Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
Despite the many hours of frustration it's caused me, it remains the best OS they've made so far.
Gun?
Check.
I think you can figure out the rest.
Seriously... This is a good move on Microsoft's part only if they enjoy annoying their customers.
Wait, why did I bother putting that 'only if' in there?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
The last copies are going to be a hot commodity next year. I definately plan to set a couple aside before then. Hello Ebay!
Force once Microsoft is trying to do the right thing.
It's funny, that even the compusa and bestbuy salespersons are telling me that I should latch onto any secondhand xp copies I can get my hands on simply because Vista is causing them and their customers nothing but headaches.
Is it just me, or is Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot by pushing this new, and somewhat unpopular product into the marketplace?
for sale
I'm a self-modifying sig virus
They're going to take XP off the market, then a couple months later after they get tired of everyone bitching about Vista, they'll reintroduce it as Windows Classic. Either that or as XP SE.
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...
Our favorite used to be Windows 2000 Pro, because it didn't spend a lot of time getting in our way of booting up and running automated applications.
Then, Microsoft pulled Windows 2000 last year. So we moved to XP Pro..after some pain in getting rid of most of the "were Microsoft, and we are going to think for you" eye candy and automated autoconfig BS, we again had a stable OS to build on, or so we thought.
But having been burned, we started one of our new digital signage projects last year based on Slackware Linux...and we are quite happy with it. Yes it took longer, but we don't have to worry about MS pulling the rug out from under us. We don't have to worry about losing our development investment with Linux.
Apple's Steve jobs pulled a similar stupid stunt when he pulled the plug on the Power PC and all the development around it. We had built products around that too, but after having our products rendered useless by Apple's decision, (not once but twice, remember Nubus?) we'll never ever develop for Apple ever again.
What MS doesn't get about companies like mine is that there is no way we'd ever build a dedicated box or appliance application on Vista. The premise is a joke. If MS had any sense left, they'd keep XP around so that the OEM market had something to work with that wasn't just a collection of glorified myopic and incompatible eye candy.
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.
.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!)
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
Yes, I'm speaking from experience in all of these areas.
Dell, having had a long relationship with Microsoft, knew that Microsoft would try to shove Vista down their throats -- ready or not. Combined with Apple's recent success, I wonder if this prompted their foray into consumer Linux.
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.
Again, wrong, Ubuntu has software update service siting in their version of the systray where windows has theirs.
And Microsofts turn around on patches have been worse then mac and Linux's track record in the past. Despite what you may think, Linux and MacOS foundation and design is better equipped to deal with legacy issues and the implementation patches. Microsoft has struggled continuously with this issue and if im correct recently struggled releasing a set of patches just the other day, I think this is the 3rd day in a row Microsoft had to do an update on my PC, the 2nd update left my pc with a memory violation which the next update had to fix.
My advise is really see the new and upcoming, linux developers arnet really that short sighted to allow the same issues that has always been an issue get in the way this time.
And the claim that Windows Update is better than update systems for Linux is so wrong it's not funny. Sure, Windows Update keeps Windows (and maybe Microsoft Office) updated. But what about all the other applications on the system? They come (if you're lucky) with their own update systems, all of which work differently. The Fedora Core system my mother is running includes image-editing software, messaging clients, etc. etc. all of which are kept updated by the same update systme.
Open Source makes it possible for a single distributor to manage updates for all the softare on the system. In contrast, it's impossible for Microsoft (or anyone else) to manage updates for Adobe and Qualcomm and Apple as well as for their own software.
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
For the Fedora users:
yum -y update
For Windows Users
Run Windows Update
Do you want to reboot now?
Later...
Do you want to reboot now?
Later...
Do you want to reboot now?
Oops I'm away from my desk for five minutes.
Come back. WHere's all my stuff!
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 :)
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
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.
I think, therefore you are.
Horns are really just a broken halo.
Who modded this drivel "Insightful"?
Just about any Linux distro released in the past couple of years has an update tool which will not only patch the OS, but all of the applications as well. All of the additional tools you need to buy to make Windows useful have to be updated separately.
Linux is MUCH simpler than that.
I don't have to go to ANY website to update my current desktop (SLED 10), an icon glows orange in my toolbar, clicking it gives me the option to update.
I work in I.T. as an MS sysadmin.
That explains a lot.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Huh? You really should go download Ubuntu.
I'm a Windows admin too, and started playing with Ubuntu about 6 months ago. It's a damn site easier to patch than windows.
