# Windows XP's Days are Really Numbered Now



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

From PC World:

*Windows XP's Days are Really Numbered Now*


> In 10 weeks, Microsoft Corp. will begin to retire Windows XP by shifting the seven-year-old OS into a more limited support plan.
> 
> Windows XP, Microsoft's most successful operating system ever, will leave what the company calls "mainstream support" on April 14, and enter "extended support." Typically, Microsoft keeps a product in the former for five years, then moves it into the latter for another five, for a total of 10 years. However, the long span between the releases of XP and its successor, Windows Vista, forced the company to push out the support deadline to 13 years altogether.


FULL ARTICLE HERE

Microsoft still doesn't get it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Mark Holtz said:


> Microsoft still doesn't get it.


Planned obsolecence....they get it...and plan to get it (your money).


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Its their typical process, everyone has known it is coming, and the fact remains they have extended XP's life much longer than any of the other OSes they have put out. Just because they took a bit longer with the successor everyone got too comfortable with XP, in the past it was never such a big problem when people moved to the latest OS (95 --> 98 --> 98se --> 2000 --> XP).

This kinda is like the argument how Vista came out so fast and why are they trying to replace XP...XP is way old compared to how they used to release OSes! It is also showing its age spots in many places even though most IT departments have found work arounds and addons that help with it and dont even think about it.

The biggest problem moving from XP this whole time IMO has not been Microsoft, but third party software. They are all sitting their lazily trying to get people to stick with XP. I have some clients with multi-thousand dollar suites of software that the devs are just saying stick with XP as we dont want to support Vista...this is why MS dropping support for XP is required, to jump start the devs to actually get their stuff up to the times.

O well, it was bound to happen sometime, its not like XP is going to be magically wiped off everyones drives on D-Day.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Yawn!

_'Reports of the impending death of XP are greatly exaggerated.'_


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

I continue to be amazed at how tightly so many people are holding on to such an old OS.

I would feel sorry for these folks if they were Mac users; Macs have radically changed systems twice, killing all backward-compatibility. For the most part, Microsoft has done an amazing job at keeping most things backward-compatible.

But at some point, you have to move forward. XP already barely supports modern hardware, given that virtually every XP install is 32-bit.

Look forward (Win7), not back (XP)!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

WIN XP works, Vista has issues, WIN7 is beta....

Can't come up with a single reason to switch....and I have 2 fully certified copies of Vista Ultimate sitting here in their original sleeves to upgrade whenever I want.

I can come up with a list of reasons why NOT to leave XP, and so can my company's IT department.

Change for the sake of change is foolish.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I used to be one of those first-in-line for upgrade folks... but I learned over the years to hedge a bit.

Windows 95 was a great upgrade over Windows 3.1, and it worked. Windows 98 didn't add a whole lot, but it worked.

Windows ME, however, was crash prone and I regretted ever trying it... so I stayed on '98 until switching over to Windows 2000. Would have switched to Windows NT 4.0 but it didn't do as well on the gaming front as I wanted.

Windows 2000 was stable and solid for a long time... so much so that I didn't switch to XP until a year ago or less. In fact, it was just in the last couple of years that companies started supporting only XP and dropping versions that ran in 2000... so that is telling.

As for Vista, some early stability issues and need for major hardware overhaul will keep me away from that. I'd have to buy a new PC (decided to go with an iMac instead) to run Vista.

Also, I continue to be disappointed on the 64-bit front. Not much application support yet (even major players like Adobe barely support 64-bit anything) despite 64-bit architecture being around for many years now.

So, ultimately, I learned "if it ain't broke, don't upgrade it" from experience... and it has served me well.

I wouldn't mind at all upgrading to newest/latest/greatest from Microsoft if it was in fact always "greatest"... but all too often it is not, at least until the first Service Pack gets issued.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I wouldn't mind at all upgrading to newest/latest/greatest from Microsoft if it was in fact always "greatest"... but all too often it is not, at least until the first Service Pack gets issued.


There's that unwritten law that many I know follow....

Never install an OS until Service Pack 2 is out at least 90 days...


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Great, this thread will turn into Vista bashing again 

EDIT: Removed my comments, I dont feel like getting into it.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> There's that unwritten law that many I know follow....
> 
> Never install an OS until Service Pack 2 is out at least 90 days...


