlgrama]

They could keep selling XP.
But what are they to tell their share holders?
Sorry guys, we sunk 5 billion developing Vista. But nobody wants it.

Better luck next time.

Guess not...

Re:Foot?

[nmb3000]

This is a good move on Microsoft's part only if they enjoy annoying their customers.

I think this is a great description of the situation..

The thing is, I imagine that only the Windows "power users" really care and/or know the reasons behind wanting to stick with XP (at least until a service pack or two is released for Vista). Most average users just see Vista as the new Windows. Pretty much everything they do--Office, web browsing, email, Solitaire--still works and it's shiny and bouncy and see-through...wow! Most probably won't even notice a slowdown because they get Vista with new hardware and it offsets the new performance requirements.

Microsoft is probably just trying to give people they see as just not liking change a push to move to the new OS. I'm not too concerned because I've got a couple XP Pro licenses hanging around, a few OEMs and one from MSDNAA, so I'll "upgrade" when I'm good and ready.

Re:Prediction

[zaydana]

Don't forget that these are only the OEM copies which are going to be phased out by the end of the year. You can't just go out and buy 4 or 5 OEM copies of windows, and its (as far as I know) illegal to sell them on eBay, as you aren't selling them with hardware.

I think people that want to do the right thing would probably but a retail version anyhow, and everyone else will just pirate it. The biggest demand is going to come from people building their own computers, and by that time I think even that group will have moved onto Vista. They are mostly gamers, and gamers sort of are tied to Vista whether they like it or not...

Re:Will anyone gain anything from this? Not Linux

[gnuman99]

Eventually, as it always happens, there will be bug releases and new drivers for Windows Vista. Upgrading to them is as easily as doing "Windows Update." Linux (and BSD) distros will never be this easily patched due to the very nature of being open source. I only have to go to 1 web site to update my PC's - Windows Update - and it's incredibly simple - just click on Update and voila, it's done and everything works.

Really? Try doing that with non-MS software or you do not use any?

AutoDesk or Maya or OpenOffice or Turbo Tax or any other application you can think of that is not MS. Can you use Windows Update and it is incredibly simple?

Linux distros are MUCH easier to patch because they are open source and because they are distributions not just bare-bone OS. Last I checked, I could update my Debian boxes with just aptitude or apt-get. And any non-Debian software usually has their own archive or provides a deb file. And installing a deb file is usually easier than installing a .msi installation. And with the great new way that Vista works, the .msi files that require admin rights with custom actions may not run like they did in XP or older systems. (no more "and"s!)

Yes, I'm speaking from experience in all of these areas.

Re:Will anyone gain anything from this? Not Linux

[oztiks]

And the vast majority of forced Windows users are corporations. They have Windows Server 2003, Outlook, NetMeeting, etc. all integrated into their back office systems. They are not going to switch out their entire infrastructure to Linux due to some OEM issues.

They will if their IT officers actually took the time to see what the rest of the market offered. You'll find most of these "specific" solutions are not that specific to Microsoft branded software anymore. And if you can show the cost of migrating their systems to the new Microsoft software (all new vista etc) against other alternate solutions and show the definite cost advantage then businesses will defiantly change over.

The fear that you have as an sysadmin is (well founded however) the reason why your infrastructure wont change. Consider, You move over to open source and you fail doing so then yes you'll loose your job and look bad to your bosses. Pick a Microsoft solution to do the job and it fails, you'll keep your job and simply blame Microsoft for your failure.

AND THAT MY FRIEND! is a true tech admins duty these days :)

Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

Well this is something I was regretting.
I have been a long time user of Windows (since the 3.1 days) and have tried every OS they released (except for ME) since then.
I must say I liked Win 98SE a lot. And then I discovered Win2k. But to me Xp was the amalgamation of both.
It runs smoothly and doing what I do on the PC (web browsing, Winamp listening, Battlefield 2 (and other games) and VLC movie watching) it works perfectly. Nearly 100% of the time without an issue.
I have tried Ubuntu (and I did actually like it a lot) and also FreeBSD back in the day (was impossible for a high school teenager with other things on my mind to try to comprehend it).
I am currently a help desk technician. I help people (regular Joes) with their problems. Problems with printing or email archiving etc.
I must say XP is very easy to navigate and do things from simple commands to powerful policy lock downs.

Now I did experiment with Vista (No I didn't buy it and I wasn't one of the beta testers) and the first thing I encountered was my dislike for it.
Microsoft has changed the way that their OS looks (well minor/major improvements are good but....) to the point of making the functionality of it severely hindered.
So I installed Vista Ultimate on my machine. The very first thing I noticed was that navigating my folders was quite a lot more difficult than in XP (or any other MS OS. Why I ask?? I mean its not like navigating folders is something that people don't regularly want to do!!). Now with the default interface I found it almost impossible (it literally took me an hours worth of forum reading etc.) to work out how to turn on hidden files and how to get the familiar File, Edit, View menu up the top of explorer (WTF? Removing that as a Window's default isn't an improvement!!).

