Slashdot Mirror
Why is Microsoft Patching XP?
akkarin noted a story about a new Service patch for XP. Dubbed SP2c, the new service patch contains no bug fixes or features. Instead, this exciting patch exists only to add new valid active product registration keys. Oops.
Without a service pack it just doesn't feel like windows.
Because it's not XP without patches!
Why is this labeled a service patch?
the title was,
/must/ have Windows and /must/ have a supported OS."
"... If they stop patching/supporting XP, they might get more Vista sales, from those who
Surely everyone is buying Vista now so they won't need any more keys, right?
The old believe everything, the middle-aged suspect everything, the young know everything. - Oscar Wilde
I find it more interesting that when they were planning XP they knew how many keys they would need before they released it.
If things had gone according to plan, this would not be required and we would not have heard about it.
I am dubious that this is the real reason.
liqbase
... and they're kinda nervous about their service release record being broken...
The game.
So if hackers figure out how to patch in some new "valid" keys with this mechanism, does that mean that no one will need to hack out a key anymore?
stuff |
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
What happened to A and B?
Did they elope together and disappear into the mountains - and now C is their lovechild?
Really subtle advertising there, champ.
I was hoping they would release another service pack to roll up the 70 or so patches that have come out since SP2"a" -- oops -- wait -- guess that didn't happen yet either!
I wonder how hard it will be to uninstall when it does not work.
If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0.
FTA: Other signs of the not-dead-yet OS's...
I'm not dead yet.
Aw, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
No, really, I'm feeling much better.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
I'm glad I stayed with Windows 98 Second Edition so I don't have to deal with all these endless updates and patches.
Patch released to windows 98 a long time ago introduced many of the "problems" and "instablity" in windows 98 such as freezing when you delete files and random blue screens. If you back to older dll versions of some files these problems magically disappear.
I wonder if this is the XP nerf patch.
That the balance of features versus benefits in Vista are not correct. Meaning, in Vista they were too interested in providing features that consumers did not care about, such as drm and copyright protection, and not enough benefits above XP. Not only that, but the XP version is even cheaper...
I suspect this is a shorterm problem only. Meaning I checked the Dell website and they are not providing XP as an option on all laptops, so I suspect M$ is simply providing this option to their larger customers until wider adoption occurs. Over time, it would be my guess they will slowly "fade" out XP and the forced Vista adoption will be complete. Longterm this will be seen as a major mistake made by them, in my opinion....
there is no constant update because they don't fix their security holes, they just hide it for no one to know...
After exhausting those serial numbers they should try using the remaining permutations!
Free Windows for everyone!
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
... how the XP product keys got exhausted. I was initially running off Win2K and after I built my new PC (Core 2, 4Gb RAM, SATA RAID etc.) I bought Vista at the local CompUSA which had sweet store closure deals. I was horrified at how bad Vista was when I installed and used it on my new PC - Damn those slow file copy operations, slow networking and periodic hangs - it never felt like a new machine any time.
I gave up and bought WinXP Pro and it literally flies on this machine. I don't care who's fault it is - half baked drivers, incompatible software etc. I want a OS which works and Vista is not it.
Just FYI, Apple still releases security patches for OS 10.3 which is about 4 years old now, so you aren't "required" to buy the new updates by any means. Also, unlike Windows, the "service packs" as you derisively call them do offer new functionality.....
Monstar L
I just love it when the subject line of a article is a question answered by the summary just below it.
MS is running out of keys, so they are releasing an updated build. mmmmm ok. so?
It's just a different build number, what's the big deal. The same thing happened back in the Windows 95 when they had SR 2, 2.1, and 2.5. The changes between those build were minor as well.
Way to spin it, Slashdot. Making the "mistake" of underestimating how well a product is going to sell: not a bad mistake to make.
I'd like it if they rolled up all of the 80-90 critical patches since SP2.
Not to fanboi, but having run XP for years before switching to Linux and a Mac, I find the actual OS updates for OS X no more time-consuming or frustrating than those for other platforms. If you want to make an actual comparison, then let's talk about app updates as well as OS updates.
So you can laugh all you want to...
Listen I am not hear to start a flame war, but I will say that I am someone who is willing to pay for more quality. Yes, that it right, I am someone who enjoys paying that $129 every two years. Heck, if they gave the quality of the releases they do now every year, I will pay that sum yearly and smile every time at the cash register.
:-)
Why do I not care about paying what would appear to be a large sum of money? Because I have to admit that my MacBookPro is by far the finest laptop I have ever owned, and I am someone who works on it for about 16 hours per day. Even my IBM T42 seems like a "child" against it, and I really like that laptop at the time. Also, OSX brings to be the power and reliability of Linux, but none of the quirks and constant tweaking. Is it perfect? No, but, in my opinion, it is definitely better, and if a company comes out and offers something even better than Apple can provide, I will be from this new company as well.. Meaning, I am not Apple "lover", but I definitely like better tools to do my job...
So, if you want a Honda, then go by Windows... If you want something nicer, then go with Apple, because eventhough not everyone will agree, my experience has been that Apple products are just better. Oh, and as far as running all my windows apps, well lets just say that unity mode in VMWare is just oh so cool!!!
OSR2 - FAT32 is minor?
OSR2.1 - LBA support is minor?
OSR2.5 - USB is minor?
That's not entirely true.
Microsoft has bet significant bucks on the success of Vista, in both R&D and research. On the other hand, XP is nearing the "end" of its product cycle (in theory), having been supplanted by Vista. Or, to use a different turn of phrase, "old and busted" versus "new hotness."
Imagine you have an old and busted car, and you're buying a new sexy one. For some reason, you need to hang on to both, but you fully plan to get rid of the old & busted one at your earliest convenience. But it turns out that the new car has some serious problems with it, and it's constantly in the shop: but because of your family's needs, you can't just ditch it and start over. Now you're stuck with two cars, and paying upkeep on both of them...
Anyway, it's a flawed analogy, but suffice it to say that MS stands to lose a hefty chunk of change if Vista dies on the vine.
I'm giving you a +2 because it seems that you cant bash MAC here for some weird reason like it was un-american
Anybody who feels secure with any OS in particular is putting his head in the sand. The only reason MAC does not crash is because of the lack of software that exist for it.
MAC is so closed up and they are almost no software for it if you compare it to it's nemesis Windows so it's normal at some point that you'll get errors, you got software requesting the same ports/IO, some requesting file access at the same time, badly written software.
