Slashdot Mirror
XP Deathwatch, T Minus 2 Weeks
CWmike writes "June 30 is Microsoft's deadline for mainstream computer makers to stop selling new PCs with the old operating system, and the date that it will stop shipping boxed copies to retailers. That's just two weeks away. Computerworld offers a FAQ about XP's approaching retirement after Microsoft's most recent relaxation of the retirement rules, with some details about which machines big-brand computer makers will be selling with XP after June 30. First FAQ: Any sign that Microsoft will reprieve Windows XP's retirement? Sort of."
With Liunx getting in to there market (with moblie PC, sub note books) this can only help.
Does this mean that they will stop all updates and patching for XP as well? Or is that farther down the road?
Either way, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, because soon enough, the updates will stop, XP machines will be virus infested and even my grandma will have beef with Microsoft!
OSS: You run the software you want to run, according to your business interests.
Want to run Linux 2.0 (not that you'd want to)? Sure no probs.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
This is a clear case of a large company making what they want and totally ignoring consumer demand. What people really want is a better version of XP and for continued support. I for one (if I am to use Windows (and then only in a virtualized environment)) would gladly pay $99 or whatever for an upgraded version of XP that is still very much like XP. Apple is making a strong move I feel with Snow Leopard. People like Leopard. They are releasing Leopard, but "better". I'd pay for it in a heartbeat, as stability and speed is well worth money to me. If they made an XP "better", I'd go for it and pay for the upgrade. That's the goal isn't it? For people to pay for the next thing?
But, that's not what they are doing. They figure people want excessively high system requirements, "more secure" environments (which aren't really better security models, just annoying prompts often) and pretty graphics. Hell, I was happy with the graphics in Windows 2000, and in fact when I use XP I turn it back to Win2K themes always.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
XP is here. It works. It works well. It has drivers. It's fast. Vista has been a complete disaster for Microsoft. It's here, but it doesn't work well, lacks drivers and is slower than molasses. The record 'sales' of Vista that Microsoft has been bragging about is only due to preinstallations, and everyone knows it. I got Vista on a new laptop, loved the pretty colors but within a few months learned it was pure crap, deleted it, installed XP and never looked back. Microsoft: It's time to fall on your sword. Admit that Vista was the disaster it is: Every else already knows that. Sanction the developers that screwed it up so badly, and Fire the bureaucrats who would rather see Microsoft go down the tubes that admit they made a huge mistake with Vista.
The restructured Users folder, for example. Finally 'My Music' is moved out of the My Documents folder, making backups, once again, possible for basic end users.
The improved desktop rendering, which small matter though it may be, was well overdue for an overhaul.
There are some things which are worse in Vista, and we all know about them.
The copying speed.
The shutdown menu, and the fact that hibernation NEVER works.
Ultimately however, and this is where I intend to get relevant, there is nothing significant enough to recommend a switch from XP to Vista. And that's a statement that few people would argue with, and it's a damning statement. The more you think about about, the worse it gets.
And when you step into the world of Enterprise, and big business, things are even worse. In Enterprise, you really, really don't care about shiny baubles. All you care about is that it works, and it stays working, and it never works any worse than it used to.
Aging though it may be, XPs relevancy is not in decline. Windows Server 2003 does not want for much, in the way of mission critical upgrades, and what it does want for, Windows Server 2008 will not be providing.
Amazing. You can't even get Linux distro support for that long which is sad.
Windows: You run the software MS tells you to, according to MSs business interests.
You can run any software that is written for Windows and it will work! That's what makes Windows wonderful.
OSS: You run the software you want to run, according to your business interests.
This may be true, but, how do you run it? What libraries will you need? What the hell is a kernel? What does it mean to compile?
Until there is a bullet-proof installation method - Linux will remain out of the SMB world. The corporate world has a place for Linux on the desktop but NOT because it is open-source. It's because it works, is cheap(er) and fits a need.
Why is the Apple awesome for SMBs? Easy install using thier DMG files.
I personally use Linux for some development stuff, own an iPhone and Mac Mini AND use my Windows Vista laptop for day to day uses. Why? I use what works.
The only sensible definition of "abandonware" is when no-one will claim legal ownership of software. In that situation you can do whatever you want with the software because no-one is around to sue you. This is *clearly* not the case with XP.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The OEMs are still going to supply computers loaded with XP. The license for Vista Business gives you the right to 'downgrade' to XP Pro. You can order a computer loaded with XP and it comes with a license for Vista.
We switched over to the Vista licensed option of the Dell Optiplex almost a month ago. Dell will be shipping with XP for at least a year and the downgrade rights extend into 2010.
There is no issue except that I am sure Microsoft is reporting this as a sale of Vista instead of a failure of Vista...
As I recall, when XP released, the tech community was quite quick to throw flak at Microsoft for releasing a "bug ridden feature bloated OS that hides it's inadequacies behind a pretty interface", with a great cluster of users vowing to never leave their precious, mature, stable, and resource-efficient Windows 2000.
