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.
Yeah right.
"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?
the release date they announce in June of 2010 will probably be a more accurate one.
More music, fewer hits
I actually like Vista.
I make websites and stuff. Buy one.
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 When they begin to feel out of date, they don't upgrade the OS, they get a whole new system.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.
This is FANTASTIC news for operating systems competing with Windows.
The choices to a complete new users have just improved from an open source point of view:
a) Install Windows Vista. High system specs, buggy to use, even harder to fix, has stupid problems. Also very pricey.
b) Install Linux Distro. Low system specs, buggy to use, some things can be very difficult to fix, has techie aura surrounding it. Did someone say its free?
Gone is good old option c - just install XP which is pretty stable, just about everything works with it and anyone can fix it.
Rejoice opensource!
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
When does SP1 appear? That's the date that matters. You figure 2011 and it starts to seem like a decade with XP.
I actually totally agree. I have used every version of Windows from 2.0 to Vista (I have a fairly beastly tower running Home Premium and use Enterprise under Bootcamp on my Macbook Pro), and I find it to be totally stable, full featured and more problem-free than any of the previous iterations of Windows, including XP.
I am NOT a MS fanboy. The best desktop OS I have used is Leopard. I have a pile of linux boxes of various flavors whirring away in my closet. I worked for ages in X Windows on Solaris and AIX. I really, really liked KDE 3.x, though I haven't used it in a long while. Not a fan of Gnome for the same reasons people whine about Vista (bloat, bugs, UI complaints).
But I still fail to understand the reasoning of all the Vista hate. The one major negative I will give it is that it does have burly system requirements. But modern systems all ship with more than enough horsepower to deal with it fine.
If you want to pick on a current-gen Microsoft OS, I suggest you take a hard look at Windows Mobile. Garbage, even in its most current iteration.
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.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
WinFS?
English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
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.
when it comes time to upgrade, i will be looking towards the lixux distros again. i would have done it by now but my copy of xp is legit and vista isn't worth the bandwidth.
My dad went to OSX and I have migrated to Ubuntu. My employer has finaly officialy stated they are skipping Vista and will wait for the next version. My new dual core machine isn't bothering with dual boot like the old PIII machine. It's all Linux.
The truth shall set you free!
Hi there! My name is Microsoft shill #59329. I'm here to tell you about the exciting new features in Windows 7, and to assure you all that it will be delivered on-time!
Now, we at Microsoft, are aware that whilst people love Windows Vista, some are having trouble with a few of the more advanced features, and the number of resources required to support them. So allow me to show you, dear Slashdot reader, the two major features in Windows 7 that will make it your best upgrade yet!
We'll certainly be on-time, because we're not actually going to change anything. Didn't see that one coming did you Free software zealots? I prostrate myself at the feet of chairman Ballmer, worshipping his tactical genius. You should too (if you know what's good for you)!
Overall, we're confident you'll find Windows 7 to be the Best OS EVAR, and even if you don't: we've kidnapped Linus and Stallman and have them secure in our secret, underground base.
I fully believe that Microsoft management asked the engineers when 7 would be ready, they replied "January 2009" and the managers said "January 2010 it is." I find it highly unlikely that it will be significantly delayed again. No matter how much you want to believe it, Microsoft is simply not retarded.
Windows 7 won't suck. It won't be great either. It'll be pretty decent, probably above average. People will use it and say, "Hey this is better than Vista, and it's sorta fast too." Linux users will keep saying that Linux is better and hipsters will keep saying that OS X is better. Status quo antebellum; this is unlikely to change in the near future. Microsoft's market share will probably dip once Linux hits its stride, but there is definitely a wall for OS X adoption (closed-down software that only runs on high-priced hardware from one manufacturer? It must appeal to the masses).
I've tried to be less extreme in predictions than I usually am. It's just that you get a few people saying that Windows will dominate again, a few people saying that Linux will rise up and defeat them, and then another few saying that OS X will take over. All are equally laughable scenarios.
One of my guys went to a workshop last month run by VMware, looking at some of their new technologies. We (1000 desktops) were at the small end of the attendees: the rest of the people there were mostly from large corporates. The guy in charge wanted a quick straw poll on some issues, one of which was ``are you doing or planning to do Vista?''. Seventy attendees. One hand. A common reason for home upgrades is ``that's what I'm using at work / school / etc.''. As Vista has no traction in those markets, it's losing at home as well. ian
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 Linus is not released within 48 hours on the other hand,
> I will be forced to free Reiser in a crazed attempt
Considering that Linus's wife is a six-time Finnish Karate champion, it would probably be a better movie if she and Reiser have to cooperate in this desperate (but ultimately successful, of course) attempt to free Linus. Reiser would have to wave his "I AM McGyver" card around a lot in order to equalize the power of the main characters, and get killed off dramatically (but redeemingly) at the end after he tries to pull a partial double cross in order to force Linus to add support to the 2.7 kernel tree for the new Reiser5 filesystem (note to scriptwriters: find a nice simple analogy for this for the non-geek viewers).
...for sufficiently large values of '2010,' which, as used by MS, is a variable name.
OK. I'm really worked up now. The statement above is so anti-geek I don't even know how to deal with it.
For example:
Car geeks build them from parts in their garage on the weekend.
Audio geeks spend years building their audio set-up.
Electronics geeks build robots in their spare time.
Computer geeks write scripts, compile stuff, delve into the lowest parts of the computer, and just generally do stuff that "humans" don't do.
Geeks aren't "human" (in the sense of the average human being talked about). That's why they're called geeks, shunned, and have a reputation for not getting laid. I embrace my geekiness. I come to Slashdot to be with fellow geeks.
Is Slashdot now a site for mere "enthusiasts?" Instead of "Guy installs Linux on calculator watch" articles, are we going to start seeing "How to use your calculator watch the way it was meant to be used" articles?
Put identity in the browser.