Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Extends XP's Life By 6 Months
hairyfeet writes "Despite Microsoft releasing Windows Vista more than nine months ago the adoption rate has not been as Microsoft hoped. Bowing further to pressure from OEMs and consumers, Microsoft has extended the life of Windows XP, which was due to end sale by OEMs on January 1 next year, to a new date of June 30. Asked if this was an indication of a strong demand for XP, a Microsoft representative sought to downplay the extension, stating 'We wouldn't term it strong, we would describe this as accommodating a certain element who needs more time.'"
Jan 1 -> June 30? Isn't that 6 months?
Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
Plain and simple. I'm no big fan of MS, but XP is really a decent piece. If it aint broke, don't fix it.
> We wouldn't term it strong, we would describe this as accommodating a certain element who needs more time.
A certain element? What a lovely way to degenerate paying customers who have no interest in being force-fed your latest horse shit product!
BAHHHAHAHAHAA! You should work in marketing! :)
Microsofts Definition of "Certain Element"
eve-ry-one
pronoun
Every person; everybody.
...but it was inevitable. Think about it: while Windows Vista is a great operating system and a recommended upgrade from Windows XP, it has been shown all too many times that there are still growing pains evident with it. There are many drivers that are still being tested and revised due to vastly new frameworks implemented by Microsoft (Creative's situation immediately comes to mind, even though it's thankfully been resolved). Furthermore, there are many software packages that have or will definitely have compatibility issues with Vista (financial applications are a huge example of this, since they tend to be much more conservative. I'm not including the super-large firms that absolutely need to continue relying on extremely antiquated software).
While officially removing Windows XP support will be mostly transparent to end users, developers will be forced to migrate all of their time and energy to a new operating system with a lot of changes under the hood instead of spending time steadily updating current software while researching and testing compatible Vista software as well. Many IT managers and decision-makers will have to devote much more energy to supporting Vista faster, which can result in less-than-stellar results (it's corporate habit to accept a new operating system much later than their introduction).
I think this is a good way for Microsoft to ensure that they keep the risks of transition as minimal as possible. Vista migration will undoubtedly happen, but it's best that it is slow and exceptional rather than rapid and disappointing (as many users are quickly finding out).
XP = Reliable sports car, great aftermarket support, uses regular gas
I'll give you great aftermarket support, if your talking about third party
I'll even give you uses regular gas, provided you concede that linux can use regular gas mixed with equal parts of water.
I have a little problem with Reliable sports car, maybe it should be more of reliable sporty sedan. Sports car seems to suggest performance that isn't there unless you use premium gas. (Extra memory, Larger Hard Drive, fairly new graphics card)
But of course this is all IMHO!
"Extends XP's Life"
If I were a Windows user, this language would make me sick to my stomach. This is the reason I use GNU software: the "life" of that software is as long as somebody wants to use it. RMS isn't sitting in the offices of the FSF waiting to pull the plug on Linux 2.6 so that people have to buy Linux 2.8; (this might upset Linus a little bit too). Moreover, even "dead" GNU programs can come back to life, if somebody is willing to dig up the body and run it through the compile-o-matic.
If the market wants Windows XP, let them buy it until there isn't enough plastic left on Earth to mint another CD. Software can't "die" unless a very greedy vendor decides to murder it in cold blood. "Extends XP's Life" should be rewritten "Decides Not to Shank XP/XP Users".
Microsoft is playing chicken with the free market, and they are going to lose.
This doesn't seem like a huge disaster for Microsoft to me.
These people are still buying a MS Windows license. Maybe they'll even buy an upgrade to Vista later.
-Dave
Win2k doesn't have activation.
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
XP sucks. It simply sucks less than Vista.
Deleted
Those of us who support Linux, I stated on the last article like this, the slower adoption of Vista is, the more time it buys Windows users. So consider this. What happens if we get a "Golden" Wine that can run some killer Windows App XP can, Vista can't. All the sudden you have a small targeted dent in MS's market share that makes a big dent.
What are some ways the calculating Linux user can use this to further undermine MS?
Why should a product that's designed to be used in a production environment receive an end-of-life? Shouldn't they have various platforms with ongoing support for different end-use? For example, companies have built software on Windows XP that refuse to work on later versions, or later versions have different properties (i.e. certain APIs no longer supported, 3rd party companion software that won't run on the new OS, different security model imposes different behaviour in the new OS, different licensing schemes not compatible with the software)... if MS cares about its developers that have invested in the platform they put out, wouldn't they keep supporting them? How could developers choose to program for a platform that's essentially a moving target that they can never lock down, and that they have to keep paying MS to use their own software, and even make changes to their software to accomodate MS's changes in their OS? Plus, every time you want to sell your solution to a customer, you have to charge them for MS's products as well. If you have software that requires Windows and Office, and you sell it to someone, you have to sell them Office and Windows and whatever other applications along with it, promoting MS's product, or at least putting your customers in the same position that MS is putting you in as a developer. Except that MS's support and guarantees are limited by their EULA. Isn't programming on Windows like an endless chase? Does it pay off in any way?
Twinstiq, game news
Some people won't move to the next Windows until SP2. A lot won't move until SP1 is out. SP1 isn't ready yet, ergo, accomodate the wait-for-SP1 crowd.
You'll see a lot of other interpretations on Slashdot, but I just don't see them bearing out for most businesses or in the non-Slashdot world in general.
I've wondered this myself... If I want go install MS-DOS, Windows 3.x, Windows 95/98/ME, NT4, or 2000 now or in the future (on an old PC or in a VM), I can do that right now... Sure, I'm unsupported but at least I can do what I need/want to do with that old OS. Will I be able to do that with XP years from now???
If not, then Microsoft is saying that I can no longer use an application I bought!
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
No, they didn't make it so appealing users want to keep old. They made the upgrade so appalling that users don't want to buy new.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Not really. Most systems are being bought w/ Vista and a "downgrade" to XP. For the price of Vista, you get Vista and XP. All you need to do is install Vista if they ever get enough bugs out of it for you to use it.
If Micro$oft put out good products, a lot of us would be out of a job! ;->
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
Yeah, plugging in your USB thumb drive and finding out the helper software won't run on Vista is really increased usability. Finding out that your two year old scanner won't work for lack of drivers is increased usability.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I think Vista is slow to be adopted for a few reasons. It's different and non-technical people don't like different. I heard similar things about XP when it came out. It's more restrictive. Getting prompted to do little stupid things is annoying and not being able to do things you did in XP is equally frustrating. Need to upgrade PC's. Many people don't want to run it on their 3 or 4 year old PC and have it run sluggishly. Oh, and activation. I have to say though, I just bought a new laptop with Vista Business and I didn't like it at first either. Now that I've been using it every day along with office 2007, I like it. Of course I had to turn UAC off though. Can't stand that. I think people will warm up to in once they start using it everyday.
It makes no sense to me for MS to stop selling XP. The demand for XP and Vista should occur naturally through consumer demand. Either way, MS gets a sale. Why try to artificially control demand?