Reverse the situation where MAC rules over windows, you'll get the same crap happening.
When you look at the OS you'll see people banding together to protect the virtue of smaller OS, saying they are better in every way bla bla bla and years later they'll get bashed when they get too big.
Every one of those "service packs" Apple released has contained significant new functionality. They were not simply bug fixes. In the same time it took Microsoft to release Vista Apple has released 4 significant new OS versions at a reasonable price. At least we don't have to pay $299 for transparent windows and slow file copy operations.
I support the right to arm bears.
Oops.
s/in both R&D and research/in both R&D and marketing/.
Microsoft has made a large investment in Vista research and development and.. research, yeah, but that isn't going to disappear. The fruits of that labour are ready to be used, and the longer people stay on XP, the more time developers have to make their applications and drivers fully Vista compatible.
The longer people stick to XP, the better for Microsoft. If they were faced with "Vista or nothing" at launch date, they'd take a good hard look at alternatives. They have no motivation to do that when all of their applications are supported by the new OS.
The thing is that Microsoft isn't losing money on Vista. On the contrary. They're making good money off of both their new and their old product, and having two products on a market supplementing eachother like XP and Vista do is only a positive thing for Microsoft. It helps retain the userbase through to the next generation of the OS.
We've been waiting for XP SP3 for a long time now (artificially delayed past Vista). Now it looks like Vista SP1 is going to come out before XP SP3 even.
Microsoft should stand behind their products and think more of long-term goals (customer satisfaction, etc.) than short-term marketing.
So, if you want a Honda, then go by Windows
I was with you until you made that statement (and I don't even own a Honda). Why do you have to disrespect Honda like that? Especially when Honda's cars are reliable, Windows not so much. Honda's cars are closer to OS X than Windows, in that they "just work." They also have very refined engines and well thought-out interiors (at least the ones I've seen). They don't require much maintenance. Yeah, they don't look all that great, but they aren't ugly (like Windows is), simply very vanilla.
It would've made more sense if you made the Windows analogy with Ford or one of the GM brands.
#!/
I didn't know you had to pay for Service Packs for OS X. The combined updates from 10.4.x to 10.4.9 and 10.4.10 didn't cost me a dime and as far as restarting: hardly, most updates don't require you to restart. Most updates are also not for the system. I had updates to iPhoto, Server Admin, QuickTime, iTunes (iPhone functionality) some security updates that most likely were also for the other BSD and Linux platforms (OpenSSH, Apache, MySQL,...). It's indeed been a while since my Mac needed restarting, it also goes to sleep and comes back in a second. I have a PC with XP that hangs somewhere between awake and sleep when a VPN is still connected, no way to get it back unless I hard-reset the machine, it also takes over 5 seconds to get it awake.
Oh, I'm sorry you didn't get a full, multi-user FTP, Web, Database, Secure shell... server in your OS did you? How about that firewall of yours, yes, you still have to buy another product for that.
How much does Windows cost you? $399 every 2 or 3 years? And they still didn't get it right. I'm so glad you bought a PC.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Besides games and spyware, what apps are you looking for that you can't find on the Mac? I'm curious, since I've had very very little problem with software availability. The *number* of the same kind of app seems to be lower, but I've always been able to find something that does what I need it to.
Everybody's stupid today (I know I am). This guy says someone may have to "administrate" it (damned stupid yuppies, it's administer not "administrate") and you don't know that "love child" is a euphamism for "bastard". If A and B eloped they're married and the baby isn't a "love child".
It's only for OEMS and stuff- it's for new OS installs, not for ones that are already there. In fact its' pointless on systems that already are installed because they already have working keys.
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
If userland software can cause an OS to crash, then the OS is flawed.
Driver level software that loads into the kernel can cause the OS to crash, that's expected.
As for lack of software, there is a good selection of mac specific software, most unix software can be recompiled for macos and you can run instances of windows and other os's with their assorted apps under vmware or parallels, and if you manage to crash your virtual windows it won't take your host macos down.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
2b or not 2b, that is the question.
More like $200 or so, every 5 years (XP came out in October of 2001, I think)?
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
Sssssssh! They might hear you!
Anyway, it's a flawed analogy, but suffice it to say that MS stands to lose a hefty chunk of change if Vista dies on the vine. You're very correct that your analogy is flawed. To lend credit to your comparison we will instead say that the dealership you go to has either a used Corolla about halfway through its lifetime or a liquid hydrogen Ferrari for 12 times the price. Now while the Ferrari does have many more options, it has some major compatibility issues at the pump and is very, very expensive. The Corolla on the other hand is guaranteed to be compatible almost everywhere and has far fewer problems on the road. While some people are interested in going with the "new hotness" right out of the gate, the average user is much more likely to chose the Corolla because it's far cheaper and is functional for their day-to-day needs. Now whether you buy the Corolla or the Ferrari, the dealership is still making money. Additionally, because XP has sold so many copies, there is very little software overhead they're averaging per copy now.
Sure Microsoft will hurt if Vista dies because of the software overhead that wasn't accounted for, but Microsoft has plenty of time to make Vista stable and usable before it goes out of production.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
I think it is just a matter of how many Windows Updates are included.
Windows XP Professional w/ SP1A (OEM-DSP)Only (?) release of SP1.
Microsoft Windows XP Pro w\SP2 (OEM-DSP) First release of SP2
Microsoft Windows XP Pro SP2B OEM DSP 2nd release of SP2
A new Linux patch came out today that added two new features and addressed seven minor bugs. Users from Tokyo to London have been taking to the streets in protest.
"How dare they release a product that was buggy and only just now patch it!" screamed one user in Moscow this morning.
"That's just like the Linux community, releasing a product before it's ready and patching it later." said Theresa Johnson, a mother of two from Long Island.
When word got out that Linux version 3 was coming in the future, a number of people were taken aback.
"Maybe they'll get it right this time." said Randy McNeil, a 15-year old self-proclaimed mathematician, physicist, programmer, and lawyer.
When after five seconds of being released only two people had downloaded the new patch, computer business analyst Ralph Ivanson said that it just proved that the new version of Linux was too bulky and slow for mass adoption. "Maybe when the Linux developers start forcing people into it, then we'll see some conversion to the new kernel", said Ivanson, who lamented that instead of forcing user to upgrade to the latest patch that the v0.1 patch should have supported PCI-Express from the beginning. "They just weren't forward thinking back then and now it's isolating users." said Ivanson as he pounded on his desk.
