PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft extends availability of Windows XP



Dirk
04-04-2008, 05:47 AM
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/106016


.... Well. What to say 'bout that...?

archijam
04-04-2008, 06:03 AM
.. if only we could all learn to be as generous and gracious as microsoft?

starbase1
04-04-2008, 06:06 AM
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/106016


.... Well. What to say 'bout that...?

I've been talking about this in the 'LW for Linux ' thread...

Everything I have seen so far still leaves some big gaps though, particularly:

Can anyone still buy an XP install disk?
How will they control what hardware it goes on?

And most important of all from what I see, what happens to hardware occupying the middle ground between properly 'Vista Capable' and the very low powered laptop type systems?

I suspect that there are a lot of relatively cheap laptops that will find themselves squarely in this position.

Given the attacks against MS for their labeling program, I really think it would be unwise of them to try and push Vista onto more underpowered hardware.

Nick

KevinL
04-04-2008, 10:28 PM
MS, needs to realize a much longer service to end of life program to make up for new OS blunders that have been their history. Killing perfectly serviceable hardware to make your business model profitable is plain stupid.....

Kevin L

COBRASoft
04-05-2008, 04:25 AM
Hi,

I think you have to consider some things here. Technology is a fast growing market. What you buy today is old tomorrow, right? Just look at the cellphone market. Some people keep their phones for 5 or 10 years while others buy a new one every 6 months. Now, for Nokia and the likes this is easy to control because their S60 operating system can't be installed so easily. Imagine if people would start installing the latest OS from the N95 onto their Nokia 6600. The cellphone would probably burn at startup :)

MS is having a real problem in this domain. They have to compete with Linux and MacOS. They also have to put in all the nice new GFX stuff. The problem is, everybody wants those nice little gadgets, but they don't want to invest in the corresponding hardware. Try to install the latest MacOS on a MacII or so... Good luck :thumbsup:

Greetings,
Sigurd

Doctor49152
04-05-2008, 04:57 AM
How nice of microsoft to tell us where and when we can install windows. Those stupid EULA really give them the power don't they.

Now if only I could get SP3 for X64

starbase1
04-05-2008, 05:39 AM
Hi,

I think you have to consider some things here. Technology is a fast growing market. What you buy today is old tomorrow, right? Just look at the cellphone market. Some people keep their phones for 5 or 10 years while others buy a new one every 6 months. Now, for Nokia and the likes this is easy to control because their S60 operating system can't be installed so easily. Imagine if people would start installing the latest OS from the N95 onto their Nokia 6600. The cellphone would probably burn at startup :)

MS is having a real problem in this domain. They have to compete with Linux and MacOS. They also have to put in all the nice new GFX stuff. The problem is, everybody wants those nice little gadgets, but they don't want to invest in the corresponding hardware. Try to install the latest MacOS on a MacII or so... Good luck :thumbsup:

Greetings,
Sigurd

I'm not really arguing with that...

I'd suggest though that MS messed up on Vista, and their own internal emails suggest that they agree with that assessment.

And that Vista is SO demanding on hardware, that a large proportion of machines still being made are not up to running it. And this despite them stretching the definition of 'Vista Capable" beyond reasonable limits, (again as assessed in internal MS emails).

MS wants people to move on to Vista, and some (but not all) of their reasons are good. If they leave XP as available, then many will chose to stick with it, (remember the last extension was partly driven by demand from PC manufacturers).

And to make their problems worse, a new low end is appearing in the marketplace, typified by the eee, and other manufacturers are experimenting with very low cost desktop PC's. I have an eee, I like it a lot. They can't make these things fast enough to keep up with demand.

What if those office types start using Open Office and find it meets their needs? Bang goes OS other cash cow...

The last thing MS wants is for people to start getng comfortable with free software.

So it seems to me they had a nasty choice.

Pull XP, and continue with the push to Vista - this abandons a LARGE part of the market to other OS and applications.

Keep XP going, and accept that Vista will suffer as a result. In my view this would have been the smart thing - it would release programmers to get cracking on Windows 7 ASAP, and make sure that come out fast and right.

Which foot to shoot themselves in?

They seem to have chosen both.