Eventually the company I work for (a government health provider) will go over to Vista. This will make help desk support and general troubleshooting a problem. Instead of being able to say (over the phone) "Click Start and then My Computer. Click on File and then Open and then browse to D drive and select the template folder there" I will now have to say something like "Now click the colourful icon in the bottom left corner. Go to Computer then click the icon of a little man running. Now click the brown box that looks like a little house. Now type in "D" and then hit enter. Now select the little flashing house icon again and then type in "Templates". Now eventually you should see a listing of flashing grey and black text on a transparent background. Click the third option which should read "Show in Explorer""!!
Why did they change the appearance of a perfectly viable and working, efficient interface (XP I am refering to here) and replace it with colourful meaningless icons and pictures.

My opinion if Vista is that I will never use it again. I will not be buying it. If I am forced to use it (which is what the article seems to allude to. That MS will eventually (and quickly I might add) drop their support for XP and push everyone to Vista) I will give up using MS products and move to Linux to get the things done I want to get done (I have used Firefox for a long time and i know of the XMMS(??) player for music. I like what WINE and Cedega are doing with games).

XP is the last MS operating system I think I will use. By dropping support for it so quickly (granted this is just Dell not supporting it anymore but I do hope that Microsoft keeps up their support for many years to come as they did with 98 and 2000) they are forcing me, a loyal paying customer of all of their OS range (not inclusing ME. God... WhY?!@) and a supporter of their environment through my work for many years as a help desk technician, to be forced to use an alternative OS. I'm not a big fan of Macs just as I am not a big fan of Linux yet. For one reason, theres not really many native, fun gaming environments (like the BF franchise or SWAT/Rainbow Six tactical shooters) available. Also the things I do like and am grateful for within a Windows OS (m

Re:Will anyone gain anything from this? Not Linux

[deimios666]

Let us also not forget the bane of windows program updates: Every app wants to update itself with a separate updater that is started at boot time. So now you have Windows Update, Adobe Update, Java Update, Quicktime update, Corel update and whatnot starting with the desktop slowing your computer and eating up bandwidth while also annoying you... Also restarts are big PITA. I update some non-kernel component like paint and it needs a reboot. Linux distros at least use one app for updates. On the other hand most updates for linux aren't patches but new versions of programs. So downloads are HUGE compared to MS ones. Actually the winner of the update debate will be who can hide the updates being done form Joe User. Windows does a very poor job at that (every program wants to update itself and jumps into the face of the user, and I'm not even mentioning the 'restart needed' nagware) while some distros are better off but not truly automatic.

Re:Will anyone gain anything from this? Not Linux

[Heembo]

For all of the quirks and problems that Vista has (I bought a Dell laptop with Vista but installed XP instead), it is still much, much simpler than Linux for your average user With respect I submit that Windows is easier to use than Linux for even advanced Linux users. We don't choose to run and install Linux because its the EASY choice, we choose it cause its free, fast and stable.

Asymptototic Death: Arrogance and Stupidity.

[Erris]

That's about all one could ever say in favor of a Microsoft product. They will always asymptotically approach useability.

That's true if you consider "dumb" usable. The trend I've noticed is less control, less flexibility, fewer 3rd party vendors (aka choice) and more annoyance and auto-wrong features. Security and stability have remained poor and have trended down.

They have pulled out the stops in their breakage of XP though. Today I watched someone try to rebuild an XP laptop. He'd done it manytimes before because someone stuck him with admin responsibility for 15 of them. The process had changed on him this time and it failed. The usual tedious process of manually downloading "updates" fell apart and the automatic process took over and could not be stopped. A couple hours later, I stuck my head in to see how it was going and he was reading a M$ support page about "silent failures". Better him than me.

This "upgrade" cycle has the feeling 95 to 98 did but worse. Eerything fell apart at once and the answer was to buy a new one. This time the "new one" is a computer with about 4 times the hardware. BadVista's got the scoop on this one, Vista - Arrogance & Stupidity, "No sane person wants Vista, so Microsoft is making sure they have no choice."

Push to Vista

[Tom]

Of course MS is pulling XP. Anyone surprised? They need Vista to be a success, even a moderate one. They can't allow Vista to fail like ME did.
While they still dominate the market, it's not an unchallenged dominance anymore. A failure the size of Vista would mean considerable market share gains for Linux, OSX and maybe even other/new competitors over the next 3-5 years while they struggle to get a new windos out. By the time they're ready to release it, the market could've moved elsewhere.