That law keeps changing. It used to be SP1, then SP2, then SP3, then SP4, then SP1 again, now SP2 

Seems no matter what the past is always better then the future, but when a new future comes out the past future looks great


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

I'm an XP holdout. That said, I'm running 7 beta on an old laptop, and it's terrific. It's running like a champ in 1 gig of memory, and impresses me as feeling a bit snappier than XP SP3, though comparison tests I've seen don't bear that out.

I can't find a driver for my HP PSC2510 printer, however (the Vista driver for it doesn't seem to work on 7). And since all the programs I use run just as fast in XP, I'm not sure what I"m going to do when the 7 beta expires. I've got one desktop and 2 laptops at home I'd need to upgrade, and I'm not sure what bang for the buck I'll get for the $$$ it will cost. I'm assuming around $150 per computer.

The two things built into 7 that I like a lot (SEARCH and DEFENDER) can each be separately installed in XP SP3. The rest of it is mainly GUI enhancements, which I can live without or duplicate with 3d party shareware.

/steve


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Grentz said:


> Great, this thread will turn into Vista bashing again


I hope not. I'm not a Vista basher myself... it just doesn't meet my needs. It will not run on my older computer, and when the time came to upgrade to newer/faster hardware I found an iMac that suited my needs better since I wanted to explore programming on the iPhone in addition to my usual stuff.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I hope not. I'm not a Vista basher myself... it just doesn't meet my needs. It will not run on my older computer, and when the time came to upgrade to newer/faster hardware I found an iMac that suited my needs better since I wanted to explore programming on the iPhone in addition to my usual stuff.


I was not directing my comment directly at you, this is just how those type of threads tend to start. I hope it does not turn into one of those either


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

We need to complain to Congress so they can start issuing"Computer Coupons"!.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> WIN XP works, Vista has issues, WIN7 is beta....
> 
> Can't come up with a single reason to switch....and I have 2 fully certified copies of Vista Ultimate sitting here in their original sleeves to upgrade whenever I want.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty much in the same boat. I have a fully licensed copy of Vista Ultimate but see to reason to install it. The WinXP MCE I have been running for years still works quite well.

If it works, don't fix it.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

The $200 upgrade isn't really a $200 upgrade. You also have to upgrade the software because the previous version of the software may not work in the new operating system. So, you end up spending several hundred dollars on the upgrade. 

This was in 1995, and Windows 95 was launched. And that was a succesful launch of a new operating system over MS-DOS 3.1 and Windows 3.1. So successful was that launch that, on December 31st, 1999 at 11:59 PM, we discontinued all support for Windows 3.1 at the ISP I worked for. 

So, what's the difference? There are more installed machines of XP than they were of Win 3.1. XP has been integrated into office environments, while Windows 3.1, 95, 98, and Me were primarily home OS. Windows NT4, 2000, and XP were deisgned for networked office environments. 

And, there have been occasions where the install of a patch, hot-fix, or a service pack broke an application. XP SP2 was a very stable fix, but it, too, broke stuff. 

Vista broke a lot of stuff when it came out, and it's UAC is much reviled. When I purchase equipment, my hope is that it lasts at least 5 years. We had people who had equipment which was less than 3 years old that did NOT work with Vista, and were told to purchase new equipment for the support. It gets harder when you are interfacing with equipment that costs several thousands of dollars. (Yes, the same type of equipment that only talks with IE6)

Lets also not forget.... locked down environments. Some companies are so paranoid that they lock up the enviroments so that you cannot install any software or make any changes to your desktop. Any software updates or bug patches must be blessed by IT. Getting these companies to move to a newer version is a painful experience.

And, last time I checked, we are in a sour economy. Businesses are cutting expenses everywhere, and IT is an expense that needs to be cut. The MBA will ask how many otherwise perfectly good machines will have to be junked to run Vista because they cannot be upgraded. They will ask how much more a machine will cost that will run Vista effective (including 2-4 GB of RAM) verses lower hardware requirements of sticking with XP even with a downgrade license. And, they will ask how much it costs to replace existing infrastructure to support the new OS. 

And that is in a CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT. Do you know how many people I have encountered where the words of their mouths is not, "Vista is so much better than XP", but rather, "I wish I had XP installed instead of this POS"? A friend of mine even asked where he could get a computer (preferably a laptop) which had XP, not Vista, installed. 

