Olympic Committee Chooses XP Over Vista

Vinit writes "The popularity of Windows XP is still making things difficult for Vista. Now Vista has again suffered a major setback, with Lenovo (Olympic 2008' official sponsor) installing XP on it's machines to run the Olympic Games' vital PC-related tasks. Vista will only be used in internet lounges set up for athletes to use during the games."

Comments

Hmm

[okinawa_hdr]

At what point does an OS mature enough that it becomes "enough for general use"? Maybe XP is that mark.

It's Probably Just

[JamesRose]

THe specialist software that it runs not yet being rewritten for vista- I'm sure it'd work on vista, but in an international event like this you really don't want to get things misbehaving or acting just slightly differently. Of course in 4 years time vista will be standard and they'll be no question of using anything else- or possibly using the next version of Windows.

Re:It's Probably Just

[Anonymous Coward]

But the /. spin is that Vista is horrible and that even the Olympics isn't using it. The logical reasoning of the software they are using just not having a Vista version makes too much d@mn sense and doesn't bash MS.

And let's put it this way to the person who posted this story, you do realize that the largest sporting committee in the world choses Windows over Linux.

Doesn't that just make you steam, eh?

It Isn't The Popularity of XP

[NeverVotedBush]

That is making things difficult for Vista. Vista is making things difficult for Vista.

Just about every day there are stories of how it can't do something important, or has some kind of security flaw, or won't work with this or that hardware, or needs even more system resources to even run.

What is making XP "popular" is that it doesn't have the problems Vista does. It is no advantage to XP. It's that Vista has so many faults. This isn't unlike the Microsoft even versions of DOS that sucked too.

Is anybody surprised?

[WIAKywbfatw]

Lenevo is choosing to go with an older, well-established OS that's tried and tested for the "mission critical" stuff rather than a newer, less tested one. So what?

Is anybody surprised at that? Would you do things differently?

When you have to look after everything from press accreditation to publishing results, from scheduling to putting up the correct names of competitors, and doing it all in a multitude of languages and to the tightest of schedules, what would Windows Vista bring to the party that Windows XP wouldn't?

To use a car analogy, Windows XP has been around the block, been put through its paces, had its engine tuned and is humming nicely, whilst Windows Vista has barely had more than its tyres kicked in the dealer's forecourt. If you were taking a 5,000 mile road trip across a continent, which would you go with?

Why anybody would be surprised at this decision, or even see it as a failing of Windows Vista, is beyond me. If you're going to go with a Microsoft OS, then common sense makes Windows XP the obvious choice.

Major setback

[Reckless Visionary]

"a major setback"

Come on, really? Complete sensationalist bullshit. Why don't we keep it up and refer to these meaningless events as "the final nail in the coffin" or ones that "spell doom" or "darken the horizon" for Vista. In case you hadn't noticed, the money's all going to the same place.