Keeping XP going but trying to constrain availability is going to cause a huge stink. What happens with the hardware that falls into the gap between ultra low price and spec, and Vista capable? Seems to me that's a big gap. How are regulatory authorities going to react when told by MS that they must buy Vista, and that they are not allowed to have XP? The EU competition authorities will have a field day with this one, and quite right too.

How will the hardware manufacturers react when told what they can and can't sell?

I also think it's going to be very interesting when we start seeing machines like the eee and it's ilk on sale with MS and Linux versions side by side. This is a price sensitive market, and MS are going to have to keep the amount they charge down to compete. And your consumer will look at the price difference and ask why they are paying such a relatively huge premium for Vista.

Nick

starbase1
04-05-2008, 05:40 AM
Let's put it another, simpler way.

Suppose that XP and Vista were made by different companies.

Does anyone think XP ltd would be thinking of withdrawing their product? or constraining it's availability?

IMI
04-05-2008, 07:12 AM
And that Vista is SO demanding on hardware, that a large proportion of machines still being made are not up to running it.


Just curious what you mean by that? Not disagreeing, just curious. Demanding, as in that it "demands" newer hardware, or demanding as in it stresses hardware?

Well, I just see MS as part of the Big Planned Obsolescence Conspiracy which has been going on ever since the 8-track tape player died a much-rejoiced death. :D

Maybe so far as average computer users go - people who just want to download the latest YouTube claptrap and email their piccies of their cat's latest cute trick to loads of people who couldn't care less, having to have better PC's with better hardware is not too cool.
But don't all us graphics and geeky types want to have all the latest and newest stuff anyway?

I still find myself utterly baffled with all these Vista problems people have. I'm not having any problems at all, I have friends who have complained, but I've gone to a few people's places and shown them how to use it and no more complaints or problems.

EDIT:
Far as I know though, people will still be able to use XP for quite a while. Might not be able to buy the latest Dell with it on it, but Vista can always be wiped out and XP installed.

IMI
04-05-2008, 07:26 AM
Hmm.. never mind me, I seem to have misread what this thread was about. Still too early for me I guess. ;)

starbase1
04-05-2008, 07:47 AM
Just curious what you mean by that? Not disagreeing, just curious. Demanding, as in that it "demands" newer hardware, or demanding as in it stresses hardware?

EDIT:
Far as I know though, people will still be able to use XP for quite a while. Might not be able to buy the latest Dell with it on it, but Vista can always be wiped out and XP installed.

1. I meant that those who have enjoyed Vista tend to have above average hardware - 2 Gb or more of memory, relatively powerful processor.

And I was also refering to the problems experienced by many who bought machines that were stickered as "Vista Capable", but would not run Aero, and generally ran slowly.

Also thinking of the remark by the MS exec that thanks to Vista he had paid $2000 for a box that was only good for email.

2. yes you can use it, but does it not strike you as a bit perserse to have to buy Vista and then 'down; grade it to XP?!?!

Nick

AbnRanger
04-05-2008, 08:08 AM
I've been talking about this in the 'LW for Linux ' thread...

Everything I have seen so far still leaves some big gaps though, particularly:

Can anyone still buy an XP install disk?
How will they control what hardware it goes on?

And most important of all from what I see, what happens to hardware occupying the middle ground between properly 'Vista Capable' and the very low powered laptop type systems?

I suspect that there are a lot of relatively cheap laptops that will find themselves squarely in this position.

Given the attacks against MS for their labeling program, I really think it would be unwise of them to try and push Vista onto more underpowered hardware.

NickMy brother has such a desktop. He just went an bought a budget model with a Centrino (used in laptops) cpu and 512 mb of RAM...worst part. That's sharing RAM with the ATI 1100 onboard video card.
I'm telling you, with Vista running on that thing, old Pentium II's would run circles around it using XP. It's so slow you couldn't give it away, much less sell it to someone. All because brother Bill HAS to stick his new product, VISTA, on everything that hits retail.
Still running XP 64, and can't see switching to Vista anytime soon.

IMI
04-05-2008, 08:19 AM
2. yes you can use it, but does it not strike you as a bit perserse to have to buy Vista and then 'down; grade it to XP?!?!