I have previously posted an article from Steve Ballmer where he states, "You are stupid for sticking with XP." I can only interpret his statements, combined with this action, as a way to get more money into Microsoft's coffers with very little improvement. Am I very suspicious of Microsoft's actions? Yes. I am very surprised when both Intel and AMD issue processors that are 64-bit compatible, and would benefit from a 64-bit operating system, however, Microsoft still insists on releasing both a 32-bit and 64-bit version of the OS. You can bet that people will have a 32-bit operating system, with the inherent limitations, and barely support 64-bit.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Once video games start being made for 64 bit you'll start to see a lot more 64 bit support. Gaming industry drives the technology and therefor software companies will react sooner. Corporate programs though will always be the last to convert due to the cost.


----------



## B Newt (Aug 12, 2007)

I miss OS/2! It worked great. I use XP now and its been pretty reliable. I will never upgrade to vista.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

IIP said:


> I continue to be amazed at how tightly so many people are holding on to such an old OS.


Given the pain and suffering involved in most of Microsoft's "next great OS" upgrades, it is no wonder people are not particularly excited about upgrading.

It looks at this point like Windows 7 may be an exception to the "rule" that Microsoft makes successive versions worse instead of better. Then again, by the time they hang on the rest of the feeble "bundled" tools and the gigabytes of service packs and Genuine Advantage claptrap, Windows 7 may just be another Mac OS wannabe without the useful bundled software.

Linux is looking pretty hot at this point. I'm impressed with the variety of options and of course, the price is right.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

harsh said:


> Linux is looking pretty hot at this point. I'm impressed with the variety of options and of course, the price is right.


Maybe for some us more technical folks. For the average user, it can still be a bewildering O/S to maintain, IMHO.

One of the distribution developers need to pull an "Apple" and completely hide the Linux plumbing from the end-user. The company that does that and succeeds could make a fortune. I thought it would be Red Hat, but it hasn't happened yet. If I ran Microsoft, I'd have a team of engineers working on such a thing as a "plan B". Who knows, maybe they are? :lol:

/steve


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve said:


> One of the distribution developers need to pull an "Apple" and completely hide the Linux plumbing from the end-user.


You need to investigate what is available today. The Ubuntu distribution is pretty hands-off.

One of the high points of Linux is the ability, like the Amiga of yore, to drop down to a command line when a GUI would only get in the way.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

harsh said:


> You need to investigate what is available today. The Ubuntu distribution is pretty hands-off.


No matter how you or I feel about a distribution, whatever's out there today still isn't being adopted by the masses, which is kinda my point. /steve


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

harsh said:


> One of the high points of Linux is the ability, like the Amiga of yore, to drop down to a command line when a GUI would only get in the way.


I still do this on a fairly regular basis with Vista; I'm not sure why anyone would regard that as being unique.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I think that Mr. harsh means quitting the GUI completely and using only a command line interface. It can be done through restarting but not as easily as it can on Linux, because the GUI is a distinct layer over the OS.


----------



## fmcomputer (Oct 14, 2006)

It's funny that the best programs out there to repair windows are written in linux.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

B Newt said:


> I miss OS/2! It worked great. I use XP now and its been pretty reliable. I will never upgrade to vista.


I developed on OS/2 and was a big supporter. I would not be surprised of IBM was still releasing patches for 1.3. This is another sign regarding commitment in the Enterprise space.

I will stay on XP for as long as possible and when I make my next move it will most likely be in the Mac Direction.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> I will stay on XP for as long as possible and when I make my next move it will most likely be in the Mac Direction.


Actually, I'm an XP fan myself who skipped Vista. After using it for the past month, I will say that if you like XP, you'll like 7. They did a great job with it. That said, when the 7 beta expires. I probably won't pay to upgrade, simply because there's no compelling "7-only" app I want to run. I'll probably just stay with XP until that time. /steve


----------



## crashHD (Mar 1, 2008)

fmcomputer said:


> It's funny that the best programs out there to repair windows are *written in linux*.


Whoa?! Did I miss something? When did linux become a programming language, instead of an OS kernel?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

The problem I have with WIN7, as well as with Vista, is that the GUI locations for many common tasks are totally relocated.

Some common things people use all the time are plain hard to find.

