Slashdot Mirror
No XP Reprieve; Windows 7 Release Set
CWmike writes "Microsoft has laid to rest rumors that it might reconsider pulling Windows XP from retail shelves and from most PC makers next Monday. Microsoft's Bill Veghte wrote to customers reiterating that June 30 would be the deadline when Microsoft halts shipments of boxed copies to retailers and stops licensing the operating system directly to OEMs. However, Veghte did leave the door open to all computer makers, even the largest, who want to continue selling new PCs with XP pre-installed. 'Additionally, Systems Builders (sometimes referred to as "local OEMs"), may continue to purchase Windows XP through Authorized Distributors [such as Ingram Micro] through January 31, 2009,' he wrote in the letter. 'All OEMs, including major OEMs, have this option,' said Veghte. At the same time, Microsoft confirmed Windows 7 would ship in January 2010. Who, if they have not already, would install Vista now?" Microsoft has said they will post the letter, but it's not up yet.
"Who, if they have not already, would install Vista now?"
I heard Mac OS X 10.6 is supposed to come out next year. Who, if they have not already, would install 10.5 now?
Typical, clueless geek-centric comment. We geeks install a new OS every other month, but almost everybody else just uses whatever came with their system. When they begin to feel out of date, they don't upgrade the OS, they get a whole new system.
So nobody's outside geekworld is saying "Should I install Vista". If they think about OS issues at all, they're thinking, "Hey, I hear Vista really sucks. Maybe I should get an XP system while I still can."
I don't remember the exact version but I think it was Netware 3 that was solid as a rock. Then the next version was total crap upon release use users didn't upgrade. Even the following update were flaky so users stayed on the old version. The Novell was in getting into deep sneakers without upgrade revenue coming in. They finally started getting the problems worked out, but users were content with the old version and still had little interest in new version. After another major upgrade users started updating slowly.
MS seems to be in the same situation the got XP patched up to be a solid Windows OS and what problems there are are well known so not a big deal. Vista price and stability isn't a attractive enough move the masses. MS has far deeper pockets than Novell so it hurts, but isn't lethal.
Personally I wish MS would grow a pair like Apple has over the years and build a new OS from scratch and not worry about backward compatibility. Apple has done it what three times since the beginning. They give developers and users a couple years of warning and move forward. MS talks about it but never does it, they definitely have the deep pockets to do it.
When does SP1 appear? That's the date that matters. You figure 2011 and it starts to seem like a decade with XP.
By reducing the ability of its own customers to choose their operating environment, Microsoft drives them toward Linux and Apple.
I was just musing ... Microsoft have now effectively dictated that you can't run XP on a new computer (ignore the matter of "downgrade" rights for the time being). I guess they won't allow a customer to get a new license for XP for an existing computer (say they wanted to switch away from Linux and don't have any current Windows license). So they're effectively saying that if you want to run Windows, you have to run Vista. It's really a matter of denying choice, given how different XP and Vista are. How long can it be until Microsoft says that you're not allowed to _continue_ to run XP?
Looking at the parallels with Linux ... who would want to run a Linux distro from 2001? (That's how old XP is). Answer is nobody, unless your hardware is so old that you can't run anything newer. No linux folks will support a distro dated 2001. Isn't this a forced upgrade? I don't think so, because with linux, upgrading is a continuous process ... when you upgrade from 2001 versions of software through to 2008 what you are getting is basically the same thing, just better. Your kernel gets faster (and bigger), your devices work better, your window manager gains more features (and sometimes changes entirely, but you can choose your window manager). So, barring old/slow/small hardware, there's no reason not to upgrade linux.
Contrast with Windows - upgrade is a discontinuous process. You have to pay them for the later version, of course. And a lot of things change (for Microsoft's reasons), and you don't really get to choose much.
You know what sucks? I hate microsoft a LOT. More than most people possibly, but it doesn't matter how screwed up their OS's get, I will never switch to Linux which I love dearly (in its use and philosophy). That's because Linux will most probably NEVER:
-Let me run my old PC games
-Let me run current PC games (without great hassle)
-Let me run applications specific to my line of work (3d studio max, maya, premiere, photoshop, and various game engines)
I've a relatively good idea that a large number of people are stuck at the same problem. There's just no way, no matter how good Linux gets, that it can make up for years of an MS-owned market. They've clinched two decades of my life and PC usage, and my investigations have shown me that I need to do a great deal of tweaking to get a linux install to the level of a crippled windows OS. :(
It totally. Fucking. Blows. The open source Windows OS project someone pointed out a few months back was the only sign of a real, working alternative I've ever seen.
