# Microsoft to extend XP sales five months



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*PC Makers Say Customers Still Want XP*

MSNBC.com:


> Microsoft say it plans to keep selling its Windows XP operating system until the end of
> June 2008, delaying a scheduled transition to its newer Windows Vista by five months.
> 
> The world's largest software maker introduced Windows Vista in January with the plan
> ...


More @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21028201


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Interesting. Looks like XP will still be supported for a while longer.

Every since I started using Vista, I have seen very large improvements over the past several months regarding compatibility. It's getting there.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I like Vista, but it's good to hear that Microsoft is continuing to support XP for longer.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Until SP1 comes out, I'm having a real hard time recommending Vista to people.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

Mark Holtz said:


> Until SP1 comes out, I'm having a real hard time recommending Vista to people.


If I were in charge over at Microsoft, I would release SP1 just to get everyone who isn't making the move until it's released to make the move. 

--- CHAS


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

I kind of knew this would happen, Dell got permission from Microsoft a while back to offer XP as an option on some of their systems as people were complaining that they didn't want Vista. At the same time No Corporation is going to adopt such a resource intensive application like this anytime soon. Forget about the cost of the operating system itself, what about the cost of either the new systems or upgrades for hundreds if not thousands of computers? 

I personally think that XP is probably the best OS that Microsoft has come out with to date for the home user and because of that they are going to find it difficult to get people to switch. There are still a lot of compatibility issues with hardware and software with Vista. So not only will you find yourself buying a new the new operating system itself you might find yourself buying either new or upgraded hardware and or applications as well which obviously can get very costly. 

I'm sure that Vista will take over the world at some point but I'm one of the few that hopes that XP will be around for sometime to come as it does everything that I want / need it to quickly and reliably.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

This is a double edge sword. If companies have to keep up support for old and outdated software, it limits the personnel they can put on releasing new software and upgrades. I understand people don't like to keep spending money, but they can't really expect new features, hardware, etc., for something 7+ years old. Yet thats exactly what people want from Microsoft. They want XP because they want all their old peripherals and software to work, yet they want the newest computer/laptop hardware. Its like one step forward, two back.

I personally haven't had any issues with Vista, but I also didn't try to use any software/hardware that didn't have Vista drivers. If you use drivers/software made for Vista, it is just as stable if not more so then XP.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

So, what compelling reason is there to upgrade to Vista? DirectX 10 is for gamers, not for business. 

What reasons are there not to upgrade? Stiffer hardware requirements, UAC nags, incompatibilities with current versions of software, performance issues, and so on. There was a hotfix that was issued last week that addressed performance issues. 

When I built a new box earlier this year, I built it with both Vista Ultimate 64 as well as XP Pro 32. I use a removable hard drive bays to swap between the OSes. XP still is the continuously used OS, while the Vista drive gathers dust. And, I deal with the corporations, and guess what OS they are using? XP, with no intentions of upgrading to Vista.


----------



## kenlani (Oct 28, 2006)

I bought me a new laptop that is Vista ready, waited for them to mail me a free Vista upgrade, removed my XP and installed it---NONE of my drivers wanted to work with Vista--especially my Camera and Camcorder drivers....Doing a little research (shopping) for a new camera I discovered that the majority of products out there are NOT compatible with Vista and drivers are all in development (read as "one of these days")
In addition Vista is three times as large as XP, difficult to navigate around in---m

I have removed Vista and reinstalled my XP---They can keep XP as a prime system ----IMHO


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

my wifes brand new hp laptop came with a 64 bit version of vista ultimate... and guess what... not compatible with itunes/iphone... boy is she pi**ed...


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

I recently talked with a ham radio friend who spent $2500 on a new VISTA computer and a decal cutter peripheral. He wants to start a small business.

Guess what? The system doesn't work. I looked at the cutter specs. Guess what? It only works with Windows 2000 or XP. I told him to inquire about new drivers. Guess what? They aren't available and the cutter people don't expect them.

'I bought the latest thing and it doesn't work', he just can't understand that. Is he pi**ed.

Microsoft 'rules the roost'!

--- CHAS


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

An acquaintance of mine who is a big computer geek himself works for a Fortune 100 company that is an official beta tester for Microsoft. In fact, Bill Gates himself works closely with this company to gauge feedback and all. This company hates Vista so much that it won't let it be used on any of their own PCs. As my buddy calls it, Vista is "the new Windows ME." 

Not good.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Maybe too late for some of you, but the obvious clue here is... "Don't buy a pc
with Vista preinstalled." Demand XP and if your local big box retailer looks at
you like you're (not your) nuts, walk away and call Dell.

How on God's warming Earth can Microsoft, whose boss has more money than
God himself, foist such a crappy product on its' clueless customer constituancy.


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

Well XP isn't dead yet, usually (like with windows 2000) Microsoft will stop supporting it with no more patches and service packs. I know that Microsoft has been changing the date for XP's official demise lately (now published as Jan, 2009) but the good news is that they are working on Service Pack 3 which is said to contain over 1,000 updates for the seasoned Operating System.

I've also read that SP3 is supposed to include several things that were introduced in Vista. Hopefully that won't break the OS that everyone seems to love so much and are reluctant to get away from.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

There's nothing wrong with Vista. Everything in our house runs on it except for one laptop and that's because it doesn't have enough juice to support it. I've enjoyed rock solid stability with Vista. I was slow to upgrade our media center machine to Vista because of problems with a few drivers, but those are behind me know.

The larger installations I'm familiar with work with their hardware vendor to test their key business applications with a new O/S, make sure it runs AOK, and then pre-image new PCs/laptops before they ship. You have to have rocks in your head to upgrade O/S in a large installation. 

John


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

JM Anthony said:


> There's nothing wrong with Vista.


Oh, there's PLENTY wrong with it. Windows ME may have worked for a few folks, like Vista may, but that doesn't take away from its horrible performance. As I said above, Microsoft is being told just how bad Vista is by their own beta testers. It truly is the new Windows ME, which was the worst OS Microsoft ever produced.

I can tell you this much: even though I doubt it will happen, there has been a lot of rumbling that Vista may even be recalled!


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

How long has Mac's OS X been out?


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

Lord Vader said:


> ... I can tell you this much: even though I doubt it will happen, there has been a lot of rumbling that Vista may even be recalled!


Oh, please. That's too stupid to even repeat. Do you have even a clue how costly that would be in tech labor and end user downtime???

If you're sensible with the hardware you run Vista on (plenty of disk, at least 2 GB RAM) you're fine. I haven't run into any problems with mainstream applications. If fact, I haven't run into any problems at all.

Go bash Larry Ellison or someone else for a while.

John


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

Wow. It seems that whoever is reviewing Vista is really missing all points. To those that have used it and felt XP was better, I do not mean to offend. Vista is more solid and secure then any previous version of Windows, fact. This is of course when using products made and fully supported for Vista. Why is everyone so upset that Vista requires more then XP? XP is almost 7 years old! Of course Vista is bigger(although if you took out the extensive driver list, UAC, and Aero its about the same), as was XP compared to Windows 98. Vista is not slower then XP. If you turned off all the security and visual goodies, it runs just the same. Do you really expect to get HD resolution on your TV thats 7 years old? I don't think so. Do you get mad because you can't use HDMI on your TV thats 7 years old? Then why get mad because you can't use equipment thats up to date? Vista is leading edge and because of that, it will not work with some older software/hardware. It is not Microsofts fault that vendors do not update their items. 

I don't mean to come off wrong, I just think its funny when it comes to computers. Alot of poeple think that every piece of hardware and software they ever owned should work on every computer they ever will own.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JM Anthony_*
> Oh, please. That's too stupid to even repeat. Do you have even a clue how costly that would be in tech labor and end user downtime???
> 
> If you're sensible with the hardware you run Vista on (plenty of disk, at least 2 GB RAM) you're fine. I haven't run into any problems with mainstream applications. If fact, I haven't run into any problems at all.
> ...


If you read my post, you'll see that I said I doubt it will happen. That's my opinion. However, the recall itself isn't. It was reported on the news wires.

If Vista was so good, why did Dell demand that it be allowed to offer its PCs with XP on it and not Vista? Because there were so many problems with Vista that people had *****ed and wanted to remove it and replace it with XP.



> *
> A Vista Recall, Could it Be True? Unconfirmed sources report that Microsoft is contemplating a recall of it's newest version of the Windows OS Vista. The new OS which hit the market years late and is very resources intensive has met a lukewarm reception. Vista adoption is behind schedule and reports of trouble threaten to swap the product. Official Microsoft statements are calling the rumors irresponsible and possibly criminal. Even as Redmond denies the possibility of a recall computer experts look at Microsoft's recent moves and feel they are a portent of a big recall ahead.
> 
> "It's all there." Says Microsoft watcher Kent Beecher, of the Strategic Planning Group, a software marketing strategy company. "Microsoft seems to be planning a major move. Microsoft is allowing Oems to supply XP recovery disks with Vista systems in case customers want to 'down grade' their systems. They have extended the retail availability of Windows XP to January 2009 and international availability to June 2010. To me it's very clear. I believe Microsoft is panning to recall Vista and issue another service pack for XP instead."
> ...


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

Microsoft adds a new variant to it's XP product line and calls it the 'Windows XP Downgrade'. Eligibility for its install is a legal copy of VISTA on your current computer. They price it a smidgen less than an XP Upgrade and make a fortune selling it to everyone duped into into buying underpowered VISTA machines. Everyone's happy again.  

--- CHAS


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> If you read my post, you'll see that I said I doubt it will happen. That's my opinion. However, the recall itself isn't. It was reported on the news wires.
> 
> If Vista was so good, why did Dell demand that it be allowed to offer its PCs with XP on it and not Vista? Because there were so many problems with Vista that people had *****ed and wanted to remove it and replace it with XP.


They way they reported it was a bit off. The recall would be for just newly purchased machines. They would install XP instead of Vista. It would not be a, everyone that has Vista get rid of it type thing.

Dell demanded XP be installed because customers as a whole are not worried about being leading edge. Vista, as I mentioned above, requires only items that are compatable with Vista. There are a few excpetions. Most customers could careless, they want XP because thats what all there stuff from over the last several years works with. When someone buys a new Dell computer and they try to install their old hardware/software, they call Dell. Not Microsoft. Dell is in the hardware business and as such do not care whats loaded on their machines. They did what helps them best. They did not choose what OS is best.


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

Lord Vader said:


> If you read my post, you'll see that I said I doubt it will happen. That's my opinion. However, the recall itself isn't. It was reported on the news wires.
> 
> If Vista was so good, why did Dell demand that it be allowed to offer its PCs with XP on it and not Vista? Because there were so many problems with Vista that people had *****ed and wanted to remove it and replace it with XP.


Yeah, I always trust rumors from unconfirmed sources.

Why did Dell demand an XP option? Well, probably for a couple of reasons one of which being Dell's recent poor performance and increasing anxiety on losing market share. Last time I looked, customers like choice.

Dell also sells to a lot of government agencies who are still pretty strapped for change and don't always need the latest and greatest, especially if they are just running basic personal productivity stuff.

I don't remember the standard configuration Dell was pushing for their low end PC's when Vista was first introduced, but for their customers who wanted to buy on the cheap with minimal RAM and disk, Vista would be a painful experience.

Major O/S changes typically require an 18 month test window in a complex business environment to make sure all business applications will work correctly. Well heeled private businesses can become one of MSFT's early adopters and get help with this migration planning. Tougher to do if you're a smaller business or gov't shop. So what do you do if you have gear that needs to be purchased in the interim until you're ready to buy?? You're probably going to run XP.

Gartner, one of the premier IT research and consulting firms hasn't issued any negative advisories on Vista.

If you don't want to run Vista, don't. But don't try to bash it with incomplete information.

The laptop I'm working on right now has been running without any O/S or application exceptions since the day I put it in service and installed Vista on it. Couldn't say that of XP or any of it predecessors.

John


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Vista still sucks.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> Vista still sucks.


Actually I think is OK if you're running it on a machine that's akin to a lower end gaming machine. It needs a modern multi-core processor, at least a gigabyte (or two) of memory and a much better than average video card to score a good 'experience' with its built in benchmark. I think it was designed with the that 'hardware is cheap' mentality. But the quality of hardware actually required is not cheap with respect to the pressures of the of the marketplace and that's where Microsoft went wrong.

I find it disturbing that operating systems, and not applications, are driving hardware requirements. My thinking is operating systems should only cost the overhead to serve behind the scenes and basically stay out of your face. They shouldn't resemble bloated bureaucracies there to serve themselves. Maybe this is old fashioned thinking.

Vista is just too much operating system for what most of us do with computers. In reality, so is XP but it does run well on more modest hardware.

I know a lean operating system with a good graphical interface is possible. Just for the 'heck' of it I burned a bootable Linux CD. It ran surprising well on my Thinkpad X60. FireFox was there and even the WiFi worked without intervention from me. All of this in about 700 megabytes! Hey, it didn't cost hundreds of dollars or require me to 'cowtail' to its home base for permission to use it.

No, I'm not switching to Linux.

--- CHAS


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

HIPAR said:


> Actually I think is OK if you're running it on a machine that's akin to a lower end gaming machine. It needs a modern multi-core processor, at least a gigabyte (or two) of memory and a much better than average video card to score a good 'experience' with its built in benchmark. I think it was designed with the that 'hardware is cheap' mentality. But the quality of hardware actually required is not cheap with respect to the pressures of the of the marketplace and that's where Microsoft went wrong.
> 
> I find it disturbing that operating systems, and not applications, are driving hardware requirements. My thinking is operating systems should only cost the overhead to serve behind the scenes and basically stay out of your face. They shouldn't resemble bloated bureaucracies there to serve themselves. Maybe this is old fashioned thinking.
> 
> ...


I know Microsoft touts all the visual goodies and extras for Vista, but you can turn them off. If you decide to do so, Vista will run just as well on very low end machine as does XP. Vista's overhead is because of extras, thats it. Turn off the Sidebar, UAC, Aero, etc.... it runs with basically the same footprint XP does.

If you want the goodies, you have to upgrade.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

I guess that begs the following question:

If I'm needing to turn off all of the super-dooper VISTA features to make it work on an XP class machine, why shouldn't I just run XP on my XP class machine? 

You might want to play the 'security trump card' but in reality, XP has mostly been fixed. That's why it's generally considered to be a mature op system. If you are attacked, it's probably because you fell for a scheme that enticed you into inviting the malware inside. 

When I installed VISTA it required me to buy more RAM just to install it. For apps that are not too memory intensive, XP works just fine with 256 megabytes. 

I was recently reading owner reviews of several notebooks in the $700 - $800 price range. These machines tend to be hardware challenged for VISTA. 'Good machine .. wrong operating system .. went to XP' is a common review comment. That's OK for those who really know something about computers.

These notebook sales have become a major portion machines being sold but VISTA performs well only on those notebooks at top of the line.. lots of customer dissatisfaction with their initial 'VISTA experience'. And then, there are still driver availability problems for specialty peripherals that have been working for years on XP or even 2000.

We all should have realized by now that Microsoft's business model involves selling you the same repackaged thing every 5 or so years. I'm hoping the next Windows is not a variation on a theme by Windows 95.

--- CHAS


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

The reason I bring up turning off the goodies is because people complain that Vista is too big, slow, memory hog, requires too much hardware, etc. My point is that its the extras in Vista that do this, it is not the OS. If you are running XP and have a quick launch software installed, google desktop installed, a personal firewall installed, and some sort of 3D screensaver....well you got Vista. Not exactly, but you get my point. Vista requires more RAM because of all the things I listed, the bare OS will run on 256 MB of RAM just as XP. Both XP and Vista will run better on 512 and better yet on 1024. Customers as a whole are resistant to change, but as a business you must change. Look at all the complaints on Tivo vs. the HR20. If businesses kept things the same, why would you ever buy more? 

The only reasons I would not recommend going to Vista over XP is if you have a piece of heritage hardware/software that isn't available on Vista yet or if you never connect to the internet. Beyond those 2 reasons, Vista is everything XP is and more depending on configuration and hardware. Vista is also going to have support for atleast 7 more years, XP was due to have support stopped this coming summer.

I can also assure you that Vista is much more then just 95 or XP with a theme change. The backend was totally redone and because of it Vista is more secure and stable. Thats not saying XP wasn't stable, but Vista is more so. As a consumer, its hard to look at Vista and see whats been done. As a techie though, I'm really impressed with all that has been done. From using it as a power user to administering it on a network, it is way beyond what XP was capable of.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

phat78boy said:


> ...
> 
> I can also assure you that Vista is much more then just 95 or XP with a theme change. The backend was totally redone and because of it Vista is more secure and stable. Thats not saying XP wasn't stable, but Vista is more so. As a consumer, its hard to look at Vista and see whats been done. As a techie though, I'm really impressed with all that has been done. From using it as a power user to administering it on a network, it is way beyond what XP was capable of.


Certainly

--- CHAS


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

For my company, I purchase the PC with a Vista Business licence and install the XP OEM CD. There are a few key apps that won't run on Vista but I don't want to pay upgrade fees down the road.

I don't like the feel of Vista with 1GB memory. I also ran into an install problem with Office 2K3, which requires a regedit to fix. You'd think Microsoft would have fixed this issue by now, but on a recent (last week) install, the problem still exists. The EULA agreemement pops up every time you open the app. You have to go into regedit and assign the app and user rights to resolve the issue.

So...yes...SP1 is a bare minimum for me to even consider moving forward. Legacy equipment will need to be replaced before I can even think about it. XP is very necessary for me right now.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

I know Office 2003 will "work" on Vista, but it really wasn't meant to. This is why the release of Office 2007 and Vista occurred at the same time. This is also why a supposed fix for Office 2003 is hard to find, but is out there. I would say upwards of 70% of businesses have a Software Assurance plan with Microsoft. If they upgraded to Vista, they would more then likely get Office 2007 for free. Its all business and unfortunately individual customers are not the biggest players when it comes to OS and Office autmation products.


----------



## 4DThinker (Dec 17, 2006)

At the university where I teach at we have site licenses for dozens of applicatons that students all use. So far zero of these applicatons are available in Vista versions. As such, no student is permitted or supported to hook into the university network with Vista as their operating system. 

For myself, I've got three PCs in my home network all running Vista Home Premium 32 bit version. Won't go back to XP. I only lost access to one old printer where no Vista drivers are available or in the works. Media center in Vista is worlds nicer than it is in XP. Networking and sharing is better. VIIV compliance means all my Vista PCs share media with my DirecTV receivers hooked into the same network. I access music and photos from them through those DirecTV receivers.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

Customer NASA still wants XP.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5254

--- CHAS


----------