Somewhere along the line, XP mostly shed it's poor reputation, and replaced it with one of stability and speed on modern to previous-generation machines. Somehow, even though Win2k's death clock was ticking, few seemed to notice or care. At some point, if you weren't running XP, you were either a die-hard 2k fan, or you were a business.
Fast forward to now. Vista has been out for 20 months and has seen a service pack. Much of the tech community still throws flak at Vista for having poor driver support, being a resource hog, and often such flak is accompanied by a vow to never leave XP. Vista's reputation may be slowly turning, but inside tech circles, throwing flak is still the norm.
What's the difference?
Quite simple really, XP had a catch-22 situation with buying a new machine. Most users with half a brain cell would turn down Windows ME, as it was as stable as a vial of Nitroglycerin. Here's where XP had the advantage: Windows 2000 was a Business OS, and wasn't put out by Microsoft for Home users, so hence system vendors didn't market it on their machines. Thus, buyers were essentially given a choice: Unstable ME, or Unproven XP.
Vista, on the other hand, isn't coming from such a situation. The 9x line has long since been discontinued. Vista's SKU's are only competing against one predecessor: XP. New system buyers have a different choice than a few years ago: Proven XP, or Unproven Vista.
As far as I'm concerned, Vista isn't half bad. If there's a faulty driver, it will be brought to it's knees, but then again, so will XP. I'm running 2 machines and both have Vista as the OS, and thus far I've had only minimal problems.
Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
Camping on quad since 1996.
How's that Aero workin for ya on XP?
Camping on quad since 1996.
You can run any software that is written for Windows and it will work! That's what makes Windows wonderful.
No. Clearly you haven't installed much windows software or know much about how the API works, what parts of it work under which OS's. Just for example you can't run any windows software that uses DX5 specific calls under NT4. Just like there is no DX10 support for XP. Even outside of DirectX. It's trivial to find software that will install or run under one version of windows but not another.
Until there is a bullet-proof installation method - Linux will remain out of the SMB world.
Windows doesn't have a bullet-proof install method. It's not bad but please lets not play pretend.
"Must repurchase the OS to gain feature additions and accumulated bug fixes."
Excuse me, I think you have Microsoft confused with Apple.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
MS *has* to do this because their latest OS release, well, in a word, sucks.
OTOH, Linux distros generally improve significantly with each new release, in fact so well and so quickly that supporting 12 year old tech just isn't feasible on any kind of large scale, especially when the upgrade path is so easy. Bonus - because of how Linux is designed, there isn't any need for you to run a 12 year old OS, either. There are always newer distros which run fine on really old hardware (Puppy, DSL, Antix, etc...).
I don't think that this "12 years of support" is a good comparison, there's really no basis for it that I can see. It's not like MS *wants* to do it... Instead, it's a fait accompli for them, or people will leave in droves, IMO.
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
Will MS allow activation of XP after the cutoff date? For example, if I buy 50 copies of XP to hold my business over for a year, will I be able to activate them later or are they going to just cut it off?
It's not the grand Longhorn promise of a secure seamless powerful new architecture so it doesn't renew our indenture to this monopolist for another decade. Some few don't hit the pain points and can come to like it so they latch onto it like it's garlic at a vampire festival. It's going to be really hard to pry it away from those folks. It not quite lame enough to give a total pass -- there's always a chance with this tweak and that patch and the other workaround and all new hardware (again!) it might make a good golden image though that keeps not panning out so far. It has just the precise level of fail needed to cause the maximum amount of ire amongst purchasers of Microsoft products, leading them to ask "why, again, do we buy products from this company?" It has motivated far more people to see the hazard of single-sourcing your server and desktop architecture, particularly with this company as the source.
Vista just might be the product to free us from the clutches of this monster. So yeah, I'm starting to appreciate it in my own way. =)
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Lots of anti-MS people will (after a bit of discussion) admit that XP is probably the best Windows ever.
Yeah, but three years ago they would have said the same about 2000 Pro, and would have told you that XP was a bloated piece of crap with a playskool theme.
And now people are whining and griping about Vista the same way they were about XP when it came out. Yawn.
Comment of the year
Absolutely not. I have a friend who works at MS who feels the same way. He feels Vista is just fine.
That's the problem though. It's just fine with no real reason to upgrade unless you're buying a new system. From what I see of my clients most of them are worried about keeping their jobs (Jobs? heh) and saving money, and the last thing on their mind is buying systems for their department or themselves.
-
Linux support is far worse than Windows support.
It's harder for Linux users to mess up their machines but the monthly patches and frequent updates to the distributions (the whole OS changes every six months or so) is a nightmare to keep up with.
I never saw a Windows update yet which required me to manually recompile the webcam driver. I've spent months of my life recompiling webcam drivers for rooms full of Linux machines (cybercafes).
No sig today...
If you're a big corporation with tens of thousands of machines, many of which will struggle with Vista, what does Vista bring to the table? Why should you spend tens of millions upgrading all those machines to Vista?
I can't think of a single good reason*.
When buying new machines, why would you want Vista on them instead of XP. Having to support two different operating systems is crazy.
[*] nb. XP CAN be locked down tight if you make an effort to do so and when users aren't expected to install their own software.
No sig today...