So they're going to force Vista on us, figuring that like all windos versions prior, once we have no other choice, we'll accept it and consider all its shortcomings and problems as a "that's just how computers are" thing.

Re:Will anyone gain anything from this? Not Linux

[MMC Monster]

I don't reboot into Windows often now. But when I do, I really need to get some work done. I always end up installing all the critical MSFT patches (except IE7 (my work site requires an activeX component that is incompatible with IE7) & that program that wants to see if I'm a thief).

The problem is the pestering for a reboot and the automatic reboot if I don't press a button within 2 minutes (or is it one minute?).

I leave my windows software doing a nice simple task (that usually takes ~15 minutes), walk off to take a break, and come back to my Ubuntu login screen. The first couple times did this I really thought I either had a hardware error or my rendering software had actually forced a reboot somehow.

I can't freakin' believe that an OS can force a mandatory reboot unless I answer a prompt within a set time period. Second of all, I can't believe that they haven't gotten enough complaints to patch it as of yet.

Why? If they really need a reboot to install their software, why can't they just download it when we tell them it's okay, and then just do the install at the next reboot? Do they really think there are windows desktops that don't get rebooted for 6 months or longer?

I call BS - Linux is easier

[misanthrope101]

Start with a bare HD and a selection of installation media. A copy of Windows Vista, a copy of Ubuntu, a copy of Knoppix, and whatever else you want. Maybe not Gentoo or LFS, but work with me.

Which is easier to get a working system? I can boot to Knoppix in a couple of minutes. With the Knoppix DVD I have not only OpenOffice, but LaTeX editors and other resources. I can boot to DSL or Puppy Linux even faster. Even with a HD install, Ubuntu still installs faster than any Windows version I've installed. Installing Ubuntu, Automatix, and a couple of Latex editors, and I'm largely done.

How many hours of searching the web for the freeware programs I want will it take to get Windows usable for my needs? Yes, Openoffice, Texmaker, Abiword, Google Earth, Adobe Reader, and media codecs/players are all available for Windows, but I have to go to those webpages, download the programs to a folder, and then install. I can install most of them via one apt-get line in Linux, or use Automatix for one-stop shopping. How is Windows easier?

People have very selective perception on this issue. Yes, Linux has stumped me. I had the bright idea of installing TrueCrypt and VMPlayer on Damn Small Linux, and could get neither to work at all. Fine. But they both work on Fedora, Suse, Debian, and Ubuntu, so I'll live with it. Windows often leaves people stuck as well, but no one considers that a show-stopper. I've even read hardware reviews in Maximum PC where they couldn't get a particular something or other to work at all, due to bad drivers or whatever, but no one said "Well, Windows just isn't ready for prime time!" People take the flaws of Windows with a grain of salt and move on, but if they have to type one command into a terminal, then Linux is "impossible for normal people." Spare me. Use it or don't, as you like, but the idea that Windows is easier than Linux is a very arbitrary and misleading statement.

Re:Not Linux - my reply to everyone

[magicchex]

What in the world do you do to your Windows PC that you have to reinstall every 2-3 months? I hate comments like this. I reinstall mine once every year or two at max and then only by choice, NOT because I "have to".

So please enlighten me with what it is that causes your Windows PC to be unreliable after 2 months after a fresh install. I'm not a Windows fanboy (slowly switching everything to Apple) but these sort of comments just seem so baseless that they make the rest of your arguments struggle to maintain integrity.

Re:Be kind to Bill Gates

[drinkypoo]

Through the Gates foundation, Bill Gates has donated billions of dollars to worthy charities around the world. It provides 17% of the world's polio eradication budget, as well as other monies for vaccines and HIV research. On the education front, the foundation has donated over a billion dollars to various scholarship programs to help needy students. The Wikipedia has a list of its other activities.

It's also invested in companies that are polluting and causing health problems. And they have announced in so many words that they will not be reviewing their investment portfolio for abuses like the ones detailed in the LA Times article linked above, because it would be an onerous process.

This is closely akin to washing oil off some ducks while christening a new oil tanker and sending it off to do its part in polluting the globe. Except it's more personal.

The simple fact, backed up by the fact that the foundation will not be ensuring that their investments are not killing people, is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is not about helping people. Period, the end. It's about power. Bill gets to continue to be in control of all that money, and he buys himself PR with it. But he's still sitting on more money than he could ever spend! Charity is still appreciated regardless of the situation, but if you're not actually putting yourself to any hardship - not even the small amount of hardship needed to make sure that your money isn't killing people that you claim to be trying to save - then I'm not fucking impressed. And nor should be anyone else.

Did you get paid to prop up Mr. Gates, or are you just easily led?