# Users fight to save Windows XP



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

From Yahoo/AP:

*Users fight to save Windows XP*


> Microsoft Corp.'s operating systems run most personal computers around the globe and are a cash cow for the world's largest software maker. But you'd never confuse a Windows user with the passionate fans of Mac OS X or even the free Linux operating system. Unless it's someone running Windows XP, a version Microsoft wants to retire.
> 
> Fans of the six-year-old operating system set to be pulled off store shelves in June have papered the Internet with blog posts, cartoons and petitions recently. They trumpet its superiority to Windows Vista, Microsoft's latest PC operating system, whose consumer launch last January was greeted with lukewarm reviews.


FULL ARTICLE HERE

Meanwhile, this this leaked internal video (which has apparently gone viral) has convinced me to stick with XP!


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Fighting for "support" of the product?
Or being able to buy it? It's not like they are going to be shut down

As for it's superiority to Vista...

Having used vista now for over a year... and having modern equipment..
I hate going home and working on my XP systems...

Just need to find the weekend and $500 (two copies) to upgrade them to Vista.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

IIRC... I think initially microsoft said they would stop supporting/updating XP within a short amount of time... but later backed down from that...


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Actually Microsoft will reportedly provide security support for XP through 2014, so no need to worry.

I've already installed XP, SP3 (the RC 2 "refresh") and am very pleased with it. It's not just a patch roll-up... there are performance improvements as well. /steve


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Steve said:


> Actually Microsoft will reportedly provide security support for XP through 2014, so no need to worry.


ahh... cool... thanks for the link...

but originally, didn't they say they would stop supporting it 2008~2009 ?? or maybe i just heard a rumor somewhere...


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

AirRocker said:


> ahh... cool... thanks for the link...
> 
> but originally, didn't they say they would stop supporting it 2008~2009 ?? or maybe i just heard a rumor somewhere...


I believe PC manufacturers can no longer sell it pre-installed after the end of this year. The exception will be low-powered laptops, which wouldn't be able to run Vista anyway. They'll be allowed to install XP on them until at least 2010.

They're allowing that as a measure to protect against Linux making inroads on low-cost machines. /steve


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

I find it funny how people will fight for old technology and equipment. If you don't want to upgrade, then don't. If you want new hardware, Vista will work best with it. 

Anyone upset they don't make 21" CRT's still?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

phat78boy said:


> I find it funny how people will fight for old technology and equipment. If you don't want to upgrade, then don't. If you want new hardware, Vista will work best with it.


Not all companies agree. My son works for a FORTUNE 100 company that just placed a huge order to replace all their desktops with new machines... all pre-installed with XP! /steve


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

phat78boy said:


> Anyone upset they don't make 21" CRT's still?


Yup, over here. LCDs seem to do best at one resolution, and ok at other resolutions.

And, I love my piece of old technology. My HP LaserJet 4 is still cranking away great prints even though I got it in 1993. I added a PostScript module and a 10BaseT card.

Also, we are PROHIBITED from having Vista running on corporate network.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Steve said:


> Not all companies agree. My son works for a FORTUNE 100 company that just placed a huge order to replace all their desktops with new machines... all pre-installed with XP! /steve


It is not always the hardware.

I have Oracle Software that will not run in Vista...
And Oracle has already publicly stated they will not make it compatibile to Vista.

So I have to run it in a WinXP Virtual Machine.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

Steve said:


> Not all companies agree. My son works for a FORTUNE 100 company that just placed a huge order to replace all their desktops with new machines... all pre-installed with XP! /steve


I do work for such companies myself and overwhelmingly they stay behind new OS's a few years because of home grown apps.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

Mark Holtz said:


> Yup, over here. LCDs seem to do best at one resolution, and ok at other resolutions.
> 
> And, I love my piece of old technology. My HP LaserJet 4 is still cranking away great prints even though I got it in 1993. I added a PostScript module and a 10BaseT card.
> 
> Also, we are PROHIBITED from having Vista running on corporate network.


I'm not saying the HP 4 wasn't a great printer, but come on, you know you'd love a new HP 4350.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Having lost about 16 hours to a Vista installation the other week, I do wonder if it's worth it. But you know, you have to move forward. I remember the same hubbub when XP came out, the same when Windows95 came out, even when Windows 3 came out. Honestly, the driver support and software support will come, and the CPUs will handle the new OS better. It just takes a little time.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Fighting for "support" of the product?
> Or being able to buy it? It's not like they are going to be shut down
> 
> As for it's superiority to Vista...
> ...


Are your systems OEM? If so you can get a 3 Pack License for less than that and sell the last copy to another OEM for 1/3 of what it cost you. If it isn't OEM, then you can always go to the manufacturer and see what deal you can get too, since they should have a migration path as well.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Having lost about 16 hours to a Vista installation the other week, I do wonder if it's worth it. But you know, you have to move forward. I remember the same hubbub when XP came out, the same when Windows95 came out, even when Windows 3 came out. Honestly, the driver support and software support will come, and the CPUs will handle the new OS better. It just takes a little time.


Well, that's the key thing with our society, we all want it now.  We don't like waiting...I know I don't. But to your point there will be support eventually, so it is a matter of when you change, not if...


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I'd love it if Windows 2000 was still around in it's glory, but it's not. Technology changes, either adapt or be left behind. I fail to see what's so bad about Vista, once UAC is fully disabled. I don't have a collection of pre WWII stone age peripherals that need driver support. A year old HP printer, a 2 month old Sony Digital Camera, and a 2 week old iPod, that’s all I have. Vista Ultimate runs superbly on this 4 ½ year old Compaq. And it will run even better on the HP I will be ordering in 11 days. Time to jump in the 21st century for me, 64 bit processor and 64 bit operating system, no reason to be chained to XP.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Our problem with Vista at our work is that 2 major programs that we use are not compatible... 

1. UPS Worldship 10.0 (All of our shipping goes through this)
2. IC Verify (Credit Card processing)

Until those programs are compatible, we can't even think about upgrading...


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> Time to jump in the 21st century for me, 64 bit processor and 64 bit operating system, no reason to be chained to XP.


I'm a bleeding-edge type of guy who's usually the first on the block to try any new piece of software. I'm ready to dump XP in a heartbeat, but I just am having trouble finding any "upside" to a Vista migration, even though my less than one-year old desktop is more than up to the task of running it. It won't run my apps any quicker (in fact, it will reportedly run them slower), and it offers me no compelling software accessories or security features over what I'm running now.

I sat out "ME" and waited for 2000. I'll probably sit out Vista as well, and wait for Windows 7. 

Just my .02. /steve


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Invalid comparison since ME and 2000 were two totally different platforms. Who knows when Windows 7 will be released. I have PC World issues from 2003 talking about how Longhorn is 'just around the corner'.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> Invalid comparison since ME and 2000 were two totally different platforms. Who knows when Windows 7 will be released. I have PC World issues from 2003 talking about how Longhorn is 'just around the corner'.


I see XP and Vista as the same "core" platform. In fact, some of the performance improvements in XP, SP3 come directly from work Microsoft did developing Vista.

I'm hopeful Windows 7 will be as radical a rewrite of Vista as 2000 was to ME. /steve


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

Steve said:


> I see XP and Vista as the same "core" platform. In fact, some of the performance improvements in XP, SP3 come directly from work Microsoft did developing Vista.
> 
> I'm hopeful Windows 7 will be as radical a rewrite of Vista as 2000 was to ME. /steve


2000 was actually built on NT 4.0 architecture.

I also hope Windows 7 will be a good build when finally released. Hopefully they won't cut as many features as they did with Vista.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

phat78boy said:


> 2000 was actually built on NT 4.0 architecture.
> 
> I also hope Windows 7 will be a good build when finally released. Hopefully they won't cut as many features as they did with Vista.


And wasn't ME the last version of that "core"
XP is more built on the NT core, then the 98/ME core


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And wasn't ME the last version of that "core"
> XP is more built on the NT core, then the 98/ME core


Yes, ME was the last of that build with 98 and 95 before it. Everything since has been based on NT's core like you said. Vista was supposed to be an upgrade to NT core, but they ended up scrapping almost every "upgrade" they had listed.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Windows 2000 is NT 5.0
Windows XP is NT 5.1
Windows Vista is NT 6.0

Windows ME and Windows 2000 have NOTHING in common other then being Microsoft products with similar UIs. ME was the last in the 9X platform. And even if they were the same, you couldn't sit out ME and wait for 2000, as Windows 2000 was released in February of 2000, ME wasn't released until 7 months later in September. 2000 was the business and server OS, ME was the home OS.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> Windows 2000 is NT 5.0
> Windows XP is NT 5.1
> Windows Vista is NT 6.0
> 
> Windows ME and Windows 2000 have NOTHING in common other then being Microsoft products with similar UIs. ME was the last in the 9X platform. And even if they were the same, you couldn't sit out ME and wait for 2000, as Windows 2000 was released in February of 2000, ME wasn't released until 7 months later in September. 2000 was the business and server OS, ME was the home OS.


Ya, but you couldn't easily upgrade to 2000 for general and home use until the application compatibility fixes you needed came along, in Service Pack 2 (IIRC), and that was well after ME was out on the market. /steve


----------



## glennb (Sep 21, 2006)

I have Vista on the new laptop I bought in September and I upgraded my desktop PC to Vista a month or so later. I haven't had any problems with either of these machines.


----------

