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.'"
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.
"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 is why you should NEVER use a product that requires "activation".
Just say no to mandatory registration, dongles and other similar shenanigans.
This isn't even a "pro free software" or "anti commercial" thing. Not all
commercial software vendors choose to treat their customers like this.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
XP sucks. It simply sucks less than Vista.
Deleted
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
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 ----