Having worked with Office 2003 for over 4 years...and now updating to Office 2007....I had to drastically re-learn everything I knew - counter-productive to my productivity with Word, Excel, etc...

I spend more time hunting down things in menus and icons now than almost using the software itself.

Having toyed with WIN7 a bit at the CES....I saw the same kind of cryptic and non-intuitive methodology found in Vista. If it was actually better for some reason, I might understand it....but I saw little benefit - just different.

Most of the change is to support graphical, video, and music content.

Anyone converting better allow for months of learning curve.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I wanted to play around a little with Windows 7 beta... but I am running it in a virtual machine under VMWare on my iMac. Unfortunately, this is one configuration where you can't enable 3D graphic support and run the WEI under Windows to allow the fancy Aero stuff in the GUI... so my Windows 7 experience has been a little limited.

Not Microsoft's fault since it is a beta... but until it releases and VMWare fully supports it as a virtual machine, I'm limited in my ability to fully rate it.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The problem I have with WIN7, as well as with Vista, is that the GUI locations for many common tasks are totally relocated.
> 
> Some common things people use all the time are plain hard to find.


There is a learning curve and it is one of the primary reasons I think many do not like it who just sit down and try it for a few minutes/hours.

Once you get used to it though, I must say I am much more productive on a Vista/Win7 machine and like the layout of many things better even if at first look it doesn't seem like they would be any better.

It is nothing new, XP is different from 2000 is different from 98 is different from 95 is different from 3.1, etc. Things get moved as times change and technology changes. Plus some things, like I said, are actually moving to be more user friendly for average users.

Once you learn it, there is no going back IMO. I use XP now and sometimes have to think to myself "why did they do it like that" or "why is this in this place...so much easier to do on Vista". Honestly, there are things that are just more logically placed.

The only negative IMO is some of the networking stuff, but it is much more regular user friendly, which is what they were going for.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

fmcomputer said:


> It's funny that the best programs out there to repair windows are written in linux.


Linux provides a good platform for diagnostic software because:

1. It isn't DOS or Windows based so it isn't as susceptible to virus or malware.
2. It is modular so you can enhance or strip it down as much as you want without having to change operating systems.
3. It isn't spoiled with limitations (disc size, memory mapping) of bygone versions of DOS and Windows.
4. It can effectively work with almost any file system.
5. It doesn't require a license to distribute a bootable disc (you may have noticed that many bootable products use FreeDOS or Caldera/DR DOS).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Grentz said:


> It is nothing new, XP is different from 2000 is different from 98 is different from 95 is different from 3.1, etc. Things get moved as times change and technology changes. Plus some things, like I said, are actually moving to be more user friendly for average users.


Under the watch of Microsoft, technology has done little more than stand still. Compare what they are delivering today to what you could get with some of the other operating systems and it pretty much makes you want to cry. There were some very promising and forward thinking ideas that grew up around the NeXT computer and BEOS as well as what was being done with the Amiga and some of its follow-ons (I've always viewed the Mac OS as somewhat handicapped by a single button mouse and not enough gear-head programmers to get to the bare metal).

Back then, the command line weenies said it just wasn't business-like enough or it was too flashy. After all these years, what do we have?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve said:


> No matter how you or I feel about a distribution, whatever's out there today still isn't being adopted by the masses, which is kinda my point. /steve


But if people such as yourself didn't dismiss them out of hand, there may be more interest among the great unwashed.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> Under the watch of Microsoft, technology has done little more than stand still. Compare what they are delivering today to what you could get with some of the other operating systems and it pretty much makes you want to cry. There were some very promising and forward thinking ideas that grew up around the NeXT computer and BEOS as well as what was being done with the Amiga and some of its follow-ons (I've always viewed the Mac OS as somewhat handicapped by a single button mouse and not enough gear-head programmers to get to the bare metal).
> 
> Back then, the command line weenies said it just wasn't business-like enough or it was too flashy. After all these years, what do we have?


I get that you hate microsoft but that simply isn't true. The only reason computer technology has jumped as much as it has is because of Windows. If using a computer was not easy enough for the masses then it would go nowhere. Why do you think Linux/Unix, OS/2, BEoS, NeXT are not mainstream, or even around, today? It's because people couldn't, or can't, use them easily. Most people have issues using a restore disk. Ask someone to compile a linux kernel and forget it. So technology has advanced much more under Microsoft's watch then anyone else's. Why did the computer boom hit in 92? Windows 3.1 came onto the market. People who had no idea how to use a computer could now navigate and do things that before people had to study.

