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."
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.
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.
I think I missed your point here. Linux runs on more hardware, more architectures and more platforms than Windows ever has. Linux has support for hardware, protocols, filesystems and technologies LONG before Windows does. Linux had the first, working Wireless USB drivers and specification before Microsoft even thought about it. Linux has more software applications available to it (by several orders of magnitude), and even runs most Windows software if necessary.
So what exactly were you trying to say above? Because I missed it. If you want something that supports current, bleeding edge hardware and software, Linux is the only way to go. If you want something that supports 15+ year old hardware, Linux is the only way to go.
If you want to play games on your computer and not much else, Windows is probably a good fit.
So you are still on the upgrade treadmill. Its not as forced as windows
If you care about security updates and support for newer applications software the linux upgrade treadmill is far worse than the windows one.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
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.
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.
If the vendors don't provide documentation or aren't cooperative with our efforts to support their hardware, then they simply don't gain a huge amount of users purchasing and using their hardware.
Not a Linux problem.
If it doesn't work on Linux and it works on Windows, it's still a problem, nonetheless. Shifting the blame doesn't solve it.
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.
After you've used Linux for a while, or really any GPL software, listening to someone go on about your "downgrade rights" is just damn funny. People pay money for "downgrade rights". Gotta love that pointy headed boss corp speak.