Yeah, I imagine. But if you're buying an off-the-rack OEM PC, you're buying the machine, not the OS. Although I know the OS figures into the price, yes.
Well, I don't know, I just don't look at it that way, and I can't really put myself in someone else's shoes because I've just been building my own for so long now I've forgotten what it's like to go to a store and buy one.

Obviously I have no intelligent input I can add to this thread, and I should just be ignored. ;)

AbnRanger
04-05-2008, 08:26 AM
Yeah, I imagine. But if you're buying an off-the-rack OEM PC, you're buying the machine, not the OS. Although I know the OS figures into the price, yes.
Well, I don't know, I just don't look at it that way, and I can't really put myself in someone else's shoes because I've just been building my own for so long now I've forgotten what it's like to go to a store and buy one.

Obviously I have no intelligent input I can add to this thread, and I should just be ignored. ;)Just think how much faster your Vista machine would run on XP or XP64.

IMI
04-05-2008, 08:32 AM
Just think how much faster your Vista machine would run on XP or XP64.


It doesn't run any faster, at least not that I've noticed. I have a dual boot with XP 64 and while I was getting used to Vista 64 I continued to use XP 64, going back and forth. It's been quite a while since I booted into XP though. There are some things which might be faster, but program performance doesn't seem to be one of those.

EDIT:
I'd add though that I still like XP. My other PC's still have XP x86 running and I have no desire to put Vista on them. :)

AbnRanger
04-05-2008, 08:42 AM
It doesn't run any faster, at least not that I've noticed. I have a dual boot with XP 64 and while I was getting used to Vista 64 I continued to use XP 64, going back and forth. It's been quite a while since I booted into XP though. There are some things which might be faster, but program performance doesn't seem to be one of those.

EDIT:
I'd add though that I still like XP. My other PC's still have XP x86 running and I have no desire to put Vista on them. :)With all that extra weight in system resources that Vista puts on a systems Hardware, you'd be a fool to say there's no difference. There is...you just don't happen to know it obviously. I looked at my brother's PC, under task manager and it has almost twice the amount services running. Don't tell me there's no real difference. Even MS isn't fool enough to say that.

IMI
04-05-2008, 08:47 AM
Whatever. How about this then: no appreciable difference. Microseconds? A little bit of extra RAM? The services can be turned off - I didn't just install it and leave it as-is, you know.
You don't like Vista? Fine. I do. I have less than zero interest in getting into any sort of debate as to whether or not someone else's opinion of it makes it right for me or not.

Jim_C
04-05-2008, 08:49 AM
We just bought a couple of dual core laptops (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115464) at work to use as dedicated real time .wmv encoders with Windows Media Encoder.

They came loaded with Vista Home Ultimate.

Due to the fact that WME is not Vista compatible without numerous hotfixes and hoop jumping and then still not 100% stable, off came Vista and on went XPpro.

I was looking forward to playing/learning Vista finally but incompatibilities forced our hand ... backwards.

Shame really. (I think)

AbnRanger
04-05-2008, 10:01 AM
Whatever. How about this then: no appreciable difference. Microseconds? A little bit of extra RAM? The services can be turned off - I didn't just install it and leave it as-is, you know.
You don't like Vista? Fine. I do. I have less than zero interest in getting into any sort of debate as to whether or not someone else's opinion of it makes it right for me or not.My point is that there is a big difference, enough so that MS itself recommends greater hardware resources than needed for XP. Microseconds? Yeah, right....on the new system my brother bought, XP would do fine for normal use, but Vista makes it an exercise in futility to even play a decent sized media file.
Then guys like you come along and say, "I have no problems...no difference really."
The average user doesn't know the "Work-Arounds" that you do, and has to take the performance hit. Just because you know how to turn some stuff off to minimize that doesn't address the original topic...that was MS dropping VISTA on machines that can't hold up under the load...then you come along bragging that you don't see what the problem is!!!:tsktsk:

Nobody asked you if your system can handle it...obviously some systems can.
Again, whether you have a beefy enough machine to handle all the extras that Vista dumps on a system, has NOTHING to do with the thread...AT ALL.

starbase1
04-05-2008, 10:15 AM
Big meaty machine = Happy vista user.