Prices of copies of the Debian Operating System on bootleg CD-R fell to half a bag of weed and an old sandal, down from a bag and a jacket with holes in it in early afternoon trading.
There are 2 red flags on this that would concern me. One that Microsoft would secretly bundle more rights restrictions into XP (admit it, it's certainly tempting, and it's not like they haven't done it before), and two, that this SP would seemingly make it easier to crack windows keys - I mean, here's all the necessary components, isolated and laid out for you to decipher. Well, that's just my 2 cents.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
That's funny, because all of Microsoft haters used to slam MS for "sneaking in functionality" in their Service Packs. The argument was that it would cause instability and include unwanted features. So, after a long time MS finally dropped including functionality in their SPs. Typical Mac/Slashdot doublethink.
so... does this mean that the next time I need to call MS up for a new install key, I'll get one that requires SP2c to activate, which I can't get, because I need an activated XP to use windows update?
Personally, I've never switched away from Windows because either it came with whatever machine I was using, or I had peripherals that Linux couldn't handle, or whatever. But I finally did it this weekend, I had a desktop sitting there doing nothing so I slapped Edubuntu 6.06 LTS (the CD I had handy) on it, and pretty much have it doing what I want. Not bad for this used-to-be-Windows system administrator.
:-)
Basically, while it has been convenient not to have to do much administering, I just felt more and more that Windows is headed in the wrong direction and it was time to switch trains for one headed where I want to go.
Sorry if this is mildly off topic. I just felt like telling you all.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Microsoft hasn't done it, but these guys have.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
We all know what the term "Microsoft Tax" means, so I won't go into detail about it.
So consider this: with every Microsoft Taxed machine that is sold with Vista as the only option, Microsoft is (according to Microsoft projections from the article) expecting an almost 80% chance that they will also sell a license for Windows XP. They win TWICE! Not only do they get to tax the machine, they also get to sell a second OS license.
This is what happened, more or less, with WindowsME. Everyone hated it and went back to Win98se... most people didn't PAY for it but they went to it just the same. In this case, there is more incentive to pay for it... it's a win-win-win for Microsoft.
Quicktime updates don't count! But Windows Media Player patches do! Why? Because I'm a macfag and don't understand that ANY vulnerability that results in my box being owned still means my box is owned.
Cause it's BSD and it's FREE!!!!1!11!1
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
if you manage to crash your virtual windows it won't take your host macos down.
What are you idiots doing with your Windows boxes that are causing them to crash? I haven't seen a BSoD since Windows ME and that was 7 years ago! I can't speak for Vista, but I have never had any problems with XP Pro in the 6 years I've owned it.
The service pack itself is trivial. The news here is not a new service pack. The news is that XP is so popular in the enterprise Microsoft has to add additional product keys. This is to be expected though because Vista has not gained widespread acceptance in business. Ok, I guess this isn't news.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Once you install SP2c, you'll be unpleasantly surprised to find Vista is now your operating system!
Is this bitterness because OSX only costs $129 per year for the semi-annual OS upgrade (realizing that Leotard is 6 months late). You wish the OS upgrade cost enough to justify the price difference for the Apple hardware key?
A hardware product has an official End-Of-Life date beyond which it is no longer sold nor supported. That's fairly logical, because it is a standalone physical item, and its physical end of life is inescapable.
But the concept of EOL'ing an operating system that's at the heart of bazillion old machines out there seems completely wrong, to the point of being bizarre. Those machines will (mostly) never change their operating system, and why should they --- after all, their manufacturer created them as XP machines, not as Vista boxes, and their manufacturer-supplied drivers might not even work with Vista.
Yet, except in the case of non-networked machines, their continued survival requires fairly regular O/S updates in response to the changing face of the Internet. End-Of-Lifing XP reflects a very myopic stance by Microsoft, as if their product Windows XP were somehow standalone. Well it's not.
Microsoft enjoys the $$$ benefits of Windows being adopted worldwide as the most popular operating system, but with that comes the responsibility of maintaining the heart of those myriad machines which use it
Yes, it's a responsibility. Operating systems are not toasters. They sustain the continued viability of machinery that uses them, and can't be treated as independent items. Their manufacturers committed to a dependency on Microsoft support.
While End-Of-Life is a common concept in commercial products, there is something fundamentally wrong with declaring an operating system as dead. While the hardware survives (at least 10 years, maybe 15), a degree of support should continue to be provided, as I see it. The rate of support calls will dwindle to zero over time, so "It would cost us too much" is not really a good excuse. Especially given the size of MS coffers.
Killing off older machines by denying support for their O/S seems irresponsible by the O/S manufacturer, regardless of which O/S that is.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Activate XP more than 5 times and you need to buy a new copy. Microsoft didn't seem to think you would need to keep it last long.
So, from what I gather from the article, this adds additional product keys into XP so they can sell more licenses.
Does this mean it's technically possible to create a build of XP, perhaps by a similar process as slipstreaming a service pack, that contains all product activation keys, so as to be able to be installed on as many systems as possible?
Speaking from an independent computer tech standpoint, many times an XP rebuild onsite is necessary but the CDs aren't handy. If I had an XP CD that allowed all of the codes possible to work on it, I could use the license printed on the side of the computer.
Does this already exist? Am I behind the curve?
XP is fine now (when they're not breaking it remotely), Vista was delayed and Vista sucks. If Vista didn't suck then I wouldn't still be reading horror stories about DRM, HD-crippling, driver issues, kernel vulnerabilities etc. etc. etc. long after it has been released. Barely a week goes by without a handful of things like this or this cropping up.
Are all of these kinds of stories just trolls with spin skills worthy of Karl Rove? If the answer is no then Vista sucks. If the answer is yes then there are lot of people angry at MS - probably, at least in part, because Vista sucks so very much: http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=vista
I've been part of several discussions trying to ascertain what advantages Vista actually offers to outweigh the drawbacks and it ain't pretty. The bottom line for us, and I daresay hundreds of thousands of other organisations, is that XP works, is mostly stable and is well supported. Vista can't compete with that - and they're calling it an upgrade?
So if you need Microsoft - and unfortunately we still need to develop with DirectX - then XP will do fine. Vista has to bring something really worthwhile to make us want to go through the hassle of the upgrade and to put up with all the unwanted baggage that Redmond seems to think we all need.
And of course if you don't need Microsoft then you're already laughing. Whatever OS you're using will be just as secure as Vista (if not more so), fully extensible, support all sorts of open formats and not try to wrestle with you for control of your own computer.
I really am glad that Vista's working out for you but unfortunately for most of us the "nifty new features and new look" just aren't enough to justify a broad OS upgrade - certainly for anything other than a home or hobby rig. And my home'n'hobby rigs all run XP or Linux and serve me just fine. =D
Dubbed SP2c, the new service patch contains no bug fixes or features
How is this different from their other service patches?
Just thought I'd add a bit of sanity here for the 1 or 2 people that think before posting. Microsoft has already released service pack 2 a and b to OEM's and OEM's (and their new customers) are the only people getting this version. End users aren't going to be getting this as from windows update it simply adds more license keys, OK? That said Microsoft HAS confirmed Service Pack 3 for XP which will be the roll-up of all security issues thus far and a few more. See here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/service packs.mspx
Where it states: SP3 for Windows XP Professional is currently planned for 1H CY2008. This date is preliminary.
Don't you already have to have a genuine Windows in order to download updates? If this is true, then surely this is completely pointless for stopping people with versions of XP with cracked keys. =P
-- There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, And those who don't.
That's what I was thinking,no patches, no fixes for broken stuff, no fixing it so XP will play DX10 - and so what is XP missing that Vista has? Extra DRM 'enhancements' to take control of your computer away from you. Don't think I'll be putting this thing on my computer.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
I've never had XP go into a full-blown crash except for driver problems or buggy software. Admittedly I have encountered massive memory leaks, but I have a strong suspicion that's from a combination of OEM software (a lot of which, perplexingly, does not work at all) and Cygwin. Yes, Windows used to be terrible about crashing. Used to be.
Air is just like fog, but it's not gray.
Meh, big deal, I'll be using Windows 2000 for a long time.
Shouldn't they have just wrapped it up with the 100 or so available updates on windows update after a fresh install of SP2 and called it SP3??? I've always wondered why install media manufactured after a patch or update was released for any software product was not included in the new batches of CDs
Who the fuck even uses Quicktime? That is seriously one format that should have been left to die years ago.
As for patches, well it's obvious that a Windows based PC would have more software patches for it simply due to the fact that the number of Windows applications outnumbers Macintosh applications by...oh...a million to one.
I meant - and I stand by this - that attacking Apple's OS for the volume of fixes and upgrades that come down the Software Update wire isn't entirely fair, since Software Update also updates applications. By the same token, I wouldn't make the claim that Microsoft had to update Windows far more than Apple did OS X by counting up all the Windows+WMP upgrades/fixes and comparing them to Apple's OS-only fixes.
What I would do, however, is look at the facts. Here they are:
On my Mac, I have 4 OS-specific updates, 4 updates each for iTunes and QuickTime, and 3 updates for Java. That makes 15 total updates, 8 of which are for "applications" - and I'll lump Java frameworks into the OS for conciseness and to play fair, since Windows' tool doesn't make it obvious where those are.
On my fiance's XP laptop, I count 20 OS-specific updates, 5 Windows malware removal tool updates, 3 IE updates, and 2 Outlook updates. That makes 32 total updates, and even if I count the malware tool, IE, and Outlook as separate applications (generous, given Microsoft's claims about IE), Microsoft is at 20 OS updates.
That puts Microsoft way ahead of Apple in terms of sheer volume. And when I open WMP it tells me I have updates to add, so I don't think they're included.
Now, all of that aside, I'm perfectly happy that Microsoft updates their products. I'd rather have them do 32 updates in the last 6 months than none at all. As you rudely pointed out, a vulnerability is a vulnerability. But I was responding to parent's implication that Apple updates too much. I didn't understand the basis for the claim then, and now that I've looked at the hard numbers, I still don't.
So you can laugh all you want to...
Not sure exactly where to put this but I thought it was funny. I have an older friend who has pirated Windows forever, and he's just techie enough to follow the most elementary advice (run a firewall/antivirus/software update)... and he's gone and bought a new system with Windows XP included. He's complained that it's damn near impossible to pirate any more.
This same guy, when I asked him if he saw the new iMac, said 'Yeah, but they only showed off the monitor and keyboard'. This guy who claims he has a friend whose house is loaded with Macs. He bought an Apple ][gs back in the day and got screwed by Apple so they are pretty much forever on his shit list. Which I think is pretty good. I switched to the Mac, still using VMware w/ XP for a couple things and Ubuntu for a few things...
I think it would hurt Apple's and Linux's progress to win users like the above. So I can say good for them, good for Microsoft. I'm pretty happy in Apple land with my recently obsoleted 24" iMac and I think I understand the value Apple brings with their O/S and design. When 10.5 is released, I'll be able to download it for free, but I'll go ahead and buy it legit from Apple. It's kind of like 'Hey thanks guys, unlike the competitors your releases add value and doesn't break stuff or punish me for being a paying customer so here yah go I'll spend some $$$ because it's worth it and not totally overpriced ( ~ $100 Leopard vs ~$500 Vista ).' I never ever once felt guilty for pirating a crappy MS O/S, in fact I'd feel guilty to admit I paid for it. I hope Microsoft gets to keep their market dominance over all the morons of planet earth (support costs, etc), and Apple/linux pick up the intelligent ones (will definitely remain a minority #s wise).
Yeah Right. Microsoft has sold so many copies of XP that they've run out of CD Keys which takes some doing when you consider how many they could generate. And the Linux Zealots still think that Linux will prevail over Windows. I don't think that'll be any time soon. XP has still got a couple of years where you'll be able to buy it. They may need to issue another patch.
To the Linux Zealots, a simple suggestion:
If You want to learn how to do an OS and make it popular, look at XP.
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
Impacts Security - Who cares, wait til there's at least 5 exploits before reviewing it.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Microsoft shot themselves in the foot when they released Vista. Another bullet for making DX10 Vista only for no reason. Another for asking companies to make DX10 games come out first and then a DX9c game months later. Another for requiring validation to download patches, and another for not making it a fool proof system.
I swear to God, its a horrible joke at this point. Almost like when you hear trailer trash bitching about how their lives are so bad, when most of the time it was caused by a ten year long string of horrible decisions on their parts.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Also, not even the most die-hard MS apologists I see advocate UPGRADING to Vista. They're simply saying that it's not bad. It's definitely not worth an upgrade, but if you're going to get a new machine, why avoid it? This is, of course, a different thing for businesses, since they can't just upgrade one machine at a time. Businesses probably won't be upgrading for a small eternity.
Vista really doesn't suck as much as people say it does, and in those areas where it does fall short, it's not really Microsoft's fault (DRM, hooo!).
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Has anyone done the math? Running out of product keys is NOT the reason. The product key is 25 characters long and contains uppercase letters and digits. If, for arguments sake, 20 characters are real, and the last 5 are 'check characters', then this allows 36 ^ 20 possible combinations. This is 1.3E+31. This is enough for every person on earth to have a billion billion keys. If there are only 15 unique characters, with 10 'check characters', then this is 36 ^ 15 which is 2.2E+23. Or every person on earth could have about 3000 billion keys. I dont know what Micro$oft's real motive is here, but running out of keys is NOT it!!
I never said it does crash, i said "if you manage to crash"...
Why don't you read the parent post that i was actually replying to, who claims that macs are stable because of a lack of (userland) software.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I've seen a Server 2003 box do it once, and had Windows XP and Windows 2000 do it several times. To be honest, though, most of these problems seem to have been hardware-based.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is why you Mac Zealots fail so.
The article posts about supporting a product, as if it is a bad thing to do. The fact that Microshaft is still standing behind a 6-year-old operating system while it has two newer ones stands for their integrity. Let's see Apple do that - oh wait, they don't have a new OS in as much time, and make you pay for the major patches...
Oh yes, Apple is SOO much better than Microsoft.
Erutangis ym si siht.
And what did the 5 year wait for Vista get Windows users? Oh look, a pretty new interface and more DRM! Seriously for most people there was no real benefit to getting Vista especially when they may have to upgrade their hardware (or get new hardware) just to get some of the features like Aero. Also software compatibility and stability issues are a major deterrence until MS can fix some of them. So a $79 upgrade to Vista may actually cost you more than $129 in terms of time, hardware, and pain.
For the most part, a new OS X is optional, but there are a lot of new features that make the upgrade worthwhile. The old OS X version will still work. I have a Mac on 10.3 (Panther) that is still getting patches. Because Apple doesn't have software activation, I could upgrade it to Tiger without any charge. It would be somewhat dishonest, and I would have my conscience clear. When Leopard comes out, I'll upgrade my laptop and upgrade my desktop to Tiger.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
There's another issue for business aside from simply buying it on new machines. It's the issue of new procedures, new issues, hardware compatibility, software compatibility, and most frightening of all to IT managers, the users themselves. Folks have had years to get used to XP, and a lot of the bugs, security and otherwise, have been worked out of it. It's not a great operating system, but it's a familiar one, and a lot of IT guys (myself included) are taking the position "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."
There has always been something of an upgrade hell involved in moving to new operating systems, but never before have I seen such a general fear and distrust of an upgrade path(save perhaps from DOS 3.3 to DOS 4.0) as I've seen with Vista.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I always think of Brazil, the Terry Gilliam movie. One cosmetic-surgery patient favors a doctor who is completely ineffectual. The woman he treats looks older and older and older, but the doctor is adamant that only his treatment will work, and even sounds authoritative, despite his utter failure to deliver. Another woman favors a doctor who makes her look younger and younger and younger. The ineffectual doctor thinks he's on equal footing with the guy whose treatment actually works, and keeps demanding respect and attention and obeisance. He is the equivalent of Monty Python's Black Knight, From The Holy Grail movie, missing all his arms and legs, who calls to the knight who has just pathetically vanquished him, "Come back and fight, you chicken!"
Microsoft is that way. Like the doctor in Brazil who keeps saying he has the cure, the treatment. Like the Black Knight that has been utterly defeated, who still thinks he's invincible.
But the truth is that Microsoft has peaked and it's all downhill from here. I am preaching to the choir. Hope you all enjoy the similes, because they are... oddly on target, aren't they?
Because, look, no trojans or viruses on OS X? How long can anyone keep that secret? Free, as in beer, with Linux? While old veryveryfast but not thefastest computers are obsolescenced by Moore'e Law?
The TIME for Microsoft has passed, and everyone knows it, except the lawyers. The truth is, the lawyers are even squirming. They are never ones to be in it for the long haul. That's why they have hourly rates.
Vista. Total, utter failure! No backtalk, now! This is really happening, Microsoft has lost its way and the wolves are at the door.
1. M$ stops selling it
2. My apps require Vista, or whatever
3. People wise up and let me run Linux instead
4. I can get the hell out of IT
Enlightenment is a pipe dream. So where's the pipe?
There are 25 alphanumeric characters in the registration.
According to the MS Windows calculator 36 to the power of 25 is...
8.0828127746476406064313960045654e+38
That is over 124,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 copies for every human being on the planet!
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Over how much time? What do those "OS" patches fix? 90% of the time I see Mac fans talking about how their OS needs fewer patches (which, incidentally, is really funny since it SHOULD be getting more - http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135589-pg,1/arti cle.html ) than Windows, they count updates on Windows Update for thinks like WMP and Internet Explorer, yet they specifically omit updates for things like Quicktime and Safari as being important.
Worthless Anti-MS FUD.
The only reason Apple has fewer updates is that they don't bother to fix things like security vulnerabilities because no one cares enough to write viruses for it. Otherwise the huge list of known zero-days would have fixes.
Maybe Microsoft wants people to be able to enter in their CD-keys and not have Windows reject them. That sounds like a nifty feature.
If Vista didn't suck then I wouldn't still be reading horror stories about DRM, HD-crippling, driver issues, kernel vulnerabilities etc. etc. etc. long after it has been released.
Yeah, and using iTunes DRM will kill your pets also. Except I've been using iTunes and Vista for years and I've never run into any problems related to DRM or any of that horrible evil stuff Slashdotters are always ranting about. I've no problem with driver support, either. (BTW, the kernel vulnerability was a driver issue also.)
Barely a week goes by without a handful of things like this or this cropping up.
That's because you're getting your news from Slashdot. None of those stories are covered by the mainstream media because, other than Slashdot, nobody cares.
I've been part of several discussions trying to ascertain what advantages Vista actually offers to outweigh the drawbacks and it ain't pretty. The bottom line for us, and I daresay hundreds of thousands of other organisations, is that XP works, is mostly stable and is well supported. Vista can't compete with that - and they're calling it an upgrade?
Vista works better, is as (or more) stable, and is also well-supported. I'm surprised at how much more polished Vista is than XP.
So if you need Microsoft - and unfortunately we still need to develop with DirectX - then XP will do fine.
Ok, but please, PLEASE do your QA and testing on Vista as well for people who prefer it. Don't be EA.
Comment of the year
Because it's there?
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
Look, I'm not trying to be a fanatic here. I've run Ubuntu since late last year, thanks largely to responses to an "Ask Slashdot" article I submitted. I ran Windows for years before that after growing up with Macs. And I appreciate the link - I hadn't read about that yet. You're right: it's b.s. when these sorts of things go ignored, and the Samba deficiency your link mentions had always bugged me.
But the issue I was responding to wasn't security-related. It was related to, basically, the number of times the user has to reboot. It was a narrow focus, and now I've had two ACs jump my ass with specious claims about what I said and lame guilt-by-association techniques all aided by a disingenuous representation of my claims. The only reason Apple has fewer updates is that they don't bother to fix things like security vulnerabilities
So you can laugh all you want to...
Fords are not bad enough for a Windows analogy. Windows is more like a Fiat: It runs quite well for half a year, then everything breaks down at the same time and you are shocked to find out it's cheaper to buy a new car than to repair it.
Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat
For the 10 millionth time: OS X 'service packs' or point upgrades are free. 10.4.1, 10.4.2, etc. etc. The new versions of the operating system cost $129, and are of course optional in the same way upgrading from XP to Vista is optional. But there is no activation or copy protection with OS X. So OS X is just as freely available as corporate versions of XP on the torrent sites.
As far as the 'two year' interval, I'm glad that a company developing an operating system is actually doing work to make releases on a continued basis, unlike Microsoft.
BTW how do you run a Mac without 'constant' update and restart warnings? Apple has released 5x the amount of updates and security fixes in the past few months as Windows XP, Vista, and Linux combined.
*Sigh* Does you mommy know you are using her computer?
I'm glad you are yet another ignorant Windows user too...
Doh, typo. I haven't been using Vista for years, I've been using it for months. iTunes I have been using for years. Sorry.
Comment of the year
...The thing is that Microsoft isn't losing money on Vista. On the contrary. They're making good money off of both their new and their old product, and having two products on a market supplementing eachother like XP and Vista do is only a positive thing for Microsoft. It helps retain the userbase through to the next generation of the OS. Actually, they are losing money on Vista. Failure to upgrade to Vista produces a cascading failure to upgrade other products (Office, some of the DRM products) and also loses them mindshare. In case you haven't been following the magazines that cover these types of things, CIO's not only are now aware of alternatives to MS, but are actively considering the potential to rolling them out instead of Windows. This year is the first year that CIOs responded with the potential for rolling out Macs. That's huge news.The reasons for this? The utter and abject failure of Vista. Vista means retraining. Vista means large hardware upgrade costs. Vista means a whole slew of new IT issues. When taken in that context, alternatives that seemed untenable just a year ago all of a sudden start looking attractive.
Will MS go broke? Naah. But they're certainly not retaining users (their only real goal since they're a monopoly). What we are seeing in retrospect is the peak of MS about 5-7 years ago. First Linux took the datacenter, and now a combination of IE dropping to under 75% marketshare coupled with increased interest in alternative OSes and office suites and the recent shenanigans of DirectX all weaken MS's monopoly hold on the desktop.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
So...hey there stranger....what's your WAN IP? >:)
I never understand why people respond to lies against their fan product with equally obvious lies supporting it. What's the point? Actually, I don't care much.
They've always been considering alternatives when available. It's nothing new just because the media focuses on it.
They key aspect of this is that while there are alternatives, obviously, people are still buying XP, and to a lesser extent Vista. If companies keep buying XP, those companies aren't going to roll out a new OS in the next two or three years.
Two or three years from now, a computer that will run Vista perfectly fine is going to cost the same as a computer that runs XP perfectly fine today. Two or three years from now, Vista will have had a lot of initial bugs ironed out, and a few service packs to go along with it, drastically reducing cost, and probably making it cheaper than having to roll out alternative software on alternative OS', and educate your entire workforce in their use. Vista is Windows. Anyone who's been working on XP in their office for any period of time can figure Vista out. Even if they hadn't, in two or three years, OEM machines will have shipped with a flavour of Vista for years.
People aren't going to switch to Linux because they use Firefox. People aren't going to ditch Exchange because they use Open Office. People aren't going to care -at all- that Microsoft updated their DirectX specs of all things, because people just do not care, and it just is not going to affect them.
Microsoft are benefitting from people still buying XP licenses. They're still on a Microsoft operating system using Microsoft software, and when they're up for a change of operating system, Microsoft will likely still be the best bet. Losing customers to competition is more or less inevitable, but thinking that Microsoft are facing any real setback because businesses are actually buying their software is stupid. It's all about vendor lockdown. Not which specific products you use.
Doesn't matter. If the next financial years report shows a downturn in the previously very profitable Windows & Office groups and Microsoft don't have a good explanation, the shareholders will certainly begin to ask questions. If it happens for a second year, Balmer may have to walk.
Even companies the size of Microsoft have to keep the shareholders happy, and they are a fickle bunch of quick to anger.
akkarin noted a story about a new Service patch for XP. Dubbed SP2c, the new service patch contains no bug fixes or features. Instead, this exciting patch exists only to add new valid active product registration keys. Oops.
...when it comes to Windows. Seriously, I think that the editors (and most of the readers) here see something that sounds ridiculous and say, "Oh, it's for Windows. It must be true, no matter how silly it seems."
This is not a new service pack. This is not a patch. It is a new OEM release of Windows XP that includes a different activation keyspace because they were running out of activation keys. Current Windows users don't need to do or install anything. Future Windows users won't need to do or install anything. The only case where you might have to do something differently is if you have multiple copies lying around and try to use an old media kit with a new activation key, or vice versa. But assuming that you have a legal copy of Windows, you should have keys and media that match.
I agree. (640K x 10,000)^4 + 3,000,000 ought to be enough for anybody.
And you dare to imply that Slashdot isn't permanent? Never have I witnessed a more true blasphemy.
We are permanent. We are one. We are +5 Karmawhores and can afford to burn. You promote a false God. There is only one root.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
I administer a very small shop, i.e. my home, but I am not willing to trust M$ about anything. Keep track of what is visited and flag what is a threat. Control incoming ports and educate users about email dangers and why visiting Pron sites is a bad idea, just because they are a lure, (notwithstanding the allure of the hot babe on babe action that you might find there along with the automatically installed malware).
Tell me again how Vista is selling well!
Bwahahahahaha!!!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I wish they'd put crap like that at the top of the articles, so I could stop reading there and have a bit more of my life back.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
TEH OMG!!11!!1! How DARE that evil dastardly MS actually try to make sure we can't steal their software?
Doesn't Mikr0$$$$$$$$$l0th understand that programmers deserve to be unpaid slave labor? They are going to kill FOSS!!!! TEH OMG!!!11!!1!
Vista's fully-indexed search is worth the upgrade IMHO. I'm not an organized guy and I need help with finding my docs.
Dell offers XP on their business-class Latitude laptops.
Oooh! I'm Danish, so I feel I need to contribute here...n t/uploads/2006/03/bill-gates.jpg s 2/funny-pictures-the-bill-gates-empire-xFw.jpg
http://perkypants.org.nyud.net:8090/blog/wp-conte
http://www.wayodd.com.nyud.net:8090/funny-picture
My internet connection is acting up, so I'm afraid you'll have yo imagine further insults to Gates, the eater of souls.
Your supposition is that MS will continue to sell XP. They've stated that their desire is to EOL it ASAP. The failure of Vista is apparent in the undesired extended sales cycle of XP demanded by customers.
Those customers know that XP will end. They also know that barring an asteroid or hell freezing over, the main UI issues that made them not want Vista in the first place will not be available in 2-3 years either. What will be available are most likely very close clones of the apps they want on OSes that mimmic their known UIs. It won't be a MS OS, but most likely Linux varieties.
Such is how monopolies screw up and lose their market in the digital age.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Real businesses buy machines, and immediately wipe the operating system.
Seriously.
Think of all that crapware that came on your Dell. Frigging McAfee or whatever. A real IT shop ain't going to support that random crap. They say "standard image" and that's that.
So if my next computer for work comes with Vista, I certainly won't see it.
It's a nice business, isn't it? The microsoft tax gets paid twice, once for the OEM O/S and a second time for the corporate licence.
Thats one reason VHS won out over Beta.. For the average joe "good enough" is how they live their lives, and they make up most of any large consumer market.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Vista is hardly failing. Comparing the first year of sales of Vista to the first year of sales of XP is comparing apples to oranges, and all in all, Vista sales aren't really all that bad. Of course Microsoft wants to EOL old products so that they won't have to put as much money and effort into supporting and updating them. Any company would. The fact of the matter is that they will continue to sell it for as long as they will benefit from it, and they will benefit from it for as long as a significant amount of business customers want to use it. Again, vendor lockdown. The flavour of the OS is insignificant, as long as it says Windows on it, integrates with AD and relies on Microsoft Office and Exchange for productivity, because when time comes to upgrade the OS, they'll be in that deep enough for Microsoft to realistically be the only option.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that the "main UI issues that made them not want Vista in the first place will not be available in 2-3 years either". Firstly, I highly doubt that the reason why businesses are hesitant to adopt Vista is UI related, and even if it was, one would think that the absence of show-stopping issues would be a positive thing.
In either case, "closely mimicing" UIs and applications is not what businesses want. They want the actual software they've gotten comfortable with, and they want an OS compatible with their existing infrastructure. Not some alternative that does less or exactly the same, just in a different way. After all, the training and initial drop in productivity per worker is far more expensive to a Microsoft-only company than a Windows XP license and a copy of Office 2007.
That is how monopolies consolidate their position in the market in the digital age.
Puppy Linux
Damn Small Linux
Try a live CD of either one. They should work fine on your specs.
In 2-3 years, Vista's interface will still be Vista's, and not XPs. Linux, however, will probably provide a desktop almost indistinguishable from today's XP. So, if your choice was to pay MS large sums of cash for Vista and suffer the losses due to training and lowered productivity, or switch vendors and install Linux with lowered costs and no losses in productivity and training, which way would you go? In either case, "closely mimicing" UIs and applications is not what businesses want. They want the actual software they've gotten comfortable with, and they want an OS compatible with their existing infrastructure. Not some alternative that does less or exactly the same, just in a different way. After all, the training and initial drop in productivity per worker is far more expensive to a Microsoft-only company than a Windows XP license and a copy of Office 2007. I'm not sure why you're arguing, as you've just supported my argument, and possible presented it better than my first post. Read the above with "Vista" in mind as the alternative. BTW, Office 2007 is also not as widely adopted as some would like. I'm using it at work, and I must admit that I dislike it greatly. It's not merely the UI menu changes that suck, but the entire interface just reminds me of Fisher Price.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I'm absolutely not supporting your argument in any way, and if you think that I am, I don't think you quite understand what I am saying. No, Linux distributions will never be indistinguishable from Windows XP as long as there are laywers on the planet. Yes, Vista's UI will still be Vista's UI in three years, but you fail to understand that in three years, OEMs will have been shipping their boxes with Vista as standard for four years. Long enough for any office worker to have grown accustomed to it.
In either event, training the single digit percent of workers who may not have gotten comfortable with Vista in that time is infinitely less costly than educating users on how to use software that neither looks nor behaves like they're used to. You, however, seem to be supporting my argument in that aspect, and you're the one who seems to be forgetting that the users aren't always very tech savvy.
The fact that you're saying that a Linux alternative would bring on "no losses in productivity and training" doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence in your knowledge on this topic, as I'm sure most objective people would agree.
As for Office 2007 having a Fisher Price UI, they said exactly the same about XP. Look at where that got them.
Vista works better,
I've been telling my coworkers that changing from one well known set of problems (XP) to another, new and uncharted set of problems (Vista) most of which haven't surfaced yet, is dangerous.
IOW, we mostly know XP by know. We know its weaknesses and strengths. Why should we now change to something that has unknown weaknesses and strengths?
RTFM/Google
Lots of the Windows API is undocumented and that very part is fast and makes Office fast.
IF they open the API, (i said IF, and just theoretically) OO.o will be much faster, so will Java, GTK+, PHP, and so on. Apache will be stable as well. But that is IF.
Why WASTE MILLIONS marketing linux when web2.0 and http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?7027 allow dummy installation training?
As far as infrastructure goes, you've got AD, Exchange, and potentially file servers. File servers are the easiest, as you can drop in Linux based systems with Samba seamlessly. AD can be replaced with LDAP depending on how deeply you drank of the MS koolaid. Which leaves Exchange, a pretty horrid POS, but better than many alternatives (Notes?, no thank you). In either event, training the single digit percent of workers who may not have gotten comfortable with Vista in that time is infinitely less costly than educating users on how to use software that neither looks nor behaves like they're used to. You, however, seem to be supporting my argument in that aspect, and you're the one who seems to be forgetting that the users aren't always very tech savvy. Considering how many users are still running some version of Win9x... I think you far over-estimate how many people will be running Vista enough to be familiar with it. There's also a large number of us that have looked at Vista and said "No Thank You". The DRM crap in Vista is reason enough to ditch it. Add on the phone home crap (for the tin-foil crowd) the effects of the DRM in significantly reduced performance and you have no reason to switch. (And for those like me who can't even stand XP's reduced performance with the useless fisher price eye-candy, that performance hit is even more noticeable.) The fact that you're saying that a Linux alternative would bring on "no losses in productivity and training" doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence in your knowledge on this topic, as I'm sure most objective people would agree.
As for Office 2007 having a Fisher Price UI, they said exactly the same about XP. Look at where that got them. That latter line should say something - XP was FP compared to Win2K, and now Vista is FP compared to XP....
But back to the topic: I note that I presented scenarios based on what I see really happening, supported by published reports. You respond first by hand-waving, and now by attempting to disparage me. I can only surmise that you've run out of "facts" and even opinions to argue with. I must conclude you have no real knowledge of how people and corporations work, and perhaps this posting will educate you a little. I'll trickle in one more trinket: not a single corporation I'm aware of has moved or even stated they have plans to move to Vista. That includes my current company that's (prematurely) jumped on the Office 07 bandwagon, but then again, we're high tech and small....
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Heh, from that reply, I can tell that debating with you is going to be like talking to a brick wall. Saying that LDAP can replace AD with no required training and no loss of productivity is preposterous, as pretty much anyone in the business would agree. Even saying that a linux distro is ever going to create a completely smooth transition from XP with no loss of productivity and no training required is ridiculous to the point of inanity. Anyone with any kind of knowledge about it, and with any kind of experience implementing this stuff in a business environment will attest to that. That is clearly an indication that you have neither to any significant extent.
As for Windows 9x use in the Western world, it is insignificant and diminishing. Unless you can provide any of those published reports you claim to be supported by, I'm going to assume that you're just pulling this out of a dark orifice.
You haven't presented anything more credible or objectively supported than I have yet, and yet you appear to believe that your observations are somehow more credibly without knowing my background at all. I can only surmise that you've never actually had any intention of debating this, and that you're stuck in the same track, convinced that you're right, and everyone else is wrong.
You come off as a bitter old man who is out of touch with reality, and out of touch with the needs and desires of the users who will ultimately be operating this software. I interact with hundreds of these people ona daily basis, and I can assure you that the general consensus is that Windows XP is fine, there's nothing wrong with the UI, and that of the people who've tried Vista, the majority are positive towards it.
Your views are jaded to a painfully obvious extent.
Heh, from that reply, I can tell that debating with you is going to be like talking to a brick wall. Saying that LDAP can replace AD with no required training and no loss of productivity is preposterous, as pretty much anyone in the business would agree. Even saying that a linux distro is ever going to create a completely smooth transition from XP with no loss of productivity and no training required is ridiculous to the point of inanity. Anyone with any kind of knowledge about it, and with any kind of experience implementing this stuff in a business environment will attest to that. That is clearly an indication that you have neither to any significant extent.
In short, you're stuck on the IT view, and the training of the IT dept you're in. In a well-run IT dept, you only wind up training a few IT people compared to thousands of other employees. Which do you think is cheaper? Training a handful of tech people to properly support a system vs teaching many an entirely new way of working?
I'll also note that I never said such a transition was "free" in the sense of no cost, and I never mentioned anything in the context of the IT dept supporting such a change.
So, since we're speaking of the IT dept costs, what exactly is the cost for the IT dept in supporting the new Vista and the loss in productivity? "Anyone with any kind of knowledge about it, and with any kind of experience implementing this stuff in a business environment will attest to that. That is clearly an indication that you have neither to any significant extent."
As for Windows 9x use in the Western world, it is insignificant and diminishing. Unless you can provide any of those published reports you claim to be supported by, I'm going to assume that you're just pulling this out of a dark orifice.
Actually, they claim about 3% of active web users. If you're still running 95/98/ME, what are the chances you're actually on the web? We all know that web statistics mean diddly.
I interact with hundreds of these people ona daily basis, and I can assure you that the general consensus is that Windows XP is fine, there's nothing wrong with the UI, and that of the people who've tried Vista, the majority are positive towards it.
Ahh, the old anecdotal argument. Well, out of the folks I know, who of course only work at little ole Fortune 500 companies and the like, not a single one likes Vista, not a single one is looking to deploy it, and only two folks that aren't in a decision chain even remotely accept it as their current OS. The rest are running XP, uninstalled Vista if they had it, or have switched to Macs within the last 2 years. (I should mention that my particular circle tends to work with business apps that deal with triffles of billions of dollars and the like, and therefore their opinions, desires, and wants are probably completely irrelevant.)
Your views are jaded to a painfully obvious extent.
Quite the contrary. I speak from experience. I will admit to you that I actually held a recently expired MCSE (finally, Hooray!). I'm probably responsible for successfully installing more MS crap than your entire circle of friends, acquaintances, and their friends and acquaintances combined (this is a really really large number), but lets not let that weigh on this. Vista is shit. Pure and utter shit. If you can't see that, you're blind. It might succeed precisely because you and many like you are blind. I hope that won't come to pass.
But that's my opinion and desires. The debate is about XP vs Vista and 3 years hence and my statement that Linux makes a better replacement for XP than Vista. Since Linux has been dubbed (with the KDE interface) an XP wanna be, and Vista most certainly isn't, that would say that merely by that criticism leveled by those that wish to disparage Linux that the Linux KDE interface is already closer to XP than Vista is, as Vista is a
The cesspool just got a check and balance.