As others have said, Microsoft Update is for MS software, and only selected applications at that. To install software in Ubuntu I just use a repositry and use the "Add Programs" menu. Every single program I've installed is now managed and updated by Ubuntu. My last update patched 40+ programs, in a single operation, without a reboot.
So, under Ubuntu:
- Installing programs means ticking one box and pressing ok
- Patching all programs means clicking ok when the update program asks to run
- Uninstalling programs means unticking one box and pressing ok
And all of this without reboots.
I'm sorry, I'm a huge fan of windows, but Ubuntu amazed me the first time I used it. There is simply no comparison between this and windows in terms of ease of use, and that's only going to improve. Plus the damn thing's more secure anyway. I'm not running firewall or AV software on my linux box, it simply doesn't need it.
Myx
In 12 months time, the only XP you can get will be pirated copies.
That means if you want to stick to Windows on your new PC, you will ned to invest in Vista.... at a steep increase in hardware, software cost and maintenance cost (driver issues, bug fixes etc)
The Home segment will need connectivity to lots of 2-yr old peripherals... and they will be pissed that neither Vista supports their peripherals, NOR the hardware vendor is keen to write certified drivers for Vista.... this will push hardware makers to go the way of open source drivers, and supporting Linux. Microsoft will be too much of a moving target since old drivers and hacks will no longer work with Vista. Result: Hardware and peripheral makers switch to Linux, and take home users with them.
The 'build-your-own' segment of PC makers will suffer heavily, since Vista seems specifically designed to discourage this market, and promote large OEMs like Dell and HP. The stability of Vista on custom-built PCs seems much degraded than big-brand PCs of inferior specs.
Result: Build-your-own PC makers move to Linux, and start adding value to their offerings instead of just loading OEM Vista.
When it comes to corporate PCs, there are basically two categories:
1. Those who have Corporate licenses for a fixed no. of desktops will stick to XP or 2000 or even NT 4.0.... (my nephew in Bangalore is migrating server farms of Shell from NT4 to Win2K... he's having fun managing those mailboxes and migration to Active Directory!). Result: Vista on the corporate desktop will have to wait a loooong time for big corporates with site licenses.
2. Corporates without site licenses will be faced with a choice: Either buy new PCs with Vista, forking out large sums for jumbo hardware and bloated software...
OR
Migrate the desktop to Linux.
Corporate sysadmins have been notoriously lazy for a decade and more... (I know, I was one until recently). Sysadmin usually meant applying patches and Service Packs, blindly installing the latest OSes from MS, firewalls and IDS etc. Until now, sysadmin seldom got involved in IT planning, Standardising on formats, protocols, identity management, entitlement, provisioning etc.
With Vista, the price for this laziness is being increased steeply - the Vista desktop PC is going to be twice as epensive as the XP equivlent, and mgmnt is going to frown at incompetent sysadmins who never planned for migrating away from Windows and Office lock-ins. Even if the desktop gets Vista by default from the OEM, the servers and apps are still going to be on old versions of Windows or Linux servers for a long time to come. Maintaining support requests from new Vista users is going to be a huge new headache for lethargic sysadmins. Result: New hardware gets Vista; old hardware remains on existing Windows versions.
The few sysadmins who can see what's coming are alredy planning to do away with Desktop apps and standardise on Web apps that work with non-IE browsers on non-Windows OSes AS WELL AS existing Windows boxes with IE. This is what we're doing at our firm - except for some CAD software and call-centre software, all other desktops are shifting to web-based apps in this year. What if the CAD appln does not run on Vista? What if IBM doesn't release a Vista-compatible client by this year? We don't have control over those... but the next year should be interesting. Vista appears to be an attempt to arm-twist the entire spectrum of the IT ecosystem into the Microsoft-way. And that is why it is doomed to fail spectacularly.
Unlike previous versions, Vista will mean changing EVERY aspect of current IT functioning. Which is why it is a definite victory for Linux and Free Software, because at last, it will be more easier on the Desktop than adaoting to Vista.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Really? I can hook into the Windows Update Services and Windows Update Agent? Where? All I can find on MSDN is ability to check for windows updates and such. All programs that are updated with WUA are MS applications like Office or Visual Studio.
Where is the API to hook into the Windows Update to check for my own updates??
The trick is the way you answer. The first dialog asks if you want to reboot now or later. Don't answer. It'll then not bug you to reboot and you won't risk an auto reboot.
jh
For the Fedora users:
yum -y update
For Windows Users
Run Windows Update
Do you want to reboot now?
You: Heck, no I am doing some important work Later...
Do you want to reboot now?