Mediocre machine = Happy with XP, unhappy with Vista.

And when MS withdraws XP from sale:
mediocre machine = unhappy customer.

Or happy customer with pirate copy of OS.
Or happy customer with Ubuntu, and more money in the customers pocket.

Jim_C
04-05-2008, 10:30 AM
<snip>running Vista totally smoothly.<and snippity snip>.

To any and all....

How much of a resource difference do the various versions of Vista make?
Home Basic to Home Premium for example?
Straight out of the box without turning stuff off?

I just wonder if this is what causes such a widespread difference in Vista experience.

One user sites 'Vista slows my machine to a crawl'
Another says 'Vista works fine'
The single 'Vista' leads us to believe they are running the same thing when one could be running barebones Vista Basic and the other Premium....

So many versions and configurations it's hard to talk on a level playing field.

Jim_C
04-05-2008, 10:51 AM
aahh..

well.. I guess we could all just buy Macs....

;)

jasonwestmas
04-05-2008, 11:35 AM
It doesn't run any faster, at least not that I've noticed. I have a dual boot with XP 64 and while I was getting used to Vista 64 I continued to use XP 64, going back and forth. It's been quite a while since I booted into XP though. There are some things which might be faster, but program performance doesn't seem to be one of those.

EDIT:
I'd add though that I still like XP. My other PC's still have XP x86 running and I have no desire to put Vista on them. :)

Exactly, never ever put Vista on a machine designed for Windows 2000/XP. Worst thing you could do to your puter.

Jim_C
04-05-2008, 11:42 AM
Exactly, never ever put Vista on a machine designed for Windows 2000/XP. Worst thing you could do to your puter.

You must sell new computers and hardware.

AbnRanger
04-05-2008, 11:52 AM
Exactly, never ever put Vista on a machine designed for Windows 2000/XP. Worst thing you could do to your puter.that's the gist of this whole thread...it's MS pushing Vista off on new budget-level PC's that should still be using XP. But having XP models sitting next to Vista models isn't good for sales is it? They want the frugal customer to "THINK" they are getting an up-to-date PC for a really good price...when in reality it's a piece of crap that isn't even as good as top of the line models 6 or 7 years ago. I mean really? Selling a desktop machine with a Centrino?...with only 512mb's of RAM, and sharing that with the onboard video chip?! There's no excuse for HP putting Vista on that machine. Pure marketing :devil:

AbnRanger
04-05-2008, 12:04 PM
...and goats forbid that Microsoft dared improve memory handling and several other things that are much improved over XP. Shame on Microsoft!

(Not that Vista hasn't got a few issues, but luckily they don't pertain to anything I do and have are alleviated to fidderent extents by SP1).Improved memory handling?...what, because it really NEEDED to...with all of the extra baggage they added?
This is the first time I've ever gotten on MS's case about Vista....maybe you have me mistaken for someone you haggled with previously.
I just can't personally see the performance benefit of switching to Vista. If it were more lightweight out of the box, and had the memory handling performance improvements and all, I'd be right there with you...but trying to do some simple things on my brother's new budget PC showed me what a crock Vista really is. Brother Bill has a history of wanting to be all up in a user's business, and I'm really getting sick of more of the same with each new version. If he would just but out, and keep the software light and nimble, he'd have fewer people taking shots at him. He'd also have less information on you, and Mr. Bill couldn't have that now, could he Banana Man?

IMI
04-05-2008, 12:07 PM
Nobody asked you if your system can handle it...obviously some systems can.
Again, whether you have a beefy enough machine to handle all the extras that Vista dumps on a system, has NOTHING to do with the thread...AT ALL.

You're right, and I said that before, too. Check what I said in message #14. :)



Exactly, never ever put Vista on a machine designed for Windows 2000/XP. Worst thing you could do to your puter.


I wouldn't even try it. Although my 2 year old box could probably handle it, it wouldn't make any sense and my older ones would in fact probably give me problems.
FWIW though, I do agree that MS was less than forthcoming regarding all the hardware problems average consumers might have.