I recognize Vista was a turd, but can you folks even bother educating yourself about what 7 is supposed to be before bashing it? Right now this is being advertised as performance and security increases, not "a new desktop theme," as people keep saying it. The leaked internal build shows a 40-50% memory usage decrease since Vista. In my book, that's a good thing, even as a Linux user.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Vista has a bad name in the marketplace. So W7 is just going to be a fixed up version of Vista sold under another name.
My guess is the main thrust will be to speed the thing up and get it to use less memory. And then at the end they will attach some eye candy to try and entice people to buy it.
I'm suspecting that it won't work. They had 6 years to come up with a compelling reason to upgrade to their latest OS and they failed.
From what I understand, you can do all of that stuff with VirtualBox (virtual machine), DOSBox (x86 emulator w/ DOS) and Wine (cross-platform implementation of the Windows API).
DOSBox takes care of basically every vintage game I've ever played and even though VirtualBox needs Windows installed in the virtual machine, it has a 'seamless' mode that allows you to have the Windows apps running 'outside' of the virtual machine. That's a sucky explanation and it'd be easier to explain if I had a pencil and paper.
Wine recently reached version 1.0 and, as I believe a sibling post pointed out, it should be able to run Photoshop perfectly well. The open source Windows project you mentioned, ReactOS, shares some of its code with Wine (which is how the two projects have managed to make some great advances in certain areas), so there's a nice little tie-in.
ReactOS is currently at about version 0.3.5, so we'll probably have to wait a while for a fully stable version to come out. The day it does will be a good day. A very good day.
Sorry guys, us mortals dont know how to run scripts and compile our own builds.
I've see this kind of comment more and more on Slashdot over the last few years. When did the average Slash user stop being able to do geeky stuff on his/her computer?
Why would you read Slashdot unless you were a hardcore geek?
Put identity in the browser.
If it even half as bad as what I have been reading this could really be a fatal blow for MSFT,or at the very least a very serious wound. From the sounds of it any Win7 machine will have to be plugged into the Internet so it can do weekly "prove you're not a pirate" checks like are being released on certain games ATM,it will be just as buggy and dragged down with DRM crap you can't get rid of as Vista, and will retain the Vista "take 3 steps what you're used to doing in 1" layout that has my customers buying XP machines from me left and right.
One can only hope someone in power will see what a pisspoor job that Ballmer is doing filling Gate's shoes and they'll fire his ass and take a new path,perhaps replacing him with the uber efficient head of the Office team. But IMHO if the next version doesn't do some serious changes to appeal to the office clientele and the gamer crowd they better get used to seeing XP around for a VERY long time. IMHO they should have released a Windows 2007 Professional for the business (and maybe gamer?) crowd and left Vista to the newbie home user instead of trying to force everyone to use an OS so obviously geared to the home. I mean seriously WTF is a business OS doing with Aero? And Bitlocker only for Ultimate and Enterprise and NOT Business? Total stupidity. And as always this is my 02c,YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I can't see why you are happier with the new transition, because most ordinary users (I have to care for) are not. For them, it's not XP or Vista, or whatever, it's the lack of ability to click and install stuff they want to, overdesigned features which confuse more, than help, slow response time, and programs that simply stop working in the new OS. Users use sometimes old software, and dont want to relearn everything, find everything, etc.
Technically Vista may even be a little bit better, than XP was, but it's not the technical issue here, it's the design issue. Vista is just terribly uncomfortable. I have to research everything AGAIN, because somebody has only the job at MS to rename "Install Software", "Software", "Add or Remove Software", whatever it is called in every language to something new. Sometimes I forget to execute an installer as Administrative User, even if my logged in user account is an administrative user. Some stuff crashes for no apparent reason. And they made i18n again something unavailable - in the basic versions.
Having a 98->XP transition may have been worlds back then. however there was win2000 between that, and ME. so basically 98->XP is nonewhatever comparable to XP->Vista, I would say, Vista is simply just the new ME. Fancy, buggy crap.
Vista already does work well, the "funny" jokes around here notwithstanding.
Maybe you shouldn't get your information on operating systems from zealots who emotionally defend some one true way.
Really? That's pretty stupid. The machines that are going to give the most obviously poorest performance with Vista and they aren't offering XP? Seems like they should be focusing on keeping XP available on those machines. Can't look good on Dell everyone someone buys a cheap machine and gets it home only to find it crawls along with pathetic performance. Odd.
No Comment.