You: What the hell
Do you want to reboot now? * clicking on yes on the new popup* Oops I'm away from my desk for five minutes.
Come back. WHere's all my stuff! You: NOOOOOO !
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
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."
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
you should respond to the windows update just the way you respond to your gf.
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Lots of comments here so I'll make 1 big reply.
I'm speaking from experience - over 10 years in I.T. This is how real world works. More examples:
Part of the regulations in the financial sector is to secure all data, including laptops. That means Whole Disk Encryption. To manage an entire corporate structure requires an enterprise solution. Utimaco and PGP provide such a solution - for Windows XP & soon Vista. It's certified, tested, and secure. In fact, the US gov has an RFP out to various vendors for WDE - all for Windows solutions.
All the big financial trading software runs on Windows: Schwab's CyberTrader, TradeStation, Townsend Analytics, E-Signal, etc., etc., etc. Traders are not going to risk their $$$ trying to use Windows emulators under Linux "just because they like Linux." No, they like $$$, are practical, and use the best tool for the job. Further, all of the helpdesks at the firms know that 99.9% of their customers use Microsoft. Even if they got off of Windows, they would still need to support their customer base. That is, the mass of people who buy Dells which have Winfows pre-installed.
Ubuntu has been out for how long? 5 years? A CEO of an S&P 500, S&P MidCap, S&P SmallCap, etc. corporation is not going to risk his publicly traded corporation's entire infrastructure (the "heart" of the communications between all co-workers) to a 5 year old company (is Ubuntu even a corporation?) that also has many, many competitors. There is only 1 vendor for Windows: Microsoft. There are a ton of vendors for Linux.
Further, do you know the nightmare it will take to switch over thousands of employees? Employees aren't just sitting around - they are working a minimum 40 hours a week. There would be productivity loss, lots of retraining, lots of hardware expenses (have to duplicate workstations so users can migrate from their Windows PC to their Linux PC), etc. No VP or Product Manager or shareholders will endure that kind of disruption. And for what? To move from an established DOW 30 corporation to a 5 year old one-of-many Linux distros?
As you mature in your career job, you realize that there is so much more to life than your PC. You have a girlfriend, wife, baby, young children, overtime, etc. that now take up a significant (and nearly all) of your time. Even if you were a geek growing up (I was), there is no time to dork around with Linux trying to get this new piece of hardware/software to work with this kernel and this distro. My friends only have a couple of hours on a Friday to spend for themselves. The rest of the time is with the kids (helping w/ homework, etc.) or the wife (going out to dinner, married life). With Windows, it truly is Plug-And-Play. Every piece of hardware that I've bought from Bluetooth devices to HDTV video cards to a bunch of different USB devices (GPS, storage, etc.) just works. I plug it in, install the Windows drivers that came on the CD, and I'm done. At the bare minimum for Linux, I'd have to hope there was a Linux driver, find it, install it, etc. That takes precious time which a lot of people don't have.
I think those that modded me down as Troll/Flamebait are high school / college kids or young adults barely into the workforce. Sorry, but this is the real world. You have to think like a CEO. You have to think like those above you if you want to learn from them and advance up the corporate ladder. Starting out at a job and telling everyone that you like Linux so much and want your company to move to Linux will only show how green and inexperienced you are. Once you move up to department manager you can start seeing the bigger picture. Once you move up to regional manager and oversee at least a few hundred employees you will see the big picture.
The only force that can bring down Microsoft from desktop domination is a combination of Microsoft screwing up horribly AND a truly viable alternate solution being available to take advantage. The only one I can think of is Apple - another big, established publicly traded corporation.
It's actually not new for Vista. XP also just places it on a timer, and when that runs out, shows the reminder again. And if you don't do anything and then go home from work, it auto-reboots. So XP share this behavior. Actually, the only thing Vista does is improve things a little, because it at least let you set the timer to 4 hours, which is far more than XP's 15 minutes or whatever it might be. (not configurable from an UI at least)
To resolve this auto-reboot behavior which is a very strange default, given it can cause dataloss, simply (in XP and Vista alike) set the Windows Update client to only auto-download updates, not install them. The problem with forced reboots after a while only happens if the updates have already been installed.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
When MS stops supporting it, I'll stop getting all these insistent messages to download the latest security fixes which aren't, and can finally have a stable platform I can start to understand. This is a good thing.
XP will not go away. It will continue to exist on the machines of everyone who keeps it and CD ROMS that people don't throw away. Hell, 95 and 98 haven't gone away. I still have them on a couple old machines because some things I use insist on them. By now I can fix anything that might go wrong with them. Same will go for XP.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
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?