Now has microsoft done everything well? Hell no ME and Vista are piles of trash in most regards. The ability to custom build your kernel like Linux would be an awesome addition and in general right now when it comes to OS's less is more. They've tried to do too much with the OS rather then letting the OS be the backbone and other software enhance the experience. Remember flying toasters?

Now it could be argued that microsoft actually pushed technology to be developed because technology had to overcome poor coding. Computers had to get faster/more memory to keep up with all the extra garbage that wasn't needed for most people and so forth.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> But if people such as yourself didn't dismiss them out of hand, there may be more interest among the great unwashed.


I disagree. The simple fact is johnny and susie home maker don't want to have to learn all about computers to use one. They will stick with something they turn on and it just works. They don't want to learn about emulators. They don't want to have to deal with command lines if something really gets messed up. They want to be able to go to a store and get software that their friends recommend or that their kids like.

The only chance that a Linux distro would ever have of becoming "main stream" is one that targeted gaming and mmorpg's. If someone could come out with an emu and kernel that ran games better then windows does then the kids would start to adopt it. Until that time it would take Microsoft just saying "we're done you're on your own" before anything else would happen. Then what would happen is Google would come out with an OS for the computer and I think you're going to see that sooner then later.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

harsh said:


> But if people such as yourself didn't dismiss them out of hand, there may be more interest among the great unwashed.


Again, I guess I'm not making my point clearly. I agree that Linux is a viable (maybe even superior option), but until someone makes Linux foolproof (like Apple) for the masses, who are they going to turn to when they need a device driver they don't have? /steve


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

I have two computers that are two years old. They came with XP installed but were sold as 'Vista ready'. The manufacturer sent me a free Vista upgrade disk as soon as it became available. After crashing both computers several times I had to reinstall XP. Many hours in chat sessions and with on line and phone support has not succeeded in installing Vista on either. Stopping support for XP will make both of my two year old computers obsolete.

I have used Vista on other computers and find no problem with it, I just am not ready to replace two computers that are only two years old.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve said:


> Again, I guess I'm not making my point clearly. I agree that Linux is a viable (maybe even superior option), but until someone makes Linux foolproof (like Apple) for the masses, who are they going to turn to when they need a device driver they don't have? /steve


Again, you need to look and see what is available today. It sounds like your opinions are based on dated experiences.

I recently installed Debian 4 on an older Athlon box with on-board sound and Matrox display card and I didn't have to locate or install any drivers at all. It comes with an installed PIM, two or three web browsers and ooo. It doesn't get much more utilitarian than that.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> Why do you think Linux/Unix, OS/2, BEoS, NeXT are not mainstream, or even around, today? It's because people couldn't, or can't, use them easily.


No, it is largely because of the Microsoft FUD machine. Microsoft spent millions casting doubt and aspersions on the competition while it struggled to provide a small portion of the ease-of-use available almost everywhere else. It assured corporations that they needed to have someone with pockets deep enough to sue in the event that something went wrong.

It was (and remains) a business decision based on fear and has little to do with anything desirable.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You know, I say do what works for you. I run 20 Windows XP PCs plus 12 servers at work, as well as 9 Macs and two Linux boxes. At home I've always had PCs. I started with Macs back in 1986, PCs in 1984. I've seen a lot of changes in both. 

I do bristle when people tell me how much they loooooooove their computers (and these are usually Mac people.) I'm happy for them but I'm just not that enthusiastic. And I want to punch Justin Long's "I'm a Mac" character in the face. 

I've owned every version of DOS starting with 3.3, every version of Windows starting with 2.0 (although I've played with 1.0) and that includes Windows ME. I'll agree that the pace of innovation has slowed, but that's perfectly normal as adoption spread. For those struggling with a Vista upgrade, you should have been there in 1995. Windows95 claimed compatibility with DOS and Windows-based programs, but that was a total joke. Vista is much better than that. 

