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.
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
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?
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.
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....
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,
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...
Microsoft got the number of supported devices in Vista up for some 700 000 at launch, to more than two millions now (close to three millions). However, for some drivers, you must go to the producer.
As of now, we use a Canon laser jet printer in the office (not supported by Vista, got driver from Canon), and an OfficeJet multifunctional (not supported by HP under Vista, supported by Microsoft). The XP drivers allowed faster scanning - much faster scanning in fact. Printing speed is about the same, and we don't send faxes from the server (we use the printer's controls).
So, someone is at fault with your system, and most probably the drivers are flaky. Vista is not (right now) what your computer needs.
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.
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
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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...
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?
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.
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.
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?
Mac OSX Panther/Tiger/Leopard are all major advancements on the previous version; to the point where there is such a significant difference it is fair to call them new. A patch fixes an OS flaw; these are huge updates to the software itself. Major new features are built in; for example - Mac OSX Leopard is UNIX certified, meaning Apple will be one of only a few companies selling such a product.
Microsoft Service Packs do nothing but fix their OS. They could call it "Huge attempt to fix mistakes v1" but that wouldn't look well, would it?
Up until this post I didn't really notice anybody saying Apple was better than Microsoft; they were all wondering what the Service Pack was really for and why Microsoft limited the amount of keys so low and how XP Is cannibalizing the Vista market.
Way to be paranoid and jump the gun.
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
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.
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.
whats so "GOOD" about that support?
----------
Trying to fix or change something only guarantees and perpetuates it's existence
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).
The really sad thing is that most Mac zealots actually expect to have an updated 0.1+ release every couple of years
Vista was delivered years behind schedule and missing promised features. This is not a virtue.
and don't mind to pay the $130 for it
Windows 2000=NT 5
Windows XP=NT 5.1, upgrade RRP $199, the full version is $299 (which of these is less than $130?)
Windows Vista=NT 6, but it's so popular they need to add more keys to XP.
There you have it, conclusive proof that you totally lack any form of clue about version numbers, mathematics, or proficient trolling.
The Mac OS update madness will never stop!
Vista isn't a sign of sanity either.
Blank until
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.
Vista's fully-indexed search is worth the upgrade IMHO. I'm not an organized guy and I need help with finding my docs.
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.
Say it again with me, "This does not stop pirating". This just makes average slob pay twice for software they can't prove they bought. I bought Win XP, except that it appears obviously official, I can't prove it was not installed on another computer. Why? The original computer was stolen, but not the disk.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
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.
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 ----
If you bought the retail version of XP, you can install on another system, then. OEM copies are 'locked' to the first computer they are installed on.
... knew that, right? Or were you trying to mislead people here?
You
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.
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.
Whoever moderated this overrated is a pathetic tool, this is definitely funny even if you might feel slightly offended.
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
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.
Nope... It can only be installed on one computer. While there is nothing to physically stop me, the license states it is to be installed on one computer at a time. The stolen computer has the original install, ergo I can't install it on another.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
If I were you, I'd go ahead and install it, then. If it takes you to phone activation, tell 'em your computer was stolen, feeling free to provide the case number your local law enforcement gave you. betcha a buck they allow the activation.