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
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.
What everybody seems to have forgotten is Microsoft's licensing policy. Sure, they won't be stamping any new XP discs after a while, but all those fancy new Vista licenses slapped onto new PC's can also be used as a license for any other older OS. At the company I work at, all the new machines we order have XP license stickers on them, however most machines get Windows 2000 installed. So, all you have to do is dupe a bunch of the XP cd's, since having copies of the cd doesn't really constitute piracy, so long as you have a legitimate sticker on the PC, you're good.
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
Bill Gates is software's Dr. Death. It doesn't matter what the customer wants; Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, wants more money, and will drag everyone through his neurosis.
Microsoft's business model is to do what hardware manufacturers want. Hardware manufacturers want operating systems that can't run on old computers, so customers will be forced to buy new computers. Sometimes it has seemed to me that Microsoft is not really primarily a software company, but primarily an abuse company that accomplishes abuse through software.
Windows XP was not really stable until Service Pack 2 was released. Before that, Windows XP was full of grief for administrators. Service Pack 2 contained something like 330 documented fixes, if I remember correctly, and I verified that there were fixes that were not documented. Now Microsoft wants people to go through that again??? With a Service Pack 0 release?
Someone said that Microsoft's motto is "The whole world is our beta test site." The entire reason people wanted to migrate away from Windows 98 is that it has an unstable file system, and artificial limits to system resources. Otherwise, many companies would have wanted to stay with their old systems, because employees often run a very limited set of software packages.
Managers in a company that has a virtual monopoly, like Microsoft, may think that the way to make more money is never to release a good product, so that customers will always want more.
Eventually, I think, more and more companies and universities and governments will decide they don't like expensive, stupid, forced upgrade cycles, and will migrate to a managed distribution of Linux like Ubuntu.
The problem with Linux and BSD has always been that developers don't like to document what they have developed. Sometimes user-friendly GUIs and documentation can be 80% of the work, and that work isn't done very well by people who "just want to program".
Linux distributions need a manager like Mark Shuttleworth of Ubuntu. Developers don't like to manage their own work, as Mark said he has discovered. The Linux kernel has a manager, Linus Torvalds, and the rest of Linux needs a manager, also.
I have several times offered to help document open source software, but my offer has always been refused. Apparently there is a strong attachment to doing things the old way. Apparently there is a feeling that someone who writes the documentation will get too much credit, even though I did not expect to have my name on what I wrote.
Changing to any new operating system tends to be expensive because of the re-training required. Good top management could help design methods of easing that transition by coordinating the details that tend to be forgotten when no one is really in charge.
The link you provide is to manage the wuauclt app remotely via COM. SO you can request that the WU agent pulls down available updates but not get the agent to check other sites for updates to your own apps - just those which MS choose to update at MU/WU... the PP wanted the ability to use it to provide updates for his own applications - not force users to update the MS ones.
The business desktop version of Vista by default reboots without asking permission at 3am after receiving an update. After all, the computer can't be doing anything useful in the middle of the night, right?
I found out when it rebooted near the end of a week long calculation I was making.
Overall, my impression of Vista has been positive -- on the scale for MS Windows releases. It continues MS's unbroken track record of mediocrity. I've encountered some of the problems people have reported on Vista, although in most cases they aren't really a bad as people say. Other problems that people have feared are just figments of their imagination. You can rip CDs to MP3s and copy the files around. At least for now.
But the lesson they haven't learned is illustrated by the automatic reboot: they haven't learned how to stay out of the user's way. They may have copied some of the MacOS eye candy but they haven't copied is the philosophy of leaving the user in charge. Unix based desktops vary greatly in their usability. Some of them can be cluttered, or cryptic. But they always stay out of the user's way. The irony of Windows was all those years where MS supporters sneered at MacOS as being a childish toy, but Windows is the only desktop environment that patronizes its users.
I'd grade Vista as a solid C, where XP got a C, 2000 got a B, NT 4 a D. MS was aiming for a B, improving XPs security the way 2000 improved NT 4's stability, but early signs are not promising in that regard. It is also a bit buggier still than a released operating system should be, but not intolerably so. But unless you have a specific documented concern, for instance if you have an extensive DRM'd video collection you want to play out of your video card, I don't think there is a reason for Windows users to panic because they have to use XP.
The only people who clearly ought to be irritated by this are IT people, for whom it makes a lot of work and expense. If Vista delivers on promises of greater security (questionable yet), then it will have been worth their while.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Another way is to click on the reboot modal dialog box in an morse code pattern that says "SOS" (that's 3 longs, 3 shorts, 3 longs), then pull out our keyboard connector and wistle Dixie into the thus freed port and finally turn your chair 3 times counter-clockwise, click your heels and say "i wish i was back in Munich".
This is not documented anywhere but i heard it from a guy who knows a guy whose father-in-law used to work with someone whose sister worked at Microsoft, so it must be true.
It dramatically increased my productivity. Although I mostly use it for programming, I think the benefit can be realized by anyone. With Windows, I was constantly tweaking my setup and not getting as much work done. Things like defragging disks, scanning/cleaning viruses, reinstalling the whole OS from scratch every few months, etc. are just not issues with Linux. I haven't reinstalled Linux from scratch since I switched from Mandrake to Ubuntu but I've upgraded through 5 or 6 full releases with just the package manager and scarcely a reboot.
There are other nice things about Linux too, such as drivers for old hardware. Our old SCSI scanner hasn't been supported on Windows since 98 (HP stopped writing drivers after 98). Actually, this was the reason for switching my wife from Windows 98 to Linux many years ago. FWIW, she prefers Linux now too. Also, with Linux, we can share that scanner using SANE.
I also agree with what someone else said about pop-ups. Windows pop-ups (which are all too common) are modal and steal the input focus from the user. Sometimes I would be typing and accidentally agree (or disagree - who knows!) to a pop-up that I didn't have time to read. On Linux, such pop-ups are rare and they don't steal the input focus.
Best of luck, if you do decided to make the switch.
I work for a non-profit, and we discovered last week that Microsoft's Charity OpenLicense program is no longer available for Windows XP or Office 2003. If we want those, we have to pay full price instead of the discounted Charity OL price (which is about 1/4 of the full price). In this particular case, we were attempting to buy a license to use with Parallels on one of our MacBooks, so that our web nerds could test their work on Windows.
What really pisses me off about them dropping the COL program on XP is that the non-profits are generally the ones that can least afford the hardware upgrades to make their existing clients play nice on Vista. On the other hand, it's still cheaper to buy XP even at full price.
I work in the hearing healthcare business, specifically audiometrics and otoneurology. Our manufacturers lifecycle on software versions is rather extended. A couple were still DOS based in 2001. Currently, everything is spec'd for XP Pro SP2 and I don't expect this to change for at least another year or so. Most computerized medical diagnostic systems are approved by the FDA/UL/CE on a particular make and model and the manufacturer supplies the system with OEM XP. On others, the clients usually supply their own system. This is where we are having problems. Unless the clients special order systems with XP, it will not run the software. Go to Dell or the HP sites and customize a system. XP Pro is not a choice now. Our only resort may be to purchase systems with Vista, reformat, and install XP. This is going to add needless additional costs for the client.
Bill Gates is software's Dr. Death. It doesn't matter what the customer wants; Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, wants more money, and will drag everyone through his neurosis.
I agree with most of the rest of your post, but I do think this line is unfair. It's easier (and probably more correct) to attribute Microsoft missteps to incompetence rather than malice on the part of Bill Gates.
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.
With its current assets, the Gates foundation will be donating at least $1.5 billion per year for the forseeable future. The doesn't mesh with the greed so often ascribed to Gates.
There is a common thread in modern human life. During the early years, in college and for a few years after, people change their living space every single year - sometimes more often. But as you get on in years, this slows down. First you might only move every few years. Then you buy a house. Then you want to stay in a house for a long time.
Generally, in the material world, this is because you have too much stuff to make moving an inexpensive and hassle-free proposition. But is it really any different in the digital world?
What about these operating systems is changing *so* fundamentally that it requires a major system overhaul every few years? How long do we have to wait for a stable kernel upon which we can build the rest of our systems? The fact of the matter is that in a few short years, all of our systems will be distributed anyway. Already our applications live on servers in an environment whose hardware and underlying software can change instantly - without the end user noticing so much as a hiccup. Why is it that our desktop and laptop machines suffer from such a stuttering inability to avoid a major disruption all the freaking time?
I heartily applaud anyone who loves to get into the nitty gritty of how to put a computer together, or install an os, or fix a car, or brew their own beer. I've even had excellent, informative forays into those areas. But, frankly, they don't hold my interest. I'm paying cash on the barrelhead. I want an os that works. That is not a megalomaniacal freak that insists I tinker with it every few weeks, just so it doesn't start spewing "Squeegee The Pickle Wallaby!" whenever I try to boot it up. How is that so wrong? How is that Microsoft hasn't caught on yet?
[Ego]out