Mac lovers, don't stop and smirk. OS X 10.0 was a major disaster. I didn't migrate to OS X until 2003, 30 months after the OS first came out. Not to mention Apple's "eat-your-children" strategy over the years. First there was System 7 which "sometimes" ran System 6 applications. Then there was the PowerPC, which ran everything at 25% speed because there were no native apps for years. The Classic environment of OSX, when it worked, only kept people going for a few years. That would have been corporate suicide if Apple had a 90% market share. 

I'm not going to champion Microsoft because their OS's have a lot, lot, lot of issues. I'll just say that when you have your software on over 90% of computers, you have to take baby steps.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Shades228 said:


> Why do you think Linux/Unix, OS/2, BEoS, NeXT are not mainstream, or even around, today?


In my opinion, Windows did not reach where it is was because you can use it more easily. Windows 3.1 was not state of the art in the usability spectrum. Windows reached OS dominance mainly on the fact that they created exclusive bundling deals with hardware vendors in the early stages of development, they fostered the development community, they did an excellent job freezing technology advancement through the use of FUD techniques, and used aggressive sales tactics on IT organizations. Similar methods were used to create their browser and word processor dominance in my opinion and as a result in the long run has slowed the pace of technology evolution. To drive technology evolution competition is needed. They did not gain their market share because of superior offerings for their time, it was marketing and non-related business techniques that created their wide spread acceptance.

Don't get me wrong here, Has MS improved over the years in terms of technology offerings, usability etc. In my opinion that would be a Yes. But in my opinion they did not get where they are today because people just found their computers easy to use. In the old days everyone used to complain how hard OS/2 was to install. Of course the same people complaining about it were running there windows boxes that came pre-configured for them. I did both OS/2 and Window installs in those days and both had issues when dealing with configurations where the OS did not have drivers pre-built into. Since windows was strongly aligned with the hardware mfg and in a lot of cases had exclusive access, windows had a huge advantage in those days that made it impossible for a rival OS to make inroads.

In those days as it is today, Computers are seen by the masses as DVD players etc. You buy it, plug it in, use it and perhaps add a few things to it. The masses use what is on it. There was no options given in retail for the 99% at the early stages. Heck, at one time you paid for the cost of Windows even if it was not installed.

This is my opinion are some of the key factors to why we are where we are today combined with the fact that by attacking the desktops of corporate America aggressively they gained mind share and people did not question choice when they went down to their local retail stores. Big comfort level getting what is on your works desktop.

Now to try and steer this back to the topic. Windows sells boxes. Boxes of windows, boxes of Office, and boxes of their other software. So they must sell boxes and to do this they need to keep people upgrading. The only way to do this is to make the new software not run on the old and to try and stop fixing the old software. Stop support. This is what they are attempting to do with XP even though it still offers a lot of value to their customer base and from alot of customer perspectives there is no reason to move. So if there is no compelling reason one must start to make one and that is what MS is attempting to do. Look at Ballmer's comments and this announcement. They are trying to build a compelling reason. Question is... Will they be successful?


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

It is beyond me why people are upset about this. XP is an older product that has run its course. Product is the keyword and it is all about doing business. Is there any business owner here that would want to support work or product they did several years ago for free? Of course not, so why the complaints when you got what you paid for? 

As for Vista, it is only the next product from that same manufacturer. If you don't like it, there are many other options.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

> The only way to do this is to make the new software not run on the old and to try and stop fixing the old software.


This is not really the forum to pursue this but...

I'd agree with this philosophy as sound business if the copyright laws were reformed to allow for "abandonware" and previous-version software to enter the public domain sooner, once the manufacturer has lost interest in supporting it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

phat78boy said:


> It is beyond me why people are upset about this. XP is an older product that has run its course. Product is the keyword and it is all about doing business. Is there any business owner here that would want to support work or product they did several years ago for free? Of course not, so why the complaints when you got what you paid for?
> 
> As for Vista, it is only the next product from that same manufacturer. If you don't like it, there are many other options.


While I obviously wish for unlimited bug fixes forever  I agree that it is reasonable for any company to draw a line in the sand and not look back. In fact, it can be argued there are times that Microsoft, Intel, and other hardware and software companies have not drawn that line soon enough or firm enough and it can stagnate advances.

I just also don't feel the need to upgrade for the sake of upgrading anymore like I used to... When I have something that works, I keep using it until it breaks. I don't expect Microsoft to fix XP forever, but I might try and use it forever.


----------