IMI
04-05-2008, 12:14 PM
Selling a desktop machine with a Centrino?...with only 512mb's of RAM, and sharing that with the onboard video chip?! There's no excuse for HP putting Vista on that machine. Pure marketing


In that context, yes, it is a sh!tty practice.
This is one of the major reasons I learned how to build my own machines - the OEM retail PC world is brutal and sometimes highly deceptive. They prey mercilessly on the fact most people haven't got a clue about PC's and hardware. It's amazing how many people don't even know what shared graphics is and also think a gig of RAM is alot. The salespeople of "budget" machines rarely explain any of that.
Heh. For amusement, go to Best Buy one day and pretend you haven't a clue about PC's and want something affordable but good. Try not to laugh out loud as it's being explained to you. ;)

Jim_C
04-05-2008, 12:18 PM
Heh. For amusement, go to Best Buy one day and pretend you haven't a clue about PC's and want something affordable but good. Try not to laugh out loud as it's being explained to you. ;)

Then if you haven't peed your pants yet head over to the HDTV section and have the expert there explain that tech to you.
and if you are REALLY a glutton, ask about the DTV switchover......

Oh what a fun day of feeling superior at Best Buy!!!
:)

mattclary
04-05-2008, 01:34 PM
Vista is more about stock price than anything else.

Microsoft makes probably as much or more profit on XP than on Vista. Think about it, XP probably demands less support resources than Fister. The majority of OS sales come with the purchase of a new machine, so does it really matter if it is XP or Vista on the bottom line?

But, if you stick with pushing a 7 year old OS, it starts to look like you can't "innovate" which hurts share price. Throw in enough shininess and bling, and WOW! You are one innovative mofo! Look at how that new OS SHINES!!!

Steamthrower
04-09-2008, 03:56 PM
Heh. For amusement, go to Best Buy one day and pretend you haven't a clue about PC's and want something affordable but good. Try not to laugh out loud as it's being explained to you. ;)


Then if you haven't peed your pants yet head over to the HDTV section and have the expert there explain that tech to you.

Ack. You guys just gave me a demonic slice of temptation. I was planning on heading over to Best Buy this very day, to get a Coldplay album (Rush of Blood to the Head). O pity the poor sucker who comes up to me in the PC section and asks me if I need help.

I won't tell him I can program in C, freelance in 3D modeling, administrate at LAN parties, and can fry up a mean graphics card. :devil:

NVentive
04-09-2008, 04:48 PM
Nobody's mentioned Palladium (hope I spelled that right) which is my big issue with Vista.
Thoughts, comments?

starbase1
04-09-2008, 04:57 PM
As predicted by the ever reliable Rupert Goodwins, MS have started a FUD campaign against their own product, claiming that "Windows 7 could be out by next year".

Does ANYONE believe that?!?!?

I'd bet my house MS couldn't ship a new OS in that timescale!

I'm also not sure it's a wise move - it does seem squarely aimed at those who have noticed the shortcomings in Windows Fester. Perhaps it's meant to stop them considering a switch to Linux? And make no mistake, I know some people with power boxes are happy with Fester, but it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to offer corporates beyond an expensive an pointless hardware upgrade round to get the desktop bootable.

Steamthrower
04-09-2008, 05:07 PM
My main machine is a Mac.

But at the office, we use Windows, and there is no getting around the fact that Vista has improved 90% of the OS areas, coming from XP Pro SP2.

It's really not that bad. There's just so much anti-Vista hype that clouds the reality.

mattclary
04-10-2008, 11:05 AM
But at the office, we use Windows, and there is no getting around the fact that Vista has improved 90% of the OS areas, coming from XP Pro SP2.


Could you elaborate as to what those improvements are? Especially in an enterprise environment?

CreatvGnius
04-13-2008, 01:24 PM
I've been talking about this in the 'LW for Linux ' thread...Everything I have seen so far still leaves some big gaps...what happens to hardware occupying the middle ground between properly 'Vista Capable' and the very low powered laptop type systems?

I suspect that there are a lot of relatively cheap laptops that will find themselves squarely in this position.
Good speculation there, Nick.

PeterG
_____________
Faith affirms the Source of true "intelligence". :hey: